A lot of majority-Muslim countries are poor, with dysfunctional governments. That’s a recipe for tribal thinking, as opposed to tolerance and individual rights.
The same way that TVs and lawn mowers are. They occurred because Western countries had material factors (like stable governments, and wealth) that contributed to their development, not because of Judaism or Christianity.
“B-b-but the Crusades!!!”
Lots of examples on display in this thread of what the late Lawrence Auster used to call “non-Islam theories of Islamic extremism.”
The reason many Muslims support killing apostates is that the Koran and Hadith say to do so.
The “but the Bible contains references to violence too” argument is irrelevant. The Bible doesn’t contain any direct commandments to kill apostates, unlike the Koran and Hadith.
By all means, tell us where the “direct commandments to kill apostates” are in the Quran.
You are being incredibly generous to Christianity and the West with your timeline. Witch trials and executions were widely carried out into the 18th century. And biblical admonitions were used to justify the legal and cultural prohibitions of race mixing that fueled the epidemic of lynching Black Americans, which lasted into the last century.
As far as the similar practice of killing people accused of being witches, some of the early opposition was based, not on the principle that killing people for being witches was wrong, but on criticism of the methods used to convict people of witchcraft. This is similar to today, many Muslims will condemn ISIS or Saudi Arabia or Iran for punishing or killing people for crimes of conscience or consensual sex, but still hold a belief that such punishments would be just if carried out in a proper manner under a legitimate Islamic authority. They will condemn humans who carry out the punishments, but not criticize the code of conduct itself. Often this is followed up by the assertion that under such ideal circumstances the harsh punishments would greatly deter the so-called crimes, and so the punishments would rarely have to be carried out, and so the cost of implementing such barbarity would be outweighed by the benefits of eliminating the supposed negative effects on families and society caused by homosexuality, adultery, and the social disruption due to open rejection of Islam.
In the West the practice might have been mitigated by skepticism of the ability of the trials to determine who was a witch, but it was finally eliminated by the rejection of the underlying supernatural beliefs, in favor of a rational, evidence based worldview:
The 18th century witnessed increased urbanisation and technological development in Europe, which gave Early Modern society an increased belief in its own abilities to fashion the world; this led to a decreasing belief in the existence of invisible forces affecting humanity.[52] Belief that Satan interfered in human affairs directly had also begun to wane.[53] Belief in demons became rare among the educated elites, and thus a belief in demonic witchcraft eroded with it.[54] Rationalist sceptics of the trials came to the opinion that the use of torture had resulted in erroneous testimony
Ex-Muslim: Leaving Islam - BBC News
This is an interesting short program by apostates themselves that explores the issues we are discussing here.
From your cite:
Feel free to change my dates to 400 years ago instead of 500. But the killing of witches was a fringe practice 300 years ago.
That practice subsided less than 300 years ago, one doesn’t have to look back 500 or 600 years. African Americans were regularly being lynched 100 and 200 years ago, often by those motivated by a bionically informed fear of miscegenation.
I didn’t say you were wrong to focus that far back, but that you were being generous, since we don’t have to look nearly that far back to find similar behavior in the West.
Yes, and both St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas also both believed the Bible commanded such things of Christians and they are both still to this day regarded as amongst the greatest of Christian theologians. They just said “heretic” instead of “apostate”. And please no one try and embarrass themselves by claiming that either man “misinterpreted” the Bible or that they personally knew better than those men. They both were very aware of the Sermon on the Mount and
As people can imagine, I’m hardly a big defender of Islam and have less than flattering opinions of Islam’s treatment of apostates and have personal reasons for this.
However, people who ascribe such differences between modern Christians and modern Muslims believe are being ridiculously deterministic.
The very last words my father ever heard from my uncle was a statement that if he ever saw him again, he would kill him. However, was this because my uncle was a huge reader do the Quran or an expert on Islam? No, he was neither of those.
The reason he ddid so was because Muslims and Christians have fundamentally different views of what it means to be a Muslim and a Christian. To Muslims, the Umah(Muslim community) is something you are born into rather than something you choose to join as western Christians, since the Renaissance, have believed. As a result, my father rather foolishly telling his brother what he felt about Muhammad and Islam had vastly more severe ramifications than if my mother had made similar comments regarding Christianity to her parents.
Add of course to this the mix that Muslims are vastly more likely to feel under siege or oppressed than Christians and one can see why the groups would have different attitudes. I suspect that were one to travel to Lebanon and ask a Maronite family what they’d feel about people abandoning Christianity and they’d hardly just shrug it off.
The only sensible answer to this is that they are taught to believe this is the right punishment for apostates, either by parents / relatives or by Imams at Friday sermons. These beliefs don’t arise in a vacuum.
It’s true you can point to various old testament verses that say similar things about heretics in Christianity, but the difference is there is NO current mainstream Christian sect that preaches that Christian heretics deserve to die. While with Islam is is openly the mainstream position in many muslim majority countries.
Be glad to:
13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,
13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;
13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;
13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.
13:16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.
17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:
17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
The numbers above refer to the chapters and verses of Deuteronomy, which I assume is one of the books in the Quran.
In other words, Muslims take their holy scriptures seriously, while Christians don’t – or at least, they haven’t since they lost the secular power to enforce Biblical law. I don’t have much use for either religion, but Muslims are easier to understand.
Well, Christians divide their scripture into an Old and a New Testament. Seeing as how Deuteronomy is in the Old Testament, it’s disingenuous to say Christians don’t take their scripture seriously for not abiding by rules Christian theology has long taught are no longer applicable. But I suspect you already knew that.
But really, the fact that some seem to think it’s just so coy equate present day Christianity with present day Islam, despite the latter having a much higher body count in the past quarter century, is depressing.
And I suspect that you know that Christianity has hundreds of denominations that differ on many things, including who should interpret scripture, and I don’t see how anybody could interpret the Sermon on the Mount to mean that Christians are free to ignore the Mosaic Law. Heaven and earth are still here, and few of the things Jesus prophesied have been fulfilled.
What I know is that Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible they think are still relevant. They want the Ten Commandments posted in schools, courthouses, and state capitol buildings, but they also want to work and play on the Sabbath. And most are fine with divorce, even though that’s permitted by Moses, but prohibited by Jesus.
The Christian US killed hundreds of times as many civilians in Bush’s misbegotten invasion as Muslims have, so you are factually wrong, even though you cherry-picked your starting date to avoid that pesky Holocaust.
I think we’re getting a little off-topic here. The central question is why are so many Muslims so hostile to apostates? Is it religion? Culture? Both? Something else entirely?
Mainstream Christian thought has looked at Mosaic Law as part of the old covenant that was suspended with the coming of Christ.
You’re throwing around the would “they” as if Christians were monolithic, yet there’s also hundreds of denominations you suspect I’m aware of. Pick a tact and stick with it.
The Holocaust wasn’t carried out in the name of Christianity. The invasion of Iraq wasn’t carried out in the name of Christianity.
If you really want an answer, you should be asking this on a board that has high Muslim participation, not a board that proves daily how little Americans know about Islam.
Care to provide any examples of things people on this board get wrong about Islam?
I have. It didn’t go well. Now can we please stop this hijack.
One of the major points of the Reformation was to let Christians interpret the Bible for themselves, rather than be told how to interpret it, but even so, you are mistaken. It is a tenet of many major denominations, including Roman Catholic, that strict obedience to Mosaic Law has been replaced by acceptance of Jesus as the way to salvation, but that its moral (as opposed to ceremonial) laws are still valid.
You might want to read the works of Luther before you assume there was no religious element in the Holocaust, or even in Bush’s self-acknowledged and God-ordained “crusade.”
That aside, I assume from your contrasting the Holocaust with the OP’s cites indicates that you have the definitive answer to the OP’s question, i.e. that it is all due to Islam.
Personally, I’m not so sure. I think a large part of it is probably fear of outsiders. Trump wants to kill Muslim civilians, and some of his colleagues on stage want to carpet bomb, or bomb till the sand glows, or whatever. Do you think that they are religiously motivated, too, or are they just afraid of outsiders?