Islam and fascism (split from IS thread)

[Funky]

So my question is: can islam by itself lead to violence or there are other causes

There are rarely situations that can be explained to 100 percent by one single cause. But from what I wrote above it should be clear that the specific doctrines as written in the koran and the hadith are a major contributing factor to the violence we observe throughout the Muslim world.

Can ANY religion, under some situations, can be used as a catalyst for such violence, as nationalism or any other ideology?

The larger problem is dogmatic thinking. So yes, whenever you have a certain set of unchangeble and unquestionable ideas, there is a risk that the conversation will end at some point, which may give rise to violence. However, every ideology is different, and we must observe the specific doctrines that they promote. For example, it is very difficult (albeit not impossible) to justify violence by the doctrines of Buddhism. Whereas it is painfully easy to justify violence based on the koran.
And while other ideologies like nationalism or other religions have by and large been contained and no longer lead to mass killings and suppression around the globe, the ideology of Islam is virulent as ever. Most current major conflicts, acts of terrorism, and societal tensions have at least something, and in some cases everything, to do with the Islam.

 

[Leoreth]

The larger problem is dogmatic thinking. So yes, whenever you have a certain set of unchangeble and unquestionable ideas, there is a risk that the conversation will end at some point, which may give rise to violence.

You mean like the idea that Islam equals Fascism?

 

[Formaldehyde]

For example, it is very difficult (albeit not impossible) to justify violence by the doctrines of Buddhism.

Yet there are Buddhist terrorists, and Buddhism has been frequently used to rationalize violence, discrimination, and persecution, especially against Muslims. It was also used as a rationale to fight during WWII. Unsurprisingly, you don't seem to know much about that religion, either.

Straying From the Middle Way: Extremist Buddhist Monks Target Religious Minorities

The fault lines of conflict are often spiritual, one religion chafing against another and kindling bloodletting contrary to the values girding each faith. Over the past year in parts of Asia, it is friction between Buddhism and Islam that has killed hundreds, mostly Muslims. The violence is being fanned by extremist Buddhist monks, who preach a dangerous form of religious chauvinism to their followers.

Yet as this week’s TIME International cover story notes, Buddhism has tended to avoid a linkage in our minds to sectarian strife:

“In the reckoning of religious extremism — Hindu nationalists, Muslim militants, fundamentalist Christians, ultra-Orthodox Jews — Buddhism has largely escaped trial. To much of the world, it is synonymous with nonviolence and loving kindness, concepts propagated by Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, 2,500 years ago. But like adherents of any religion, Buddhists and their holy men are not immune to politics and, on occasion, the lure of sectarian chauvinism.

When Asia rose up against empire and oppression, Buddhist monks, with their moral command and plentiful numbers, led anticolonial movements. Some starved themselves for their cause, their sunken flesh and protruding ribs underlining their sacrifice for the laity. Perhaps most iconic is the image of Thich Quang Duc, a Vietnamese monk sitting in the lotus position, wrapped in flames, as he burned to death in Saigon while protesting the repressive South Vietnamese regime 50 years ago. In 2007, Buddhist monks led a foiled democratic uprising in Burma: images of columns of clerics bearing upturned alms bowls, marching peacefully in protest against the junta, earned sympathy around the world, if not from the soldiers who slaughtered them. But where does social activism end and political militancy begin? Every religion can be twisted into a destructive force poisoned by ideas that are antithetical to its foundations. Now it’s Buddhism’s turn.”

Over the past year in Buddhist-majority Burma, scores, if not hundreds, have been killed in communal clashes, with Muslims suffering the most casualties. Burmese monks were seen goading on Buddhist mobs, while some suspect the authorities of having stoked the violence — a charge the country’s new quasi-civilian government denies. In Sri Lanka, where a conservative, pro-Buddhist government reigns, Buddhist nationalist groups are operating with apparent impunity, looting Muslim and Christian establishments and calling for restrictions to be placed on the 9% of the country that is Muslim. Meanwhile in Thailand’s deep south, where a Muslim insurgency has claimed some 5,000 lives since 2004, desperate Buddhist clerics are retreating into their temples with Thai soldiers at their side. Their fear is understandable. But the close relationship between temple and state is further dividing this already anxious region.

As the violence mounts, will Buddhists draw inspiration from their faith’s sutras of compassion and peace to counter religious chauvinism? Or will they succumb to the hate speech of radical monks like Burma’s Wirathu, who goads his followers to “rise up” against Islam? The world’s judgment awaits.

Buddhism has a long and distinguished history of violence:

Thailand

In Southeast Asia, Thailand has had several prominent virulent Buddhist monastic calls for violence. In the 1970s, Buddhist monks like Phra Kittiwuttho argued that killing Communists did not violate any of the Buddhist precepts.[44](p. 110) The militant side of Thai Buddhism became prominent again in 2004 when a Malay Muslim insurgency renewed in Thailand's deep south. Since January 2004, the Thai government has converted Buddhist monasteries into military outposts and commissioned Buddhist military monks and give support for Buddhist vigilante squads .[44](pp. 114–141)

Myanmar

In 1930s Rangoon, nationalist monks stabbed four Europeans.[45] In recent years the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), the military regime of Burma from 1988 to 2011, had strongly encouraged the conversion of ethnic minorities, often by force, as part of its campaign of assimilation. The regimen promoted a vision of Burmese Buddhist nationalism as a cultural and a political ideology to legitimate it's contested rule, trying to bring a religious syncretism between Buddhism and its totalitarian ideology.[46]

Myanmar had become a strong hold of Buddhist aggression and such acts are spurred by hardline nationalistic monks.[50][51][52][53][54] The oldest militant organisation active in the region is Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), headed by a Buddhist monk U Thuzana, since 1992.[55] In the recent years the monks, and the terrorist acts, are associated with the nationalist 969 Movement particularly in Myanmar and neighboring nations.[56][57] The violence reached prominence in June 2012 when more than 200 people were killed and around 100,000 were displaced.[58][59] As of 2012, the "969" movement by monks (the prominent among whom is Wirathu) had helped create anti-Islamic nationalist movements in the region, and have urged Myanmar Buddhists to boycott Muslim services and trades, resulting in persecution of Muslims in Burma by Buddhist-led mobs. However, not all of the culprits were Buddhists and the motives were as much economic as religious.[56][60][61] According to the Human Rights Watch report, the Burmese government and local authorities played a key role in the forcible displacement of more than 125,000 Rohingya people and other Muslims in the region. The report further specifies the coordinated attacks of October 2012 that were carried out in different cities by Burmese officials, community leaders and Buddhist monks to terrorize and forcibly relocate the population.[62] The violence of Meiktila, Lashio (2013) and Mandalay (2014) are the latest Buddhist violence in Burma.[63][64][65][66]

Sri Lanka

Religious minorities have been subjected to increased persecution and attacks owing to the widespread mono-ethnic Sinhala Buddhist Nationalism in Sri Lanka.[80][81][82] A Buddhist group, Bodu Bala Sena (BBS), is alleged to have been behind attacks on Mosques and Muslims,[83][84][85][86] as well as having organized a moral unofficial police team to check the activities of Christian missionaries and Muslim influence in daily life.[57][87][88] The BBC reported that "Sri Lanka’s Muslim minority is being targeted by hardline Buddhists. [...] There have also been assaults on churches and Christian pastors but it is the Muslims who are the most concerned.[89]

This category is related to both proven or suspected cases of violence significantly motivated by beliefs attributed to Sinhala Buddhist Nationalism carried out by Buddhist in some form, as discussed in reliable sources.

1915 Ceylonese riots

Mawanella Riots

2014 anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka

Japan

During World War II, Japanese Buddhist literature from World War II, as part of its support of the Japanese war effort, stated In order to establish eternal peace in East Asia, arousing the great benevolence and compassion of Buddhism, we are sometimes accepting and sometimes forceful. We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of “killing one in order that many may live” (issatsu tash&#333. This is something which Mahayana Buddhism approves of only with the greatest of seriousness....[93] almost all Japanese Buddhists temples strongly supported Japan's militarization.[94][95][96][97][98][99] These were heavily criticized by the Chinese Buddhists of the era who disputed the validity of the statements made by those Japanese Buddhists supporters of the war. In response the Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected the critizism and stated that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live' (issatsu tash&#333" and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. The society re-examine more than 70 text written by Nichiren and re-edited his writings making changes in 208 places, cutting all the statements that disagreed with the state Shinto.[100][101] In contrast, a few Japanese Buddhists such as Ichikawa Haku,[102] and Seno’o Girō opposed to this and were targeted. During the 1940s, "leaders of the Honmon Hokkeshu and Soka Kyoiku Gakkai were imprisoned for their defiance of wartime government religious policy, which mandated display of reverence for the state Shinto."[103][104][105] Brian Daizen Victoria, a Buddhist priest in the Sōtō Zen sect, documented in his book Zen at War how Buddhist institutions justified Japanese militarism in official publications and cooperated with the Imperial Japanese Army in the Russo-Japanese War and World War II. In response to the book, several sects issued an apology for their wartime support of the government.[106][107]

In more modern times instances of Buddhist-inspired terrorism or militarism have occurred in Japan, such as the assassinations of the League of Blood Incident led by Nissho Inoue, a Nichirenist or fascist-nationalist who preached a self-styled Nichiren Buddhism.[106][108][109]

Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese new religion and doomsday cult that was the cause of the Tokyo subway sarin attack that killed thirteen people and injured fifty, drew upon a syncretic between idiosyncratic interpretations of elements of early Indian Buddhism and Tibetan buddhism with Hinduism, taking Shiva as main image of worship, Christianity as millennialism ideas from the Book of Revelation, Yoga and the writings of Nostradamus.[110][111] Its founder, Chizuo Matsumoto, claimed that he sought to restore “original Buddhism”[112] and declared himself "Christ",[113] Japan's only fully enlightened master and identified with the "Lamb of God".[114] His purported mission was to take upon himself the sins of the world, and he claimed he could transfer to his followers spiritual power and ultimately take away their sins and bad deeds.[115] While many discount Aum Shinrikyo's Buddhist characteristics and affiliation to Buddhism, scholars often refer to it as an offshoot of Japanese Buddhism,[116] and this was how the movement generally defined and saw itself.[117]

Virtually any religion can be twisted into a form to rationalize violence and even terrorism.

 

[Funky]

You mean like the idea that Islam equals Fascism?

Great, so now a mod is into the business of posting one-line strawmen. Did you even read my posts?

 

[Formaldehyde]

You mean like the idea that Islam equals Fascism?

Indeed. You can't get any more "dogmatic" than that utter nonsense along with the completely absurd notion that Islam is a "religion of violence". The only thing missing is a "rise to violence" by trying to force 1.6 billion peaceful adherents to forsake their basic rights with force because they are based on "fascism".

Great, so now a mod is into the business of posting one-line strawmen. Did you even read my posts?

That is no "strawman". It is your obvious position in this matter, although you have tried to couch it in slightly different terms. Ironically, your own statements are clearly dogmatic in this regard.

 

[Leoreth]

Great, so now a mod is into the business of posting one-line strawmen. Did you even read my posts?

I spent roughly as much time on your posts as they're worth.

And you peddling ideology I could accept, but dressing up your position as rational while accusing others of ideology is a common tactic of your ilk and that happened to be a particular pet peeve of mine. And I don't see why my moderator status should stop me from speaking up against it.

 

[Funky]

Ok, so you did not read my posts. So you are clearly not interested in a conversation on the matter. May I ask you then, why do you post in a thread featuring a topic you don't want to discuss?

It's interesting though that you know what my position and "my ilk" is without having read what I wrote. If my position is so irrational, surely you could challenge my points and show me the flaws. I am open for discussion, that is why I post here. Are you?

 

[Leoreth]

I've read your posts. I just have no intention of discussing them with you.

I only wanted to point out a particular hypocrisy in how you present your argument, because I found that particularly disagreeable. That doesn't make my post off topic, nor does it oblige me to engage everything else you wrote.

That includes justifying the way I participate in a public forum thread. I'm done saying my piece, so have a nice day I guess.

 

[brennan]

What makes the suggestion that Islam is inherently violent a dogmatic one? You can say that a religion is dogmatic because it has a dogma. Where's the dogma in having a problem with a vicious dark age cult?

 

[Funky]

I only wanted to point out a particular hypocrisy in how you present your argument, because I found that particularly disagreeable.

Well, you didn't point out anything, all you did was cherrypick a random line of mine to create a ridiculous strawman, and then accuse me of promoting an ideology. And when challenged, you scurry away.

I want everyone to be observant of what has happened here. Once again, this topic has been derailed. As always, there are those people out there who simply do not want certain topics to be discussed. But it's not enough for them to just stay away from these topics, and they certainly won't challenge any of the points made. Instead they will do what we have seen repeatedly in this thread. They will create strawmen, they will defame sources given, they will toss out accusations, and they will post random offtopic crap. In doing so, they distract from the actual conversation and voila, we're a page further down without any substantial discussion of the topic.

Forget Islam for a moment. This behaviour is observable in various topics and it is, quite frankly, utterly dispicable. Who gives you the right to decide what other people should discuss? Is your feeling uncomfortable with a certain topic reason enough to impede on the conversation others are having about it? Either engage in a discussion on the actual issue or don't engage at all. This should really go without saying.
I hope it has become clear who in this thread is interested in an honest dialogue and listening to other views on the matter, and who is hindering the conversation based on preconceived views.

 

[Tahuti]

More importantly, when you talk about "mature individuals", you are doing this from a Western, secular perspective. Yet unlike the West, the Islamic world has not experienced centuries of secular philosophy impeding on religious dogma. That is why you get well-educated public figures like Tarek Ramadan expressing his beliefs in Djinns or the Saudi sheikh Bandar al-Khaibari claiming the sun rotates around the earth. It is not that these are immature people. But they, like many other Muslims, are to varying degrees victims of their own religious and cultural history, a history which to a large extent has circumvented the clash with modernity, that clash which is so formative for the West.

The Arab world was ahead of the West for several centuries from 800 until the sacking of Baghdad by the Il Khanate, including in terms of secularism. It produced various great rationalist philosophers such as Averroes.

The thing is that the Arab world declined afterwards and this was the perfect breeding ground for taking Islam to the fore, which hitherto was theoretically always the case, though not in practice. Muhammad may be considered morally objectionable by modern Western standards, though he also was a formidable political leader who helped found a modern Arab state which would catapult its civilisation to glory and technological advancement, even ahead of the West which was still slowly pulling itself together.

Now the Arab world is backwards compared to the West. Arguably the most defining moment was the sacking of Baghdad in 1258. And it never truly has recovered ever since. It didn't help that Spain was lost by 1500, meaning there could no longer be the crossover of European and Arab ideas that existed beforehand. As a result the Arab world became more inward looking and more survival oriented. Those unlucky enough to be raised in the Arab world will rarely develop into mature adults. The bigotry and disdain for rationalism in the Islamic world is the result of a fundamental immaturity among Muslims, which itself is the result of the cultural decline precipitated by the combination of catastrophic events it had to suffer in the 1500s.

In all frankness, the Holocaust - which perhaps should describe not only the genocide and policide of those the Nazis considered undesirables but also the general destruction Europe has faced during WWII - may have signalled the decline of Western civilisation. The signs are everywhere: Architecture since WWII is boring and stale, our intellectuals preach hatred against our own civilisation instead of devising ways how to improve it and increase its prestige and populist zealots blame Muslims instead of addressing poor policymaking. The next millenia may become the Asian age and we may undergo a period of Sinization to make up for that we lost during the Holocaust. (Admittedly, I'm a Sinophile)

 

[Phrossack]

Well, you didn't point out anything, all you did was cherrypick a random line of mine to create a ridiculous strawman, and then accuse me of promoting an ideology. And when challenged, you scurry away.

I want everyone to be observant of what has happened here. Once again, this topic has been derailed. As always, there are those people out there who simply do not want certain topics to be discussed. But it's not enough for them to just stay away from these topics, and they certainly won't challenge any of the points made. Instead they will do what we have seen repeatedly in this thread. They will create strawmen, they will defame sources given, they will toss out accusations, and they will post random offtopic crap. In doing so, they distract from the actual conversation and voila, we're a page further down without any substantial discussion of the topic.

Forget Islam for a moment. This behaviour is observable in various topics and it is, quite frankly, utterly dispicable. Who gives you the right to decide what other people should discuss? Is your feeling uncomfortable with a certain topic reason enough to impede on the conversation others are having about it? Either engage in a discussion on the actual issue or don't engage at all. This should really go without saying.
I hope it has become clear who in this thread is interested in an honest dialogue and listening to other views on the matter, and who is hindering the conversation based on preconceived views.

For what it's worth, you've certainly convinced me. I can't find anything objectional about your argument, aside from directly equating Islam with fascism. Lots of parallels, yes, but the lack of a leader cult and the emphasis of a religious rather than national community are some significant differences. I wouldn't call the reverence of Muhammed a leader cult in the same way as Italian fascism had a cult of Mussolini, because Mussolini was the leader at the time and Muhammed is long gone and no longer the acting leader.

 

[Funky]

The Arab world was ahead of the West for several centuries from 800 until the sacking of Baghdad by the Il Khanate, including in terms of secularism. It produced various great rationalist philosophers such as Averroes.

Bagdad of the 9th to 12th century is indeed notable not only as an important center of trade, but also as a center of cultural diversity and philosophical thriving. The same is true of other centers of trade, like Cairo and Damascus, where the influx of people from East and West with new ideas and different religions contributed to the cultural vibrancy. These cities were not governed by the laws of sharia, and they had not adopted hanbalism, the most conservative of the four Islamic schools of law. In other words, it was the lack of Islamic dogma which caused the cultural flourishing.

Muhammad may be considered morally objectionable by modern Western standards, though he also was a formidable political leader who helped found a modern Arab state which would catapult its civilisation to glory and technological advancement, even ahead of the West which was still slowly pulling itself together.

While uniting Arabia can certainly be seen as a remarkable political achievement, it was not a particularly modern state for the time, nor was it a foundation for the later technological advancements, which, as said, were largely due to a limited influence of Islamic ideology. What the newly founded religion was responsible for was 150 of years of jihad and the violent spread of Islam from Spain to India, from Somalia to Turkey, which has been estimated to have cost 270 million lives.
More to the point though, if Mohammed was seen as just a political leader, there wouldn't be many problems. But he is viewed as the ultimate role model and the best person to ever have walked the earth by most Muslims. And unfortunately, he was also a rather bloodthirsty and ruthless person, who is morally closer to Gengis Khan than to, say, the character of Jesus.

Now the Arab world is backwards compared to the West. Arguably the most defining moment was the sacking of Baghdad in 1258. And it never truly has recovered ever since. It didn't help that Spain was lost by 1500, meaning there could no longer be the crossover of European and Arab ideas that existed beforehand.As a result the Arab world became more inward looking and more survival oriented. Those unlucky enough to be raised in the Arab world will rarely develop into mature adults. The bigotry and disdain for rationalism in the Islamic world is the result of a fundamental immaturity among Muslims, which itself is the result of the cultural decline precipitated by the combination of catastrophic events it had to suffer in the 1500s.

I agree that the sacking of Bagdad is an important turning point. Towards the end of the 13th century, Ibn Taymiyya, who is viewed as the spiritual founder of salafism and wahhabism, revived hanbalism and spread the precept that every Muslim leader had to adopt sharia. While the military defeats were certainly significant, it was the new wave of religious conservatism throughout the Muslims world which I would view as the main reason for the cultural decline.

In all frankness, the Holocaust - which perhaps should describe not only the genocide and policide of those the Nazis considered undesirables but also the general destruction Europe has faced during WWII - may have signalled the decline of Western civilisation. The signs are everywhere: Architecture since WWII is boring and stale, our intellectuals preach hatred against our own civilisation instead of devising ways how to improve it and increase its prestige and populist zealots blame Muslims instead of addressing poor policymaking. The next millenia may become the Asian age and we may undergo a period of Sinization to make up for that we lost during the Holocaust. (Admittedly, I'm a Sinophile)

For me this isn't about terrestrial or ethnic dominance. It's about defending and promoting liberal principles, which as I mentioned earlier, are not tied to the West. These principles have to varying degrees spread to non-Muslim parts of Asia and Africa and to South America and have done tremendous work in helping some of these countries catch up with modernity. I'd argue that this is no longer about the West versus other cultures, it is about the intercultural conversation of which ideas we need to adopt as a global civilisation to build a stable society.

For what it's worth, you've certainly convinced me. I can't find anything objectional about your argument, aside from directly equating Islam with fascism.

Thank you. I actually didn't directly equate Islam with fascism though. I pointed out many similarities, both in the doctrines and in how many Muslims, but certainly not the majority, interpret and live their religious ideology.

Lots of parallels, yes, but the lack of a leader cult and the emphasis of a religious rather than national community are some significant differences. I wouldn't call the reverence of Muhammed a leader cult in the same way as Italian fascism had a cult of Mussolini, because Mussolini was the leader at the time and Muhammed is long gone and no longer the acting leader.

While this is certainly an obvious difference, I'd argue that the leader-cult towards Mohammed is in a sense even stronger in Islam than it was to Hitler in Germany or Mussolini in Italy. While Mohammed is no longer around, he is considered a paragon of virtue and all Muslims should follow his ideal. Him being dead only raises his level of mystical glorification. While Hitler and Mussolini were popular among their people, they weren't prayed to five times a day. Germans didn't feel the need to avenge Hitler when he was drawn by British cartoonists.

 

[Agent327]

These cities were not governed by the laws of sharia, and they had not adopted hanbalism, the most conservative of the four Islamic schools of law. In other words, it was the lack of Islamic dogma which caused the cultural flourishing.

Which would seem to be the rule well into modern times. Now what, if anything, might one conclude from that?

 

[abradley]

I agree quran has a good bunch of violent passages (i have read it) and today islam and violence are interconected in many cases. However christanity according to Jesus teachings should be a totally peaceful religion, but has lead along history to a number of incredibly violent events.

So my question is: can islam by itself lead to violence or there are other causes and ANY religion, under some situations, can be used as a catalyst for such violence, as nationalism or any other ideology?

IMHO your putting the cart before the horse. There was warfare before organized religion, the North American natives warred ad nauseam and it wasn't over religion, rather territory. (Sorry, no noble savage.) Why did they war over territory, food.

IMHO Christianity, Buddhism, ect are attempts to control violence.

The Koran, no.

 

[ParkCungHee]

. While Hitler and Mussolini were popular among their people, they weren't prayed to five times a day.

Muslims do not pray to Mohammed, never mind five times a day. Even a passing familiarity with Islam would tell you that.

 

[Funky]

Muslims do not pray to Mohammed, never mind five times a day. Even a passing familiarity with Islam would tell you that.

Yeah, when they say the words "Peace be upon you, o prophet" and "Allah, bless our Muhammad and the people of Muhammad" they are really refering to Jesus. Thank you for your contribution.

 

[plarq]

The great difference between militant Islam and fascism is: fascism or Nazism requires control of national governments to carry out atrocities, militant Islam does not. Basically fascism is more advanced, and militant Islam is more primitive. An advanced machine of Nazism can mow down millions of civilians, a primitive Islamic terrorism can only (organized) kill tens of thousands, as we can see in Northern Nigeria, ISIS etc.

The other parallel between Islamic theocracy (Saudi, Iran, Taliban) and fascism cannot be drawn because those theocracies lack social mobilization levels in fascistic countries, thus it cannot achieve national unity as fascist and Nazi once succeeded.

 

[caketastydelish]

The religion of Islam (in and of itself) doesn't bother me. What bothers me is not Islam, but how the religion is often used for political purposes. The "anti American/anti west" side just happens to be predominantly Muslim. You have groups like the nation of Islam which are simply anti-white, even though I highly doubt the actual prophet Muhammad hated whites as a class of people, much less thought blacks were better than them (the prophet Muhammad wasn't even black himself... just another thing they got wrong, and intentionally so just to spread their political agenda).

Likewise you have a lot of white/westerners who use Christianity to spread their bigotry against the brown people, and use Christianity to justify wars in the middle east, just as some use Islam to justify terrorism.

One notable example is Academi (formerly known as Blackwater) whose founder, Erik Prince, uses Christianity to gain support for his organization... although there's so many examples of Christians doing this (both the masses of voter blocks as well as influential individuals), I'd be here all night to mention any significant amount of them.

The only real difference I see between Christianity and Islam is that Islam treats women worse. Which is not to say Christians don't have a history of putting women down, because they do. But you don't hear about Christians capturing them out of their schools, enslaving them, and forcing them to get married at the age of 6.

Even then, Islam isn't completely bad. Some Muslim countries give women a lot more rights than others. It's just the worst are so bad particularly bad that they easily stand out.

edit: the bottom line is "Christians" have the United States military to carry out what they want, and all of its overwhelming force. Which is why Muslims have to use domestic terrorism for their political activism to be even remotely relevant to the world, by comparison. There is a reason you see a lot more Muslim terrorists than Christian terrorists. Christians don't need crappy, second-class garbage like a shoe bomber or whatever. This is the same side has by far the best bombers, planes, aircraft carriers, etc and can bomb the **** out of anyone they don't like. Then there's the CIA on their side as well, the NSA, and also that they can and have tortured anyone they're "suspicious" of. It's like being mad at Palestinians for throwing rocks, and praising the Israelis for not throwing rocks. The Israelis have an actual army and overwhelming infrastructure to back them up, the Palestinians do not. Which is why the Israelis have no need to throw rocks, whereas the other side does.

Spoiler :

To make myself clear, I don't think Islamic terrorism is even remotely justified, nor any other kind. The problem with ALL terrorism is that it's always the innocents that get hurt, furthermore "and eye for an eye" doesn't solve anything. I just happen to think Christians aren't innocent in this matter either.

tldr; why do you think there is (uncomparably) more Irish terrorism against the British than the other way around?

 

[Agent327]

I think you are confusing patriarchism with Islam (for which notably the established Christian churches have been - and largely still are - notorious). For instance, cliterodectomy you'll have a hard time finding anything prescribing such in, say, the Qu'ran. And the fact that polygamy was taken over by Islam is basically the prolongation of an existing habit.

Secondly, the fact that certain marginal groups cherrypick certain values they consider Islamic does not deny the fact that their main goal is terrorism. Why do they try to justify this by perceived Islamic values? Because they have sprung up in Islamic surroundings. Which doesn't deny the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims sees their actions not in accordance with Islam at all. There is no jihad here - which is a far more encompassing concept than a 'holy war', by the way. What there is, is marginal groups trying to catch the attention of the media with extremist actions. Nothing new there either: extremist nihilists did the same in 19th century Russia. As have many other marginal groups since. Focusing on the supposed Islamic content of today's terrorism is seriously misleading. The primary victims of these extremists are Muslims. But this doesn't make the news. Only the occasional murder of non-Muslims do.