Is Islam really a peaceful religion?

[Famous Mortimer]

Why MUST the issue of violence in Islam be discussed from a sociological point of view? Why can't it be discussed from a doctrinal point of view?

Because you're uncomfortable with the answer when it's done that way, that's the only reason.

No, it's because violence occurs socially, is a social consequence, and is part of a religion's social context. I'm not 'uncomfortable' saying that there are deeply disquieting aspects with the way Muslim doctrine gets applied in situations of conflict and with the fact that it's constructed in such a way as to make it easy to do that, that's clearly a serious problem and I've admitted as much in this thread twice so far. The one who's completely unwilling to even approach discussing the issue through a lens other than your preferred one is you, because you're uncomfortable with any discussion of anything that doesn't result in people like you coming out as manifestly the best people in the world who have all the answers. Religion, racial politics, sexual politics, everything that people care about at all on anything more than an immediate material level, all has to be bent into service to Atlas Forum user WillipsBrighton's need to feel like youngish nonreligious white men from the Northeastern United States are masters of the universe who can explain it all. It's not even that you're mulish about this one issue, it's a ridiculously salient and consistent feature of your posting history on practically any subject of interest.

What an odd personal attack. You're attacking me because I think my positions are correct. How many people on this board debate things thinking they are wrong about them?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why MUST the issue of violence in Islam be discussed from a sociological point of view? Why can't it be discussed from a doctrinal point of view?

Because you're uncomfortable with the answer when it's done that way, that's the only reason.

No, it's because violence occurs socially, is a social consequence, and is part of a religion's social context. I'm not 'uncomfortable' saying that there are deeply disquieting aspects with the way Muslim doctrine gets applied in situations of conflict and with the fact that it's constructed in such a way as to make it easy to do that, that's clearly a serious problem and I've admitted as much in this thread twice so far. The one who's completely unwilling to even approach discussing the issue through a lens other than your preferred one is you, because you're uncomfortable with any discussion of anything that doesn't result in people like you coming out as manifestly the best people in the world who have all the answers. Religion, racial politics, sexual politics, everything that people care about at all on anything more than an immediate material level, all has to be bent into service to Atlas Forum user WillipsBrighton's need to feel like youngish nonreligious white men from the Northeastern United States are masters of the universe who can explain it all. It's not even that you're mulish about this one issue, it's a ridiculously salient and consistent feature of your posting history on practically any subject of interest.

What an odd personal attack. You're attacking me because I think my positions are correct. How many people on this board debate things thinking they are wrong about them?

No, I'm attacking you because you think your positions are the only ones that could conceivably have any merit from any perspective and that the only reason I could possibly prefer a different heuristic is that I'm uncomfortable or afraid, because you have obviously self-congratulatory reasons for behaving this way, and because it's a consistent feature of your posting style on a variety of subjects. Not the same thing, as you know good and well.

[ingemann]

Why MUST the issue of violence in Islam be discussed from a sociological point of view? Why can't it be discussed from a doctrinal point of view?

Because you're uncomfortable with the answer when it's done that way, that's the only reason.

The problem is that Islamic violence do make the most sense sociological. If we take Judaism and Zoroastrianism both have a theology which lend itself to the same kind of violence as Islam does. But in newer history neither group lack the tradition for religious violence Islam.

This is because of the structures both groups have lived under, if the Jews of Poland-Lithuania had behaved in the same manners as modern Muslim behave today, I doubt there would have been any Jews left in 1939 for the Germans to commit genocide on.

Religious violence is not only based on doctrine it's everybit as much based history and power.

Warning what I say below are not a suggestions or policies I support

If western began to kill every domestic terrorist's family and members of his mosque, we would soon no longer see domestic Islamic terrorists.

If we had build pyramids of skulls in Afghanistan and in general decimated the population, the violence there would likely also be over by now.

It was how Jews and Zoroatist became as peaceful as they are now, everytime they raised their heads, some one beat it back down into the ground.

[P123]

Obviously not (sane).

[SillyAmerican]

Many religions have violence in them. Just because the violence exists in it's history doesn't mean that the religion itself is violent.

Correct. The people arguing that Islam is violent are not arguing that just because there is violence in its history. They are arguing that because its theology justified that violence.

Exactly.

I just read and listened to comments made by Andrew McCarthy, former Assistant U.S. Attorney.

In a speech at Hillsdale College (February 24, 2016):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In an interview after the Brussels attack (March 23, 2016):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with Mr. McCarthy. We need to address the root problem, which is that the Islamic scriptures do not promote peace, they encourage violence. If we continue to approach the problem without this recognition, if we continue to play the politically correct narrative which says that this has nothing to do with Islam, we will continue to see carnage and innocent victims on the nightly news.

[SillyAmerican]

I said not one word about biblical literalism. I was merely saying that acting as though the Old Testament doesn't exist is faulty reasoning.

Who is acting as though the Old Testament doesn't exist? The Old Testament speaks of the Old Covenant, and the New Testament speaks of the New Covenant. While the Hebrew Bible teaches the law, the history of the Jewish people, and the prophetic indications of Christ's coming, Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ, and those are given in the New Testament. Christ was Jewish, the Apostles were Jewish, all members of the early church were Jewish, Christ's death and resurrection can be viewed as Christianity's passover; so clearly "Christians" believe in the Old Testament, but their theology is rooted in the New Testament. A person who only believes in what the Old Testament says is called "Jewish", while a person (Jew or Gentile) who believes in the New Testament is called "Christian" (or perhaps "Messianic Jew"). Christian faith and doctrine are provided for within the Gospels and the accounts of the early church (found in the book of Acts and Paul's letters). Christians don't act as though the Old Testament doesn't exist, we act as though the promises provided for within the Old Testament are fulfilled in the New Testament, as though we cannot succeed on our own under the law but need the grace that is found in Jesus, the Christ. I hope that makes sense, 'cuz I don't quite know how else to explain it.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Jesus said he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. You said, "Show me where there is violence in the Bible, but the Old Testament doesn't count!" A lot of those laws, not abolished, call explicitly for violence, and there are people who hew to Christianity who believe that we ought to exercise Old Testament interpretations to violations of those laws.

But let's even leave that aside. Leave Christianity aside. Let's just talk about the Jewish people. Are they irredeemably violent because their scripture is full of violence, and they don't get to claim it doesn't count?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The issues raised are moot. The vast majority of people dislike violence and avoid it for self-preservation; and if this is contradicted by scripture they will normally handwave it. People who act on violent impulses have something else going on.

[Famous Mortimer]

Jesus said he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. You said, "Show me where there is violence in the Bible, but the Old Testament doesn't count!" A lot of those laws, not abolished, call explicitly for violence, and there are people who hew to Christianity who believe that we ought to exercise Old Testament interpretations to violations of those laws.

But let's even leave that aside. Leave Christianity aside. Let's just talk about the Jewish people. Are they irredeemably violent because their scripture is full of violence, and they don't get to claim it doesn't count?

Any strain of Judaism that dictates the infallibility of the Torah is indeed inherently violent, yes. Most Jews do not believe in the infallibility of the Torah though. Infallibility of the Quran, on the other hand, is regarded as a central tenant of the faith by most Islamic schools of thought.

[Famous Mortimer]

The issues raised are moot. The vast majority of people dislike violence and avoid it for self-preservation; and if this is contradicted by scripture they will normally handwave it. People who act on violent impulses have something else going on.

Cop out.

Let's put it this way: If one person is raised in a religion that says it's okay to beat your wife and another person is raised an atheist and told beating your wife is wrong, true, both of them could end up beating their wives. Both of them could also end up not beating their wives. The guy raised in the wife beating religion though, who is taunt that God is pro-wife beating, is probably going to slip into the habit more easily.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I mean, man, WillipsBrighton, this is hilarious and you'd bomb most religious studies classes with this stuff, but you're obviously fixed enough in your desire (need?) to think like this that it's useless to continue trying to correct you. But one thing I will ask, actually: Why, do you think, do most forms of Islam advocate a form of scriptural literalism? How, in your understanding, did Islam develop that feature? You don't need to go into any specifics if you don't know or have an opinion on them; I just want to know what your understanding is of the general type of reason that caused that.

[Famous Mortimer]

I mean, man, WillipsBrighton, this is hilarious and you'd bomb most religious studies classes with this stuff, but you're obviously fixed enough in your desire (need?) to think like this that it's useless to continue trying to correct you. But one thing I will ask, actually: Why, do you think, do most forms of Islam advocate a form of scriptural literalism? How, in your understanding, did Islam develop that feature? You don't need to go into any specifics if you don't know or have an opinion on them; I just want to know what your understanding is of the general type of reason that caused that.

What am I bombing? You're conceding my point and acknowledging scriptural literalism is a major component of Islam. You're just adding that there are reasons for that being the case that someone justify it.

Same as you did with violence. You say "yeah Islam is violent but there's historical context".

Basically it's the old "but he had a bad childhood!" argument but applied to philosophy instead of a person.

[Famous Mortimer]

but as to the reason why Islam mandates the infallibility of the Quran, it's because without the infallibility and the literalness of Mohammad's revelation, there basically is no Islam. It's the entirety of the religion.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I mean, man, WillipsBrighton, this is hilarious and you'd bomb most religious studies classes with this stuff, but you're obviously fixed enough in your desire (need?) to think like this that it's useless to continue trying to correct you. But one thing I will ask, actually: Why, do you think, do most forms of Islam advocate a form of scriptural literalism? How, in your understanding, did Islam develop that feature? You don't need to go into any specifics if you don't know or have an opinion on them; I just want to know what your understanding is of the general type of reason that caused that.

What am I bombing?

I'm going to spell this out in very small words: Members of a certain religion commonly do bad things, for reasons that did not have to be that way, have not always been that way in the past, and might stop being that way again in the future. You are saying that the fact that those reasons did not have to be that way, have not always been that way in the past, and might stop being that way again in the future is not important. That kind of claim is frowned upon by most people who study religion. It is frowned upon because it turns the religions that people make it about (usually this religion these days but it has been made about many, many others in the past on all sorts of grounds) into abstractions that pop into being and persist in being without context. It is a way to get out of doing historical or sociological work to understand how these things happen. It makes it harder to solve these problems or learn from them to try to keep them from happening again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, and claiming that such a person has an inherent violent or evil essence would be wrongheaded and a faintly dangerous claim to make too.

but as to the reason why Islam mandates the infallibility of the Quran, it's because without the infallibility and the literalness of Mohammad's revelation, there basically is no Islam. It's the entirety of the religion.

You're using 'infallible' and 'literal' interchangeably. I don't entirely blame you for this, as doing so is a next-to-universal flaw in the thinking of self-important most-important-person-in-the-universe-who-has-all-the-answers atheist edgelords such as yourself, and especially as many Muslim scholars and ideologues who talk about this subject unfortunately do so too, but there are also those who, well, don't. Or are you actually going so far as to deny that Muslims and Muslim leaders who reject reading violent passages in the Qur'an as literal calls for physical action exist?

[Famous Mortimer]

I'm not denying that there is a sociological context. You seem to be denying that there's any theological context though. The two feed into each other.

Again, if there's a religion that says "It's the unchangeable word of God that beating your wife is cool" people who believe that religion are going to have a much easier time justifying beating their wife, a society that accepts that religion is going to have a much easier time accepting wife beating. A society without such a religion might also have wife beating, it might even have more at some times, it probably won't though.

[Famous Mortimer]

A book that says "beating your wife is okay" is inherently evil. If prosperous economic times make people feel comfortable disregarding that book, that's great. Doesn't make the book less evil though.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

[Famous Mortimer]

How have I moved the goal post?

My position has always been that the religious texts of Islam are violent and immoral and that those texts constitute the whole of the religion. I don't know how you feel about the first part. I'm guessing you'd either agree or dodge the issue. The only thing you disagree about for sure is the second part.

I guess it's possible something other than Islamic theology might come to define Islam in the future. Islam might become Arabic flavored Unitarianism 1000 years from now. It will, however, be unrecognizable as Islam to most current Muslims. In the same way a Christianity which rejects the existence of Christ and says he was just a metaphor would be unrecognizable to most Christians.

Islam can change but it would have to disregard most of its theology. You say say theology isn't the whole of a religion but you must admit, it's a pretty big damn part.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not denying that there is a sociological context. You seem to be denying that there's any theological context though. The two feed into each other.

Again, if there's a religion that says "It's the unchangeable word of God that beating your wife is cool" people who believe that religion are going to have a much easier time justifying beating their wife, a society that accepts that religion is going to have a much easier time accepting wife beating. A society without such a religion might also have wife beating, it might even have more at some times, it probably won't though.

How exactly do you square that with the fact that for several centuries the Islamic world was by all accounts a far more tolerant and (for lack of a better word) "civilized" place than Christian Europe?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How have I moved the goal post?

That was in response to you attempting to reframe the question as 'both sociological and theological components vs. only theological components', when before you'd been denying the sociological components. If that denial was unintentional on your part then I apologize for reading it in.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd say there's some very good stuff there and some very bad stuff there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because it's incredibly and willfully stupid at best and at worst batsh**t insane, and, either way, it is so 1891.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The idea that any particular interpretation of what's meant by Qur'anic infallibility is as universally and fundamentally important to Islam as the existence of Christ is to Christianity is an odd one but I guess I can't stop you from framing (your conception of) the religion that way if you really want to. I couldn't disagree more with the part I've bolded, partially because I don't see 'fundamentalism' and 'Arabic flavored Unitarianism' as the only possible options and am frankly baffled by why anybody would. They're not even the only options that demonstrably exist now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are a lot of assumptions here that I don't particularly feel like picking apart right now so instead I'm just going to say that I disagree with many of the assumptions but might agree with the conclusion if I didn't, and move on.

[Famous Mortimer]

I'm not denying that there is a sociological context. You seem to be denying that there's any theological context though. The two feed into each other.

Again, if there's a religion that says "It's the unchangeable word of God that beating your wife is cool" people who believe that religion are going to have a much easier time justifying beating their wife, a society that accepts that religion is going to have a much easier time accepting wife beating. A society without such a religion might also have wife beating, it might even have more at some times, it probably won't though.

How exactly do you square that with the fact that for several centuries the Islamic world was by all accounts a far more tolerant and (for lack of a better word) "civilized" place than Christian Europe?

It was tolerant by Middle Ages standards, which isn't really tolerant at all.

This would be like comparing a high school drop out to someone with a PhD and saying that the drop out was smarter because they got better grades in elementary school.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This would be like comparing a high school drop out to someone with a PhD and saying that the drop out was smarter because they got better grades in elementary school.

...holy sh**t, you are awful.

[Famous Mortimer]

Religions often change based on their social context. The problem with Islam is, it's very resistant to change.

Christianity is based on dozens of documents written by dozens of different people in several different time periods. For that reason, there are lots of loopholes that exist which allow people to be Christian and still function in the modern world and lead non-horrible lives.

Islam, on the other hand, is based on one document written by a single guy. You can observe the stuff he said, or you can ignore it. But beyond that, there's not nearly as much room for maneuvering.

This is not to say that every time a professed Christian breaks a rule, he has a theological justification. No, most of the time they're just ignoring it. The fact that it can be justified though has allowed society in general to progress. It has allowed secular governments to be formed and progressive laws to be passed without necessitating a large scale Holy War by religious Christians against the government.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It was tolerant by Middle Ages standards, which isn't really tolerant at all.

Well yeah, by what other standards do you want to judge it? If you're going to apply modern standards to assessing the morality of past historical events you're not going to get much further than saying "everyone was horrible, moving on". So unless you think a historical perspective has no relevance in determining the value of religions that have existed for centuries to millennia and will probably live on for at least a few centuries, you've got to give some value to what was going on in the Middle Ages.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In addition to its inherent dickery (cf. Nathan's post) this argument only makes sense if you assume that modern day=PhD, that we've reached the final stage in "civilization". That's a ridiculous idea and if you hold it there's really no hope for you. People five centuries from now are going to look back in shame and think we were barbarians - and they will be right.

Islam, on the other hand, is based on one document written by a single guy. You can observe the stuff he said, or you can ignore it. But beyond that, there's not nearly as much room for maneuvering.

I know next to nothing about Islam, and yet I know this is factually wrong. Did it ever cross your mind to do some research before making your grand pronouncements?

[Famous Mortimer]

Yes, everyone was horrible in the middle ages but not everyone is horrible now. Islamic society was bad in the middle ages and it's bad now. Christian society was terrible in the middle ages and it's much much better now. Islamic society has always been terrible by modern standards. Christian societies have been slowly progressing.

And no, I don't think Christian societies have reached the apex of human development. They are certainly better than Islamic society though. There are few if any Christian countries where blasphemy leads to the death penalty.

What is factually wrong about my statement? Are you referring to the Hadiths? 1) The Hadiths are not as important as the Quran. Their infallibility is not as universally accepted. 2) The Hadiths are much more barbaric than the Quran. So I'm doing Islam a favor by not talking them. I don't have a problem with barbaric texts as long as they aren't held up as the infallible word of God. Same reason I give most Christian denominations a pass for the Old Testament, since they don't accept it as inerrant.

Lastly, you say you know next to nothing about Islam but here are you insisting that it isn't violent. This is a text book case of wanting to believe something and then working backwards to try and back it up.