Islam is a Violent Religion

Great Debates
41

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (Luke 19:27)

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. (Matthew 10:34-36)

When you’re talking about Christianity you also just can’t ignore the Hebrew Bible which has passages condoning rape, murder, slavery and infanticide.

You can also argue that the verses I quoted above are out of context or misinterpreted but exactly the same can be said of the kinds of things that anti-Islamic websites do with the Qur’an. You can cherry pick a lot of things from almost any sacred scripture in order to paint a picture of that religion as violent and angry.

The vast, vast majority of Muslims are not violent criminals and in fact believe that their religion forbids non-defensive violence.

42

How about a violent act? See Matthew 21:12.

43

Can I just nitpick here and point out for the umpteenth time that “jihad” does not mean “holy war”?

44

Did I say they were ? The early islamic empire was agressive, the byzantine empire was agressive, the catholic christian kingdoms of western europe were agressive. The medical islamic kingdoms were not more agressive than their Christian counter parts, or for that matter their Buddist, Hindu or Pagan counterparts (and CERTAINLY not more brutal, in fact on whole far less so). They were merely more successful.

But, as I said, none of that justifies the incredible church-sanctioned brutality of medival christendom, including the Crusades. To say theses were anything else execpt brutal church sanctioned agression of the worst kind is appaling revisionism.

There were also of course plenty of christian attacks on the Byzantine Empire in that period (many of the European tribes with which the Byzantines fought were christian).

45

Well modern day islamic countries have far less democracy and freedom than non-muslim countries

http://www.ifex.org/fr/content/view/full/30136/?PHPSESSID=

The survey of the world’s 192 countries finds that only 11 of the 47 nations - 23 per cent - with an Islamic majority have democratically elected governments.

In particular, in the 16 Arab states of the Middle East and North Africa, democratic governments do not exist. Comparatively, in the non-Islamic world, 110 out of 145 countries have electoral democracies (75 per cent), according to Freedom House.

http://www.middleeastfacts.com/arab-freedom-and-terrorism.php

To qualify as “free,” a country must have democratic elections as well as a gamut of civil liberties and citizens’ rights.

Lots of countries do meet this standard. Of the non-Muslim countries, 58 percent are “free” and only 14 percent are “not free,” i.e., strict dictatorships. The remaining 28 percent fall in that middling category of “partly free.” But among the Muslim countries the proportions are reversed. Only one country–Mali–out of 47 ranks as free, 2 percent of the group. Thirty-eight percent are partly free, and a whopping 60 percent are “not free.” The 47 Muslim-majority states, in other words, account for a majority of the world’s “not free” states. Moreover, Freedom House also provides a list of the least free nations, based on its meticulous scoring of various kinds of liberty. The “worst of the worst,” it calls them. No fewer than 7 out of this rogues’ gallery of 10 are predominantly Islamic states–Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan (before the B-52s got there). Only Burma, Cuba, and North Korea rival them in repression.

However this seems to be a recent development. Sixty to eighty years ago you could make the same argument about white majority nations as most were run by Fascists or Soviets. So yeah, I’d agree that modern islam is violent but I don’t think it’ll be this way in 100 years.

46

Usual disclaimer: violent Islamists are murderous bastards, bla bla bla.

However, since this began as a tu quoque argument, you do seem to have your head in the sand, or maybe your news media don’t report shit happening outside of US-involved areas. Islamists are currently the most prominent terrorist motherfuckers, they’re not the only violent ones out there.

The most widespread empire of the past three hundred years was the very Christian British one, which usually spearheaded its expansionism with Christian missionaries. If I had the patience or time, I could compile an equally comprehensive list as LonesomePolecat’s Crusader list, with “British Christians” as the actors. (Kudos for not using the word “dhimmi” yet, though.)

Regarding perversions of scriptures, too, how about the Lord’s Resistance Army, which is a rag-tag bunch of terrorists led by a pseudo-mystic murderous egomaniac. If they were Islamic, you’d call them “jihadis”, except they’re from the Christian tradition - with a great line in child abduction and gang rape.

Then we have the sectarian killings of the 1980s in Northern Ireland, where people were chosen as murder victims purely because of their community allegiance, which often meant their Christian denomination.

Not to mention the Sikh, Hindu, and other religio/ethnic terrorists in India, the Hindu/secular Tamil Tigers, which pioneered suicide bombing (warning, gross pictures), and of course “God told me to invade Iraq”.

47

Well, in that Carter’s a Baptist and Bush is a Methodist, sure. And Carter is probably more religious than Bush. But their differences aren’t primarily religious but political.

48

That’s just nitpicking.

Religious hysteria.

Irrelevant; what matters is what people do, not what some book says they should do.

Or the Nazis killing the Jews, and wearing belt buckles with “Gott Mit Uns” on them.

IIRC the logic was that as “red men” they were obviously demonic, and should all be killed. Besides, they were heathens.

There’s also the enslavement of Africans; a major motivation for that was the forcible imposition of Christianity on them. Not to mention that Christianity was a major excuse for keeping them slaves.

49

Yeah, sure. And Ho Chi Minh was the George Washington of Southeast Asia. :rolleyes:

50

That certainly is not. The issue here is over whether the religion is violent in its solution of religious issues. This wasn’t a religous issue – the religioon involved is simply different from yours.

Not religious hysteria. Read any history of this since Upham’s biased account, especially those written in the past forrty years.

51

I’m surprised that story is still being repeated. There is no independent verification that Bush used that language. Shaath (foreign minister under Abbas) was repeating what he heard in a meeting (not from notes taken in the meeting) thru a translator. Shaath also backpeddled later saying:

52

They CLEARLY were a Religious issue, the whole concept was based on religious doctrine. There is NO way the hundreds of years of which trials (including those at salem) could be viewed as anything except religious violence. The fact civil courts were invovled was imaterail.

53

Belief in and fear/hatred towards “witches” was a Christian religious belief, as is the Christian injunction to kill them.

54

I didn’t realise he’d retracted. So, therefore, shall I.

55

He didn’t retract he said he thought it was figurative rather than literal. Which, you’d hope, is how most people took it. I’m no fan of Dubya but I don’t really think he hears god’s voice in his head.

56

The witch trials at Salem had nothing to do with religion. Nothing.

Witchcraft is not a religious concept, and certainly not a Christian one, but a psuedo-scientific one shared by virtually every culture.

We still don’t know what caused the initial fits, but theories range from moldy bread to girls lashing out in the only way they can in the culture.

The pattern of accusations maps quite nicely to disputes over local poltical/economic issues.

As Arthur Miller pointed out, Salem accusations bear an uncanny resemblance to later hysteria about communism and pedophilia. This kind of mob hysteria is intinsic to human society, not Christianity.

57

The Salem witches were tried for afflicting girls, causing bodily harm, and killing livestock. They weren’t being tried for religious beliefs. Read Chadwick Hansen’s book, where he quotes the symptoms of the girls. (The old idea that the ghirls were “simply making it up” has been viewed much more critically recently, with suggestions that the girls really were “hysterical” in the clinical sense, or the victims of hallucinatory ergotism, or something similar). Their religious beliefs dictated their world view and their laws, but thyey were dealing with an extreme and weird case here, not out deliberately seeking witches to destroy. Massachusetts didn’t have "Witchfinder General"s

58

The concept of witchcraft as a crime (and a capital crime at that) is clearly a relgious idea, and very closely linked to both scripture (Exodus 22:18 “Though shalt not suffer a witch to live”), and later religious doctrine (such as the Directorium Inquisitorum). The fact that it was civil courts that often carried out the sentancing and punishment is irrelivant (in fact, in many cases, this was a delibrate attempt by religious authorities to morally distance themselves from events that they in fact orchestrated).

59

For that matter, didn’t Cotton Mather himself come to regret his part in the trials?

60

The Japanese prayed their little asses off before climbing into KamiKazi planes. and when they attacked Peatl Harbor.The pilots on the Enola Gay had a service before they plopped the A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Arabs are calling on Mohammed to protect them as they kill the Christians, Bathists or whoever is in their way.
Its not the solution. Religion is the problem. You are responsible for your acts as a human being. You cant pray your sins away. You cant justify them. Just stop it.