So Islam is a religion of peace?

I think that every one is missing the point that it is "government" or governing forces that are violent. If religion has a major hand in the governing forces, it is going to be violent, especially if that government is at "war" with another government. This does not exclude secular governments who are violent for secular reasons.

Normally one uses religion to make inner peace with themselves and the people around them. Sometimes secular rulers wield religion as a force to unite people for a cause. So technically religion is not for war or for peace, but is a tool that people use to do what they wish. Some use it for war, and some use it for peace. Since there are humans in all of the major world religions who are peaceful, it is not the religion that is to blame, but those humans who use it for war, who are the non-peaceful adherants.

BasketCase said:

Which doesn't change the fact that Islam today remains much more violent than average human beings today.

Click to expand...

Is that right? You mean like homicides?

The top 20 countries by homicide rate are all prdominately Christian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate



You have to get down well past the US before the first predominately Muslim country shows up in the list.

If you consider the most dangerous countries to travel, then more Muslim countries do show up in at least this top 10 list:

http://www.emagzin.com/featured/10-most-dangerous-countries-to-travel/

But 5 of them are still predominately Christian, including the top 2. And two of them are India and Israel.

timtofly said:

I think that every one is missing the point that it is "government" or governing forces that are violent. If religion has a major hand in the governing forces, it is going to be violent, especially if that government is at "war" with another government. This does not exclude secular governments who are violent for secular reasons.

Normally one uses religion to make inner peace with themselves and the people around them. Sometimes secular rulers wield religion as a force to unite people for a cause. So technically religion is not for war or for peace, but is a tool that people use to do what they wish. Some use it for war, and some use it for peace. Since there are humans in all of the major world religions who are peaceful, it is not the religion that is to blame, but those humans who use it for war, who are the non-peaceful adherants.

Click to expand...

Huh. That's an interesting point. It follows, then, that religions that have a tendency towards 'being a system of government' would then be likely to adopt the violence that's inherent in creating (or maintaining) government.

BasketCase said:

Yes. Here, you're comparing Christianity today, to Christianity in the 40's.

Click to expand...

What has fundamentally changed about Christianity in the past 60 years?
I can't think of anything that would make it less violent.
This implies that the decrease in violence is because people changed, not the religion. As such either the the religion wasn't violent in the 1940s, but the people were or the religion was violent but the people became less violent and the people overcame it.

A major problem with your arguments is you are not separating the people from the religion. Religion is one of many factors that motivate people just because a group of people are violent [non-violent] does not necessarily mean their religion is violent [non-violent]. Power, money, nationalism, history and other secular aspects etc all play a part in motivating people irrelevant to what their religion is.

Leoreth said:

But why should I? Everyone knows most WW2 belligerents had a Christian majority, and everyone knows that WW2 had nothing to do with Christianity. It's the perfect example.

Click to expand...

It's a completely useless example; almost everybody on the planet was involved in World War 2 (there's a reason they called it a "world" war). You can't use World War 2 to claim Christians were violent at the time, because the entire human race was violent at the time.

The other reason it's a useless example is because this thread isn't about Christianity.

lord_joakim said:

What the hell? I didn't say it because I wanted you to get all uppity and mad, I said that because you seem to ignore the very basic premises of a constructive debate climate.

Click to expand...

Then don't go saying "you're the debate loser unless you answer the question".

lord_joakim said:

Nope, but the reasons for which Christianity is violent or not should account for both Christianity and Islam

Click to expand...

I'm familiar with the debate tactic of sidestepping an unpleasant claim (such as "I say Islam is violent") by firing a similar claim back (such as "I say Christianity is violent").

This thread isn't about Christianity. Drop it.

Ajidica said:

So Islam is a violent religion because the areas where it is a majority suffered the most from decolonization, while ignoring the violence that resulted from decolonization in non-Muslim majority areas?

Click to expand...

Not true. I specifically mentioned said decolonization violence in non-Muslim areas. I even gave an example: India. Many areas of the planet have been invaded by us white folks--yet, in most of them, you don't see the kind of vengeful mindset you see in Islamic territories.

Ajidica said:

Furthermore, Islam somehow became a violent religion even though most of the violence was initiated by nominaly secular Arab Nationalists or military regimes?
I'm confused.

Click to expand...

A rose by any other name. Calling it secular doesn't make it secular. Fact is, the majority of Muslims support a lot of those "nominally secular" parties and regimes; they'll happily side with anybody who's anti-U.S. or anti-Israel.

timtofly said:

I think that every one is missing the point that it is "government" or governing forces that are violent. If religion has a major hand in the governing forces, it is going to be violent, especially if that government is at "war" with another government. This does not exclude secular governments who are violent for secular reasons.

Normally one uses religion to make inner peace with themselves and the people around them. Sometimes secular rulers wield religion as a force to unite people for a cause. So technically religion is not for war or for peace, but is a tool that people use to do what they wish. Some use it for war, and some use it for peace. Since there are humans in all of the major world religions who are peaceful, it is not the religion that is to blame, but those humans who use it for war, who are the non-peaceful adherants.

Click to expand...

For the most part, the above is true (well, I disagree with a few parts of it, but I'll let those go). The issue is, Islam appears to be a rather glaring exception to the above.


Edit (addenum):

say1988 said:

What has fundamentally changed about Christianity in the past 60 years?

Click to expand...

Same thing that changed about Germany and the United States and Japan and all (or, rather, most of) the other combatants who participated in World War 2.

say1988 said:

A major problem with your arguments is you are not separating the people from the religion. Religion is one of many factors that motivate people just because a group of people are violent [non-violent] does not necessarily mean their religion is violent [non-violent].

Click to expand...

How do you measure whether a religion is violent? There are two factors: the intent, and the results. Does the religion intend to be violent? Does it say "kill all non-believers"? The debate over whether the "proper" interpretation of Islam says to do that is still in progress and is not likely to end in our lifetimes.

So all we can really work with is the results. Why don't we see calls-for-jihad and suicide attacks (or planes being flown into skyscrapers) by angry Hindus or Indians (from India) or Indians (as in Apache or Sioux) or Germans or Japanese or Italians or anybody else who has been invaded by us evil Americans/British? Lots of groups on Earth have been invaded by us. Why is it only one of those groups still holds a grudge.....?

BasketCase said:

It's a completely useless example; almost everybody on the planet was involved in World War 2 (there's a reason they called it a "world" war). You can't use World War 2 to claim Christians were violent at the time, because the entire human race was violent at the time.

The other reason it's a useless example is because this thread isn't about Christianity.

Click to expand...

Are you really that dense?

I have chosen WW2 exactly because almost everyone was at war at that time! To show that your metric of "if countries with that religion partake in a conflict, the religion is violent" is nonsense was the whole point of my original reply! I never wanted to make the discussion about Christianity, it was just an example! And I never said that Christianity is or was violent, I just said that this would follow from your faulty criteria.

But of course you had to become all offended because I dared to apply your own criteria to something you don't hate.

Same thing that changed about Germany and the United States and Japan and all (or, rather, most of) the other combatants who participated in World War 2.

Click to expand...

What then?

A rose by any other name. Calling it secular doesn't make it secular. Fact is, the majority of Muslims support a lot of those "nominally secular" parties and regimes; they'll happily side with anybody who's anti-U.S. or anti-Israel.

Click to expand...

So is it the religion that makes them anti-whatever or some other factor, such as lingering anti-imperialism?

BasketCase said:

Then don't go saying "you're the debate loser unless you answer the question".

Click to expand...

That's how a debate works. Rhethorics 101, man. Additionally, it's unfit to call me out as a troll to begin with. If you have a problem with me, report my post. Or did you report it and noticed I wasn't infracted? I'm not a troll then, am I?

I'm familiar with the debate tactic of sidestepping an unpleasant claim (such as "I say Islam is violent") by firing a similar claim back (such as "I say Christianity is violent").

This thread isn't about Christianity. Drop it.

Click to expand...

Well, if a claim is stated, such as "if Islam is involved with most conflicts in the world, it is a religion of war", we merely ask whether you mean only that, or whether you mean this too: "if a religion is involved with most conflicts in the world, it is a religion of war".

If you only stand by the first statement, you're a bigot per definition, and we do not assume this is the case. We naturally assume that you're better than that and that you're rather going by the second statement. Which leads us to our problem: That statement inductively rationalizes the very same claim is true about any other religion, including Christianity. So if you do not wish to answer to the universal claim, that a religion being the state religion of a country involved in warfare makes that religion violent, we assume the answer isn't making your case, therefore you're a hypocrite. Or you can think Christianity is a religion of war, establishing your opinion for us to properly discuss. (Religion is a hammer etc) Your choice.

BasketCase said:

It's a completely useless example; almost everybody on the planet was involved in World War 2 (there's a reason they called it a "world" war). You can't use World War 2 to claim Christians were violent at the time, because the entire human race was violent at the time.

The other reason it's a useless example is because this thread isn't about Christianity.


Then don't go saying "you're the debate loser unless you answer the question".


I'm familiar with the debate tactic of sidestepping an unpleasant claim (such as "I say Islam is violent") by firing a similar claim back (such as "I say Christianity is violent").

This thread isn't about Christianity. Drop it.


Not true. I specifically mentioned said decolonization violence in non-Muslim areas. I even gave an example: India. Many areas of the planet have been invaded by us white folks--yet, in most of them, you don't see the kind of vengeful mindset you see in Islamic territories.


A rose by any other name. Calling it secular doesn't make it secular. Fact is, the majority of Muslims support a lot of those "nominally secular" parties and regimes; they'll happily side with anybody who's anti-U.S. or anti-Israel.



For the most part, the above is true (well, I disagree with a few parts of it, but I'll let those go). The issue is, Islam appears to be a rather glaring exception to the above.


Edit (addenum):


Same thing that changed about Germany and the United States and Japan and all (or, rather, most of) the other combatants who participated in World War 2.


How do you measure whether a religion is violent? There are two factors: the intent, and the results. Does the religion intend to be violent? Does it say "kill all non-believers"? The debate over whether the "proper" interpretation of Islam says to do that is still in progress and is not likely to end in our lifetimes.

So all we can really work with is the results. Why don't we see calls-for-jihad and suicide attacks (or planes being flown into skyscrapers) by angry Hindus or Indians (from India) or Indians (as in Apache or Sioux) or Germans or Japanese or Italians or anybody else who has been invaded by us evil Americans/British? Lots of groups on Earth have been invaded by us. Why is it only one of those groups still holds a grudge.....?

Click to expand...

Ok, I see that some here are obviously afraid of stating the truth, but skirt the issues. We have 3 "branches" of the so-called abrahamic "religion". If one wants to call the roots of judaism violent, since it had ethnic cleansing to make room for the Hebrews to exist in the ME. Other than that it did not expand through violence, but did fight to keep it's place in the world, until it was relegated to a personal religion and not a governmental religion.

Christianity was "peaceful" until it went from a personal religion to a governmental religion.

Islam started out as a "governmental" religion, but it has also been a personal religion, because 90% of it is from Judaism, hence why it is called an Abrahamic religion. It is only when the 10% of it's governmental tendencies are enforced, and it's adherents deem it neccessary to take land by force and add it to it's governance would it be considered violent.

For all we know, there may yet be a bloody civil war in the US over religion. Christianity can be just as violent as Islam, although, it's rallying cry is civil disobedience and not just trying to expand it's influence and/or governance. I do not think, that Christianity itself calls for holy wars unless there is a strong secular influence wielding Christianity. I also think that the majority of Muslims, would not "go to war" without it's strong "governmental" arm calling for a jihad.

tl, dr: Christianity only goes to "war" under secular influence. Islam only goes to war under strong governmental leaders. Both are basically peaceful, unless persuaded to be violent by a small minority of those who want to rally both religions into a non-peaceful situation. BTW, I doubt Muhammad would have gotten people to fight, if certain verses had not appeared in the Quran.

I would not say that Islam is inherently violent. But the Arabic culture that often goes with it is. Arabic culture is still essentially that of desert nomads. Or at least, has been since the inland Arabs asserted their dominance. (Fun fact, there are two words for peace in Arabic, on means, originally, a marriage alliance or a merger of two tribes; the other is basically what we sign in civ, "I can't take you today so how about we stop fighting until I am stronger.") Islam makes it very easy for violent people to reach positions of power however, through some mechanism I have not yet fully ascertained. Islam divorced from Arab culture however is just fine, and not terribly different from Christianity.

Me said:

I would not say that Islam is inherently violent. But the Arabic culture that often goes with it is. Arabic culture is still essentially that of desert nomads. Or at least, has been since the inland Arabs asserted their dominance. (Fun fact, there are two words for peace in Arabic, on means, originally, a marriage alliance or a merger of two tribes; the other is basically what we sign in civ, "I can't take you today so how about we stop fighting until I am stronger.") Islam makes it very easy for violent people to reach positions of power however, through some mechanism I have not yet fully ascertained. Islam divorced from Arab culture however is just fine, and not terribly different from Christianity.

Click to expand...

lol "So I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, but I'm just going to keep on saying it anyway!"

Owen Glyndwr said:

lol "So I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, but I'm just going to keep on saying it anyway!"

Click to expand...

No, "I have observed X to be true. I simply do not know why X is true. Only that it is. One day I will find out why X is true."

Me said:

No, "I have observed X to be true. I simply do not know why X is true. Only that it is. One day I will find out why X is true."

Click to expand...

Ok, so "I have some anecdotal evidence, and three weeks of studying Whig history and nothing else to go on, but I'm going to keep on talking anyway!" Much better!

Me said:

Arabic culture is still essentially that of desert nomads.

Click to expand...

Desert nomads only ever formed a small warrior-elite for several generations in the first millennium. How can they possibly have constituted the "essential" culture of the entire Arabic world? You may as well say the same thing about China, Ukraine or Pakistan, for all the sense it would make.

Me said:

No, "I have observed X to be true. I simply do not know why X is true. Only that it is. One day I will find out why X is true."

Click to expand...

Characterizing Arabs as "desert nomads" probably doesn't help much to eventually find that "truth".



EDIT: X-Post. Was busy finding some photos...

Most Arabs historically weren't nomads. Some certainly were. But most were semi-settled pastoralists or settled agriculturalists. Muhammad was the one of the former, as were most of his early followers.

Leoreth said:

Are you really that dense?

Click to expand...

Ad hominem. And an irrelevant one, at that. Whether I'm dense has no bearing on whether I'm right.

Leoreth said:

I have chosen WW2 exactly because almost everyone was at war at that time!

Click to expand...

And "almost everyone" is NOT at war TODAY. Your example is not comparable to the present day. You can only claim Christianity was violent during World War II because it was involved in World War II. What your logical dodge says is, "BasketCase, by your logic, Christianity is violent TODAY because it was involved in a world war seventy years ago". That's wrong, dude.

Most people on Earth today are NOT at war. Whereas a whole lot of Muslims ARE at war. TODAY.

Leoreth said:

To show that your metric of "if countries with that religion partake in a conflict, the religion is violent" is nonsense was the whole point of my original reply!

Click to expand...

You got the metric wrong.

The correct metric is this: if countries with a religion partake in lots of violence, and countries without that religion DO NOT, then the religion is violent. Side note: whether or not countries with that religion partake in religious wars is irrelevant. Religions have fought for lots of things besides religion throughout history: money, land, power. Even sex.

Leoreth said:

And I never said that Christianity is or was violent, I just said that this would follow from your faulty criteria.

Click to expand...

And there are a bunch of people, on CFC and elsewhere, who say Christianity is a violent religion. Which causes your attempted proof to go up in smoke; it depends on reductio ad absurdum, which fails if people say Christianity is a violent religion.

Leoreth said:

But of course you had to become all offended because I dared to apply your own criteria to something you don't hate.

Click to expand...

Would this be a bad time to mention I'm an atheist? (odd--I'd figured everybody on CFC already knew that about me! )

Formaldehyde said:

Is that right? You mean like homicides?

Click to expand...

Nope. I think I was pretty clear that I meant wars. Homicide is only one type of violence, and one that's almost impossible to measure in places where we most need to measure it (such as North Korea) where murders committed by the government are impossible to count because the victims disappear into mass graves that don't get found for a few decades. Besides: last time I checked, the homicide rate in the United States wasn't drawing sanctions from the United Nations, so apparently homicide in the U.S. isn't considered a problem. Assad has it all on Americans when it comes to killing his own citizens.

lord_joakim said:

That's how a debate works. Rhethorics 101, man.

Click to expand...

If you want to debate me on something, do it without using the word "loser". Otherwise I'll just go argue with somebody else.

lord_joakim said:

Well, if a claim is stated, such as "if Islam is involved with most conflicts in the world, it is a religion of war"

Click to expand...

Is that claim true, or not?

lord_joakim said:

we merely ask whether you mean only that, or whether you mean this too: "if a religion is involved with most conflicts in the world, it is a religion of war".

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. My answer to this question has nothing to do with that previous question I just asked a moment ago.

Suppose I were to answer "yes, I do mean both"? Does that change the answer to "if Islam is involved with most conflicts in the world, it is a religion of war"? No, it does not.

Suppose I were to answer "no"? Doesn't matter if I'm a hypocrite. If some guy is puffing on a cigarette and tells you smoking can kill you, he's still right--naturally you would likely assume he was wrong because he was smoking--and you would be mistaken to do that.

Either way--whether I mean both claims, or only the first--the answer to the original question does not change. So there's no point in you asking.

Time for a little surprise. This is probably going to really throw you for a loop. Here's a different claim: "if a GROUP is involved with most conflicts in the world, that GROUP is a violent GROUP." Note what I did there. All I did was strike "religion" and replace it with "group". Here's the surprise: this modified claim is FALSE. Human beings are, in fact, involved in ALL of the Earth's conflicts. Does that make human beings violent? No. Because all the world's wars, combined, involve only a very small percentage of the human race. Most humans are peaceful, therefore the human race is (generally) peaceful.



Islam is violent (that is, more violent than average) because the wars in the world involve a rather large percentage of the world's Muslims.

Traitorfish said:

Desert nomads only ever formed a small warrior-elite for several generations in the first millennium. How can they possibly have constituted the "essential" culture of the entire Arabic world? You may as well say the same thing about China, Ukraine or Pakistan, for all the sense it would make.

Click to expand...

Of course you'd say that. Scottish Culture is still essentially that of temperate nomads.

BasketCase said:

Ad hominem. And an irrelevant one, at that. Whether I'm dense has no bearing on whether I'm right.

Click to expand...

Oh, your magic words again. You forgot "debate fail" to complete the spell to win any debate

Yes, it is ad hominem and fortunately unrelated to my argument. It is, however, related to the fact that you either deliberately or accidentally failed to understand the point of my argument at all.

And "almost everyone" is NOT at war TODAY. Your example is not comparable to the present day. You can only claim Christianity was violent during World War II because it was involved in World War II. What your logical dodge says is, "BasketCase, by your logic, Christianity is violent TODAY because it was involved in a world war seventy years ago". That's wrong, dude.

Most people on Earth today are NOT at war. Whereas a whole lot of Muslims ARE at war. TODAY.

Click to expand...

No, and you continue to show that you don't understand what I'm saying.

Christianity today is the same religion as it was 70 years ago. We're not talking about whether Christians or Muslims are violent. Something like that can possibly change over several decades. The question of this thread is if Islam is an inherently violent religion, i.e. if adhering to Islam makes you more susceptible to being violent.

You have not shown that. You just stated the (debatable, see Form's post) observation that Muslim countries seem to be predominantly involved in violence at one point in time and drew the conclusion that therefore Islam, a religion that was basically unchanged in its main tenets over centuries, must be violent in general. You're saying that Islam has always been violent by pointing to current examples (whether valid or not).

So apparently it's enough for you to observe one point in time to draw conclusions for a religion in general. That's where my WW2 example comes in.

You got the metric wrong.

The correct metric is this: if countries with a religion partake in lots of violence, and countries without that religion DO NOT, then the religion is violent. Side note: whether or not countries with that religion partake in religious wars is irrelevant. Religions have fought for lots of things besides religion throughout history: money, land, power. Even sex.

Click to expand...

No, that just means that the people in these countries are violent (or even minorities in these countries, I hope I don't have to explain to you how a violent minority can take down whole countries into a downward spiral of violence).

"Religions" have fought for something? How does that work? Do you mean centralized religious institutions? Curiously, Islam lacks those.

And it's great that you're aware of secular reasons for conflicts. I suggest you go look for them when analysing conflicts in the Middle East.

And there are a bunch of people, on CFC and elsewhere, who say Christianity is a violent religion. Which causes your attempted proof to go up in smoke; it depends on reductio ad absurdum, which fails if people say Christianity is a violent religion.

Click to expand...

First of all, what do I care what these people say?

And secondly, it doesn't matter. I don't think that Christianity is a violent religion, you don't think it's a violent religion. So for the interests of our discussion, the reductio ad absurdum works just fine - your arguments force you to come to a conclusion you disagree with, so either your arguments don't work or you have to change your mind about the conclusion.

Would this be a bad time to mention I'm an atheist? (odd--I'd figured everybody on CFC already knew that about me! )

Click to expand...

I didn't know it, but I didn't assume anything about your religious views in the first place (except that you're probably not a Muslim ).

I just said it concerns something you "don't hate". I didn't know that you have to be a Christian to not hate Christianity.