Islam - What's your view on it?

[UKMikey]

People can make a violent impact on other peoples' lives while only being (for example) three people. The fact that terrorists exist and that some of them have religious causes does not reflect on the religion as a whole. But we'll go round that again, I'm sure.

I was interested in your list of Muslamical Terrorors and thought you might like this list too:

Continuity Army Council
Continuity IRA
Cumann na mBan
Fianna na hEireann
Irish National Liberation Army
Irish People's Liberation Organisation
Irish Republican Army
Loyalist Volunteer Force
National Action
NS131
Orange Volunteers
Red Hand Commando
Red Hand Defenders
Saor Eire
Sonnenkrieg Division (SKD)
Scottish Dawn
System Resistance Network
Ulster Defence Association
Ulster Freedom Fighters
Ulster Volunteer Force

But the majority of Christians would say they're not true Scotsmen... oh wait.

But they're mostly confined to one specific geographic area, unlike the Islamists... oh wait again.

But I bet you won't find people in other parts of the globe sympathising with them like those Paris teens, erm... *strikes out US fundraising for IRA*

Let me go and find some more goalposts to move.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I'm not under the impression that the Koran has more appetite for violence than the OT. The OT is pretty blood-soaked

You're kinda dodging the question.

Don't the latter parts (chronologically) of the Quran prescribe violence more than the earlier parts?

And doesn't the NT generally preach a less-violent message than the OT?

I'm not following you.

Based on @Scaff's earlier post referencing King Saul.

How about "He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly."

Used by many Christians to justify punishment and the beating of children.

Doesn't Jesus's message about being like children to enter the Kingdom of God mitigate against that in some way?

The wiki entry on that verse covers it, you did check on its interpretations before citing it I take it?

The link is regarding my point about it being an issue with almost all faiths.

Hmmm you could have been a bit more clearer with that and actually linked to it but I'll address it now - would Muslims currently fighting against non-Muslims be wrong in using the verse to justify their actions or would they be supported, especially since it may not even have been in self defence?

Goalposts moving. Oh and you might want to check your translations before you keep using the term 'explicitly', as that's not how the 26% groups translate to at all, and a good percentage grouped in that 26% were actually indifferent. 16% to be exact among the young and 13% among all Muslims surveyed. When you get to the actual explicit would not condemn ("you do not condemn") its 10% for young Muslims, 11% for all French youth, and 5% for all Muslims and 4% for all French. Which is quite a different picture! Yes, that's right more French youth as a whole didn't condemn the terrorists that Muslim youth!

Could you show how I was wrong? I don't speak French so I'd like to see where this is incorrect....

Oh and again with those goalposts. You seem to be forgetting that you are actually in Europe and America far more likely to fall victim to extreme right-wing terrorism, which is mainly (but not entirely) Christian based.

Do you, do you have evidence to back that up?

(It's not necessary since we are talking about scriptural support for violence but I'm interested nonetheless considering that I thought the biggest threat we face is from Jihadist groups.)

Now, what percentage of Muslims do those groups make up?

If you remember we talked earlier about how only a small amount of Muslims may believe in harsh punishments for....something I forgot what it is but that the scripture actually supports the punishment. Same rule applies.

Did I make that point in a debate? I don't recall doing so, as such please put the strawman down.

Was to do with views on homosexuality among British Muslims if I remember rightly. It wasn't you specifically but was an observation on how the narrative changes when challenged.

People can make a violent impact on other peoples' lives while only being (for example) three people. The fact that terrorists exist and that some of them have religious causes does not reflect on the religion as a whole. But we'll go round that again, I'm sure.

I was interested in your list of Muslamical Terrorors and thought you might like this list too:

Continuity Army Council
Continuity IRA
Cumann na mBan
Fianna na hEireann
Irish National Liberation Army
Irish People's Liberation Organisation
Irish Republican Army
Loyalist Volunteer Force
National Action
NS131
Orange Volunteers
Red Hand Commando
Red Hand Defenders
Saor Eire
Sonnenkrieg Division (SKD)
Scottish Dawn
System Resistance Network
Ulster Defence Association
Ulster Freedom Fighters
Ulster Volunteer Force

Those are mostly specific to one region and are more to do with the unification of Ireland rather than spreading Christianity by the sword.

From my list the first group operates in: Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Gaza Strip and Lebanon
the second in Yemen
and the third in Somalia.

The point is they all wanted to fight in the cause of Islam whereas your examples may have all fought for something other than Christianity - and even if they did probably wouldn't have gotten much support for fighting in the name of Christ in the wider Christian community,

But the majority of Christians would say they're not true Scotsmen... oh wait.

But they're mostly confined to one specific geographic area, unlike the Islamists... oh wait again.

But I bet you won't find people in other parts of the globe sympathising with them like those Paris teens, erm... *strikes out US fundraising for IRA*

Let me go and find some more goalposts to move.

So the IRA were supported in America because they were Christians fighting in the name of their religion??

 

[Danoff]

You're kinda dodging the question.

Don't the latter parts (chronologically) of the Quran prescribe violence more than the earlier parts?

Oh I see. You're trying to ditch the OT again with that question. Sorry I missed that the first time around. You said yourself that the OT is part of your beliefs. And you're apparently intentionally avoiding discussing it in relation to the Koran below.

This is the constant problem with Christianity. The OT makes a lot of Christians queasy, but they can't completely get rid of it because the NT uses the OT as a foundation. Plus they like to quote the ten commandments, genesis, and a few other select portions of the OT. I honestly do not know if the Koran prescribes more violence than the NT (or the book of Mormon for that matter). I assume it does, but that's based on very little.

And doesn't the NT generally preach a less-violent message than the OT?

For sure. Bible II definitely tones down Bible I. The Christ character in the NT definitely preaches more love than anyone preaches in the OT. But the NT still has some problems. It was conceived of in a more barbaric time in human history. You'd kindof expect it to have a few zingers.

But again, Christianity still has the OT to contend with. It's quite an albatross for the religion.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Those are mostly specific to one region and are more to do with the unification of Ireland rather than spreading Christianity by the sword.

If somebody thinks that many of those groups aren't involved in sectarian violence then there's no helping them.

 

[UKMikey]

So the IRA were supported in America because they were Christians fighting in the name of their religion??

So let's get this straight. Sectarian violence doesn't count because they're not waging war on behalf of a dangerous religion?(?) That's strange, because I thought that's exactly what sectarian violence was.

As for the majority of Christians not supporting violent Christian acts (which I'm not even sure applies to my Gulf War example), do the majority of Muslims support Islamist violence or is it just radicalised Wahhabists?(??)

Don't worry, I'm sure you have time to tweak the position of those goalposts a little more until your endlessly revised criteria apply only to Islam. Make sure you remember to tar every Muslim with the same brush though, if you're going to convince us it's a dangerous religion that threatens us all.

 

[Scaff]

Doesn't Jesus's message about being like children to enter the Kingdom of God mitigate against that in some way?

Once again Jesus clearly stated that he did not come to get rid of the old laws, but to uphold them.

To be able to answer your example more specifically you are going to have to cite the exact verse you are referring to.

Hmmm you could have been a bit more clearer with that and actually linked to it but I'll address it now - would Muslims currently fighting against non-Muslims be wrong in using the verse to justify their actions or would they be supported, especially since it may not even have been in self defence?

Some will, some will not, you know just like how Christians interpret the bible in different ways, with a minority using it to justify violence, Same thing.

Could you show how I was wrong? I don't speak French so I'd like to see where this is incorrect....

I did, you just quoted it.

It does however raise the question of why you used it as a source if you were not confident in what it was saying?

Do you, do you have evidence to back that up?

(It's not necessary since we are talking about scriptural support for violence but I'm interested nonetheless considering that I thought the biggest threat we face is from Jihadist groups.)

Its been fairly common knowledge and well reported for quite sometime now.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jihadist-plots-used-be-u-s-europe-s-biggest-terrorist-n1234840

If you remember we talked earlier about how only a small amount of Muslims may believe in harsh punishments for....something I forgot what it is but that the scripture actually supports the punishment. Same rule applies.

That still doesn't answer my question.

Was to do with views on homosexuality among British Muslims if I remember rightly. It wasn't you specifically but was an observation on how the narrative changes when challenged.

So it was a strawman then.

Those are mostly specific to one region and are more to do with the unification of Ireland rather than spreading Christianity by the sword.

From my list the first group operates in: Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Gaza Strip and Lebanon
the second in Yemen
and the third in Somalia.

The point is they all wanted to fight in the cause of Islam whereas your examples may have all fought for something other than Christianity - and even if they did probably wouldn't have gotten much support for fighting in the name of Christ in the wider Christian community,


So the IRA were supported in America because they were Christians fighting in the name of their religion??

Do you actually think that the troubles and the US support for it was nothing to do with faith, specifically sectarianism?

Damn, do I have news for you.

The entire 're-unite Ireland vs keep it separate' issue is a sectarian one. Do you not understand that those apposed to unification, are opposed because they are Protestant, and see the Queen as the Head of the Church of England and do not want to split from that and join a Cathlolic country? Do you you not understand that the Catholics want their country re-unifed, to remove the last vestage of a Protestant rule that carried out a near genocide on the Irish for the crime of being Catholic? Pop a list down below of all the Protestent members of the IRA for me would you.[/QUOTE]

 

[HenrySwanson]

Oh I see. You're trying to ditch the OT again with that question. Sorry I missed that the first time around. You said yourself that the OT is part of your beliefs. And you're apparently intentionally avoiding discussing it in relation to the Koran below.

This is the constant problem with Christianity. The OT makes a lot of Christians queasy, but they can't completely get rid of it because the NT uses the OT as a foundation. Plus they like to quote the ten commandments, genesis, and a few other select portions of the OT. I honestly do not know if the Koran prescribes more violence than the NT (or the book of Mormon for that matter). I assume it does, but that's based on very little.

Not quite. If you remember I used the OT to show that Christianity is (I believe) more homophobic than most other religions. The same could be said about its approach to transgender individuals, and that would rely even more on OT scripture than the argument against homosexuality. I don't think the same applies with violence, and that is because you have to look at the Bible as a whole, or at least look at where Christians get their inspiration from. With homosexuality you could argue that instructions and/or opinions transcend time, and are reinforced by the NT. With violence this is not the case, and so far the only example that I could maybe agree with in terms of prescribing violence (as brought up in this thread) is in reference to disciplining a child. I don't think this holds with Islam with regards to violence, specifically when looking at the Quran, Hadith and the actions of Muhammad/others directly after him.

If somebody thinks that many of those groups aren't involved in sectarian violence then there's no helping them.

But looking here:

The conflict was primarily political and nationalistic, fuelled by historical events.[31] It also had an ethnic or sectarian dimension,[32] but despite the use of the terms "Protestant" and "Catholic" to refer to the two sides, it was not a religious conflict.

Not saying that there weren't sectarian groups/motivations, but if it was such a problem in Christianity shouldn't there be more groups found around the world since it is the largest religion and the most persecuted against??

So let's get this straight. Sectarian violence doesn't count because they're not waging war on behalf of a dangerous religion?(?) That's strange, because I thought that's exactly what sectarian violence was.

The question is, is it motivated by or waged in the name of a religion? Is it supported by scripture/examples of the founder/early adherents?

I did, you just quoted it.

It does however raise the question of why you used it as a source if you were not confident in what it was saying?

Before we go back and forth, are you saying the google translation of this is wrong:

Un quart des jeunes musulmans (26%) de moins de 25 ans ne condamnent pas explicitement les auteurs des attentats du 7 janvier 2015 et 12% les condamnent tout en admettant partager certaines de leurs motivations, sans doute parce qu’ils voient dans l’irrévérence envers l’Islam une forme inacceptable d’irrespect envers eux.

 

[Danoff]

Not quite. If you remember I used the OT to show that Christianity is (I believe) more homophobic than most other religions. The same could be said about its approach to transgender individuals, and that would rely even more on OT scripture than the argument against homosexuality. I don't think the same applies with violence, and that is because you have to look at the Bible as a whole, or at least look at where Christians get their inspiration from.

Christianity has a long and bloody history. You might find some flavors of Christianity that pick and choose with the OT to find a very non-violent interpretation. But that is far from the case with all flavors of Christianity, especially all flavors that have ever existed. You say I need to take the Bible as a whole, I say you need to take Christianity as a whole.

 

[UKMikey]

It's always a joy to wait days for a response only to find the goalposts have shifted yet again.

The question is, is it motivated by or waged in the name of a religion? Is it supported by scripture/examples of the founder/early adherents?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20751203

This paper says that religious schism plays a large part in motivating the conflict as the society is divided along religious lines. If the two societies were integrated there would be far less cause for conflict.

As for the second condition which once again, seems to have appeared out of nowhere, which sects and schisms of any religion are supported by its earliest adherents?

I'd say Wahhabism is as much a modification of early Islam as the Reformation is of early Christianity. Does that stop the UDF from being as much Christian terrorists as the IRA?

I'd also like to know in the name of which religion the European Wars Of Religion were fought. Was it Islam?

 

[Scaff]

Not quite. If you remember I used the OT to show that Christianity is (I believe) more homophobic than most other religions. The same could be said about its approach to transgender individuals, and that would rely even more on OT scripture than the argument against homosexuality. I don't think the same applies with violence, and that is because you have to look at the Bible as a whole, or at least look at where Christians get their inspiration from. With homosexuality you could argue that instructions and/or opinions transcend time, and are reinforced by the NT. With violence this is not the case, and so far the only example that I could maybe agree with in terms of prescribing violence (as brought up in this thread) is in reference to disciplining a child. I don't think this holds with Islam with regards to violence, specifically when looking at the Quran, Hadith and the actions of Muhammad/others directly after him.



But looking here:

The conflict was primarily political and nationalistic, fuelled by historical events.[31] It also had an ethnic or sectarian dimension,[32] but despite the use of the terms "Protestant" and "Catholic" to refer to the two sides, it was not a religious conflict.

Not saying that there weren't sectarian groups/motivations, but if it was such a problem in Christianity shouldn't there be more groups found around the world since it is the largest religion and the most persecuted against??

The question is, is it motivated by or waged in the name of a religion? Is it supported by scripture/examples of the founder/early adherents?

Before we go back and forth, are you saying the google translation of this is wrong:

Un quart des jeunes musulmans (26%) de moins de 25 ans ne condamnent pas explicitement les auteurs des attentats du 7 janvier 2015 et 12% les condamnent tout en admettant partager certaines de leurs motivations, sans doute parce qu’ils voient dans l’irrévérence envers l’Islam une forme inacceptable d’irrespect envers eux.

I’ve already answered that, so I have no idea why you are asking it again.

look at the actual data and the infographic, you will see the actual data backs up what I posted 100%

 

[UKMikey]

https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/islam-terrorism-humanist-view/

This article went some way towards explaining to me why not everyone who believes in the same religious text is a violent terrorist. As with The Troubles, colonialism plays a larger part in inspiring terrorism than religious doctrine.

Modern Muslim terrorist groups are more rooted in national liberation ideologies of the 19th and 20th centuries than they are in the Islamic tradition. Although these terrorist groups adopt various theological justifications for their behavior, their ideologies, symbolism, language and organizational structure reflect the influence of the anti-colonial struggle of the developing world. For instance, the groups often use expressions . . . imported from national liberation struggles against colonialism [which] did not emerge from the Islamic heritage. In short, modern Muslim terrorism is part of the historical legacy of colonialism and not the legacy of Islamic law. According to the Islamic juristic tradition, terrorists would have no quarter.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Christianity has a long and bloody history. You might find some flavors of Christianity that pick and choose with the OT to find a very non-violent interpretation. But that is far from the case with all flavors of Christianity, especially all flavors that have ever existed. You say I need to take the Bible as a whole, I say you need to take Christianity as a whole.

But are they representative of what Christianity teaches?
Are Jihadis representative of what Islam teaches?

It's always a joy to wait days for a response only to find the goalposts have shifted yet again.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20751203

This paper says that religious schism plays a large part in motivating the conflict as the society is divided along religious lines. If the two societies were integrated there would be far less cause for conflict.

As for the second condition which once again, seems to have appeared out of nowhere, which sects and schisms of any religion are supported by its earliest adherents?

I'd say Wahhabism is as much a modification of early Islam as the Reformation is of early Christianity. Does that stop the UDF from being as much Christian terrorists as the IRA?

I'd also like to know in the name of which religion the European Wars Of Religion were fought. Was it Islam?

I mean....you're giving me one paper.

Whereas when I look at the provisional IRA wiki entry I get:

The IRA publicly condemned sectarianism and sectarian attacks, however some IRA members did carry out sectarian attacks.[329] Of those killed by the IRA, Malcolm Sutton classifies 130 (about 7%) of them as sectarian killings of Protestants.[330] Unlike loyalists, the IRA denied responsibility for sectarian attacks and the members involved used cover names, such as "Republican Action Force".[331] They stated that their attacks on Protestants were retaliation for attacks on Catholics.[329] Many in the IRA opposed these sectarian attacks, but others deemed them effective in preventing similar attacks on Catholics.[332] Professor Robert White writes the IRA was generally not a sectarian organisation,[333] and Rachel Kowalski writes that the IRA acted in a way that was mostly blind to religious diversity.

And on a BBC link:

“The second misconception is that the conflict is about religion, republicans being Catholic and loyalists being Protestant. It is not religion that lies at the root of the Troubles. The conflict in Ireland is about national identity and territory and not about being Catholic or Protestant. Unlike Al Qaeda, religion is not what drives the paramilitaries.

I mean, I'm not arguing that there aren't/weren't Christian terrorist groups, but I'm not sure I'd classify the IRA as one....

I’ve already answered that, so I have no idea why you are asking it again.

look at the actual data and the infographic, you will see the actual data backs up what I posted 100%

Did they intentionally misrepresent their own data...?

I'll just ask simply - when asked if they condemn the Charlie Hebdo attacks, did 26% of young Muslims choose not to?

https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/islam-terrorism-humanist-view/

This article went some way towards explaining to me why not everyone who believes in the same religious text is a violent terrorist. As with The Troubles, colonialism plays a larger part in inspiring terrorism than religious doctrine.

But is Islam (or even Christianity) not at least part of the inspiration?

 

[Scaff]

Did they intentionally misrepresent their own data...?

They summarised in what is quite frankly a lazy way. I looked at the actual data that makes up that percentage, as it's not from a single question, but from multiple ones.

I'll just ask simply - when asked if they condemn the Charlie Hebdo attacks, did 26% of young Muslims choose not to?

Not quite, no. As I've just explained. Look at the actual data that makes up that percentage and its not as clear cut, as I have already explained in detail to you, and for some reason, you refuse to do so.

 

[UKMikey]

But is Islam (or even Christianity) not at least part of the inspiration?

I'm not sure how that supports your idea that Islam is a dangerous religion that breeds terrorism if different Muslims interpret the same text in different ways. It sounds like that's more on the people than the religion. As far as the writer of the article is concerned Islamic law is not the inspiration.

 

[HenrySwanson]

They summarised in what is quite frankly a lazy way. I looked at the actual data that makes up that percentage, as it's not from a single question, but from multiple ones.


Not quite, no. As I've just explained. Look at the actual data that makes up that percentage and its not as clear cut, as I have already explained in detail to you, and for some reason, you refuse to do so.

It's 26% vs 21%.

And 12% vs 7% for "You condemn but you share some of their motivations"

Leaving 62% vs 72% for "you condemn totally".

Also (more importantly), do we know how many Muslims are counted in the "French people" sample? I.e. are they included in both groups?

The fact is you get quite a lot of people saying such attacks may be justified when talking about pictures of Muhammad

I'm not sure how that supports your idea that Islam is a dangerous religion that breeds terrorism if different Muslims interpret the same text in different ways. It sounds like that's more on the people than the religion. As far as the writer of the article is concerned Islamic law is not the inspiration.

I'm wondering if it's more conducive to a violent act.

 

[Danoff]

But are they representative of what Christianity teaches?
Are Jihadis representative of what Islam teaches?

I think in both cases there is disagreement among religious scholars on the answer to that question.

 

[UKMikey]

And religious adherents from the looks of things.

I'm wondering if it's more conducive to a violent act.

You're not doing a very good job of making a case for this so far.

 

[Scaff]

It's 26% vs 21%.

And 12% vs 7% for "You condemn but you share some of their motivations"

Leaving 62% vs 72% for "you condemn totally".

Also (more importantly), do we know how many Muslims are counted in the "French people" sample? I.e. are they included in both groups?

The fact is you get quite a lot of people saying such attacks may be justified when talking about pictures of Muhammad


I'm wondering if it's more conducive to a violent act.

You really do like misrepresent things don’t you, nowhere in that article does it support your claim.

Having sympathy for the motives is not the same as saying they were justified.

I have sympathy for the motives of Palestinians, that’s doesn’t mean I think the attacks on Jews are justified.

 

[huskeR32]

Both religions have texts that promote violence. Both religions have adherents that commit violence. Both religions have texts that have been interpreted umpteen times by umpteen million people all looking for something different from their chosen faith. Pretending that anybody can somehow, in all of that swirling inconsistency and human imperfection, measure that violence and use it as a basis of comparison is sheer folly. @HenrySwanson you've spent what feels like ages now trying to do it, and you've not gotten anywhere near. Can we just move on?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Both religions have texts that promote violence. Both religions have adherents that commit violence. Both religions have texts that have been interpreted umpteen times by umpteen million people all looking for something different from their chosen faith. Pretending that anybody can somehow, in all of that swirling inconsistency and human imperfection, measure that violence and use it as a basis of comparison is sheer folly. @HenrySwanson you've spent what feels like ages now trying to do it, and you've not gotten anywhere near. Can we just move on?

I think it's worth debating, but only if people acknowledge religions exist on a spectrum. I understand people struggling to see a difference between Islam and Christianity in terms of violence but would they accept the (I believe) less controversial view that Islam is more violent than the Baháʼí faith? Likewise that Christianity is more homophobic than Buddhism?

If not then I can't really see this impasse being broken.

Also particularly ironic that people are saying there's no difference at all at a time we have another violent attack on people exercising their freedom of speech by simply drawing a cartoon of the founder of one of those religions.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I understand people struggling to see a difference between Islam and Christianity in terms of violence

That's you, that is.

Likewise that Christianity is more homophobic than Buddhism?

Buddhism isn't a religion. Even if one accepts the arguments of those who say that it is a religion there's still a gulf between the comparisons. Although... both have writings that ostensibly forbid violence while members of both sects have committed atrocities in their name. I'm not sure you gain anything from that argument.

If not then I can't really see this impasse being broken.

It seems, and this is only my opinion, that the "impasse" is actually formed by your continual doubling-down on a point that you're unable to prove and which other contributors are countering with your own sources. Perhaps you can't get past because you're attempting an impossible navigation?

Also particularly ironic that people are saying there's no difference at all at a time we have another violent attack on people exercising their freedom of speech by simply drawing a cartoon of the founder of one of those religions.

Yes. That act is absolute and all-encompassing. Good spot.

 

[UKMikey]

It seems, and this is only my opinion

It isn't only your opinion. It's been a year and a half now.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Buddhism isn't a religion. Even if one accepts the arguments of those who say that it is a religion there's still a gulf between the comparisons. Although... both have writings that ostensibly forbid violence while members of both sects have committed atrocities in their name. I'm not sure you gain anything from that argument.

The comparison was regarding homophobia, not violence (that was the other example, specifically Islam and the Baháʼí faith).

 

[huskeR32]

I think it's worth debating,

Clearly.

but only if people acknowledge religions exist on a spectrum.

And my point is that in order to place them on a spectrum, you'd need to find a way to quantify violence, which I reckon is nigh on impossible. That you've gone on so long and failed to do so rather proves my point, doesn't it?

 

[UKMikey]

As a change from all the monocultural stereotyping of Islam as comprised of nothing but thugs who want nothing more than to kill us all I thought I'd post this painting I saw today by Osman Hamdi Bey.

Since it wasn't directly inspired by Islam I guess it doesn't count, though.

Two Musician Girls (1880)

We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Danoff]

Also particularly ironic that people are saying there's no difference at all at a time we have another violent attack on people exercising their freedom of speech by simply drawing a cartoon of the founder of one of those religions.

For what it's worth, I think I see the point you're trying to make. I think that your mistake is to accept only the most peaceful interpretations of Christianity (today) and compare them to the most violent version of interpretations of Islam (today). The problem is that Christianity has been horrible too. Christianity also has its share of violence going on today, maybe it doesn't compare well to the violence being perpetuated in the name of Islam today (kinda depends on what you consider to be "in the name of"). But regardless of what is happening now, Christianity has struggled with its conflicted roots for a very long time, and much suffering has resulted.

In terms of scripture, I for one will not say that there is no difference. I'll simply say that I'm wholly unqualified to make that determination.

 

[HenrySwanson]

 

[HenrySwanson]

And my point is that in order to place them on a spectrum, you'd need to find a way to quantify violence, which I reckon is nigh on impossible. That you've gone on so long and failed to do so rather proves my point, doesn't it?

Quantify in the modern times? Definitely possible. But where you run into problems is with historical acts. Observing that Islam is more violent than the Bahai faith, or that Christianity is more homophobic than Buddhism doesn't require mathematical precision however, and seems an easy judgment to make. The difficulty is discriminating between two religions that are more similar, which I won't argue with.

For what it's worth, I think I see the point you're trying to make. I think that your mistake is to accept only the most peaceful interpretations of Christianity (today) and compare them to the most violent version of interpretations of Islam (today). The problem is that Christianity has been horrible too. Christianity also has its share of violence going on today, maybe it doesn't compare well to the violence being perpetuated in the name of Islam today (kinda depends on what you consider to be "in the name of"). But regardless of what is happening now, Christianity has struggled with its conflicted roots for a very long time, and much suffering has resulted.

In terms of scripture, I for one will not say that there is no difference. I'll simply say that I'm wholly unqualified to make that determination.

I don't think I'm accepting only the peaceful interpretations.

I'll be the first to show that there are groups around the world that don't get the same mentions as Islamic groups when discussing religious violence, or that violence is committed in the name of Christianity.

Thinking about proportions however, we have to try and find out why Islam is over-represented globally in violence carried out in its name compared to every other religion.

 

[Danoff]

I don't think I'm accepting only the peaceful interpretations.

I'll be the first to show that there are groups around the world that don't get the same mentions as Islamic groups when discussing religious violence, or that violence is committed in the name of Christianity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the sense that on the one hand you think this is truthfully reflective of Islam, and on the other hand you think it's not truthfully reflective of Christianity. This was the point I was making.

Thinking about proportions however, we have to try and find out why Islam is over-represented globally in violence carried out in its name compared to every other religion.

Think of the proportions during the dark ages.

 

[huskeR32]

Quantify in the modern times? Definitely possible.

You've flailed around for months attempting, and failing, to do so.

Observing that Islam is more violent than the Bahai faith, or that Christianity is more homophobic than Buddhism doesn't require mathematical precision however, and seems an easy judgment to make.

IMO, only when one is unaware of their biases. Violence happens in so many places, on so many different scales, all around the world, every single day. How can you even begin to think that you can know with any certainty how many of those people are acting because of their faith?