The gang-rapers tom mentioned specifically justified their actions by referring to the actions of the Prophet. At present, Sunnis have no way to address this issue.

I don't think it would kill you to admit that this is a serious problem. And to my mind, to ignore it is a betrayal of those young girls. — Mongrel

I don't know which gang-rapers tom was referring to though, so I cannot actually give a good response, let alone try and understand any context. He just said "meanwhile in Muslim countries" in reference to the year 1095. How many homosexuals were actually getting thrown from roofs in 1095? How many children were being raped and where? What did he mean by, and what is the significance of, Industrial bread kneading machines?

What's the difference between slavery and serfdom? Between oppressing and crusading?

What's the difference between murdering a jew for being a jew and murdering a homosexual for being a homosexual, a blasphemer for being a blasphemer, or a witch for being a witch? The murderous barbarism I have referenced throughout our conversation has been justified by appealing to the Bible and God in the same ways that Islam appeals to it's Prophet in order to do the same things.

I understand that if we ignore history, and ignore vast swaths of Christian scripture and focus only on the positive messages of Jesus, that the whole of Islamic doctrine and practice seems monolithically violent by comparison; I also understand that the legend of Jesus is more morally praiseworthy than the reality of Mohamed. But why are you dogmatically thrusting this as the fundamental explanation of Islamic violence and christian pacifism?

It's a simple and easy way to answer the question of "Why is there so much violence in contemporary Muslim societies?". Cause religion: Present day Christians are peaceful because Jesus was peaceful, and historical Christian violence [REDACTED]. Present day Muslims are more violent because their prophet was violent, and any portrayal of scope or context [REDACTED]. It's a neat and tidy box.

I'm well aware that Islam is in more dire need of reform than Christianity, in part because Christianity has already undergone some reform, and also because religion is currently of a more critical link in the chain of causes of present day violence in the Islamic world. Were they Christian though, would none of the current violence be happening or be justifiable? None of the murdering undesirables or the waging of holy war, or the taking and selling of sex slaves? It can all be found in the Bible, you just need to turn the other page. The example of the Prophet (W.W.M.D?) is itself something that is highly debated and makes room for reform in Islam. I'm well aware of the Hadith system, protocols, and controversies, which from the perspective of an apologist is a treasure trove. Hadiths which depict old world behavior as holy standards can be discredited as accurate, or can be superseded by contradictory Hadith which can be focused on as more valid or more central to Islam. The very notion that the example of the Prophet should be applicable to modern day Muslims can itself be challenged (and already successfully has been in some respects), in part through Hadith which encourage reform, but also as orthodoxy and religious fundamentalism in the Islamic world naturally diverges and changes shape according to the demands of the worldly pressures which act upon it. The Qur'an itself, like the bible, has mixed messages to begin with.

Maybe I am biased though, when I did read the bible at around age 15 (new english translation), I read it front to back, so I was struck by all the lunacy of the OT before I got to the more familiar fairy tales. The prophet warrior kings I recall from the Old Testament may have been marginalized in thought and spirit, but not yet in in doctrine, or fully in practice.

Since you have yet to comprehend anything I told you, I think we're done. — Mongrel

I understand that "Christian pacifism" is fairly contrary to your insistence that Islam is incapable of preaching peace or reform, and that this is the lens through which you would have us understand the intrinsic difference between past and present day Christianity/Islam and their impacts on human behavior. It was crass of me to imply that your comprehension was sloppy, and for that I apologize, but I'm trying my best to motivate you to expand my puny horizons by actually addressing the points I make instead of just inserting a suggested reading list, an appeal to Tom, or the continual reassertion of your main position in a vacuum: the prevailing message of Christianity is peace, the Islamic prophet Mohamed was violent, QED, Islam is inherently more violent.

The scriptural history of the Hebrew capture of the "Promised Land" is a description of genocide. — Mongrel

That probably did not happen, as many Christians now realize and admit.

Are you a Jew or a female? — Thorongil

Is there any philosophical content to that question, or are you just being nosy?

Have you spent significant time in any of those countries yourself?

I'll take that as a no.

It's not a no, but to satisfy your nosiness, the answer does happen to be no - although that has no bearing whatsoever on what we are discussing. Now can you answer my questions?

The question isn't "who was/is more violent?", it's "which religion is more violent?". It's about the inherent nature of the religion and it's range of possible impacts on human behavior across a range of changing external pressures. The difference between our views is that you believe Christianity more rigidly gives rise to trends of peace and pacifism in the people who follow it, while Islam more rigidly gives rise to trends of oppression and violence in the people who follow it, while I believe that both religions do not reliably give rise to trends either way. When the wider set of external factors influencing behavior is considered most religions can be seen as opportunistic chamelions. I view the external pressures which act on a religious public as being generally stronger determiners of behavior, which causes religious beliefs and practices to adapt to the environment over time rather than adapting the environment to it. When you have doctrines so vast as Christianity and Islam, focus easily shifts and various doctrinal aspects will become magnified as changing aspects of society call for or enable them.

Religion can certainly be a catalyst of behavior in line with it's doctrines but there needs to be real world context for people to actually act on doctrine. In order to throw a gay person from a roof, you primarily need to hate gay people, which tends to come from living culture rather than written script; being commanded to kill homosexuals by god is just an anti-guilt cherry for people who bring themselves to do so. In order to take a slave, you primarily need to want that slave; religious laws which tell you how to treat them are again more about guilt-riddance for the master than the benefit of the slave. In order to conduct a holy war, there needs to be existing desire for it, whether that be the spoils of a far off land or the defense of one's own. You can't martial religious warriors unless there is some sort of real world conflict upon which religious ideas can themselves be superimposed. "Our religion says let's go kill these people" only leads to action when people are willing to do so, and what actually makes them willing is a massively complex mix of factors which extends well beyond the limits of a page and the steps of a ziggurat.

I don't know which gang-rapers tom was referring to though — VagabondSpectre

But you could ask. I don't think it's right to wave away victims. If they're brought up, they should be honored.. like, "Yes. That was terrible."

But why are you dogmatically thrusting this as the fundamental explanation of Islamic violence and christian pacifism? — VagabondSpectre

I didn't thrust that dogma. People are violent for all sorts of reasons. People become pacifists for all sorts of reasons. A living religion is a worldview. Scripture is a touchstone. Ritual is an anchor. So religion comes into play when people go to war in the same way it's there at marriages and deaths.

The very notion that the example of the Prophet should be applicable to modern day Muslims can itself be challenged — VagabondSpectre

Only within the protective walls of secularism could Sunni Islam begin to reform. It's not clear to me that it would survive the transformation. So Islamic conservatism is charged by three prongs: tradition, the disruption of the British Empire, and the threat of assimilation into the West. There will be no significant reform any time soon.

Maybe I am biased though, when I did read the bible at around age 15 (new english translation), I read it front to back, so I was struck by all the lunacy of the OT before I got to the more familiar fairy tales. The prophet warrior kings I recall from the Old Testament may have been marginalized in thought and spirit, but not yet in in doctrine, or fully in practice. — VagabondSpectre

You should check out the Epic of Gilgamesh. It's like somebody put Genesis in a blender (except Gilgamesh is much older.)

A number of passages from the NT meant a lot to me from teenage years onward. I was shocked one day to discover that the way the Tao Te Ching puts it had written over my memory of the NT wording. Seriously, I had to go back and read it to remember.

actually addressing the points I make instead of just inserting a suggested reading list, — VagabondSpectre

I was trying to convey in a nice way that it's obvious that you don't know much about how religious authority works in Sunni Islam.

the prevailing message of Christianity is peace, the Islamic prophet Mohamed was violent, QED, Islam is inherently more violent. — VagabondSpectre

You did the QED, not me.

That probably did not happen, as many Christians now realize and admit. — Thorongil

Jews celebrate that bit of fictional genocide, though. Ghastly.

The difference between our views is that you believe Christianity more rigidly gives rise to trends of peace and pacifism in the people who follow it, while Islam more rigidly gives rise to trends of oppression and violence in the people who follow it, — VagabondSpectre

Everybody has to insert a "yes, but..." from time to time. Muslim commentaries do a lot of it, for instance.. "The Koran teaches that men should beat their wives. Yes, but...."

A Christian warrior has the opposite problem. "It says turn the other cheek. Yes, but.."

Why does turn the other cheek necessarily come up before the idea that Eve brought original sin and death into the world? Or that husbands should rule over their wives as it says in Genesis?

It seems to me entirely a matter of taste when determining which values to put over the other when it comes to Christian doctrine (and only very recently in western society have progressive values finally begun to overcome many of the ancient dogmas we're referring to).

Why can the Islamic world not do the same?

Only within the protective walls of secularism could Sunni Islam begin to reform. It's not clear to me that it would survive the transformation. So Islamic conservatism is charged by three prongs: tradition, the disruption of the British Empire, and the threat of assimilation into the West. There will be no significant reform any time soon. — Mongrel

If we're talking only about Sunni Islam then I've already laid out some of the mechanisms through which it can indeed reform. Presently Islamic scholars living in secular societies abroad are engaged in this debate and reform and I don't see why it's impossible for it's benefits to be imported back to regions and people who are more and more desperate for peace. It will depend on how open to reform the people are after the dust settles.

But you could ask. I don't think it's right to wave away victims. If they're brought up, they should be honored.. like, "Yes. That was terrible." — Mongrel

Without qualifying what Tom was referencing it's not possible to include his input in a valid argument. Having a moment of silence for every unaccredited victim of religious violence throughout history doesn't add relevance to Tom's the context-devoid restatement of what he thinks are the values inherently promoted by Islam.

I'm an atheist who condemns violence and bigotry. Morally speaking, debating the differences between the moral ramifications of Islam and Christianity is like refereeing a mud-wrestling match between two frail old men. I don't need to acknowledge the abhorrence of rape and murder because it goes without saying. But that said, I didn't see anyone acknowledge the victims I actually referenced in my response.

I don't need to acknowledge the abhorrence of rape and murder because it goes without saying. — VagabondSpectre

I disagree. I believe it needs lots of saying.

In discussions where the moral abhorrence of rape and murder is already a given, we need not add the clause "which is of course very terrible" every-time rape or murder is alluded to. It's a waste of time and mental energy whose only benefit is making us feel like we're morally upright folk, which makes no difference to this discussion.

But if you feel it must be said, then here it is from the Qur'an:

Whoever kills a person [unjustly]…it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind. — Qur’an, 5:32

Whoever kills a person [unjustly]…it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind. — Qur’an, 5:32

That's beautiful.

No wonder some don't want to talk about history as it demonstrates unequivocally that the religion itself is not the primary issue; it's the socio-cultural context in which the religion is put to work that matters most (as @VagabondSpectre has pointed out). What's left over is pretty small beans by comparison.

And all this guff about the New Testament. Isn't it gun-toting, hyper-capitalist Republicans who claim to be Jesus's biggest fans? Are they just bad readers? If you think that what makes the difference in broad terms is what's actually written in the holy books then you just don't understand how religion functions.

(So, go after the religionists and go after them hard, but focus on the religion and you'll end up alienating people who it would be better to have on your side).

That's beautiful. — Mongrel

It's also a lie.

Or to be more specific, it is taqiya.

This is Quran 5:32

For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

Quran 5:32 is about the Jews!

Next of course is Quran 5:33

The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;

Beautiful?

But if you feel it must be said, then here it is from the Qur'an: — VagabondSpectre

Given that you have purposefully left out the beginning of the sura, which explicitly states that the verse is about the Jews, I've got to ask: What are you trying to achieve by spreading blatant misinformation?

Do you really think no one has access to a Quran?

Isn't it gun-toting, hyper-capitalist Republicans who claim to be Jesus's biggest fans? — Baden

No religions ought to be judged by the example of those who distort its meaning.

Now there's something we can agree on X-) Let's not judge people by their superficial religious label at all, but rather by what they actually believe about what makes a good society. That way we can bar gun-toting, hyper-capitalist Republicans from coming to live here, because they are dangerous extremists, while allowing in those people who don't see guns as part of a civil society and who just want to live their lives in peace - even if they are Muslims [shock-horror face-icon-thingy].

Well, they can't be gun-totin', because of Australian gun laws. But if they want to turn up and form Republican societies to promote conservative political ideas - then we really can't stop them from doing that. That is quite within the remit of Western liberal democracies.

The point I was making before was not about 'demonising' Islam (which, all due respect, some here are doing) - I was trying to stress the idea of 'reciprocal rights' - that the religious freedoms that Western cultures provide, imply an obligation to respect cultural difference. And to be very blunt, Islam as a religion has often not displayed that. That is what there needs to be frank conversation about. And I'm sure that is actually going on all over the place, but we never read about it. What we read are variations of: Islam: BOO, or Islam: COOL.

That's why I linked to the OP in the NY Times yesterday, by a Muslim, which said that, in the West,

[Muslims] are threatened by Islamophobic forces against which they need the protections offered by liberalism — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, nondiscrimination. But the same liberalism also brings them realities that most of them find un-Islamic — irreverence toward religion, tolerance of L.G.B.T. people, permissive attitudes on sex. They can’t easily decide, therefore, whether liberalism is good or bad for Muslims.

There's geniunely no easy solution to this problem. I really don't believe Western liberalism and any kind of truly authentic Islam are going to find it easy to co-exist. People might manage it, but the foundational ideas are basically very hard to harmonise - as the Muslim columnist above notes. But to say that is not to demonise Islam - it's an argument based on political philosophy. (And personally, I find Islamic critiques of Western morality more than a little cogent.)

It's only to those who don't think that religious ideas really matter that think the differences between them don't matter. To a lot of people they're all simply a matter of choice, and we should all be free to choose our own. But as Ross Douthat noted, also in the NY Times:

many secular liberal Westerners...take a more benign view of Islam mostly because they assume that all religious ideas are arbitrary, that it doesn’t matter what Muhammad said or did because tomorrow’s Muslims can just reinterpret the Prophet’s life story and read the appropriate liberal values in.

I won't try and summarise Douthat's column, but it's really worth reading, to appreciate the depth of the issues. It's not just a matter of all joining hands and singing Kum-ba-ya around the fire, regrettably.

It's only one more step before you realize that as there is no absolute indisputable meaning of religion X (just shades of plausibility with regard to interpretations) evaluating religions as better or worse based on what's written in their holy books gets you virtually nowhere in terms of understanding why some of their adherents do horrible things (and there is no disputing the horror of some of the things done in the name of Islam today). So, as religion functions primarily as a force of social cohesion and strength in numbers (to put it crudely) rather than as a font of ethical instruction, the way to chip away at its radical elements is to work to create conditions of engagement with the non-radical elements in order to strengthen the latter at the expense of the former. Denigrating the religion en masse by attacking its core texts is likely to have exactly the opposite effect, which makes it not only a destructive strategy but a self-defeating one. But maybe some (not you) don't want to solve the problem and are content to vent.

No wonder some don't want to talk about history as it demonstrates unequivocally that the religion itself is not the primary issue; it's the socio-cultural context in which the religion is put to work that matters most (as VagabondSpectre has pointed out). What's left over is pretty small beans by comparison. — Baden

This is a prime example of the sort of asymmetry of reasoning which is often applied in such cases: if a person (or group or culture, etc) performs some act, and is motivated in doing so by a mix of religious and political aims, then the religious motivations are marginalized or dismissed altogether (and it's blamed solely on historical context, globalism, etc. - and so much the better if the West can be blamed in some way for fomenting or establishing said historical context). This, of course, usually applies when people are carrying out heinous acts in the name of religion; when they're carrying out beneficent acts, then religion can comfortably be said to be the sole or primary motivating factor. Religion, of course, can only motivate good behavior; otherwise, it's not real religion.

However, why can the converse not follow equally well, i.e. when a person acts from a mix of religious and political motives, then the political motives can be marginalized or dismissed?

So, I am very interested to see your methodology as to how you separate out the relative weights of these various motivations, allowing you to determine that religion is the insignificant factor, and then safely discard it.

To say that it's the social context, and therefore the contemporary religious interpretation that matters, is not necessarily to say that the religious motivation is unimportant. I think it's silly, ahistorical--and from a practical standpoint counterproductive and damaging--to say that Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity, but I think it's also silly, counterproductive and damaging to claim that, for example, Isis is not Islamic or that Islam is a religion of peace, etc.

(And personally, I find Islamic critiques of Western morality more than a little cogent.) — Wayfarer

Because of course, "the West" is monolithic, as much as "the Islamic world," right? People in Sweden hold the exact same values as those in Poland, who hold the same values as those in Australia, who hold the exact same values as those in Greece, who hold the exact same values as those in the U.S.A.

You often speak sympathetically about condemnations of the supposed immorality of the West, but I'm never quite sure what you're referring to. You dislike materialism, but that seems to refer to philosophical materialism as much as consumerist materialism. You seem to not like homosexuality very much, as you've made denigrating comments about gays, so perhaps you're not on board with the rise of LGBT rights one finds in many Western countries, but I'm not sure where this source of large-scale immorality is coming from. Quite frankly, most Muslim-majority countries don't really have a moral leg to stand on in criticizing the West.

To say that it's the social context, and therefore the contemporary religious interpretation that matters, is not necessarily to say that the religious motivation is unimportant. — jamalrob

Plenty of commentators do assert this, though. Reza Aslan has made a cottage industry of such claims, for instance.

I think it's silly, ahistorical--and from a practical standpoint counterproductive and damaging--to say that Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity, but I think it's also silly, counterproductive and damaging to claim that, for example, Isis is not Islamic.

I agree: historically almost no religion has clean hands, and I've flogged the horrors of Christianity many times.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Reza Aslan.

The religious motivation of course can be important and, no, it's not all the West's fault; but, yes, to focus on the religion itself in terms of what it's supposed to mean as if that was somehow the reason for the bad things that are done in its name is to miss the point and in a dangerous way (as it would be to ignore religious motivations entirely on the basis that it's not supposed to mean anything objectionable) as @jamalrob pointed out. As I said above, in terms of evaluations there are only the plausible and less plausible; religion X (where X is a major Abrahamic religion at least) is not inherently peaceful or violent, it's how it's used in context that matters. The goal then should be to work to create a context that fosters its peaceful rather than its violent use. So, to claim that the problem is that Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity is not only to make a claim that is not supported by evidence (show me a study where levels of violence in majority Islamic countries are found to be significantly higher than those in majority Christian countries where other socio-cultural variables are accounted for) but also to prevent yourself from having any hope of finding a solution. Which is fine only for those who don't really want one.

I've flogged the horrors of Christianity many times. — Arkady

That sounds violent.

Given that you have purposefully left out the beginning of the sura, which explicitly states that the verse is about the Jews, I've got to ask: What are you trying to achieve by spreading blatant misinformation?

Do you really think no one has access to a Quran? — tom

Whether or not the verse is about Jews, or meant to apply only to Jews, makes no difference. What matters is how people choose to interpret it. If I can convince someone to not kill by misrepresenting the Qur'an, then that's fine by me. I was introduced to the verse by Muslims who interpret it's meaning as I have presented. I googled a few key words and copy/pasted it as is from the first available source.

Little did I know that my friend lied to me about what he believed and the internet lied to me about how people interpret it!

Or to be more specific, it is taqqiya. — tom

I first heard this term about 5 years ago while on a website called BlogTalkRadio. EDL (English Defense League, a far-right ultra-Christian group dedicated to "combating the evil scourge of Islam") talk show hosts were talking about how "Taqqiya" was being used against the west by a monolithic Islamic conspiracy designed to overthrow it. They say that Muslims actually all want western society to collapse and be replaced by a global Islamic caliphate, and in order to achieve this they tell lies and misrepresent the truth of their religion (Taqqiya) in order to conceal it's abhorrence and the greater conspiracy.

They assured me that all Muslims living abroad are patiently out-breeding the white Christians and teaching their murderous desires to their children in secret, until one day when they all plan to suddenly act in coordinated rebellion against the west and take over by voting sharia into government and physically taking the streets. And it will all be too late, and all be my fault for not seeing through the taqiya and hating all Muslims for being evil liars bent on global domination...

As far as I know, actual Taqiya came from a point in history where a group of Shia Muslims lied about the particulars of their faith to another Muslim group who were set to execute them for heresy. As far as I understand it was basically akin to Jews pretending to be Christian in order to escape anti-semetic persecution. If you ask a random arab what "taqiya" means (at least 5 or 6 years ago when it wasn't a far-right meme), they'll have no clue what you're talking about (AHA, MORE EVIDENCE OF TAQIYA!).

It's a fancy way of saying "All Muslims are liars", which is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to challenging Islamic ideology with any intellectual caliber. When a Muslim professes to interpret a particular verse as advocating peace, and you say "no you're lying", how can they possibly respond?

As you say, the Qur'an is there for all to read, and those Muslim groups which do profess extreme views don't seem to have any shyness about doing so, so what's the intention behind saying "No, moderate Muslims are actually lying when they believe in peace/behave peacefully"?.

Are they actually lying about what they believe? And you're helping by pointing that out? Are all Muslims engaged in a global conspiracy to dominate the west through numbers, force, and unity, such as the EDL would have us believe?

You're mostly regurgitating memes at this point Tom.

Why?

I think it's because Islam is your grand enemy, your villain, whose simple nature is understood in the most basic possible terms - violent, decietful, evil - , and so becomes the bogeyman that explains everything bad in the Islamic world, and reaffirms what I think is actually your main position: the fear and loathing of Islam, (as compared with your feelings toward Christianity, let's say).