Is Islam really a violent religion?

[Bahadur]

A comment on Japanese-American internment during WWII:

The singular justification for interning Americans of Japanese descent was suspicion of treason and sabotage. Yet, the Japanese-Americans of Hawaii were not mass-interned like those on the mainland.

Why - even though those on Hawaii would have been in an excellent position to wreak havoc on the myriad of crucial military facilities on Hawaii?

Simple - because without the Japanese-Americans on Hawaii, the economic-military functioning of the latter would've been nearly impossible.

Meaning, it was an illogical decision one way or another. That is, if the justification of the fear of sabotage were really true, then the Hawaiian Japanese should've been interned too. If the justfication did not hold, then the mainland Japanese-Americans should not have been interned. There IS no middle ground.

Yet, the political-military authorities of the time chose that "mixed" solution, because their prejudice was tempered by practical considerations (military necessity of needing people for Hawaii's functioning).

 

[Bahadur]

Another comment on Islam and violence:

It seems to me that some people are falling for a rather easy fallacy: confusing correlation with causation.

Example: A higher percentage of blacks commit crime than whites. Therefore, blacks are more criminal than whites (or worse, if you are black, you are more likely to be a criminal; or worse still, being black CAUSES you to be a criminal).

Here we have a correlation between blacks and a high incidence of crime. There is, however, no established causation - that being blacks causes criminality.

There could be a perfectly reasonable alternative to that fallacious generalization, for example, that extreme poverty combined with bad or non-existent parenting causes crime, and the statistics demonstrate that indeed such elements may correlate better with crime than "black."

Now, let's look at the observation that "A lot of violent terrorists are Muslims" which, even if true, is only a correlation. Some people now seem to draw the fallacious conclusion from that, that "Therefore, Islam causes violence."

Did they consider a perfectly plausible alternative that negates that faulty causation - that, for example, countries with poverty, instability, low literacy and ethnic tension "breed" more terrorists and that many Muslims happen to live in countries with such conditions. In that case, the causal factor (that element which causes violence) is not the religion, Islam, but the social conditions of the particular countries. Meaning, Islam is not a "necessary condition" nor a "sufficient condition" for violence, because one can find a failed (largely) Christian society (say, Columbia) that is racked by violence, instability and narco-terrorism that spills beyond its borders. In such a case, the causal factor of the violence is the social-economic-political condition of the country, not the religion (of course, that does not stop the religion from being - not a cause - but a vehicle of the violence).

In addition, one can make a further argument that, because Islam happens to be a very egalitarianism-oriented (among men any way) religion in theory, it appeals to downtrodden people in such nations.

If that were to be the case, the elements that cause violence may also cause people to become adherents of Islam in such a society. In that case, Islam and violence co-occur, but Islam does not cause violence (the same set factors cause both).

In either case, Islam is not the condition which CAUSES violence, which can be translated to contradict the statement that "Islam is inherently violent" (or "Islam makes its adherent violent").

 

[BigG]

Proving causation is almost impossible. That's why scientists nearly always say ____ is linked to ____ . No way to prove causation.

 

[cuchulainn]

Proving causation is almost impossible. That's why scientists nearly always say ____ is linked to ____ . No way to prove causation.

Yeah, scientists have merely shown that sex is linked to pregnancy.

 

[buzz_knox]

While Bahadur makes some good points, there is one aspect of Islam that I do believe lends itself to terrorism. That is, the idea that a person can gain instant salvation and eternal happiness by becoming a martyr. That is easily perverted into becoming a martyr by killing the "infidel." I'm not aware of any major religion which such a tenet, although some fanatical Christian sects have adopted a similar view towards the killing of abortion doctors (i.e. taking a life to save thousands).

 

[RON in PA]

I have the following problems with Islam: Since its founding by Mohammad it has been spread by the sword, Jews and Christians while "people of the book" are still second class citizens (Dhemmi), countries conquered by Islam have their national cultures destroyed or converted to an Arab or Turkic, Muslim one and once a land is conquered by Islam it is anathema to Moslems that the land revert to its original culture and religion ( and that's what the Israeli conflict is all about)..

Islam by its very nature is peaceful only to Muslems, everyone else watch out.

 

[cuchulainn]

buzz_knox,

There is a difference between aspects that lend themselves to terrorism (read "can be perverted") and the entire religion being inherently violent, indeed the root cause of violence.

RON in PA,

You just described my own religion, Christianity, for the majority of its history.

 

[Mike Irwin]

You've also just described Western Culture to a T, Ron.

Spread by the Sword -- check.

Other people of the book are second class citizens -- Check

Conquored nations have national identity destroyed -- Check

Return to national or cultural identity is anathma -- Check

Good primer for Christianity 101.

 

[longeyes]

"You've also just described Western Culture to a T, Ron.

Spread by the Sword -- check.

Other people of the book are second class citizens -- Check

Conquored nations have national identity destroyed -- Check

Return to national or cultural identity is anathma -- Check

Good primer for Christianity 101."

Interesting that you have to use aggressive, repressive, and racist Western inventions like the computer, the modem, and the Internet to make your points. We really are brutes here in the West, you're right, sir, and we have created a nightmare for everyone. I had thought, looking around me, that maybe we'd done something right along the way. You learn something every day.

 

[ahenry]

I am not the slightest bit interested in entering this debate, other than to argue a side issue, so check yourself before you look for your high-horse.

Bahadur,

It seems to me that some people are falling for a rather easy fallacy: confusing correlation with causation.

Not necessarily. Remember I am not coming down on any side in this debate, so take this as its intended. The greater the number of incidences that show a correlation increase the likelihood of causation. Allow me to provide a true illustration. If every time walk out into bright sunlight from more subdued lighting, I sneeze, I can begin to suspect there is causation from the sunlight*. Not necessarily something I can prove, but when it happens with such regularity and such certainty that I can reliably predict it, there is a good chance there is causation there. So while it is true that one cannot necessarily say that two events equal causation, repetition of those two events over and over and over again can reliably indicate that there is actually causation. It seems to me that you are falling for a rather easy fallacy: that unless explicitly proven, correlation can never indicate causation.



*It is called Autosomal Dominant Compelling Helio-Ophthalmic Outburst, or ACHOO Syndrome. For those not aware of somebody with this, its pretty funny...but I digress.

 

[longeyes]

"Did they consider a perfectly plausible alternative that negates that faulty
causation - that, for example, countries with poverty, instability, low literacy and
ethnic tension "breed" more terrorists and that many Muslims happen to live in
countries with such conditions. In that case, the causal factor (that element
which causes violence) is not the religion, Islam, but the social conditions of the
particular countries."

Where did these social conditions come from? Interesting how a society suffused with a certain mind-set that affects all aspects of its behavior, by its own choice and design, is not to be implicated in that society's problems.

Some cultures are more adaptive than others.

 

[Marko Kloos]

longeyes,

the advances of Western civilization are not the point of contention here. Mike was pointing out that Christianity has been spread by exactly the same methods, which is a historic fact beyond contention. The near extermination of the American Indians, and their cultural treatment afterwards, are just one example.

Is Western culture superior? Sure. Are our achievenemts more impressive? Sure! But don't kid yourself into thinking that Christianity was mostly spread by friendly missionaries with flowers, who would politely persuade the natives.

Besides, Western advances have only been made by science after throwing off the shackles of medieval theocracies, after the Renaissance. Western wealth and knowledge is the fruit of reason and science, not religion. We are where we are because we've had a Renaissance where the influence of religion was greatly curbed. Without our Renaissance, the church would still burn people at the stake for promoting the idea of a heliocentric universe.

Islam hasn't had its renaissance yet, and it's badly overdue for one.

 

[cuchulainn]

Interesting that you have to use aggressive, repressive, and racist Western inventions like the computer, the modem, and the Internet to make your points.

Edited to read: What lendsringer said (except the "superior" part and the failure to mention that a big portion of our science and technology is rooted in medieval Islamic nations.)

Where did these social conditions come from? Interesting how a society suffused with a certain mind-set that affects all aspects of its behavior, by its own choice and design, is not to be implicated in that society's problems.

What about the abject poverty in Christian South America?

 

[longeyes]

I wasn't defending religion, I was defending Reason. Our best hopes lie not in utopian brotherhoods but in the self-interested mediocrities of mass capitalism. People who can buy cheap at Costco are less likely to pursue messianic, even suicidal, agendas out of desperation. If that means endless tract houses and bad tv, hey, don't blame me, I didn't design the human animal.

My view is that Islam requires the same "Reformation" that other faiths have undergone, becoming "kinder and gentler" as it becomes more secularized.

 

[longeyes]

cuchulainn

My point was that certain ways of seeing the world conduce to less than ideal social and economic and political outcomes. Of course that is not unique to any one faith. The West has certainly had its benighted periods and even the so-called modern scientific period seems to have often sacrificed its rational achievements for irrational ambitions.

 

[cuchulainn]

longeyes,

Religion not as the opiate of the people, but the speedball of the people?

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Interesting that you have to use aggressive, repressive, and racist Western inventions like the computer, the modem, and the Internet to make your points. We really are brutes here in the West, you're right, sir, and we have created a nightmare for everyone. I had thought, looking around me, that maybe we'd done something right along the way. You learn something every day."


Yes, you certainly do learn something every day.

I just learned that you've missed the point entirely.

But, since you desire to take it down to this level, let's step back to the mathematical foundations that make the computer, modem, and internet possible...

Developed in Islamic lands at a time when western civilization was remarkably similar to to what some people are claiming about Islam today.

Algebra? Developed by Muslim mathematicians, most specifically by Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi in the early 800s. Interestingly, he lived in Baghdad.

Concept of the zero as it appears in western mathematics? Muslim. It was unknown in Europe until the Crusaders actually brought back some Arabic texts, instead of just burning them.

Trigonometry? The principles of modern trig were largely codified by one Abul Wefa between 980 and 990 a.d.

Physical sciences? Largely based on the work done in the Muslim world, and transplanted to the West.


The history lesson aside, you miss the point of this entire discussion, that Islam is in reality no more or less violent, than most other religions, and is as equally prone to corruption in its name as any other.

 

[cratz2]

I still don't think that any religion itself is to blame. Moreso the fact that it seems to be part of human nature to want to conquer. If you can conquer for yourself, great. If you can conquer for your political leader, great. If you can conqeur for your religion in the name of your God, that's even better.

Islam does teach violence and hatred of other religions, but not dramatically more than natives can learn hatred of rich white men in South Africa and no more than any group can be taught to hate any or all other groups. Just the fact that those that do the hating and violence are rewarded for acting on that hatred for all eternity.

I'm not excusing the atrocities committed by Christians or in the name of Christianity or under the thin veil of Christianity, but can anyone quote passages of religions other than Islam that specifically rewards believers for martyrizing one's self? This is why I believe Islam is more violent, at it's core, than any other religion with which I'm familiar. As I said and as other here have said, I know many peaceful Muslims but if you discuss terrorist activities with them, eventually when tempers flare, an exceptionally high number of them will not speak poorly of them. They may say that the people that flew the planes into the WTC were not talking for them, but few will decry them and say that they are going to rot in hell forever for those actions because Islam teaches that they did this for Allah and against infidels and they are to be rewarded for their actions.

There are many fine people that are Islamic and most would probably never think of acting against thousands of innocents, non-involved, humans like the cowards that attack embassies or the cowards that destroyed the World Trade Center. But there are many that are more than willing to do these things. There are leaders than create false levels of poverty for the sole purpose of having a pool of people that they can offer money to in order to kill those that do not follow Islam. There are bad leaders the world over, most of them I suspect, but most are not so blatant about the 'society' they willingly create for the seeming sole purpose of destroying believers of other religions.

Furthermore, I don't understand how anyone of reasonable intelligence can honesty believe that any just God would reward them for knowingly and intentionally killing childred under the age of 13. It just completely escapes me. Either side... Jews, Christians or Moslims. It is funny that the three religions that are the most closely related are the ones that fight the most, isn't it? That probably says something about all three.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"quote passages of religions other than Islam that specifically rewards believers for martyrizing one's self?"

You don't need to quote passages as the concept of being a martyr for one's faith is well established in the Christian religion, as well.

The example of St. Menas is a good one.

Also, Pope Urban, in addressing members of the First Crusade, told them that were they to die in their effort to purge the Holy Land of Muslims that they would be "martyrs of Chrisendom, beloved of true God." (that's paraphrasing, my history of the Crusades is at home).

That one is particularly interesting, as Urban states that dying in combat while fighting for one's religion is a good thing...

 

[pax]

I'm not excusing the atrocities committed by Christians or in the name of Christianity or under the thin veil of Christianity, but can anyone quote passages of religions other than Islam that specifically rewards believers for martyrizing one's self?

*sigh* I don't have to answer this, but I believe in honesty. So here goes.

O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
blessed is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks. -- Psalm 137:8-9 in the Bible

Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD , come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him. Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD , the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day." -- Exodus 32: 25-29 in the Bible

I specifically chose passages that are common to both Jews and Christians.

My point? Just that Christians who live in glass houses shouldn't stone people.

pax

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. -- William Shakespeare

 

[Mike Irwin]

FOUND IT!

Nothing like a little Christian martyrdom in the time of war...

"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested.

"When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, let this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: It is the will of God! It is the will of God!..."

"We now hold out to you wars which contain the glorious reward of martyrdom, which will retain that title of praise now and forever."

"If in olden times the Maccabees attained to the highest praise of piety because they fought for the ceremonies and the Temple, it is also justly granted you, Christian soldiers, to defend their liberty of your country by armed endeavor. If you, likewise, consider that the abode of the holy apostles and any other saints should be striven for with such effort, why do you refuse to rescue the Cross, the Blood, the Tomb? Why do you refuse to visit them, to spend the price of your lives in rescuing them?"

From five contemporary accounts of Pope Urban II's address at the Council of Clermont in 1095.


There are others, but you get the idea.

 

[RON in PA]

To those who posted that my post applies to Christianity as well as Islam I agree 100%, but this discussion isn't about the sins of the Christians, it's about the contemporary Moslems who are doing the same crap as the Christians did centuries ago. Two wrongs don't make a right and just because the other kids do it doesn't mean you should.

The posters who state that Islam needs a Reformation have hit the nail right on the head.

Mike Irwin: It's very true that in its Golden Age Islam was miles ahead of Europe, but something happened and it ossified. Same can be said of China.

And speaking of China, several years ago I spent a lot of time with fellow researchers that were Chinese . These gentlemen, who were not very religious at all, could not understand the fanaticism and intolerance of Western religion.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"To those who posted that my post applies to Christianity as well as Islam I agree 100%, but this discussion isn't about the sins of the Christians, it's about the contemporary Moslems who are doing the same crap as the Christians did centuries ago. Two wrongs don't make a right and just because the other kids do it doesn't mean you should."

You're right, two wrongs don't make a right.

But to condemn Islam without understanding the history of Christianity is equally wrong. It reminds me of the stridently anti-smoker who used to smoke. Great, you quit. Stop being so ing righteous about it.

To broadly paint Islam as a religion of violence and give it no further thought is wrong.

To categorize all Muslim faithful as murderous savages who have nothing but killing infidels on the mind is wrong.

To fail (or worse, to not care) to understand how religious tenets can be hijacked by fanatics who twist the religion to their own perverse ends is wrong.

Those 4 wrongs don't make ignorance, narrow mindedness, or bigotry right, either.


"could not understand the fanaticism and intolerance of Western religion."

I share that position with your Chinese friends.

 

[cuchulainn]

this discussion isn't about the sins of the Christians, it's about the contemporary Moslems who are doing the same crap as the Christians did centuries ago.

No, it's about whether Islam is a violent religion. You just described adherents of a religion who are violent. There is a big difference between the two.

Two wrongs don't make a right and just because the other kids do it doesn't mean you should.

No one suggested otherwise.

The posters who state that Islam needs a Reformation have hit the nail right on the head.

Perhaps. I'll give them this: by seeing Islam as capable of reform, at least they are not in the "inherently violent" camp.

 

[MeekandMild]

Mike was pointing out that Christianity has been spread by exactly the same methods, which is a historic fact beyond contention.

I wonder if anyone here has bothered to look at the chronology of this phenomenom. My old college medieval history professor used to nearly foam at the mouth when he discussed the crusades, but he couldn't argue when it came to admitting they were a reaction to Islamic expansionism.

Basically the West learned genocidal warfare from the Pagan Romans, nearly forgot it for a time when the Empire was christianized then resurrected it, relearning it from the medieval Moslems.

(Christianity was the religion of the slaves and when paganism failed it was either luck or Divine providence that christianity won out over the competing Mithraism of the soldier class. There is some pretty solid evidence that much of the evil attributed to Chistianity was actually due to residual Mithran elements in society, but that isn't the topic of discussion today.)

We see the same misconceptions about Israel and Zionism today. They are defamed at every quarter but nobody ever mentions that Zionism was a reaction to Moslem attempts to wipe out Palistinian Jews in the 1900's.

For all the talk about Christian and Jewish intolerance we see the Moslem minorities in the US and Israel much better treated than the minorities in any Islamic theocracy. Chistians and Jews are accused of being intolerant toward Islam. Of course it is a common "liberal" techique to beat the sh*t out of someone then shout them down, saying they are intolerent.

My 2 cents worth.