# 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:** 66
**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, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1302 "2015-10-27T19:11:05Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > The same way Christianity and Judaism can. So??? Even if you WERE right and there was no difference between Christianity, Judiasim and Islam, I’m not admitting there is no difference, but even if there were no differnce, the best that gets you is that they are all equally bad, not, that Islam is good or that Islam is non violent. In other words, you (not me) are saying it is ok that Fred robbed 17 banks because Steve robbed 12 and Tom robbed 15. This is a very bizarre way to think. ---
**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, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1303 "2015-10-27T19:13:25Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > … You just admitted Islam is a violent religion. Now it appears as if you are trying to ignore parts of the book again. If only the Caeser had seen this mountain straw man, he would have thought the claimed Gaulish habits to be less remarkable. ---
**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, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1304 "2015-10-27T19:15:23Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > So??? > > Even if you WERE right and there was no difference between Christianity, Judiasim and Islam, I’m not admitting there is no difference, but even if there were no differnce, the best that gets you is that they are all equally bad, not, that Islam is good or that Islam is non violent. You can’t even bring yourself to agree with that statement! You _still_ insist on the notion that Islam is worse than Christianity and Judaism, in the face of everything I and others have told you! > [@](#): > > In other words, you (not me) are saying it is ok that Fred robbed 17 banks because Steve robbed 12 and Tom robbed 15. This is a very bizarre way to think. No, I’m saying that claiming Fred is evil and worse than Steve and Tom because Fred is a bank robber is kind of a bullshit statement when Steve and Tom are also bank robbers themselves and have robbed just as many banks as Fred has. ---
**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, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1305 "2015-10-27T19:24:02Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > 😕 > > 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. All of those are attempts by other people to clarify what Mohammed actually meant. But, if Mohammed meant otherwise, he should of SAID otherwise. Look, there are [532](http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html) passages in the Koran that refer to actual violence (the minority) or doom, hellfire and suffering(the majority of the passages). Given such a tone, given such a long list of passages that either call for violence or imply violence (doom, suffering, hellfire) then it is not at all out of line for me to assert that when Mohammed makes violent proclamation ABC he actually means ABC. Now, you can dislike my statements, or, you can even dislike me for saying them, but 532 passages of stated or implied violence weighs HEAVILY in favor of my position and weighs HEAVILY against yours. ---
**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, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1306 "2015-10-27T19:25:30Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > No, I’m saying that claiming Fred is evil and worse than Steve and Tom because Fred is a bank robber is kind of a bullshit statement when Steve and Tom are also bank robbers themselves and have robbed just as many banks as Fred has. So then Mohammed is evil? Because I can think of no other way to define rape, murder, genocide and slavery. ---
**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, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1307 "2015-10-27T19:31:20Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > So then Mohammed is evil? _sigh_ ---
**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, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1308 "2015-10-27T19:33:14Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > In that article you linked to, he certainly does. [No, he does not. Here is the article.](http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/don-t-blame-the-taliban) Nowhere does he state that the Taliban are the only proper Muslims. > [@](#): > > He basically goes to some lengths to justify the Taliban’s version of Islam as legitimate, He states that their literal interpretation is one of the multitude of interpretations that follow from doctrinal infallibility. > [@](#): > > and accuse Muslims who reject their interpretation as “apologists” who refuse to acknowledge that the Taliban are scripturally justified If they are refusing to acknowledge that their actions are scripturally justified then they \*are \*apologists. > [@](#): > > (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). What he asserts wrecks the religion is a refusal to accept criticism. > [@](#): > > 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 His anger against vigilantism doesn’t excuse him, I am afraid. The idea that people should be killed for criticisms of religion is a horrible thing to promote, regardless of the fact that in his mind it should be limited to official state business. The very notion that it could ever be acceptable, even in principal, is repugnant and contributes directly to the oppression and murder of religious minorities. > [@](#): > > 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. I know that, somehow, you still believe that you are advocating for the notion that Islam is inherently tolerant here, but you are not. That train left the station long ago. The fact that you describe advocacy for murder as a punishment for a crime of conscience as “bona fides” says it all. > [@](#): > > 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. Here he is referring to the propagation _through time_, not geographical expansion. > [@](#): > > 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. No where does he state that ALL violent verses were replaced. Your continuous trotting out of this and similar straw man arguments really makes it seem that you are in no way prepared for or even capable of having this discussion. > [@](#): > > 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. No, you are claiming that there are exceptions, which doesn’t address his arguments at all. > [@](#): > > Because he makes a blanket assertion as if those _tafsir_ don’t exist. You are just flat out making things up. Are you really completely unable to even process these criticisms? > [@](#): > > 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. Here is some news for you: every bit of criticism does not have to contain it’s own in-house apology for the thing it is criticizing. It might make it easier for you to swallow if it does, but it is ultimately counter productive to coddle these sensitivities. ---
**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, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1309 "2015-10-27T19:37:06Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > _sigh_ How would you define: rape, murder, genocide and slavery. In moral terms? I’m pretty sure they are all evil. I am egarly awaiting your explanation for how they are not… ---
**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, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1310 "2015-10-27T19:40:10Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > All of those are attempts by other people to clarify what Mohammed actually meant. But, if Mohammed meant otherwise, he should of SAID otherwise. Oooo, look, Lincoln was a bloodthirsty warmonger bent on revenge! > [@](#): > > Every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword. Behold, Charles Darwin opposed the idea of natural selection: > [@](#): > > To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. This sure is easier than actual debate, I can see the appeal. He _did_ say otherwise. Read the whole chapter, not one sentence cherry-picked from the middle of a speech. Really, go pull it up and read. It’s not long, and it’s not complicated. > [@Robert163](#): > > Look, there are [532](http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html) passages in the Koran that refer to actual violence (the minority) or doom, hellfire and suffering(the majority of the passages). Given such a tone, given such a long list of passages that either call for violence or imply violence (doom, suffering, hellfire) then it is not at all out of line for me to assert that when Mohammed makes violent proclamation ABC he actually means ABC. > > Now, you can dislike my statements, or, you can even dislike me for saying them, but 532 passages of stated or implied violence weighs HEAVILY in favor of my position and weighs HEAVILY against yours. For the umpteenth time, violence isn’t inherently immoral, and context matters. At least _try_ to support your position with something real, instead of innuendo and the boogeyman of references to violence. ---
**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:** [October 27, 2015, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1311 "2015-10-27T19:52:48Z")
There’s also the nonsense of saying “there’s 532 passages that say X, therefore it is significant !”. Out of how many passages total ? Numbers are meaningless in the abstract ! That’s like saying “20,000 people are zapped by lightning worldwide every year, that means it’s a significant threat to life and limb” - no, it fucking well is not, not when it’s 20k out of seven billion\*365 days. ---
**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, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1312 "2015-10-27T19:53:01Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > For the umpteenth time, violence isn’t inherently immoral, and context matters. [Again:](http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/don-t-blame-the-taliban) > [@](#): > > Let’s take the “out of context” bit into context strictly from the point of view of the concept of a divine deity. Religion – any religion – is supposed to govern mankind till the end of time. Its holy scripture is supposed to be the word of the creator; an unalterable, preset text that is supposed to be the guideline, till the deity decides to call it a day. Does it seem reasonable that something that was supposed to guide man till the afterlife is left to human interpretation – especially when it deals with something as brutally sensitive as killing another human being – and is left so ambiguous such that one can’t even find five of its followers who would agree on every single one of its aspects? You have a gazillion interpretations originating from a scripture that is supposed to guide the average man, with an average mind who will not delve into 1500 years of history or go through infinite volumes of literature before interpreting when killing another human being is justified and when it isn’t. Apologists are quick to claim that the unsavory parts of Islamic doctrine are “taken out of context” without ever acknowledging the elephant in the room, which is the overall context: Islam is believed by a great many of it’s adherents to be a perfect, timeless, unalterable set of instructions from God. As long as this is the case all of it’s violent portions will continue to contribute to real world violence. ---
**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, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1313 "2015-10-27T19:53:23Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > For the umpteenth time, violence isn’t inherently immoral, and context matters. At least _try_ to support your position with something real, instead of innuendo and the boogeyman of references to violence. Here is one random sampling from a list of 532 passages: Some folks will be thrown into a scorching fire. 84:11-12 Disbelievers will be given a painful doom. 84:22-24 “(Self-)destroyed were the owners of the ditch Of the fuel-fed fire.” 85:4-5 Those who persecute Muslims, without repenting, will burn in hell. 85:10 Those who are flung into the great Fire will neither live nor die. 87:12-13 On that day many will be sad and weary. Scorched by the fire, drinking boiling water, with only bitter thorn-fruit to eat. 88:2-7 Please stop talking about “context”. 532 passages set up only one context: a violent one. ---
**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, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1314 "2015-10-27T19:57:59Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > There’s also the nonsense of saying “there’s 532 passages that say X, therefore it is significant !”. Out of how many passages total ? Numbers are meaningless in the abstract ! > > That’s like saying “20,000 people are zapped by lightning worldwide every year, that means it’s a significant threat to life and limb” - no, it fucking well is not, not when it’s 20k out of seven billion\*365 days. Look, I understand you are wrapped up in this debate and you are probably stuck on a POV. You probably won’t admit it, that’s ok, it is a general principle and I am not blaming you for it, only saying that happens sometimes in a debate. So, I am going to give you a chance to think about whether you really want to make the assertion that 532 passages of direct or implied violence is “not enough” to constitute a violent mentality. ---
**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, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1315 "2015-10-27T20:00:44Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > There’s also the nonsense of saying “there’s 532 passages that say X, therefore it is significant !”. Out of how many passages total ? Numbers are meaningless in the abstract ! > > That’s like saying “20,000 people are zapped by lightning worldwide every year, that means it’s a significant threat to life and limb” - no, it fucking well is not, not when it’s 20k out of seven billion\*365 days. I agree with you here, but I also sympathize with the attempted description. Without quantification, my description of the Koran after reading it is more along the lines of “what a fucking horror show of a book, it seems like it was written by an ultra-violent male manic depressive or schizophrenic.” I have not ever read a book as violent, with the possible exception of the Bible (which I have condemned in the harshest terms in every backwater corner of the bible belt I have ever visited, and never once been lynched). ---
**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, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1316 "2015-10-27T20:09:45Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > [No, he does not. Here is the article.](http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/don-t-blame-the-taliban) Yes, you already linked to it and I’ve already read it. That’s how I knew he talked about Malala. > [@](#): > > Nowhere does he state that the Taliban are the only proper Muslims. Of course he does, and quite explicitly too: “You sit there, criticize and mock the Taliban **that follow your religion in its true form** while you live in oblivion with your extremely palatable, but simultaneously blatantly fallacious, brand of religion and then claim that the Taliban are misinterpreting and misapprehending your ideology?” > [@](#): > > He states that their literal interpretation is one of the multitude of interpretations that follow from doctrinal infallibility. > [@](#): > > If they are refusing to acknowledge that their actions are scripturally justified then they \*are \*apologists. [No they’re not.](http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/) > [@](#): > > What he asserts wrecks the religion is a refusal to accept criticism. He asserts that refusal to acknowledge his claims disguised as “criticisms” as utter fact will wreck the religion. In other words, his interpretation of Islam is the correct one, according to him, and any other interpretation (like, say, believing that the Taliban are unschooled idiots who are full of shit) will bring the entire religion crashing down like a house of cards. Which is, y’know, crap. > [@](#): > > His anger against vigilantism doesn’t excuse him, I am afraid. The idea that people should be killed for criticisms of religion is a horrible thing to promote, regardless of the fact that in his mind it should be limited to official state business. The very notion that it could ever be acceptable, even in principal, is repugnant and contributes directly to the oppression and murder of religious minorities. It doesn’t excuse his support of Pakistan’s blasphemy law, no. But it does kind of put lie to the claim in the linked article that Qadri is merely pretending to be a moderate in his other positions (and therefore doesn’t really mean the things he says about terrorism). > [@](#): > > I know that, somehow, you still believe that you are advocating for the notion that Islam is inherently tolerant here, but you are not. That train left the station long ago. The fact that you describe advocacy for murder as a punishment for a crime of conscience as “bona fides” says it all. _sigh_ No, I’m saying that _Qadri_ describing his role in Zia-ul-Haq’s expansion of the blasphemy law was his way of establishing his bona fides to the audience he was addressing, which gave him credibility among that audience when he condemned vigilante murders for blasphemy and served to deflect criticism from his ultraconservative Deobandi opponents on his position. Just like Nixon used his bona fides as a die-hard opponent of Communism to give him credibility among the American people when he opened relations with Mao and served to deflect criticism from his ultraconservative Republican opponents on his position. > [@](#): > > Here he is referring to the propagation _through time_, not geographical expansion. How does that make any difference? _Naskh_ neither served to promote the spread of Islam geographically nor served to increase its durability over time. > [@](#): > > No where does he state that ALL violent verses were replaced. He says “why would they introduce the ‘Al-Nasikh-Wal-Mansukh’ doctrine of abrogation and then ensure that the commands preaching violence chronologically followed the commands of peace”. He doesn’t say “some of the commands”. He says “_the_ commands”. He’s making a blanket, overall assertion, devoid of any nuance. > [@](#): > > Your continuous trotting out of this and similar straw man arguments really makes it seem that you are in no way prepared for or even capable of having this discussion. I’m quoting _his exact words._ That’s kind of the _opposite_ of a strawman. > [@](#): > > No, you are claiming that there are exceptions, which doesn’t address his arguments at all. It does, because “ **the** commands preaching violence” not only do _not_ chronologically follow “ **the** commands of peace”, they former don’t all abrogate the latter (or even _most_ of the latter - and in some _tafsir_, they don’t abrogate _any_). Such a blatantly false assertion is straight out of the Geller/Spencer/Pipes playbook, and is practically cut-and-pasted from the Islam-hating [wikiislam.net](http://wikiislam.net) entry on the topic! And I see that despite your accusation that I’m not addressing his arguments, you’ve so far completely ignored my pointing out his errors regarding the fingertips thing and the friendship thing. > [@](#): > > You are just flat out making things up. Are you really completely unable to even process these criticisms? Okay, then. Where in his article does he mention those _tafsir_? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2015, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1317 "2015-10-27T20:26:55Z")
> [@](#): > > …to be a perfect, timeless, unalterable set of instructions from God. As long as this is the case all of it’s violent portions will continue to contribute to real world violence. Christianity is very firm in its disdain for worldly wealth and its damnation of greed. Entirely explicit, which is why its adherents universally abhor materialism and the quest for wealth. ---
**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, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1318 "2015-10-27T20:42:41Z")
Oooh, thanks for reminding me of something, **elucidator**! If “Islam is believed by a great many of it’s adherents to be a perfect, timeless, unalterable set of instructions from God” (in the words of the cited author, “\*ts holy scripture is supposed to be the word of the creator; an unalterable, preset text that is supposed to be the guideline, till the deity decides to call it a day”), _and_ “they introduce[d] the ‘Al-Nasikh-Wal-Mansukh’ doctrine of abrogation and then ensure[d] that the commands preaching violence chronologically followed the commands of peace”…how can both be true? How can **Hank Beecher** (and Kunwar Khuldune Shahid) simultaneously assert that Muslims believe their scripture is perfect and unalterable, _and_ that Muslims believe that their scripture has had some of its verses altered? Don’t those two assertions kind of contradict each other? It’s like they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too: if Muslims believe the Qur’an is perfect and unalterable, then they have to follow the supposedly violent commands in them too. But wait! The Qur’an also has peaceful commands, meaning that if Muslims believe the Qur’an is perfect and unalterable, they have to follow those commands too! Aha, but those crafty, evil Muslims have altered their scripture to excise all those peaceful commands, leaving only the violent ones. Which Muslims have to follow, because the Qur’an is unalterable! Tails I win, heads you lose. ---
**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, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1319 "2015-10-27T20:51:08Z")
Thanks for reminding me of something, **Aisha** : How would you define: rape, murder, genocide and slavery. In moral terms? I’m pretty sure they are all evil. I am egarly awaiting your explanation for how they are not… ---
**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, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1320 "2015-10-27T20:55:06Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > It’s like they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too: if Muslims believe the Qur’an is perfect and unalterable, then they have to follow the supposedly violent commands in them too. But wait! The Qur’an also has peaceful commands, meaning that if Muslims believe the Qur’an is perfect and unalterable, they have to follow those commands too! Aha, but those crafty, evil Muslims have altered their scripture to excise all those peaceful commands, leaving only the violent ones. Which Muslims have to follow, because the Qur’an is unalterable! Yes, if my father beats me and my mom and my siblings without mercy on a daily basis… and can justify it through some twisted set of rules… but he writes 117 essays on peace and non violence… which of these two contradicting philosophies do we pay the most attention to? ---
**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, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1321 "2015-10-27T20:55:52Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Thanks for reminding me of something, **Aisha** : > > How would you define: > rape, murder, genocide and slavery. > > In moral terms? I’m pretty sure they are all evil. I am egarly awaiting your explanation for how they are not… Please refer to all my previous posts in this thread. Thanks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741.md?page=65) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741.md?page=67)