So, then, the people who became the Muslims were more or less peaceful and pacific, until this religion was inflicted upon them?
The history of the Arabs immediately preceding Muhammad is a mite sketchy, so you maybe could advance that premise without being proven entirely wrong, but then, neither can you be proven right. You can, of course, insist.
Nonsense. Jaina scripture specifically states that the precept of nonviolence does not negate the prescribed duties and rights of its adherents, even when those duties and rights involve killing. Examples in this category include self-defense (on the individual and state level, i.e., “just war”), capital punishment, and protecting one’s property from thieves. (Note that most modern developed societies disallow mere crimes against property as a justification for killing other human beings, but the famously nonviolent Jaina scriptural tradition is more harsh in this regard.)
All ancient religions that attempt to codify or legislate social behavior norms in human communities “can fuel violence” because they all condone or enjoin violence in certain circumstances. All religions claim that they condone violence only when the circumstances justify it.
And anybody who gets their understanding of Jainism or any other religious doctrine from someone as ill-informed on the subject as Sam Harris is wilfully collaborating in the perpetuation of their own ignorance.
Now that’s an interesting thing, because correct me if I’m wrong but the permission for violence given in that pdf are from commentaries, not from the original teaching ?
Anyone can add commentaries to a religion for anything they want.
What does Mahavira say about it ? Set me straight on this, with quotes, please.
Then can I ask even if a religion permits only “defensive” violence, how did it come to be that there was anything to be defended that wasn’t first taken by violence ?
And given that law is the enforcement of behaviour through violence, violence is inescapable in all lawmaking religions, yes ?
And then there’s the problem of the apocalyptic destruction that’s built into the religion. Despite the latter day proclamations from the Pope and from some muslims that God wants humanity to look after the Earth, this sits in embarrassing contradiction to the global destruction that is essential to the whole cosmic scheme of these religions. Not only is violence in law and violence in territorial defense approved of, but divine apocalyptic violence is expected and welcomed.
And the wheel keeps on turning…
Yes, that’s correct. Religions are, and always have been, more than the “original teaching.” As has been discussed repeatedly in this thread.
So if culture and religion are indistinguishable then it’s not possible to answer the question anyway.
Your question defeats itself.
“Radical” Islam is the definition of a violent strain of Islam that is followed by a small proportion of Muslims. By using “radical” you admit that most Muslims are not violent, since they are not “radical.”
Alternatively, the conversion of what is now Malaysia, Indonesia, and several islands in the Philippines as well as a large portion of the Sahel and nearby sub-Saharan regions of Africa occurred in peaceful acts of proselytization that required and relied upon no overtly militaristic actions. Thus, a third to a half of of all current Muslims have no violent religious history.
Aye, sometimes conversions happen. Roman Empire being a good case. It’s also the case that a peaceful conversion can be followed by centuries of war - Roman Empire being another good case in point. Indonesia has East Timor.
Wikipedia about Indonesia -
So it wasn’t entirely a soft power exercise, but OK I wouldn’t argue that war is always necessary. Still, if you’re looking at only a third of cases as peaceful, that’s a lot of violent conquest.
Nobody, other than those who foolishly follow your line of so-called reasoning, says that culture and religion are indistinguishable.
radical Islam is violent due to culture and not religion
The forum title (above) sets the stage~~~~
First to be a member I must agree to the following----
I must agree that:
[1] Islam is radical
I do not agree
[2] Islam is violence
I agree they are capable of defending themselves
Having said that, how would you describe the following two opinions made on a public forum
raymie says:
god doesn’t exist.
the christians hate the jews because their religion teaches them they killed jesus.
also, the jews stubbornly reject jesus as messiah. antisemitism comes from christianity, nowhere else. the bible is a myth which tries to explain why the jews aren’t rulers of the world, even though their god created everything. you can’t see any of this because you have an agenda.hitler picked up antisemitism from christianity, as did the muslims. in the muslims’ case, it was exacerbated by the creation of Israel
http://talk.notthetalk.com/discussion/list/3724?start=111
semblance says:
It strikes as being bleedin’ obvious where anti-semitism comes from.
*
It comes from a natural distrust of a smallinsular community which has power, wealth and influence out of all proportion to it’s size.*
http://tinyurl.com/9l6pjab
*raymie says: **christians hate the jews **becausetheir religion teaches them they killed jesus.also, the jews stubbornly reject jesus as messiah. antisemitism comes from christianity, nowhere else. even though their god created everything.
hitler picked up antisemitism from christianity *
end
Now in that same vain would you consider “rayme’s” point of view a sign of a culture too-?
Well, those who actually look at the history, rather than reading polemics based on their own fears, recognize that even the conquests across North Africa, Iberia, Northern India and other places had a lot more to do with the traditional desire of kings to expand their domains than it did with a need to expand Islam, per se. It is quite parallel to the European conquests of the Americas. There were certainly religious people who wanted to bring Christianity to the pagans, but there were far more people looking for gold and land and bringing Christianity was simply a “happy” byproduct. It makes it easier to hold a country if the people are all on the same page in regard to religion.
In that context, a third to a half of the people descending from religious preaching is significantly more than the claim that is spouted by so many, today, that all Muslim conversion was the result of violence.
I don’t think that. I don’t know why you say I do 
What’s your answer to the OP then ?
no (:-
Your concept of Jaina scriptural authority is obviously pretty fuzzy. There are no canonical Jaina scriptures formally authored by Mahavira: the teachings of Mahavira were compiled, with canonical exegeses (not just random commentaries from random observers) in sutra form into the works called Agamas over many centuries. The doctrine of virodhi-himsa is indeed discussed in these authoritative texts, such as the Sutrakrtanga.
[QUOTE=MrQwertyasd]
Then can I ask even if a religion permits only “defensive” violence, how did it come to be that there was anything to be defended that wasn’t first taken by violence ?
[/quote]
That’s a philosophical question about the moral nature of property and ownership in general. I have no particular views on the essential ethics of property ownership in the abstract.
That’s another philosophical question about the essential moral nature of law, another issue I have no particular views on.
However, these questions in no way affect the fact that you were, due to your ignorance of Jaina doctrine, wrong in making the generalization that “there is nothing in Jain scripture that can fuel violence”.
You have me then , i was wrong, I know nothing about Jainism, and am grateful for your input because naturally I assume Harris should know what he’s talking about when he gets up in front of a Harvard audience.
But there’s wiggle room in looking for what may or may not be considered authoritative in scripture. I have no idea whether the example you furnished was mainstream in Jainism, or fringe, or as representative of Jainism as shakers or some small sect are of mainstream Christianity.
Given no first hand scripture, it’s going to be hard to separate any original teaching from accreted culture.
And that’s the trouble, If we include the additions of scholars as being an official part of a religion, because culture is inseparable from religion, then we have to view ISIS as being representative of Islam. al-Baghdadi after all is plenty qualified in scripture, and is possibly busy adding to commentary now. So would his commentary be as representative of Islam as the aspects of Jainism that you highlighted ?
That’s an unpopular position amongst many muslims, who don’t want to be tarred with that brush, and make claim to know the True Islam.
So is including the violent aspect of Jainism also a tarring of the main religion by a few violent outliers, or is violence part of the fundamental Jainist view ?
Harris would contend that such violence is superfluous to Jainism’s core, but that violence is an essential part of the Koran.
In that case, given that Constantine was an Emperor, pretty much the whole of Christianity’s spread was simply an exercise in territorial acquisition under the guise of missionary work. I don’t really buy it. Are you saying that Pizarro and Cortes were just cynical unbelievers ? Or that the Spanish royalty were consciously playing the religion card in order to acquire gold and silver, and remained aloof from any genuine belief, and that the church was just an addendum tool that was useful but had no power itself ?
Their actions would not inspire confidence, no.
And how would you know this? Were you there? Did you talk to these kings? What about the troops? Did you fight in the battles? Or are you just repeating something you read somewhere???
I’m not saying that kings generals and politicians don’t use religion as an excuse to start wars and seize land. I’m not denying that at all. But the king and the troops can have their own motivations. I doubt that the troops had any doubt that they were fighting on behalf of Mohammed.
If the text says to convert at the point of the sword, and then that is exactly what the generals/troops go out and do, then you do not have the option of dismissing their actions as mere political expediency, not when the troops are devoted religious followers following the - literal - words of the text.
Mostly, yes.