Islam and the proliferation of violence

[Vamtrl]

In every major conflict around the world from Africa to the Middle East to Central Asia and to South East Asia you can find some group of religious Islamic extremists. People like to bring up the point that even religions like Buddhism have fanatics but in their case the violence is entirely limited in one or two country in SEA unlike Islam which spans the entire globe.

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

This is what makes the Quran's verses of violence so dangerous. They are given the weight of divine command. While Muslim terrorists take them as literally as anything else in their holy book, and understand that Islam is incomplete without Jihad, moderates offer little to contradict them - outside of opinion. Indeed, what do they have? Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of Islam's holiest book either speaks to Allah's hatred for non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it's little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community - even if most Muslims personally prefer not to interpret their religion in this way.

What do you think?

[Ralkovian Grand Island]

Everyone has fanatics willing to kill for their religion.

Muslims just have far better access to the weapons and time needed to do so.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the- ... -overview/

Of course, it helps greatly when the Middle East and other regions where Muslims are the dominant population
generally value human life much lower than in the West.

[Greater Germany]

I think the "Ebil Muslim Theorem" applies.

[Benuty]

Obviously you have sources right OP?

[MERIZoC]

My view on it is that extremism is more prevalent in different religions at different times. For example, a few hundred years ago, while the Christians were persecuting every heretic in sight, the Islamic world was going through a golden age. Before that, there was religious extremism from some of the Roman Pagans against the Christians, and from some of the Jews against the Romans. Right now, extremist Islam is one of the most prevalent extremist groups, but that will change with time.

[Vamtrl]

Everyone has fanatics willing to kill for their religion.

Muslims just have far better access to the weapons and time needed to do so.

I agree, there are always fanatics.

Do you think there is a flaw in their teachings?

[Aushanit]

This idea of violence associated to religion is nothing new with religion. The Christians went through a period religious violence, the Hindus did, the Jews did, almost all religion does this and then they mellow out. Who knows maybe in 200 years the fucking Bahá'ís might be knocking down buildings and blowing shit up.

We are humans and as such we fight amongst each other religion is simply a means of justification. If we didn't have religion then we would still find reasons to fight against each other.

[Ralkovian Grand Island]

This idea of violence associated to religion is nothing new with religion. The Christians went through a period religious violence, the Hindus did, the Jews did, almost all religion does this and then they mellow out. Who knows maybe in 200 years the fucking Bahá'ís might be knocking down buildings and blowing shit up.

In the mean time, we have to deal with Muhammed's followers.

[Aushanit]

This idea of violence associated to religion is nothing new with religion. The Christians went through a period religious violence, the Hindus did, the Jews did, almost all religion does this and then they mellow out. Who knows maybe in 200 years the fucking Bahá'ís might be knocking down buildings and blowing shit up.

In the mean time, we have to deal with Muhammed's followers.

Yep, best we can do is combat the radicals without discriminating against the same ones.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

The Quran is not violent. Those verses you want to talk about do not mean those things.

[Sebtopiaris]

My view on it is that extremism is more prevalent in different religions at different times. For example, a few hundred years ago, while the Christians were persecuting every heretic in sight, the Islamic world was going through a golden age. Before that, there was religious extremism from some of the Roman Pagans against the Christians, and from some of the Jews against the Romans. Right now, extremist Islam is one of the most prevalent extremist groups, but that will change with time.

Who next, I wonder?

[Aushanit]

The Quran is not violent. Those verses you want to talk about do not mean those things.

May you elaborate? Most of us ether haven't read the Quran or think it's justifying BS. Not to say it is and I do a agree with you but other might need an explanation.

[Sebtopiaris]

The Quran is not violent. Those verses you want to talk about do not mean those things.

It may be, but just because a religious text is not violent does not mean that people won't use it as an excuse for violence.

[The Serbian Empire]

The Quran is not violent. Those verses you want to talk about do not mean those things.

If anything, it's a misinterpretation for both OP and the extremists.

[Aushanit]

My view on it is that extremism is more prevalent in different religions at different times. For example, a few hundred years ago, while the Christians were persecuting every heretic in sight, the Islamic world was going through a golden age. Before that, there was religious extremism from some of the Roman Pagans against the Christians, and from some of the Jews against the Romans. Right now, extremist Islam is one of the most prevalent extremist groups, but that will change with time.

Who next, I wonder?

Buddhist maybe, they seem to be radicalizing in Myanmar. But who knows time will only tell.

[MERIZoC]

My view on it is that extremism is more prevalent in different religions at different times. For example, a few hundred years ago, while the Christians were persecuting every heretic in sight, the Islamic world was going through a golden age. Before that, there was religious extremism from some of the Roman Pagans against the Christians, and from some of the Jews against the Romans. Right now, extremist Islam is one of the most prevalent extremist groups, but that will change with time.

Who next, I wonder?

The Jains. They finally get fed up with the whole "non-violence towards all living things" routine, and start a worldwide campaign to eradicate all life on earth.

[Greater Germany]

The Quran is not violent. Those verses you want to talk about do not mean those things.

There is undeniably violence in the Qur'an. The issue is over matters of interpretation. God says many bad things will happen to unbelievers. Certain Jihadists tend to interpret this as God's wish to carry them out personally in His name.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/QuRan/

[The Serbian Empire]

My view on it is that extremism is more prevalent in different religions at different times. For example, a few hundred years ago, while the Christians were persecuting every heretic in sight, the Islamic world was going through a golden age. Before that, there was religious extremism from some of the Roman Pagans against the Christians, and from some of the Jews against the Romans. Right now, extremist Islam is one of the most prevalent extremist groups, but that will change with time.

Who next, I wonder?

I bet $50 on Scientologists.

[Sebtopiaris]

Who next, I wonder?

The Jains. They finally get fed up with the whole "non-violence towards all living things" routine, and start a worldwide campaign to eradicate all life on earth.

Are you saying that a religion as small as Jainism could possibly grow as large as Islam in the space of a few centuries?

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

The Quran is not violent. Those verses you want to talk about do not mean those things.

May you elaborate? Most of us ether haven't read the Quran or think it's justifying BS. Not to say it is and I do a agree with you but other might need an explanation.

The verses most people like to talk about, the ones that talk about "kill all the infidels blah blah blah"
They don't say that.
They are instructions for times of war. In which case, if they are People of the Book (Muslims, Jews, and Christians) you have to do your best to get them to listen to you and stop fighting. But people who are waging war on you and who are attacking you on religious grounds, you don't have the common God to appeal with, and thus fight for your life.
The Quran says to leave non-believers alone, that just because you believe different does not mean that fighting, killing, or being mean is okay. Killing people for any reason other than war or as punishment for very serious crimes isn't okay.

[Aushanit]

Who next, I wonder?

I bet $50 on Scientologists.

Definitely would be worth the $50 to see.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

The Quran is not violent. Those verses you want to talk about do not mean those things.

There is undeniably violence in the Qur'an. The issue is over matters of interpretation. God says many bad things will happen to unbelievers. Certain Jihadists tend to interpret this as God's wish to carry them out personally in His name.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/QuRan/

If you are going to source the Skeptics Annotated Bible, I'm just going to laugh at you.

[Kaztropol]

This idea of violence associated to religion is nothing new with religion.
We are humans and as such we fight amongst each other religion is simply a means of justification. If we didn't have religion then we would still find reasons to fight against each other.

I think there's a difference between someone with influence saying "God wills it", e.g. the medieval kings and popes of the Crusades period of history, and violence being directly written into a particular religion.

Assuming it is written, that is. And this is where the argument is.

The Quran is not violent. Those verses you want to talk about do not mean those things.

The translation and interpretation of those verses is difficult. They are written in a language that requires careful study in itself, and to understand the historical context in which they were written. A word that means something now, meant something different hundreds of years ago, and meant something different again, hundreds of years before that, when used in a particular context.

[Adab]

Who next, I wonder?

The Jains. They finally get fed up with the whole "non-violence towards all living things" routine, and start a worldwide campaign to eradicate all life on earth.

All life? You mean they will eradicate themselves too? I clearly don't see that happening for as long as Jainism exists.

[The Serbian Empire]

I bet $50 on Scientologists.

Definitely would be worth the $50 to see.

They'd be bombing the pharmacies for the psychotropic drugs.