# Okay, fine, Islam is this violent, evil religion. What do you want us to DO about it? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 1, 2015, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328 "2015-11-01T12:26:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328/301 "2015-11-04T11:07:10Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > This is a very common mistake, to regard Islam simply as camel flavored Christianity. It is not, it is very different in many ways, and those differences must be taken into account if one is interested in improving the situation. I agree that Islam and Christianity are different, but when you say “differences must be taken into account” it sounds somewhat as if you feel it must be established that Islam is in some way inferior to Christianity. Even if that \*were \*true, I do not see how it is supposed to help matters. Maybe you could explain how you suggest to approach the accounting for differences and what you hope to gain from it. > [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > Also, oppression of Muslim women is certainly not limited to _some Muslim-majority countries_. Also opression of women is certainly not limited to Muslim countries. A woman in Istanbul or Jakarta is certainly better off today than a woman in rural India or Christian Eritrea. Opression of women is a society problem, not a religious one. (Of the roughly 20 centuries of Christian history, how many would you say women in Christian societies were \*not \*opresssed?) Modernizing a society will do a lot more for women’s rights than attacking its religion. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328/302 "2015-11-04T11:34:33Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > No, I am not saying it is _right_, I am saying it is supported by the texts that are widely considered to be the most authentic collections. In other words, you’re not claiming it’s some kind of transcendent truth, you’re just claiming it’s the only historically valid way to interpret Muslim doctrine. But claiming that the extremists’ interpretations are the only historically valid way to interpret Muslim doctrine is exactly the kind of anti-moderate undermining of reformist interpretations that **A’isha** is objecting to. > [@Hank Beecher](#): > > No matter how hard you try, if all that is done is to try to convince people that the texts do not really mean what they say and what they have been interpreted as meaning throughout the centuries, there will always be substantial numbers who interpret them in the more violent and oppressive manner. There have always been alternative interpretations of religious scriptures in Islam and everywhere else. There’s no such thing as a sacred text that has been interpreted in only one way “throughout the centuries”. Moreover, there have always been substantial numbers of adherents of all religions who have fomented violence and oppression because they follow an interpretation of their religious scriptures that encourages such behavior. For example, nowadays there are quite a number of radical-extremist Jews who illegally foment violence and oppression in the occupied West Bank because they believe a literal interpretation of their religious scriptures that tells them that this territory was divinely assigned to Jews in perpetuity. But we’re not telling moderate peaceful Jews that their alternative interpretations of their scripture are somehow pointless or futile because they’re just “trying to convince people that the texts do not really mean what they say”. Somehow, it seems to be only Muslims who are expected to accept having moderate or reformist interpretations of their religious doctrines easily dismissed simply because there will always be extremists who prefer to interpret them “in the more violent and oppressive manner”. Odd, that. > [@Hank Beecher](#): > > Again, I am not arguing that the approach you favor be abandoned, I am saying that the limitations inherent in this approach should be recognized. In other words, **A’isha** and other moderate Muslims should continue to do the heavy lifting of actually supporting and defending modern moderate interpretations of Islamic doctrine. But they should stop inconveniently pointing out to you that your ill-informed sweeping generalizations condemning Islam in general are counterproductive and are in fact effectively endorsing the very type of extremist literalism that you claim to oppose. Got that, **A’isha**? I’m afraid that in your zeal to fight ignorance about the existence and significance of modern broadminded Muslim thought, you’ve allowed yourself to lose sight of the most important objective here: namely, upholding **Hank Beecher** ’s assurance of the correctness of his opinions. I trust we will shortly be receiving a full apology. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Memnon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@Memnon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Memnon)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328/303 "2015-11-04T12:04:02Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > In other words, you’re not claiming it’s some kind of transcendent truth, you’re just claiming it’s the only historically valid way to interpret Muslim doctrine. > > But claiming that the extremists’ interpretations are the only historically valid way to interpret Muslim doctrine is exactly the kind of anti-moderate undermining of reformist interpretations that A’isha is objecting to. I think what Hank’s saying is that fighting extremism by thumbing scripture and looking for loopholes and moderate interpretations just isn’t the way to go here. For any book with valid conservative and liberal interpretations there will always be a certain set of people who choose the conservative interpretation. Of that set, there will always be a subset of people who choose an _ultra_-conservative interpretation. A liberal can’t persuade an ultra-conservative that his interpretation is wrong, because the ultra-conservative has already read the books in question, already knows the liberal counterarguments, and has already discounted them. To an ultra-conservative, a religious moderate is just a failed fundamentalist who doesn’t “get it”. What Hank is saying, as I understand it, is that trying to fight scripture with scripture is always a doomed proposition. For every liberal interpretation, there’s a conservative counterpoint and vice versa, which is why religious liberals and religious conservatives have such a lousy track record of changing each other’s minds. Hank’s point is that the best way to go about reforming Islam is for reformists to reject the false dichotomy of liberal and conservative interpretations altogether and argue for secularism instead. This approach has proven successful in America. Look at the struggle for gay rights, for instance. The fact of the matter is that when you actually sit down and read the Bible in its entirety, it really is quite clear that, for whatever reason, God actually _does_ have a beef with gay people. He “hates fags”, to put it bluntly. There are numerous denunciations of homosexuality in both the old and new testament. The battle for marriage equality wasn’t won by moderates twisting scripture in knots to make it look like God was cool with gay people. It was won by people, both gay and straight, basically saying “Fuck off, God boy, and take your Bible with you.” Of course, they didn’t put it quite so bluntly, especially not in the courts, but the thrust of the campaign for sexual equality was that, no matter what the Bible said, it was just flat-out less important than the secular principle of equality. What A’isha seems to be trying to do is fight fire with fire by arguing that liberal interpretations of the Koran and Hadith exist and are just as, if not more valid than conservative interpretations. What Hank is saying is that so long as the fire is burning at all there’s always going to be a problem, so just chuck a great big bucket of water over the whole thing and argue instead that Islamic values, liberal _or_ conservative, are not the best possible values on which to found a society. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328/304 "2015-11-04T12:29:39Z")
> [@Tithonus](#): > > What Hank is saying, as I understand it, is that trying to fight scripture with scripture is always a doomed proposition. For every liberal interpretation, there’s a conservative counterpoint and vice versa, which is why religious liberals and religious conservatives have such a lousy track record of changing each other’s minds. Hank’s point is that the best way to go about reforming Islam is for reformists to reject the false dichotomy of liberal and conservative interpretations altogether and argue for secularism instead. Secularism, as I understand it, is a situation wherein a society bases its decisions on considerations that are not founded in religion. I believe that for a society to accept secularism it is a mandatory precondition that this society not be dominated by a very conservative religious group, because conservative religion tends to have little tolerance for any decision that is not aligned with its religious code. So in order to achieve secularism you have to first achieve at least a certain degree of liberal thinking within the religious groups of your society. The “Fuck off, God boy”-approach would be short-lived otherwise (and probably literally). ---
**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:** [November 4, 2015, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328/305 "2015-11-04T12:54:18Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > No, I am not saying it is _right_, I am saying it is supported by the texts that are widely considered to be the most authentic collections. And so therefore it is right. That SIS rejects that interpretation and those texts means, for you, not that they are working to change the problems in their religion (the thing you claim to be supporting), but that they are going against “mainstream Islam” and are therefore wrong in their interpretation. Again, how does that help them? > [@](#): > > What is the meaning of “plenty” in this context? These are the collections considered the most authentic by Sunni Muslims, who are, what, 85-90% of Muslims? This comes across as similar to those who argue against the wisdom of wearing a seat belt. “Plenty of people have survived crashes without seat belts”. It means “declaring child marriage permissible in Islam because these Sunni _hadith_ collections say it’s okay” is both incorrect and completely misunderstanding the issue. Since not only are there a lot of Muslims who reject those _ahadith_, even among those mainstream Sunni Muslims who accept them as authentic there are some pretty important and influential ones who disagree with the idea that they permit child marriage. Such as [al-Azhar](http://www.unicef.org/egypt/Egy-homepage-Childreninislamengsum%281%29.pdf). > [@](#): > > And [yet](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/04/islamic-horror-iraq-set-to-legalize-marital-rape-child-marriage/): Which isn’t based on the _Bukhari_ hadith, but mostly on things said by the Sixth Imam and the contested Seventh Imam and their rulings on what constitutes _baligh_. > [@](#): > > How is it “the extremists’ way” when such a high percentage of Muslims support things like killing those who leave Islam, and cutting of people’s hands and feet for theft, or that a wife should always obey her husband? Because that’s the extremists’ interpretation, which you and Khuldune agree is the correct one. > [@](#): > > The criticism is that limiting the struggle to an attempt to whitewash Islamic texts and history dooms the effort, since the violence and misogyny is so thoroughly embedded. And here you set up a Catch-22 for moderates: they have to change their religion and their texts to “excise” misogyny and violence, but they can’t change their religion and their texts. > [@](#): > > No matter how hard you try, if all that is done is to try to convince people that the texts do not really mean what they say and what they have been interpreted as meaning throughout the centuries, there will always be substantial numbers who interpret them in the more violent and oppressive manner. Thus conceding the battle to the extremists and their interpretation before it’s even begun? “Give it up, moderates,” you say. “You’ll never be able to reform Islam, because the texts of Islam indubitably say what the extremists claim they say, so your efforts to interpret the texts in any different way are doomed to failure.” > [@](#): > > Muslims must be convinced to elevate humanistic values _above_ Islamic values. When certain Muslims argue that this or that horrible behavior is acceptable or preferred because the Prophet engaged in it, one of the acceptable answers must be _so what_? You’re not arguing for a more moderate Islam or supporting Muslim moderates at all. You’re advocating the abandonment of Islam and the rejection of God and Muhammad entirely, telling moderates to leave their religion (and to leave it in the hands of the extremists). ---
**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:** [November 4, 2015, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328/306 "2015-11-04T12:59:51Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > Secularism, as I understand it, is a situation wherein a society bases its decisions on considerations that are not founded in religion. I believe that for a society to accept secularism it is a mandatory precondition that this society not be dominated by a very conservative religious group, because conservative religion tends to have little tolerance for any decision that is not aligned with its religious code. So in order to achieve secularism you have to first achieve at least a certain degree of liberal thinking within the religious groups of your society. The “Fuck off, God boy”-approach would be short-lived otherwise (and probably literally). Exactly. And I’ll point out that extremist interpretations of Christianity still exist and are dangerously prevalent. Even in the arguments over gay marriage, the strong influence of Christian religious conservatives has proved a critical blocking point. So, if the extremists will always be around if you promote a liberal interpretation, and they’ll still always be around if you promote pure secularism, then the criticism that promoting a liberal interpretation won’t get rid of the extremists entirely is a false one, a double standard. All that condemning moderate interpretations of Islam will do is help ensure that the only members of that religion will be the extremists. Which I guess for Islamophobes is a feature, not a bug. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328/307 "2015-11-04T13:40:01Z")
> [@Tithonus](#): > > I think what Hank’s saying is that fighting extremism by thumbing scripture and looking for loopholes and moderate interpretations just isn’t the way to go here. But modern moderate interpretations of Islam aren’t some kind of deliberately invented “extremism-fighting” strategy. They developed from long-standing traditions of exegetical dispute and philosophical divergence within historical Islam. They are genuine religious traditions in their own right. For us non-Muslim westerners to leaf through a translation of the Qur’an, carefully noting down all the references to bloodshed while listening to some Wahhabist radicals calling for fundamentalist _jihad_, and then to proclaim that we “know” that moderate interpretations of Islam are pointless effete “loopholes”, is simply pig-ignorant as well as arrogant. [QUOTE=Tithonus] For any book with valid conservative and liberal interpretations there will always be a certain set of people who choose the conservative interpretation. Of that set, there will always be a subset of people who choose an _ultra_-conservative interpretation. A liberal can’t persuade an ultra-conservative that his interpretation is wrong, because the ultra-conservative has already read the books in question, already knows the liberal counterarguments, and has already discounted them. To an ultra-conservative, a religious moderate is just a failed fundamentalist who doesn’t “get it”. [/quote] Sure. But once again, why should it only be Muslims who are expected and exhorted to discard all non-fundamentalist interpretations of their faith just because there are always going to be some diehard fundamentalists who refuse to agree with them? [QUOTE=Tithonus] What A’isha seems to be trying to do is fight fire with fire by arguing that liberal interpretations of the Koran and Hadith exist and are just as, if not more valid than conservative interpretations. [/quote] And that is a perfectly valid historical and theological point, whether or not you’re hoping to use it for firefighting purposes. > [@Tithonus](#): > > What Hank is saying is that so long as the fire is burning at all there’s always going to be a problem, so just chuck a great big bucket of water over the whole thing and argue instead that Islamic values, liberal _or_ conservative, are not the best possible values on which to found a society. If that’s intended as an argument in favor of secular civil law codes such as Turkey’s or France’s or the US’s, in which the basic operation of government is supposed to be religiously neutral, then sure, I’m all for it. But if it’s intended as advice to moderate Muslims to just dump their religious interpretations and beliefs, then it’s basically religious bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![Plumpudding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Plumpudding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plumpudding)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328/308 "2015-11-04T14:07:34Z")
**kay, fine, Islam is this violent, evil religion. What do you want us to DO about it?** I follow the golden shower rule: “Do with the same some you want they are doing to you.” Or translated to english: “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.” As long as they treat me as they would like be treated. @ \*\*Robert163 \*\*and **Hank Beecher** - I disagree with your premise that Islam is evil and violent, but lets put that aside for now. Do you propose muslims are evil and violent because of their religion? If not and if you are \*only \*attacking the ideas, \*not \*the people, then I believe you should change rhetoric, because it is very similar in tone to white supremacy rhetoric from where I come from. It is an ugly and hateful way of speaking and using it only empowers violent psychopaths, to the detriment of everyone else. ---
**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:** [November 4, 2015, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328/309 "2015-11-04T14:24:28Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > But modern moderate interpretations of Islam aren’t some kind of deliberately invented “extremism-fighting” strategy. They developed from long-standing traditions of exegetical dispute and philosophical divergence within historical Islam. They are genuine religious traditions in their own right. Yes. And that’s something I’ve tried to point out through reference to things like Afsaruddin’s book and the contemporary treatment of al-Khawarizmi. And let’s not forget that the main and most prevalent extremist interpretation of Islam, Wahhabism, is barely two and a half centuries old, in a religion that’s _1400_ years old, and was treated as a heretical aberration when it appeared. > [@](#): > > If that’s intended as an argument in favor of secular civil law codes such as Turkey’s or France’s or the US’s, in which the basic operation of government is supposed to be religiously neutral, then sure, I’m all for it. > > But if it’s intended as advice to moderate Muslims to just dump their religious interpretations and beliefs, then it’s basically religious bigotry. Indeed. ---
**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:** [November 4, 2015, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328/310 "2015-11-04T15:04:41Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > No, the most pious of Muslims are not the ones most likely to become terrorists. But the decisions of the ones who do are still informed by Islamic source texts and history of violent conquest. It’s more than that; the Muslims who are more likely to become terrorists are the ones who know the least about Islam, and the ones who are disconnected from Muslim society. Further, Islamic source texts and history are not required in order to turn impressionable, disconnected young men into killers…see Aum Shinrikyo, the Red Army Faction, the Tamil Tigers, the ultranationalists of 1930s Japan, and on and on. Where there’s a political goal and a supply of cult members, violence will ensue, in any society. > [@Hank Beecher](#): > > Yes, that is a known fact. The power vacuum that was filled is largely a result of failed American foreign policy. The nature of the organization that filled the vacuum is largely the result of Islamic source texts, mythology, and history. Kudos for your honest reply. > [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > _You_ should note that while, as you point out, mainstream Islam in Europe is not primary source of most of the terrorist violence directed at non-Muslims, it\* is \*responsible for the widespread tolerance of extreme social control of, and violence against, women within it’s own communities: Here we can see the often cited mainstream [Muslim authorities in Britain counseling victims of domestic violence](https://youtu.be/4gZCFdHkd4A?t=611). They tell them not to go to the police, and even, disgustingly, advise one victim to “be courageous enough” to ask her husband if his attacks are _because of her cooking._ I can’t watch videos on my work PC, do you have an alternate source? > [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > This is a very common mistake, to regard Islam simply as camel flavored Christianity. It is not, it is very different in many ways, and those differences must be taken into account if one is interested in improving the situation. “Camel flavored”? :smack: The religions are more alike than different; cousins, if you will. It’s not identical to Christianity (note that I didn’t say that it was), nor is it uniquely terrible or special in any way. > [@Hank Beecher](#): > > Also, oppression of Muslim women is certainly not limited to _some Muslim-majority countries_. That depends on your definition of “oppression”. Certainly, no Muslim-majority country tops the list of the best nations for women’s rights, but then again, Muslim-majority nations aren’t randomly distributed. ---
**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:** [November 4, 2015, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328/311 "2015-11-04T15:11:42Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The religions are more alike than different; cousins, if you will. It’s not identical to Christianity (note that I didn’t say that it was), nor is it uniquely terrible or special in any way. Islam is actually really close to Judaism (it’s closer to Judaism than either Islam or Judaism are to Christianity). ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328/312 "2015-11-04T15:17:47Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > Islam is actually really close to Judaism (it’s closer to Judaism than either Islam or Judaism are to Christianity). [ul] [li]Buddhism[/li][li] **Christianity** [/li][li]Confucianism[/li][li]Hinduism[/li][li] **Islam** [/li][li] **Judaism** [/li][li]Sikhism[/li][li]Zoroastrianism[/li][/ul]Story checks out. ---
**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:** [November 4, 2015, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328/313 "2015-11-04T15:19:34Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > Islam is actually really close to Judaism (it’s closer to Judaism than either Islam or Judaism are to Christianity). Oh, absolutely. But _in the spectrum of possible religious beliefs_, it’s not far off from Christianity, either…(omnipotent, singular creator god who issues moral decrees through humans, immortal souls, etc). Compare Christianity and Islam to, say, Scientology, or Buddhism, or Shintoism. ---
**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:** [November 4, 2015, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328/314 "2015-11-04T16:19:39Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Oh, absolutely. But _in the spectrum of possible religious beliefs_, it’s not far off from Christianity, either…(omnipotent, singular creator god who issues moral decrees through humans, immortal souls, etc). Compare Christianity and Islam to, say, Scientology, or Buddhism, or Shintoism. True. And the racism of “camel-flavored Christianity” aside, I find it interesting that **Hank Beecher** is so adamant that Islam is not like Christianity at all, when the notion that Islam started as merely an Arabized Christian offshoot (grabbing and running with the old revisionist theories of some Western scholars back in the 70s) is a popular one among many of Islam’s opponents, culminating in [the pseudonymous “Ibn Warraq” promoting Christoph Luxenberg’s ridiculous thesis about how the Qur’an is actually a mistranslated Syrian Christian text.](http://www.amazon.com/Christmas-Koran-Luxenberg-Judeo-Christian-Background/dp/161614937X) ---
**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:** [November 4, 2015, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328/315 "2015-11-04T16:24:38Z")
I’d heard of the moon-god slander, but this one’s new to me. Thanks for the education, as usual. ---
**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:** [November 4, 2015, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328/316 "2015-11-04T16:38:17Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I’d heard of the moon-god slander, but this one’s new to me. Thanks for the education, as usual. [Here’s](http://www.amazon.com/Early-Islam-Critical-Reconstruction-Contemporary/dp/161614825X/ref=pd_sim_14_3?ie=UTF8&dpID=614cyv0xnJL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR104%2C160_&refRID=1RVN6H1SY5NKKHDP7JTG) a fun one (published by the same people who published Luxenberg’s nonsense book) that claims > [@](#): > > • Islam originally emerged as a sect of Christianity. > • Its central theological tenets were influenced by a pre-Nicean, Syrian Christianity. > • Aramaic, the common language throughout the Near East for many centuries and the language of Syrian Christianity, significantly influenced the Arabic script and vocabulary used in the Koran. > • Finally, it was not until the end of the eighth and ninth centuries that Islam formed as a separate religion, and the Koran underwent a period of historical development of at least 200 years. Oh, and that apparently “the term ‘Muhammad’ originally referred to Jesus”! ---
**Author:** ![Claude\_Remains](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/898d66/32.png) [@Claude\_Remains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claude_Remains)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328/317 "2015-11-04T20:49:48Z")
just one day of no organized religious B.S and no Kardashians would be pretty sweet. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328/318 "2015-11-04T21:35:09Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > It’s more than that; the Muslims who are more likely to become terrorists are the ones who know the least about Islam, and the ones who are disconnected from Muslim society. Further, Islamic source texts and history are not required in order to turn impressionable, disconnected young men into killers…see Aum Shinrikyo, the Red Army Faction, the Tamil Tigers, the ultranationalists of 1930s Japan, and on and on. Where there’s a political goal and a supply of cult members, violence will ensue, in any society. > > Kudos for your honest reply. > > I can’t watch videos on my work PC, do you have an alternate source? > > “Camel flavored”? :smack: > > The religions are more alike than different; cousins, if you will. It’s not identical to Christianity (note that I didn’t say that it was), nor is it uniquely terrible or special in any way. > > That depends on your definition of “oppression”. Certainly, no Muslim-majority country tops the list of the best nations for women’s rights, but then again, Muslim-majority nations aren’t randomly distributed. There are lots of rich and upper middle class (and Western) terrorist recruits. It’s become a constant theme. They are seemingly not disconnected at all. If they are so disconnected how are they recruited? Do mosques play no part? ---
**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:** [November 4, 2015, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328/319 "2015-11-04T21:59:07Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > There are lots of rich and upper middle class (and Western) terrorist recruits. It’s become a constant theme. They are seemingly not disconnected at all. If they are so disconnected how are they recruited? Do mosques play no part? Not really, no. The internet, particularly posts of propaganda videos and heavy use of social media, are the main way groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda try to appeal to Western recruits. ---
**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:** [November 4, 2015, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328/320 "2015-11-04T22:12:56Z")
[Here](http://www.businessinsider.com/the-manual-al-qaeda-and-now-isis-use-to-brainwash-people-online-2015-7) is a Business Insider article about al-Qaeda’s (and ISIS’) online recruitment methods. Note how it emphasizes that the best recruits come from among non-religious Muslims, because it’s easier to convince those who know the least about Islam of the violent extremists’ particular interpretation, while religious Muslims are the most resistant to that message (to the point where recruiters are warned of the dangers of trying to recruit religious Muslims lest “they… reject the da’wa (invitation) and end up being the reason for our defeat”). It also advises them to target the isolated and disaffected for recruitment. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-islam-is-this-violent-evil-religion-what-do-you-want-us-to-do-about-it/736328.md?page=17)