# So much for the idea that only Muslims threaten violence over images they don't like **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 11, 2008, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931 "2008-04-11T19:14:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931/81 "2008-04-14T18:24:04Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] You have yet to provide any proof whatsoever that a fanatic’s stated motivation is simply _ex post_ justification, other than your mere assertion. Given that this assertion is the basis of your thesis, I rather think that the onus is on you. [/quote] No, the thesis is yours. You say theology makes people violent. This can be refuted on a _prima facie_ basis simply pointing out that most people with the same theology don’t become violent. The ball is then in your court to show that the theology is a motivating factor rather than a _post facto_ justification. > [@](#): > > Where is the “distortion” again? _Jihad_ refers to a spiritual struggle, not a crusade against unbelievers. > [@](#): > > Are you claiming he’s taking verses out of context? That they have a _different_ meaning in context? Yes and yes. > [@](#): > > The notion of Jihad as “struggle” has both violent and non-violent meanings, and both are evident in the theology itself: [Jihad - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad) It only takes on a “violent” connotation in the case of self-defense. ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931/82 "2008-04-14T18:44:30Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] No doubt there isn’t an ideology that _couldn’t_ be twisted into a fanatic-friendly version. However, there is a very large gap between that, and claiming that they are _all the same_ in this respect. [/QUOTE] I never said they were all the same. But this incident proves that Christianity, like Islam, _is_ capable of inspiring its adherents to threaten violence to defend it when those adherents perceive it as being under attack, and an artwork can be perceived as such an attack. That kind of thing is not unique to Islam. It’s not even unique to religion. Try displaying an artwork depicting someone doing something really disrespectful to an American flag (say, using it as toilet paper) and I’ll bet that at least some Americans are going to threaten to kick your ass. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931/83 "2008-04-14T21:55:25Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] No, the thesis is yours. You say theology makes people violent. This can be refuted on a _prima facie_ basis simply pointing out that most people with the same theology don’t become violent. The ball is then in your court to show that the theology is a motivating factor rather than a _post facto_ justification. [/quote] I said nothing of the sort. I disagreed with _your_ thesis that the content of theology has _nothing whatever to do with the actions of fanatics_. I am not saying “theology makes people violent”, but something rather more nuanced than that - that theology, in addition to a host of other factors, is something which has to be taken into account in understanding the motivation of religious fanaticism. > [@](#): > > _Jihad_ refers to a spiritual struggle, not a crusade against unbelievers. No. That is _one_ meaning, but not the only one (and historically not the primary one). > [@](#): > > Yes and yes. You have provided no proof for either assertion. > [@](#): > > It only takes on a “violent” connotation in the case of self-defense. Even with the use of “scare quotes” around “violent”, this quite contradicts your earlier assertion: “_Jihad_ refers to a spiritual struggle, not a crusade against unbelievers”. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931/84 "2008-04-14T21:57:35Z")
[QUOTE=Anne Neville] I never said they were all the same. But this incident proves that Christianity, like Islam, _is_ capable of inspiring its adherents to threaten violence to defend it when those adherents perceive it as being under attack, and an artwork can be perceived as such an attack. That kind of thing is not unique to Islam. It’s not even unique to religion. Try displaying an artwork depicting someone doing something really disrespectful to an American flag (say, using it as toilet paper) and I’ll bet that at least some Americans are going to threaten to kick your ass. [/QUOTE] Then I take it you disagree with DtC on this point. My argument with him is on exactly this: that the content of a particular theology is _irrelevant_ in understanding the motives of religious fanatics. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931/85 "2008-04-14T22:11:06Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] I said nothing of the sort. I disagreed with _your_ thesis that the content of theology has _nothing whatever to do with the actions of fanatics_. [/quote] It’s not a thesis it’s a rebuttal to _your_ thesis. There is no visible evidence that specific theological content plays any role in religious fanaticism. If you want to contend that it does, then you have the burden of proof. > [@](#): > > I am not saying “theology makes people violent”, but something rather more nuanced than that - that theology, in addition to a host of other factors, is something which has to be taken into account in understanding the motivation of religious fanaticism. Except there is no evidence that this is the case. > [@](#): > > No. That is _one_ meaning, but not the only one (and historically not the primary one). That’s the meaning in the _Qur’an_ and in mainstream Islamic theology. > [@](#): > > Even with the use of “scare quotes” around “violent”, this quite contradicts your earlier assertion: “_Jihad_ refers to a spiritual struggle, not a crusade against unbelievers”. Sometimes a spirtual struggle requires physical self defense. If you really think that Osama bin Laden is an exemplar of mainstream Islamic thought then you don’t really know much about it. Bin Laden is to Islam what Fred Phelps is to Christianity. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931/86 "2008-04-14T22:33:12Z")
There’s another video with some clearer depictions of the work [here](http://de.gloria.tv/?video=yhy4ltzhyg58w8jahiew&view=flash). (NSFW) ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931/87 "2008-04-14T23:03:03Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] It’s not a thesis it’s a rebuttal to _your_ thesis. There is no visible evidence that specific theological content plays any role in religious fanaticism. If you want to contend that it does, then you have the burden of proof. [/quote] Sorry, you don’t get to turn it around. You made the extraordinary claim; you prove it. > [@](#): > > Except there is no evidence that this is the case. Except that there is tons of evidence, some of which I posted. > [@](#): > > That’s the meaning in the _Qur’an_ and in mainstream Islamic theology. Untrue. Are you contending that there is nothing in mainstream Islam corresponding to jihad “of the sword”? If so, it is easy to prove you quite wrong. > **[National Geographic](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/)** > > Explore National Geographic. A world leader in geography, cartography and exploration. Come back with some proof that the _only_ meaning of jihad is “spiritual struggle”. > [@](#): > > Sometimes a spirtual struggle requires physical self defense. If you really think that Osama bin Laden is an exemplar of mainstream Islamic thought then you don’t really know much about it. Bin Laden is to Islam what Fred Phelps is to Christianity. “Sometimes a spirtual struggle requires physical self defense” = weaseling justification. The two are not of the same order. Anything can be justified by reference to “self defence”! Indeed, Bin Laden is profuse in his claims that he is acting in “self defence”: > [@](#): > > Pervez’s invasion of Lal Masjid in city of Islam, Islamabad, is a bad event similar to the crime of the Hindus in their invasion and destruction of the Babri Masjid. I am not contending that Bin Laden represents “mainstream Islamic thought”. Is that the best you can do? Simply assert you are right and generate straw-men? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931/88 "2008-04-15T00:26:32Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] Sorry, you don’t get to turn it around. You made the extraordinary claim; you prove it. [/quote] You are the one trying to assign a cause to an observed phenomenon. You have the burden of proof. I don’t know why you’re having so much difficulty understanding that. > [@](#): > > Except that there is tons of evidence, some of which I posted. Except that there isn’t and you haven’t. It’s circular to cite the fanatics themselves. > [@](#): > > Untrue. Are you contending that there is nothing in mainstream Islam corresponding to jihad “of the sword”? That’s correct. There is nothing of the sort in mainstream Islam. Is that really a surprise to you? > [@](#): > > If so, it is easy to prove you quite wrong. > > [National Geographic | National Geographic](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_jihad.html) > > Come back with some proof that the _only_ meaning of jihad is “spiritual struggle”. Your cite backs me up. Read it again. It says that _Jihad_ is first and foremost a spiritual struggle and that violence is only advocated in self-defense. Your article explicitly says that the bin Laden brand of _Jihad_ is the province of “extremists.” > [@](#): > > “Sometimes a spirtual struggle requires physical self defense” = weaseling justification. The two are not of the same order. Anything can be justified by reference to “self defence”! Your own linked article says exactly the same thing that I said. Learn to read with more comprehension. > [@](#): > > Indeed, Bin Laden is profuse in his claims that he is acting in “self defence”: So? > [@](#): > > I am not contending that Bin Laden represents “mainstream Islamic thought”. Is that the best you can do? Simply assert you are right and generate straw-men? You are trying to contend that he is not distorting the theology. Either you think he has the theology right or he doesn’t. If he does, then you’re saying he’s mainstream. If he has it wrong, then you have to admit he’s distorting it. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931/89 "2008-04-15T01:08:03Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Afghanistan, and if the Republicans have their way, Iran. [/QUOTE] We did not invade Afganistan. We threw out the Taliban, which no one important recognized- at the request of the now legit government. Nor have we invaded Iran. “Maybe mights” don’t count. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931/90 "2008-04-15T01:30:45Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] We did not invade Afganistan. We threw out the Taliban, which no one important recognized- at the request of the now legit government. [/QUOTE] It doesn’t matter who recognized the Taliban or not. We invaded Afganistan, and the now “legit government” didn’t exist at the time, so it could not have been at their request. I don’t agree with **Diogenes** , though, as there was no effective way to treat the al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan as a police action without invading. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931/91 "2008-04-15T14:22:33Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] You are the one trying to assign a cause to an observed phenomenon. You have the burden of proof. I don’t know why you’re having so much difficulty understanding that. [/quote] You are the one making an extraordinary claim _about_ observed phenomenon. > [@](#): > > Except that there isn’t and you haven’t. It’s circular to cite the fanatics themselves. No it isn’t. > [@](#): > > That’s correct. There is nothing of the sort in mainstream Islam. Is that really a surprise to you? Yes, since it is wrong. From the article which you have acknowledged as correct: > [@](#): > > While inner struggle is one meaning of jihad, many others evidently use it to describe engagement with external enemies. It is there that the concept encounters the notions of other faiths. > > “Religiously, jihad is the expending of utmost effort in upholding and defending justice,” said Sheikh Jaafar Idris, of the Saudi Arabian Embassy.\*\* Idris explained that he recognizes two kinds of jihad because there are two kinds of violations of justice: jihad with words against false beliefs, and jihad with the sword against acts of injustice.\*\* Now, you were saying jihad of the sword does not exist … ? Seems to me you are engaged in the wrong argument. People in the West _do_ distort the meaning of “jihad”, because they think it means converting others by war. This is not correct. What it means, is “stuggle”. But you are quite wrong in asserting that it does not mean “violent struggle against external enemies” on occasion. > [@](#): > > Your cite backs me up. Read it again. It says that _Jihad_ is first and foremost a spiritual struggle and that violence is only advocated in self-defense. Your article explicitly says that the bin Laden brand of _Jihad_ is the province of “extremists.” Now with the weasling again. The article does not “back you up”. The _concept_ of jihad of the sword exists, but obviously, most Muslims belive Bin Laden is applying it incorrectly. > [@](#): > > Your own linked article says exactly the same thing that I said. Learn to read with more comprehension. Really? You claimed jihad was “spiritual” and jihad of the sword “doesn’t exist”. The article claims, just as I do, that there is more than one kind of jihad - spiritual and “jihad of the sword” - that is, struggle against _enemies_. > [@](#): > > So? > > You are trying to contend that he is not distorting the theology. Either you think he has the theology right or he doesn’t. If he does, then you’re saying he’s mainstream. If he has it wrong, then you have to admit he’s distorting it. False dilemma. He’s quoting real theology, but applying it to facts which other Muslims do not believe justify triggering jihad “of the sword”. It is his facts which are “incorrect”, according to at least some brands of mainstream Islam, not his theology. For example: Bin Laden evidently believes his struggle is _defensive_, against Western “offences”. Thing is, the _theology_ supplies the pattern - it creates an easy mechanism for extremists to use. Mainstream Muslims cannot deny that their own theology creates a legitmate and sanctioned call for “jihad of the sword” - armed struggle against vaguely defined “injustice to Muslims”. They can have quite legitimate disagreements over what constitutes “injustice to Muslims” sufficient to invoke such struggle. As the article quite correctly points out, most Muslims believe Bin Laden is wrong in this respect. Thus, theology itself has an effect on the legitimacy and channeling of violence - in direct contradiction to the extraordinary notion that the content of a people’s ideology has _no affect whatsoever on their actions_. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931/92 "2008-04-15T14:35:38Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] You are the one making an extraordinary claim _about_ observed phenomenon. [/quote] I’ve said nothing extraordinary. I’m only showing that your hypothesis about the cause of religious fanaticism has a hole in it, since most people who ascribe to those theologies don’t become fanatics. In order to make your hypothesis fly, you’ll have to explain what prevents the majority from becoming violent. > [@](#): > > Yes, since it is wrong. > > From the article which you have acknowledged as correct: > > Now, you were saying jihad of the sword does not exist … ? Not in the way that you were suggesting. Your article says that phrase refers only to self-defense. > [@](#): > > But you are quite wrong in asserting that it does not mean “violent struggle against external enemies” on occasion. Only in self-defense. > [@](#): > > Now with the weasling again. The article does not “back you up”. The _concept_ of jihad of the sword exists, but obviously, most Muslims belive Bin Laden is applying it incorrectly. Yes, the article DOES back me up. > [@](#): > > Really? You claimed jihad was “spiritual” and jihad of the sword “doesn’t exist”. Not in the way you were suggesting, not as an _aggresive_ campaign against unbelievers. You’re trying to play gotcha with the specific phrase, but that’s an irrelevant point. I said that _jihad_ only takes a connotation of physical confrontation when it comes to self-defense, and I was right. > [@](#): > > The article claims, just as I do, that there is more than one kind of jihad - spiritual and “jihad of the sword” - that is, struggle against _enemies_. And the article explains that “enemies” only refers to people who attack you. This kind of _jihad_ is only sanctioned as self-defense. > [@](#): > > False dilemma. He’s quoting real theology, but applying it to facts which other Muslims do not believe justify triggering jihad “of the sword”. In other words, he’s ditorting it, just like I said. > [@](#): > > Thing is, the _theology_ supplies the pattern - it creates an easy mechanism for extremists to use. Mainstream Muslims cannot deny that their own theology creates a legitmate and sanctioned call for “jihad of the sword” - armed struggle against vaguely defined “injustice to Muslims”. It’s not vaguely defined at all. The vast majortity of Muslims understand what constitutes self-defense. > [@](#): > > Thus, theology itself has an effect on the legitimacy and channeling of violence No it doesn’t, as evidenced by the fact that most all of them understand it and do not become violent. It’s people who already want to become violent for other reasons who find ways to distort and misinterpret the theology, just as with any other religion. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931/93 "2008-04-15T15:07:55Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I’ve said nothing extraordinary. I’m only showing that your hypothesis about the cause of religious fanaticism has a hole in it, since most people who ascribe to those theologies don’t become fanatics. In order to make your hypothesis fly, you’ll have to explain what prevents the majority from becoming violent. [/quote] It is you who are advancing the hypothesis - the extraordinary one that the content of theology has _no affect whatsoever_ on action. For which yiou have advanced no proof whatsoever, except for the trite observation that not all who share a theology become violent. > [@](#): > > Not in the way that you were suggesting. Your article says that phrase refers only to self-defense. > > Only in self-defense. > > Yes, the article DOES back me up. > > Not in the way you were suggesting, not as an _aggresive_ campaign against unbelievers. You’re trying to play gotcha with the specific phrase, but that’s an irrelevant point. I said that _jihad_ only takes a connotation of physical confrontation when it comes to self-defense, and I was right. No, you were not. You claimed that there was only _one_ meaning - a spirtual one - and only as an afterthought contradicted yourself by reluctantly admitting that it may also mean “self-defense”. Quite obviously I was right all along, when I pointed out that jihad has two meanings - “inner struggle” and “physical struggle against enemies”. The “…in self defense” bit > [@](#): > > And the article explains that “enemies” only refers to people who attack you. This kind of _jihad_ is only sanctioned as self-defense. Please point out where in the article in mentions that jihad can only be waged in “self defence”. I’ll save you the trouble - it doesn’t. Here is a relevant quote: > [@](#): > > But it is the jihad of the sword that has received the lion’s share of global attention. The concept began when early Muslims were driven from their land by enemies, said Idris, and were first given permission and later ordered by God to fight those enemies. They were not, Idris stresses, given permission to fight non-believers or those who rejected the faith—only those who transgressed against them. Idris references the following verses: “God does not forbid you, regarding those (non-Muslims) who did not fight you because of your religion, and who did not drive you out of your land, that you be good to them and treat them justly. Allah only forbids you regarding those who fought you because of your religion and drove you out of your homes, and came to the help of those who drove you out, that you should befriend them. Any of you who befriend them (and be their allies) are transgressors. [60:8-9]” But even this kind of military jihad is not necessarily a clash of religions. It can also be waged against transgressors who are themselves Muslim. The operative phrase is not “self defence”, but to fight those who “transgressed against them”. This distinction is important. Take the example of offensive cartoons. Fighting against those who produce offensive cartoons cannot be said to be “self defense” but can easily be seen as fighting against those who “transgress against Islam”. > [@](#): > > In other words, he’s ditorting it, just like I said. > > It’s not vaguely defined at all. The vast majortity of Muslims understand what constitutes self-defense. Evidently a significant minority disagrees. That’s why understanding their theology is important - it allows one to understand why the conflict exists and what fuels it. Given your views, I would bet that the big blow-up over cartoons is a total mystery. Yet with a correct understanding of mainstream Islamic theology, it becomes instantly comprehensible. > [@](#): > > No it doesn’t, as evidenced by the fact that most all of them understand it and do not become violent. It’s people who already want to become violent for other reasons who find ways to distort and misinterpret the theology, just as with any other religion. Yes it does, which is why we have this problem in the first place - only you are quite willing to simply ignore the evidence and replace it with happy wishful thinking. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931/94 "2008-04-15T15:12:46Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Yes, but the assertion is that any one theology is more likely to create fanatics than any other religion. Historically, there is no indication that Islamic theology has any more intrinsic ability to create violent fanaticism than Christianity. [/QUOTE] You’re up to your usual games I see. Of course you had to throw the word “historically” in to give yourself a few thousand years to backpedal into. In our times, today, Islam is used as an excuse to murder people. That is a fact. Do you deny it? I’m sure there have been those of other religions that committed murder or other atrocities in the name of their religion, but—again, in our times—that is a rare occurrence compared to the incidence of Muslim’s committing these acts because, and this is the crucial part, _because_ of their religion. Cites for this have already been offered you by others. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931/95 "2008-04-15T15:21:02Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] It is you who are advancing the hypothesis - the extraordinary one that the content of theology has _no affect whatsoever_ on action. For which yiou have advanced no proof whatsoever, except for the trite observation that not all who share a theology become violent. [/quote] The vast _majority_ of thsoe who sharet the theology don’t become violent. Also, Christian theology doesn’t change, yet sometimes Christianity producs more fanaticism and sometimes less. Obvioulsy the theology is not a variable. > [@](#): > > No, you were not. You claimed that there was only _one_ meaning - a spirtual one - and only as an afterthought contradicted yourself by reluctantly admitting that it may also mean “self-defense”. The primary meaning is theological and, for most Muslims, is the only meaning that’s ever applicable. > [@](#): > > Quite obviously I was right all along, when I pointed out that jihad has two meanings - “inner struggle” and “physical struggle against enemies”. > > The “…in self defense” bit > > Please point out where in the article in mentions that jihad can only be waged in “self defence”. > > I’ll save you the trouble - it doesn’t. > > Here is a relevant quote:[./quote > Your quote backs up up all the way. You must really have reading problems. > > The operative phrase is not “self defence”, but to fight those who “transgressed against them”. > > This distinction is important. Take the example of offensive cartoons. Fighting against those who produce offensive cartoons cannot be said to be “self defense” but can easily be seen as fighting against those who “transgress against Islam”. Which is defined as “…those who fought you because of your religion and drove you out of your homes, and came to the help of those who drove you out.” In orther words, it refers to direct self-defense. > [@](#): > > Evidently a significant minority disagrees. less than 1% is not a significant minority. > [@](#): > > Given your views, I would bet that the big blow-up over cartoons is a total mystery. Yet with a correct understanding of mainstream Islamic theology, it becomes instantly comprehensible. It’s understandable that mainstream Islam would find the depoiction of Mohammed objectionable, but most Muslims didn’t become violent about it. > [@](#): > > Yes it does, which is why we have this problem in the first place - only you are quite willing to simply ignore the evidence and replace it with happy wishful thinking. You have yet to produce a single piece of evidence other than the circular arguiment that religious zealots justify themselves with_ad hoc_ and _a posteri_ distortions of whatever religion they chance to be a part of. ---
**Author:** ![Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4da419/32.png) [@Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gala_Matrix_Fire)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931/96 "2008-04-15T23:17:35Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] I don’t buy that. There are plenty of desperately poor Catholics in Africs and South America, and they’re not blowing people up in the name of religion. Tibet is not exactly having a grand time of it, yet I don’t see the Dali Lama supplying his people with suicide vests. The world is full of poor, abused, and disadvantaged people. Of all religions. Islam seems unique in its response. [/QUOTE] How did you miss these Catholics in[Africa?](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3561365.stm) > [@](#): > > Her family were Catholic, she says. Those who killed them worshipped at the same church. > [@](#): > > When I realised that the people I was praying with killed my parents, I preferred to become a Muslim because Muslims did not kill." > [@](#): > > Before the genocide more than 60% of Rwandans were Catholic. > > And when the killings started, tens of thousands of Tutsis fled to churches for sanctuary. But they found little protection there. > > Churches became sites of slaughter, carried out even at the altar. > [@](#): > > During the genocide, hundreds of Tutsis crammed inside here trying to escape the horrors unfolding outside. But Hutu militias came repeatedly with lists of those to be killed. > > The priest in charge of the church, Father Wenceslas Munyeshyaka, is blamed for colluding with the killers. > > Discarding his priest’s cassock, witnesses say he took to wearing a flack jacket and carrying a pistol. And from [this site](http://www.afrol.com/Countries/Rwanda/backgr_cross_genocide.htm), which I don’t know anything about: > [@](#): > > Like the Catholics, many within the hierarchy of the Protestant churches had had close links with the Hutu regimes since independence. These links continued when the government was radicalised step by step. The profound links were clearly demonstrated when most of the Rwandan church leaders fled the country following the military defeat of the government responsible for the genocide. This did not mean that the church hierarchies were systematically involved in the planning of the genocide, but it indicated that the churches as organisations had not taken the responsibilities they were supposed to, due to their too close links to the government. > > Not only were Christian members of the congregations of every single denomination in Rwanda responsible for the most appalling atrocities, but many massacres took place in the parishes where the targets of the genocide had sought sanctuary. Many church leaders have since acknowledged that the Church in Rwanda failed as an institution, although individual clergy showed immense courage, risking their lives to save those of others. ---
**Author:** ![Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4da419/32.png) [@Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gala_Matrix_Fire)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931/97 "2008-04-15T23:28:15Z")
Whoops, I forgot the [Lord’s Resistance Army.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army) > [@](#): > > The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA),[1] formed in 1987, is a rebel self-proclaimed Christian guerrilla army operating mainly in northern Uganda and parts of Sudan. The group is engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government in what is now one of Africa’s longest-running conflicts[…]The group aim to establish a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments and Acholi tradition.[2][3] The LRA is accused of widespread human rights violations, including mutilation, torture, rape, the abduction of civilians, the use of child soldiers and a number of massacres.[citation needed] ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931/98 "2008-04-15T23:31:23Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I’ve said nothing extraordinary. I’m only showing that your hypothesis about the cause of religious fanaticism has a hole in it, since most people who ascribe to those theologies don’t become fanatics. In order to make your hypothesis fly, you’ll have to explain what prevents the majority from becoming violent. [/QUOTE] No he doesn’t; he just has to demonstrate that not all religions have the same proportion of fanatics. How many buddhist fanatics have there been, percentagewise? How about scientologist fanatics? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931/99 "2008-04-15T23:56:26Z")
[QUOTE=begbert2] No he doesn’t; he just has to demonstrate that not all religions have the same proportion of fanatics. [/quote] He would have to remove all other variables and show that theology alone was accountable for any difference in ratio. > [@](#): > > How many buddhist fanatics have there been, percentagewise? They emerge under pressure. believ it or noyt, there are Buddhist terrorists. > [@](#): > > How about scientologist fanatics? Scientilogy is really more of a scam than a religion but I guess they have Tom Cruise. also, most members are kept in the dark about the theology. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931/100 "2008-04-19T23:26:05Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] It may come as a shock to you but most of them don’t. The guerilla tactics and the terrorism are a _result_ of the apartheid. Without the apartheid, there would be no terrorism. > [@](#): > > Sorry your "desperately poor Palestinian Apartheid victims "doesn’t jerk any tears from this non Jew and non Israeli.[/.quote] > Obviously, if you think of Palestinans as subhumans, there’s no point trying to talk to you. > > I guess you lack either education or humanity. I’m not going to waste my time trying to enlighten you. You’re clearly very comfortable with your predudices. To answer your"points",you seem a little confused about cause and effect,no I’m sorry but the terrorism continues and continues to get a remarkedly restrained response from the I.D.F.,stop murdering Israeli civilians at random and maybe in time they’ll start trusting the Palestinians a little more. Oh and as to the potential shock to me when I find out that most Palestinians actually DONT celebrate the deaths of Israelis or Westerners whether military or civilian …well I dont think that I’ll be needing sedation for a little while yet. I’m speaking from my own first hand experience,visual and aural,NOT from something somebody told me about or something I saw on T.V. Perhaps if you have ever been there in the first place it might be a good idea to pay another visit to Gaza/WB pretty soon. Your ideas about the Palestinian mind set is not out of date,it never was in date. To make it clear for you "love thy neighbour "has never been one of the great Palestinian virtues reference Israel. Please have the dignity and the moral courage to debate the things that I have actually said and not make nasty little slurs against me,I have never EVER said that I consider the Palestinians to be sub Human EVER. That is one of the most cowardly and untrue non points ever made on these boards. Finally actually I am quite reasonably well educated,I cant assess my own humanity as that is a subjective thing,that said I dont think that many Palestinians will be giving me lessons on that particular topic any day soon. As to not wasting time trying in the future to enlighten me!well you certainly haven’t made any attempt in this post,mostly I suspect because you can not. Your entire post has been a personal attack on me plus one “No it isn’t.Yes it is” You dont really seem to have anything of any value to contribute to the debate to be honest. Oh and as to my "prejudice"I have actually spent some time living amongst the Palestinians and did know more then a few personally,funnily enough it was the Israelis who questioned me and made me leave the country. So what book or T.V. programme are your opinions based on? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-much-for-the-idea-that-only-muslims-threaten-violence-over-images-they-dont-like/444931.md?page=6)