• VagabondSpectre
    1.9k
    Is Islam more violent than the other Abrahamic religions?

    Internet culture has of late bandied the notion that Islam is a uniquely violent and insidious religion with new degrees of fervor and specificity. The approaching zeitgeist seems to be that the tenets and doctrines of Islam are themselves uniquely abhorrent when compared with their Christian counterparts, which is used as a causative explanation for the current prevalence of violence in many Muslim countries, their poor human rights track records, and the present frequency of terror attacks carried out in the name of Islam.

    The problem I'm having in trying to assent to this position is that I can see similarities in the doctrines of all three religions which seem to equally condone (and condemn) abhorrent violence, and I can also see similarities between past and present behavior across all three religions. How can contemporary Islamic inspired violence be an innate function of Islam if there were periods of peace throughout its history? How can violence not be an innate part of Christianity if there are periods of violence throughout its history? Without getting into specifics, both Christianity and Islam contain peaceful and violent examples and doctrines to draw from, and have both done so in the past and present, so what is it about Islam that makes it so fundamentally and at it's core more violent and more oppressive?

    The argument that seeks to establish Islam as uniquely violent and oppressive which relies on cherry-picking it's doctrines (something all religions tend to do) and cherry picking acts of extreme violence in the modern world as representative of Muslim behavior strikes me as too simplistic and just unpersuasive.

    The idea that we must "fight back" against Islam because it is inherently violent seems to be cropping up more and more as the western perception and definition of Islam as the one true violent religion solidifies as a common denominator. The perception of Islam as a uniform and unified religion is foremost errant in that definition, and what lacks still are the historical, cultural, political, and economic contexts which are necessary to understand what impact religion has on human behavior. Christian barbarism can be judged in hindsight by westerners with the benefit of understanding the historical and cultural circumstances and external factors which contributed to certain periods of Christian violence and specific wars, and also with the benefit of understanding how Christianity and its role in society diverged and changed over time into the many diverse sects that now exist today. The existence of explicitly violent and abhorrent verses in the Bible threatens no cognitive dissonance for a westerner because it is well understood how modern Christian sects shift focus (cherry-pick) in order to metabolize such verses without inciting people to actually act on them (none the less, many of them continue to be acted upon to this day, although seldom in first world countries).

    When western society decided to stop lynching and castrating homosexuals, and appealing to the Christian law which condones such violence fell out of popularity in (some) churches, was that an example of a fundamental and innate principle of Christianity yielding to secular pressure? Did Christianity reform and become something new? If a specific act of violence is innate to a religion because it can be found in the doctrine, and people have acted upon it, why is Christianity not also considered innately violent? If both Islam and Christianity are indeed equally and innately violent, what other factors must we use to explain the constantly fluctuating and diverse behavior of past and present religious adherents? In summation, how can we fully understand the scope and details of the impact that any religion has on human behavior without isolating or controlling for the plethora of other worldly factors which influence said behavior. The fact that Christianity can be both violent and not violent challenges the definition of religion as a set of ideas/beliefs which have necessary and specific ramifications on the broad behavior of it's adherents. The portrayal of Islam as the necessary source of evil in the Islamic world misses this fact entirely and ignores a greater understanding of the host of causative forces at play.
  • andrewk
    2.1k
    The question 'Is X system of belief more violent?' can only be made sense of if interpreted as something like 'Do people that would self-describe as holding X system of belief commit more violent acts on average than those who would not so self-describe'.

    With that interpretation, I suspect that the answer is almost certainly No.

    One reason is that the majority of the violence in the world appears to be alcohol-fuelled, and Muslims have a far lower rate of alcohol consumption than non-Muslims. There are other reasons too, but this one is enough.

    if we must 'fight back' against sources of violence, the first port of call should be the promotion and glorification of alcohol consumption. But there's no way that will happen, because the vested interests that profit from that are way too rich and powerful. It's so much easier to pick on those that are not.
  • Mongrel
    3k
    What verse in the NT promotes violence? It's all pretty pacifist.

    Comparing the messages of sacred texts, yes, Islam is more violent.
  • VagabondSpectre
    1.9k
    That's in interesting perspective considering how much attention is given to the most extreme and shocking violent events and groups of the Islamic world; ways in which Islam could be better at preventing violence seem to be least on people's minds. From what I do know though, alcohol is not uniformly abstained from in the Islamic world. Some orthodox countries have soft-bans on it intended to keep it out of the hands of Muslims (I.E: you can apply for a drinking license as a non-muslim), but it is a rule widely gotten around. I'm guessing there's something not unlike puritanism that is more and less prevalent in different Islamic regions and cultures (many of the Muslims I know drink and smoke without regret). The current attitude of an individual Muslim or a Muslim community seems to be the main determinant of how such tenets are valued and interpreted.


    I would rather not go to the mat in a New Testament cage-match, but as an opening salvos, I posit that Jesus as portrayed in the new testament promoted violence by spreading the most insidious and disgusting lie that has ever plagued mankind:

    "God loves you more than anything else could possibly love you, and is all forgiving - DISPLEASE HIM AND YOU WILL BURN - loves you more than you will ever know and wants to forgive your sins - ETERNAL FIRE WILL CLEANSE THE UNBELIEVERS - bow down and thank the ultimate lord of lords - YOUR SOUL WILL BE DESTROYED - our savior, amen."ThE vOiCeS

    Jesus didn't specifically tell you to do violence, and he offered somewhat cheap salvation, but he none the less carried on with the threat of eternal damnation and pointed to the Old Testament as still being the law. I understand that the new covenant allows Christians to pick and choose what sins are despite them being clearly written at exhaustive length in their holy books (a good thing), but then "Christian non-violence" becomes more of an expression of contemporary culture than it does Christianity itself. If the Old Testament didn't condemn homosexuality, would we still have been castrating homosexuals 60 or 70 years ago? I say perhaps, but maybe not. The fact that such abhorrent values are mainly found in the Old Testament didn't and doesn't stop their employment in sermons which reinforce and motivate such practices in the minds of Christians at large.
  • tom
    1.5k
    That's in interesting perspective considering how much attention is given to the most extreme and shocking violent events and groups of the Islamic world; ways in which Islam could be better at preventing violence seem to be least on people's mindsVagabondSpectre

    In UK Muslims comprise ~5% of the population, but 20% of inmates in high security prisons.

    And let's not forget, there is only one way to guarantee paradise according to Islam.
  • Mongrel
    3k

    I don't think you've read the New Testament. The prevailing message is love and pacifism.

    The more you judge, the harder it becomes to understand. The more you understand, the harder it becomes to judge.
  • VagabondSpectre
    1.9k
    In UK Muslims comprise ~5% of the population, but 20% of inmates in high security prisons.tom

    Something tells me that a large chunk of these inmates "convert" to "Islam" while in a high security prison because it affords you gang like protection. I'm not exactly sure what about Islam makes it work well as the basis for a prison gang culture, but I guess it does.

    And let's not forget, there is only one way to guarantee paradise according to Islam.tom

    According to some Muslims, committing suicide and killing innocent people are both sins per the Qu'ran.

    Depends on who you ask?
  • Wayfarer
    20.6k
    Jesus as portrayed in the new testament promoted violence by spreading the most insidious and disgusting lie that has ever plagued mankindVagabondSpectre

    You're reacting to an ancient religious teaching as if it were intended to be a modern, politically correct bromide. 'Come along children, let's all wash our hands after eating'. Not. Ancient religious teachings were given in the context of a culture where violence was rife, justice brutal and education non-existent. Besides, Jesus can be interepreted as warning his listeners of the consequences of their evil-doing. I think preachers have made a lot out of God being a punitive father figure, but there's another way of reading it: that by depriving yourself of the opportunity for repentance and forgiveness, then you're consigning yourself to a very bad place. It's more a warning than a threat.

    Regarding Islam - it's very hard to find impartial discussion on the Internet, or anywhere.

    One source of distortion are those who throw a blanket of political correctness over any possible criticism, meaning that any discussion at all is automatically categorised as racist.

    The opposite problem is the various groups who are indeed Islamophobic and who depict it as irredeemably violent and beyond hope of reform.

    With respect to Islam and violence, it ought to be recalled that the career of the founder began as a warrior and general, who initially succeeded through military conquest and through raiding caravans and taking of booty. Accordingly, Islam has always been an explicitly martial religion, a 'fighting creed', as it used to be described. Enemies were slain, as were any who refused to convert. That doesn't necessarily translate into violence in the modern context, and there are plenty of Muslims who eschew such violence, but the sanctioning of religious violence is certainly present in the texts. (I don't see any parallel in the New Testament - nowhere are Christians commanded to 'slay the unbeliever', notwithstanding the violence done in the name of Christianity over the centuries.)

    But it also needs to be said that terrorist movements and violent political extremists have hijacked Islam for their own nefarious purposes. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS are examples, who are motivated by a fanatical interpretation of Islam, and an equally fanatical loathing of Western civilisation which they see as the work of Satan. But there are far larger numbers of Muslims who believe no such thing, and indeed Muslims represent by far the largest group of victims of Islamic violence.
  • VagabondSpectre
    1.9k
    I don't think you've read the New Testament. The prevailing message is love and pacifism.Mongrel

    The prevailing message is love and peace, peppered with threats of eternal damnation, and followed by death and destruction for the unbelievers when Jesus returns to right all wrongs with his fiery sword.

    But you're missing the point: the old testament can be just as relevant when it comes to influencing human behavior. The prevailing message of Christianity depends on what you take away from it. You can say that the prevailing message of the NT is love and pacifism, but Muslims also say that the prevailing message of the Qu'ran is peace and love; what's the difference?

    The more you judge, the harder it becomes to understand. The more you understand, the harder it becomes to judge.Mongrel

    I would simply have us seek comparable depth of understanding concerning major religions before we decide to judge one of them as the worst religion of all.
  • Mongrel
    3k
    I would simply have us seek comparable depth of understanding concerning major religions before we decide to judge one of them as the worst religion of all.VagabondSpectre

    Christianity is easy for me because I grew up with it. I decided to try to understand Islam better and I ended up reading several books (just trying to piece things together.) I guess I'd say that if you want to defend Muslims from racists, misrepresenting Islam isn't the best way to do that. If the racist in question is Christian, you can just invite him or her to actually be a Christian.
  • Brainglitch
    211
    Seems to me that even in the last couple of decades, let alone the last century, Christian societies have killed. maimed, and hurt a WHOLE LOT MORE innocent people than Muslims have.
  • VagabondSpectre
    1.9k
    ...by depriving yourself of the opportunity for repentance and forgiveness, then you're consigning yourself to a very bad place. It's more a warning than a threat.Wayfarer

    By reacting with modern day sensibility I'm trying to highlight the doctrinal extremes of Christianity which might be similar to those of Islam. Maybe Christianity has more carrot or Islam has more stick, but I'm not sure it makes a massive difference; there's enough stick in both sets of doctrines to go around should anyone desire to wield them. More a warning than a threat indeed!

    (I don't see any parallel in the New Testament - nowhere are Christians commanded to 'slay the unbeliever', notwithstanding the violence done in the name of Christianity over the centuries.)Wayfarer

    The Old Testament played a role in catalyzing violence over the centuries, which is why this point is only as relevant as your commitment to the NT is widespread in the Christian community. In order to differentiate Christianity from Islam in this regard Christians would need to outright discount the Old Testament as a valid source of moral teaching, which is where it says to kill the infidels.

    But it's very peculiar to me how the fact that violence was rife, justice brutal and education non-existent in ancient times can explain and contextualize Christianity as merely coping with a prevalent norm, while the exact same social conditions under which Islam emerged contextualizes it as an inherently violent artifact of an uncivilized age. The number of Muslims embracing the death to infidels attitude is shockingly high, but overall represents a very low percentage of all Muslims A Christian says warlord, and a Muslim says liberator of slaves. What's the difference?
  • VagabondSpectre
    1.9k
    ...you can just invite him or her to actually be a Christian.Mongrel

    What should I say if they reply "As a true Christian it's my duty to fight back against Islam which is seeking to destroy my religion and way of life."?
  • Brainglitch
    211
    It occurs to me that intransigent adherence to an ideology, whether religious or political, that demonizes non-adherents as mortal enemies is what motivates wide-scale violence.

    20th Century Nazis and Russian and Chinese communists killed more innocent people than Christians, Jews, and Muslims killed throughout their entire histories.
  • VagabondSpectre
    1.9k
    And when they reply "Deuteronomy 17:1-5", what do I say then?
  • Mongrel
    3k
    I'd say, "First Amendment, mf."

    I'm just trying to tell you: your characterization of Jesus as a fire and brimstone preacher isn't in the NT. That came later. As for the OT, he (is supposed to have) said that the Law and the prophets can be derived from two rules, one of which is: "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." He said "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

    It's pervasively a pacifist message. Vengeance belongs to God, not us. That means a Christian hawk will be at odds with the scriptural Christian message. Likewise, a Muslim who preaches pacifism will be have to deal in some way with the actions of the founder of Islam.

    But if a Muslim holyman wanted to preach pacifism... how would he go about doing that? That's the question that puzzled me for several months. How does religious authority work in Islam?
  • Brainglitch
    211
    But if a Muslim holyman wanted to preach pacifism... how would he go about doing that? That's the question that puzzled me for several months. How does religious authority work in Islam?Mongrel

    Muslims simply need to become cherry-picking experts tendentiously selecting, ignoring, emphasizing, explaining away, and re-defining the text, like Jews and Christians.
  • Wosret
    3.4k
    I've never read the quran, but my understanding is that it's just one big monologue of God talking. The theological debate being over whether a lot of what God says needs to be taken with historical context, and those that believe that it's always, unequivocally applicable.
  • Arkady
    760
    One source of distortion are those who throw a blanket of political correctness over any possible criticism, meaning that any discussion at all is automatically categorised as racist.

    The opposite problem is the various groups who are indeed Islamophobic and who depict it as irredeemably violent and beyond hope of reform.
    Wayfarer
    Indeed. As Sam Harris has said, it may increasingly be the case that the only people who are willing to honestly confront the problem of radical Islam are far-right xenophobes and racists. The left has simply become totally complicit on this issue, making a bizarre set of bedfellows with religious theocrats who hold decidedly anti-liberal views on many issues (so long as said theocrats come from a place where the people are poorer and browner than most people in the West - Christian theocracy would never be tolerated, of course).
  • Wosret
    3.4k
    How do we honestly confront the problem? Genocide them for thought crimes? Serious question... isn't that crazy asshole a maniac?
  • Wayfarer
    20.6k
    if a Muslim holyman wanted to preach pacifism... how would he go about doing that? That's the question that puzzled me for several months. How does religious authority work in Islam?Mongrel

    There's a Pakistani cleric who created a massive Fatwa on Terrorism about 10 years ago. It is said to be definitive, and to show with absolute certainty that no Muslim should ever commit acts of violence against civilians, or commit suicide or detonate bombs, and that all who do this are bound for hell. I don't know a much about it, although I did noticed it received very little publicity; but then, maybe preaching against terrorism is far less newsworthy than terrorism. (I have read that the same scholar who drafted this Fatwa is also responsible for the dreadful blasphemy laws in Pakistan, under which persons are frequently prosecuted or even beaten or stoned to death, although again not 100% certain if that is so.)

    I did notice an article on the Australian Broadcasting Corp's site by an Australian Islamic scholar here about Islam, Tolerance and Religion. The author is obliged to recognise that there are indeed exhortations to kill apostates and unbelievers, but says that these are 'outweighed' by the 'real intent' of the Quran and the Prophet. I must admit I am sceptical of this article, scholarly though it may be - it seems the main intent is to present a 'pluralist' view of Islam which doesn't really exist anywhere except for amongst Islamic scholars residing in Western democracies.

    it may increasingly be the case that the only people who are willing to honestly confront the problem of radical Islam are far-right xenophobes and racistsArkady

    This article says exactly that. Here in Australia, there's an anti-Islam party called One Nation (satirically known as One Notion), led by an outspoken xenophobe who basically hates Islam. I don't agree with her in the least, but then, I am also unwilling to simply agree that Islam and liberal democracy can effortlessly co-exist. There are aspects of Western liberal democracy that Islam could never recognize, and vice versa. For instance, Islam can't in principle recognise the separation of religion and state; meaning that, those who claim that it is actually a political philosophy, as much as a religious practice, may be correct. In which case, the question ought to be asked, ought a liberal and pluralistic democratic order accept a political philosophy which is opposed to liberal democracy as a matter of principle? (Bet you will never hear that question asked on a panel show; here in Australia, if you ask difficult questions like this, you will be automatically called xenophobic. But then, I also have some sympathy for the Islamic repulsion against Western decadence.)

    Ross Douthat explores the question of what kind of Islam the West will really be able to absorb.
  • Mongrel
    3k
    I really don't like Daniel Pipes, but I think he has a point when he says there's medieval Islam and there's Islamism. Moderate Islam is mostly a resident of the imagination.
  • andrewk
    2.1k
    From what I do know though, alcohol is not uniformly abstained from in the Islamic world.VagabondSpectre
    That's correct. That's why I chose my words carefully in my post, and did not say something like 'Muslims don't drink', which would have been incorrect. the actual claim was that Muslims have 'a far lower rate of alcohol consumption', which is entirely consistent with the fact that some Muslims do drink.

    What is important is that there are, on average, far lower levels of drinking in Muslim countries, and hence lower levels of violence. I felt much safer walking back streets in Pakistan, Iran and Turkey than I would in many neighbourhoods of the urban USA.
  • andrewk
    2.1k
    To be fair to Pauline Hanson, she doesn't just hate Islam. Her hatred is very inclusive, extending to all non-Caucasians. Indeed, she got her start by spreading hate against East Asians. She's only moved on to Islam because she found that she could no longer get much political mileage out of whipping up hate against East Asians.

    Scapegoating will always pick the easiest target. Sometimes its Jews, sometimes homosexuals, sometimes unmarried mothers, sometimes East Asians, sometimes Aborigines, and the current fad is Muslims.
  • BC
    13.1k
    Is Islam more violent than the other Abrahamic religions?VagabondSpectre

    Abrahamic fundamentalists tend to end up in the weeds, regardless of which branch they adhere to, because fundamentalism tends to lead one into totalizing positions--all or nothing.

    I haven't read the Koran, and I don't plan on it -- I don't plan on re-reading the whole OT or NT again, either. I can't speak first hand about how much encouragement to violence is incorporated into the text. I do know that our good allies and friends, the Saudi family, spends a lot of money promoting Wahhabism, which is not an especially friendly version of Islam.

    Then too, the hottest hotbed of Islamic Rage is a shit hole in the Middle East, which is a pretty bad place to be, at any time. Some of the reasons it is bad are...

    too many people
    too little employment
    too dry
    too tribal
    too many irrational borders
    too much unhelpful interference by all and sum
    too dreary a future
    too many bombs
    too many bad governments

    Give any bunch of people these problems, whip up some religious hysteria (any variety) and voila -- bad news.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Is Islam more violent than the other Abrahamic religions?VagabondSpectre

    ''Islam'' means surrender. Isn't it ironic then that Islam serves as one of the most potent hotbeds of violence?

    If God exists, is this divine comedy?
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Is there such a thing as human nature? If there is then violence is surely one part of it.

    Islam, any other religion or idea for that matter, is only an excuse for violence.

    Perhaps a distinction relevant to the OP is that between overt and covert violence. All religions, in fact all ideas, have the seed of covert violence - imposing restrictions on freedom, especially freedom to do what is most basic to humans, to think.

    Overt violence is the domain of, hopefully, few ideas and religions. Does Islam promote/condone overt violence more than any other religion?
  • tom
    1.5k
    Something tells me that a large chunk of these inmates "convert" to "Islam" while in a high security prison because it affords you gang like protection. I'm not exactly sure what about Islam makes it work well as the basis for a prison gang culture, but I guess it does.VagabondSpectre

    Islam divides the world in two: dar-al-harb (House of War), and dar-al-Islam. It is the duty of all Muslims to wage war against the infidel.

    There are also instructions on how to treat atheists(polytheists) and Jews or Christians. The atheists must be killed, but the "people of the book" can accept subjugation if they pay protection money.

    You basically have violent gang rules encoded in a holy text.

    According to some Muslims, committing suicide and killing innocent people are both sins per the Qu'ran.VagabondSpectre

    They are lying to you. There is an Islamic principle for lying to kufar, it's is called Taqiyya.

    Quran (3:169-170) - "Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord; They rejoice in the bounty provided by Allah: And with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them (in their bliss), the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve."

    All Muslims spend time in hell. Prophets and Martyrs go straight to heaven, which for Muslims is basically a brothel.
  • andrewk
    2.1k
    Islam can't in principle recognise the separation of religion and stateWayfarer
    Forget the 'in principle' bit. Islam can't recognise things because only agents can recognise things and Islam is not an agent but a loose term for a bunch of beliefs that, like any other bunch of beliefs, has fuzzy boundaries.

    So sure, Islam cannot recognise separation of church and state, in the same way that Christianity, Buddhism, communism, liberalism, conservatism, nominalism and asceticism cannot recognise it.

    To escape this, the Islamophobe might try to say 'Oh I don't mean Islam the bunch of beliefs. I meant people who adhere to those beliefs'. Then one runs directly into the brick wall of reality: how does one explain the very many Muslims that do wish for the separation of church and state - especially those that live in countries where the state persecutes them for their minority religious status - like India or the USA.

    For every violent, intolerant quote one can cherry-pick from the Quran, one can find a violent, intolerant quote from the Bible (yes, including the New Testament), or from Marx or Lenin, and then observe how few current adherents of the relevant religion - be it Islam, Christianity or Communism, actually believe in that quote.

    In which case, the question ought to be asked, ought a liberal and pluralistic democratic order accept a political philosophy which is opposed to liberal democracy as a matter of principle?Wayfarer
    The question is easy to answer. The answer is No. The difficult bit is the sneaky pre-supposition that Islam is such a philosophy in a way that is not equally applicable to other religions as indicated above. The onus is on the Islamophobe to justify their presupposition.
  • Wayfarer
    20.6k
    For every violent, intolerant quote one can cherry-pick from the Quran, one can find a violent, intolerant quote from the Bible (yes, including the New Testament),andrewk

    I would be interested to see some examples. I really don't recall any Biblical texts urging the faithful to slay non-believers, but I could be mistaken. And I don't regard the warning that the wicked will suffer for their sins in the afterlife as a threat of violence.

    So Islam cannot recognise separation of church and state in the same way that Christianity [...] cannot recognise itandrewk

    Is the double negative intentional? Actually, however that is parsed, I don't think it makes much sense. The 'Christian West' does recognise the separation of Church and State - out of necessity, as the consequence of centuries of religious war and internicene strife.

    Are you saying that all religions are violent, and that therefore Islam ought not to be singled out?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.