Why do muslims have a propensity towards violence over other faiths?

ironingbored

I think the heading is self-explanitory but why indeed do muslims or those of the Islamic religion seem to harbour a propensity to killing in the name of their god over other religions?

I know that certain christian fundies have been responsible for murdering abortion doctors and that certain extreme sects have committed atrocities in the past, but it does seem that the islamic faith somehow facilitates the descent into mindless killing of men, women and children.

I was thinking of posting this in the Islam forum but maybe a mod might think that it is a more appropriate there so be it.

Gambler

I don't believe they have any more propensity.. And if you look at it they have a long way to catch up to the christians in the killing in the name of their god..

Zillah

Well, one reason is that the Qur'an specifically calls for violent resistance to an attack upon Islam, which is what many view the constant Western interference in their affairs as.

The second, and biggest reason, is that the West has been bullying, bombing, taking advantage of and generally making a complete and utter mess of the Middle East for decades and they're getting very pissed off. I guarantee you that if the Christian world were politically, economically, and militarily being dominated and destroyed by a Muslim super-power we'd see similar fanaticism. Hell, look at the reaction that a single relatively small military attack in New York caused.

bill_ashmount

ironingbored wrote: »

I think the heading is self-explanitory but why indeed do muslims or those of the Islamic religion seem to harbour a propensity to killing in the name of their god over other religions?

They don't.

Christians have been responsible for killing millions throughout history.

ironingbored

Gambler wrote: »

I don't believe they have any more propensity.. And if you look at it they have a long way to catch up to the christians in the killing in the name of their god..

Okay, but in 2008 should it be a case of catching up on 13th century christian butchers?

ironingbored

Zillah wrote: »

Well, one reason is that the Qur'an specifically calls for violent resistance to an attack upon Islam, which is what many view the constant Western interference in their affairs as.

The second, and biggest reason, is that the West has been bullying, bombing, taking advantage of and generally making a complete and utter mess of the Middle East for decades and they're getting very pissed off. I guarantee you that if the Christian world were politically, economically, and militarily being dominated and destroyed by a Muslim super-power we'd see similar fanaticism. Hell, look at the reaction that a single relatively small military attack in New York caused.

I am specifically talking about the relative ease with which muslims can call upon their holy book to butcher innocent civilians in recent years.

Although, I abhor the actions of western governments in Iraq and other places, the naked, systemic means by which islamists seem to be called to murder innocent men, women and children is singular to say the least.

It is also worth pointing out that many muslim countries interfere in the running of neighbouring countries, e.g. Iran, Pakistan, etc.

kmick

Religion gets in the way of logical thinking. It is often exasperated by people being poor and ill educated. Add in a dose of repression and a a pinch of hate and you have violence.

ironingbored

kmick wrote: »

Religion gets in the way of logical thinking.

You said it!

kmick wrote: »

It is often exasperated by people being poor and ill educated. Add in a dose of repression and a a pinch of hate and you have violence.

Is it the fault of western governments that the majority of muslim countries are poor and ill-educated? Why is it that wherever islam is predominant ignorance and superstition prevail?

Gambler

Okay, but in 2008 should it be a case of catching up on 13th century christian butchers?

To be honest I'm just pointing out that Muslims aren't the only ones that have been violent on behalf of their god. I've said it before but it's things like this that convince me that religion has a net negative effect on humanity.

I am specifically talking about the relative ease with which muslims can call upon their holy book to butcher innocent civilians in recent years.

Although, I abhor the actions of western governments in Iraq and other places, the naked, systemic means by which islamists seem to be called to murder innocent men, women and children is singular to say the least.

Christians can, have and do call on the bible just as easily to do just as bad. There is nothing singular about the current situation, it's just the latest version of the same old story. Give it a thousand years and you'll probably have a load of muslims asking how all these "enter the latest religious craze here" can use their holy videos to inspire violence on innocent men, women and children..

ChocolateSauce

I would suggest it isn't Islam so much as religion full stop. Places which do not have huge problems with religiously-driven violence (like the west, South America, Japan, China) are relatively secular compared to the middle east (when we had those problems, we were steepted in fanaticism). I suppose India is a major exception, but Hinduism has always been peaceful compared to the monotheisms.

Gambler

Is it the fault of western governments that the majority of muslim countries are poor and ill-educated? Why is it that wherever islam is predominant ignorance and superstition prevail?

Where do you get that idea from? Malaysia is the perfect example in that it's a muslim state and I doubt many people would say most Malaysians are ignorant and superstitious?

Edit: Here's some more countries to bear in mind while you're at it:
Turkey
Morocco
Dubai
Iran (some people may disagree)
United Arab Emirates & Qatar
Egypt

robindch

Zillah wrote: »

The second, and biggest reason, is that the West has been bullying, bombing, taking advantage of and generally making a complete and utter mess of the Middle East for decades

In fairness to the western governments, most of the regional governments in the Middle East have shown a singular lack of interest in attempting to deal with, let alone actually solve, their own regional problems.

Religion arguably has its uses in tribal and other pre-state societies, but it's a sodden foundation upon which to base a modern state.

robindch

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Hinduism has always been peaceful compared to the monotheisms.

That seems to have changed over the last ten or twenty years, especially since the rise to power of the rather nasty Bharatiya Janata Party in India.

ironingbored

Gambler wrote: »

Where do you get that idea from? Malaysia is the perfect example in that it's a muslim state and I doubt many people would say most Malaysians are ignorant and superstitious?

Although the Malaysian constitution theoretically guarantees religious freedom, in practice the situation is restricted. Additionally, all non-Muslims who marry a Muslim must renounce their religion and convert to Islam. Meanwhile, non-Muslims experience restrictions in activities such as construction of religious buildings and the celebration of certain religious events in some states.[68][69] Muslims are obliged to follow the decisions of Syariah courts when it comes to matters concerning their religion. The jurisdiction of Syariah court is limited only to Muslims over matters of Faith and Obligations as a Muslim, which includes marriage, inheritance, apostasy, conversion, and custody among others.

Gambler wrote: »

Edit: Here's some more countries to bear in mind while you're at it:
Turkey
Morocco
Dubai
Iran (some people may disagree)
United Arab Emirates & Qatar
Egypt

Iran :eek:

pH

kmick wrote: »

Religion gets in the way of logical thinking. It is often exasperated by people being poor and ill educated. Add in a dose of repression and a a pinch of hate and you have violence.

It's all very well to say that, but Osama Bin Laden was in no way poor or ill educated. 15 of the 911 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, 2 from the UAE, and one each from Egypt and Lebanon. None of them were particularly poor or ill educated either.

PDN

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I would suggest it isn't Islam so much as religion full stop. Places which do not have huge problems with religiously-driven violence (like the west, South America, Japan, China) are relatively secular compared to the middle east (when we had those problems, we were steepted in fanaticism). I suppose India is a major exception, but Hinduism has always been peaceful compared to the monotheisms.

Self-righteous hypocrisy is not an attractive sight. Hatred and violence is to do with the human condition, not religion.

Centuries ago there was great violence and bloodshed caused by those who called themselves Christians.

More recently untold slaughter has been caused by atheists (China, Soviet Union, Cambodia, North Korea) and even by Buddhists (read up on the Rape of Nanking).

It's interesting to hear China being held up as a non-violent secular society. Even now there are Christians languishing in Chinese prisons with their toenails pulled out with pliers for daring to worship in an unregistered church.

ChocolateSauce

robindch wrote: »

That seems to have changed over the last ten or twenty years, especially since the rise to power of the rather nasty Bharatiya Janata Party in India.

Haven't heard of them....I'll google them now.....

...

The party is pledged to build up India as a strong and prosperous nation, which is modern, progressive and enlightened in outlook and which proudly draws inspiration from India's ancient culture and values and thus is able to emerge as a great world power playing an effective role in the comity of Nations for the establishment of world peace and a just international order. The Party aims at establishing a democratic state which guarantees to all citizens irrespective of caste, creed or sex, political, social and economic justice, equality of opportunity and liberty of faith and expression. The Party shall bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established and to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy and would uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India."
Some of the professed goals of the BJP are:

1. The Repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution, which prevents non-Kashmiris, including Hindus who have fled the area due to increasing terrorism, from owning property in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
2. The Promulgation of a Uniform Common Civil Code, which create only one personal and civil law code for Hindus, Muslims and Christians, who enjoy the privilege of having law codes tailored to their religious culture over personal and family matters. In the minds of BJP supporters, this system creates a sense of division in the country between religious communities.
3. A Ban on Cow Slaughter, to honor the Hindu tradition of deeming cows and most cattle as sacred, and prohibiting the consumption of beef and pork.
4. The Ban on Forcible Religious Conversions
5. The Construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple in Ayodhya.
6. To achieve the full territorial and political integration of Jammu and Kashmir with India. Presently over 40% of the territory is under the control of Pakistan and China.

From wikipedia...they sound alright, a major party could be a lot worse (GOP?). Anything in particular they've done come to mind?

ChocolateSauce

PDN wrote: »

Self-righteous hypocrisy is not an attractive sight. Hatred and violence is to do with the human condition, not religion.

Centuries ago there was great violence and bloodshed caused by those who called themselves Christians.

More recently untold slaughter has been caused by atheists (China, Soviet Union, Cambodia, North Korea) and even by Buddhists (read up on the Rape of Nanking).

It's interesting to hear China being held up as a non-violent secular society. Even now there are Christians languishing in Chinese prisons with their toenails pulled out with pliers for daring to worship in an unregistered church.

These crimes by atheists are not committed in the name of atheism, but in the name of state, national security, ethnic cleansing, personal paranoia, etc, so your argument that atheism causes destruction is unfounded.

PDN

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

These crimes by atheists are not committed in the name of atheism, but in the name of state, national security, ethnic cleansing, personal paranoia, etc, so your argument that atheism causes destruction is unfounded.

So crimes were committed "in the name of" personal paranoia?

Why don't you read posts before you respond to them. I never argued that atheism causes destruction.

I stated that humans cause destruction, and they will cause destruction for any number of reasons. Atheists, when they have held the reins of power, have proved to be, on average, every bit as, if not more, bloodthirsty as the adherents of any religion. The fact that they slaughtered people under other pretexts than religious pretexts hardly counts as an improvement or as a feather in your cap.

ironingbored

PDN wrote: »

Centuries ago there was great violence and bloodshed caused by those who called themselves Christians.

The operative word there is centuries.

PDN wrote: »

More recently untold slaughter has been caused by atheists (China, Soviet Union, Cambodia, North Korea) and even by Buddhists (read up on the Rape of Nanking).

It's interesting to hear China being held up as a non-violent secular society. Even now there are Christians languishing in Chinese prisons with their toenails pulled out with pliers for daring to worship in an unregistered church.

Atheism was not the driving force behind the cultural revolution. Josef Stalin was educated in a seminary. The soviet regime was a secular pseudo-religious regime and again atheism was not the reason people were sent to the gulags.

As Hitchens explains, there is no country on earth as "religious" as North Korea, which is just one deity shy of a trinity.

Gambler

You said:

Is it the fault of western governments that the majority of muslim countries are poor and ill-educated? Why is it that wherever islam is predominant ignorance and superstition prevail?

And then go on to be just as ignorant by saying:

ironingbored wrote: »

Although the Malaysian constitution theoretically guarantees religious freedom, in practice the situation is restricted. Additionally, all non-Muslims who marry a Muslim must renounce their religion and convert to Islam. Meanwhile, non-Muslims experience restrictions in activities such as construction of religious buildings and the celebration of certain religious events in some states.[68][69] Muslims are obliged to follow the decisions of Syariah courts when it comes to matters concerning their religion. The jurisdiction of Syariah court is limited only to Muslims over matters of Faith and Obligations as a Muslim, which includes marriage, inheritance, apostasy, conversion, and custody among others.

There are some Muslim states that follow those rules but not all countries that are predominantly Muslim follow them

ironingbored wrote: »

Iran :eek:

Iran is actually a country full of very well educated and independent minded people. If you only listen to what America has to say about Iran then yes you would see it as a "bad" country but you certainly couldn't say "Why is it that wherever islam is predominant ignorance and superstition prevail?" in relation to Iran.

PDN

ironingbored wrote: »

Atheism was not the driving force behind the cultural revolution. Josef Stalin was educated in a seminary. The soviet regime was a secular pseudo-religious regime and again atheism was not the reason people were sent to the gulags.

Stalin was educated in a seminary. So what? Most of the atheists on this forum were educated in Catholic schools. Does this mean that they are not really atheists?

It is immaterial whether atheism was the reason why people were sent to the gulags. The point is that you can take religion out of society altogether and people still cheerfully slaughter each other. Whether they do it in the name of atheism, in the name of religion, or in the name of nationalism is immaterial. It is humanity itself which is the problem.

As Hitchens explains, there is no country on earth as "religious" as North Korea, which is just one deity shy of a trinity.

Hitchens is a liar and an ass. He also 'explains' that Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't really a Christian. Hitchens will redefine language on his own terms to suit his own purposes. He would be better to stick to using such sophistry in his role as a sickening apologist for the Iraq war rather than applying his deceit to matters of religion.

robindch

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

These crimes by atheists are not committed in the name of atheism, but in the name of state, national security, ethnic cleansing, personal paranoia, etc, so your argument that atheism causes destruction is unfounded.

Wouldn't worry too much. PDN posts something similar every time that anybody makes the quite reasonable point that religion is used to legitimate violence.

The butchers of Cambodia no doubt believed that taking aspirin cures headaches, but I've yet to see a religious person using PDN's logic to claim that aspirin caused the Killing Fields.

Same logic, similarly silly conclusion.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The point is that you can take religion out of society altogether and people still cheerfully slaughter each other.

Tu Quoque is a poor response to any point.

PDN wrote: »

Whether they do it in the name of atheism, in the name of religion, or in the name of nationalism is immaterial. It is humanity itself which is the problem.

However, you're right to say that humanity is the problem, but religion is a direct contributory factor through its unforgivable advocacy of the irrational over the rational, and its contention that a top-down, unarguable "conservative" approach to social issues is better than any social arrangement arrived at through consensus with, and the consent of, the governed.

ironingbored

Gambler wrote: »

And then go on to be just as ignorant by saying:

I would expect a moderator to know forum rules better than most and refrain from infantile name calling.

Gambler wrote: »

Iran is actually a country full of very well educated and independent minded people. If you only listen to what America has to say about Iran then yes you would see it as a "bad" country but you certainly couldn't say "Why is it that wherever islam is predominant ignorance and superstition prevail?" in relation to Iran.

A country who all the same elected the vile holocaust denying anti-semite Ahmadinejad. America is also full of very well eduacted and independent minded people who still voted bush in not once but twice.

ironingbored

PDN wrote: »

It is immaterial whether atheism was the reason why people were sent to the gulags.

On the contrary, this was the whole basis of my original post.

PDN wrote: »

Hitchens is a liar and an ass. He also 'explains' that Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't really a Christian. Hitchens will redefine language on his own terms to suit his own purposes. He would be better to stick to using such sophistry in his role as a sickening apologist for the Iraq war rather than applying his deceit to matters of religion.

Can you give specific examples of how Hitchens is a liar? His opinion on MLK is just that, an opinion.

Although, I disagree with Hitchens on the merits or otherwise of the Iraq war, I believe the underlying reasons for his belief can be argued.

Zulu

ironingbored wrote: »

why indeed do muslims or those of the Islamic religion seem to harbour a propensity to killing in the name of their god over other religions?

They don't.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Wouldn't worry too much. PDN posts something similar every time that anybody makes the quite reasonable point that religion is used to legitimate violence.

Pity you haven't read all those posts so. PDN has never denied that religion is used to legitimise violence. Thats actually the whole point. If its not religion its something else. Rather than letting your bigotry cloud your judgement, why not actually try see the point thats been made.

robindch

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

From wikipedia...they sound alright, a major party could be a lot worse (GOP?). Anything in particular they've done come to mind?

The BJP were responsible for encouraging Hindu nationalistic fervour and paranoia, much of it anti-mulsim, over the last twenty years or so in India. The destruction of the Ayodhya mosque in 1992, and the countrywide violence and widespread death that followed it, was the nastiest thing that they were involved with:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1843879.stm

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Tu Quoque is a poor response to any point.

It's not a poor response if it is being used to point out hypocrisy.

We have posters in this thread who are piously clucking about how bad religion is because of the slaughter caused in its name. That would be fine if atheists had a wonderful humane track record. However, any reading of the history of the Twentieth Century shows that atheist regimes tend to be even more murderous than religious ones. The fact that they didn't do it the name of atheism is immaterial.

"Religion is bad because some religious people commit slaughter in the name of their religion. Atheist people commit just as much slaughter (often more) but that's OK because they don't do it in the name of atheism but rather for other reasons."

That is a bad argument. Talking about aspirins doesn't make it any better. Neither does Hitchens' dishonest redefinitions of 'atheist' or 'Christian'.

PDN

ironingbored wrote: »

Can you give specific examples of how Hitchens is a liar? His opinion on MLK is just that, an opinion.

His opinion is not an honest opinion. It is a dishonest ploy.

If MLK had done something bad then Hitchens would happily use him as an example of how evil Christians are. Instead he denies the reality of MLK's Christianity because it suits his purposes, not for any objective reason.

If the tyrants in North Korea had actually created a beautiful society then Hitchens would happily cite them as examples of how atheism benefits society. Instead it suits his purposes to pretend that they are not really atheists (the one true Scotsman argument).

I have zero respect for Hitchens' intellectual honesty.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

PDN has never denied that religion is used to legitimise violence.

And I didn't say that he did deny that. I objected to his "you too!" response.

JimiTime wrote: »

Pity you haven't read all those posts so. [....] If its not religion its something else. Rather than letting your bigotry cloud your judgement, why not actually try see the point thats been made.

Ach, "bigotry" again. Can't you guys ever give your persecution complexes a rest for a few days?

The point I'm made in the follow-up post is that religion is a contributory factor in societal dysfunction for the reasons I gave. To spell out the difference in simple terms:

Single-party states, whether their leaders are atheists or religious, enjoy power and frequently implement murderous policies to keep it. That's "top-down" violence and it happens whether or not there's religious input.

"Bottom-up" violence and dysfunction is the everyday stuff that you see in the shot-up seven-eleven around the corner, or your teen daughter who's having an abortion. This second kind of violence is generally much more common where levels of religious belief are high. The stats are really quite clear on this and the post above suggests a set of simple, plausible reasons why this is so.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The fact that they didn't do it the name of atheism is immaterial.

On the contrary, it suggests that atheism per se, is useless at legitimizing anything and isn't therefore, to blame for anything.

QED -- thanks.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

It's not a poor response if it is being used to point out hypocrisy.

We have posters in this thread who are piously clucking about how bad religion is because of the slaughter caused in its name. That would be fine if atheists had a wonderful humane track record. However, any reading of the history of the Twentieth Century shows that atheist regimes tend to be even more murderous than religious ones. The fact that they didn't do it the name of atheism is immaterial.

Actually I think it's quite central to the debate that is going on here.
The atheists in question committed their crimes for reasons aside from their atheism where many of the religious committed their crimes for their religion. Of course many of them used their religion as an excuse to justify doing whatever they wanted. However the fact remains that there are those who have committed horrific atrocities in the name of their religion when they would not have done so had they not been told to do so (or at least interpreted that they were being told to do so) by their religion.

Hypothetical example:
Leader: "Kill those people."
Soldier: "Why?"
Leader: "So I can consolidate my power base."
Soldier: "That doesn't sound like a very good reason."
Leader: "Okay <quotes a verse from a holy book>, See God wants us to kill those people."
Soldier: Okay then."

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

And I didn't say that he did deny that. I objected to his "you too!" response.

It wasn't a 'you too' response. it was stipulating that religion or no religion, people kill other people and do awful things. Its in response to blaming religion. Its a point to show that those with no religion do the same and worse. i.e. Its not religions fault, but mans. Sheesh, and some wanted to call atheists 'brights':p

Ach, "bigotry" again. Can't you guys ever give your persecution complexes a rest for a few days?

Well you have a bigotted view that clouds your judgement IMO. I certainly don't feel persecuted though.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Its a point to show that those with no religion do the same and worse

Did you read this post (four up), where I pointed out why this is only half the picture?

JimiTime wrote: »

Its not religions fault, but mans.

Er, so the religious system never fails, only people do?

.

Gambler

ironingbored wrote: »

I would expect a moderator to know forum rules better than most and refrain from infantile name calling.

It wasn't intended as name calling, I apologise if you took it that way. My point was that what you were stating as fact was not true.

ironingbored wrote: »

A country who all the same elected the vile holocaust denying anti-semite Ahmadinejad. America is also full of very well eduacted and independent minded people who still voted bush in not once but twice.

What you originally said was: "Why is it that wherever islam is predominant ignorance and superstition prevail?" and I was just replying to that by (roughly) saying "here's a list of countries that are predominantly Muslim and that ignorance and superstition doesn't prevail."

By your last reply would you say that America is predominantly ignorant and superstitious and so where christianity prevails then ignorance and superstition also seems to prevail?

I am just taking issue with your generalisation that Muslim = Evil Violence (again I am paraphrasing but it seems to me to be the core of your argument)

Zillah

I don't think its a fair comment to excuse religion by saying that people just cause violence anyway. I think a naturalistic morality based upon respect for the rights of others, informed by empathy, leads to a very balanced person. Any sort of artificially constructed morality (such as the rigid dictates of a Holy Book), authority driven leadership (such as the dominance of the Nazi party) or abdication of personal thought and responsibility (such as a cult of personality re: Stalin) will encourage the sort of violence that goes down in history.

Secular humanists don't bomb hotels, they don't picket funerals and they don't run pogroms or genocidal campaigns. You need some of the above to allow such behaviour, and religion usually has most of it in spades.

Zillah

For the record I completely dismiss the notion of doing something "in the name of" anything. If someone runs around stabbing homeless people in the name of Jainism I'm not going to criticise Jainism unless there is a real causal link.

pH

robindch wrote: »

Er, so the religious system never fails, only people do?

.

By this reckoning there was nothing really wrong with National Socialism, it was just in the hands of the wrong types of Nazis.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Did you read this post (four up), where I pointed out why this is only half the picture?

tbh, I just took exception to your accusation against PDN below. It totally misrepresented his point.

robin wrote:

PDN posts something similar every time that anybody makes the quite reasonable point that religion is used to legitimate violence.

Er, so the religious system never fails, only people do?

.

All systems fail when it comes to governance. And people do too, religious, secular whatever.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

All systems fail when it comes to governance.

And do they all fail equally?

Dudess

Certain Muslims do, not Muslims in general.

Zillah

Dudess wrote: »

Certain Muslims do, not Muslims in general.

To a man, no. On average, as a group? I'd like to see the numbers.

oscarBravo

Zillah wrote: »

To a man, no. On average, as a group? I'd like to see the numbers.

Me too. And until someone comes up with numbers to actually demonstrate that the "average" Muslim has a propensity to violence, this thread is moot.

Even if such figures were to be produced, I'm not clear on what it has to do with Atheism or Agnosticism.

I'm taking the liberty of closing this thread. An A&A moderator can review and overturn this decision if they think it's a good idea. Meanwhile, if someone wants to start a new thread comparing the propensity to violence of Atheists versus Theists in general, feel free - but I can't see a justification for singling out a particular religion for criticism on this forum.