I have changed my opinion on Islam

[The Wrath]

The book of Deuteronomy in the Old Testament explicitly instructs the slaughter of others who encourage worship of other Gods. A reasonable interpretation of this book essentially condones the atrocities of The Spanish Inquisition and arguably the massacring of groups like the Knights Templar. Of course, the Spanish Inquisition was more about forceful conversions, which to my knowledge are not explicitly advised in the bible.

Where is this in the bible!? This sounds awesome, like it came out of World of Warcraft.

But, as I said before, most Christians try to disown the OT. This is why it's practically impossible to tell what is and is not sanctioned by Christianity. Same thing with Islam. The Meccan suras are often flatly contradictory to the Medinan suras, much the same way that the OT and NT conflict.

Edited January 31, 2007 by Moose

[Viking]

Christianity has roots in the Old Testament, which is almost non-stop violence in the name of religion. In addition to the plethora of verses of religion-fueled massacres in the books of Numbers, Joshua and Judges here are some specific references:

Genesis 22:1-14 - The infamous story of God instructing Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham unquestionably complies in the name of religious deference, which exceeds his love for his son.

Deuteronomy 13:6-8 - This describes how it is appropriate to stone your whole family if they encourage you to worship another god.

Leviticus 2:13 - This instructs that practicing homosexuals should be put to death.

Deuteronomy 13:15-16 - This instructs that the inhabitants of others towns who worship other gods should be put to death (specifically it says put to the sword).

Here are some other examples of reckless slaughter in the name of Christianity (in addition to the terror waged during the Crusades):

• The Spanish Inquisition.
  
• The Salem Witch Trials.
  
• Abortion Clinic Bombings.
  
• Massacre of the Knights Templar.
  

There are significantly less examples of violence in history orchestrated by Christians than from Muslims. I think this is largely due to the higher level of education in the Western World for the past several hundred years. Most practicing Christians are conflicted or inconsistent about interpreting the Bible literally. The New Testament is not nearly as brutal as the Old Testament.

Well of course I agree Christianity encourages some violence. But just as much as Islam? Far from it. Also, I think you will find that most Christians disagree that Christianity has its roots in the old testament, they put much more emphasis on the new testament.

And education alone does not explain this difference. Christianity encourages very different things from Islam. Christianity is about sacrificing yourself, loving your enemy, etc, while Islam is about submission to Allah and doing just about anything is justified vs unbelievers. No, the difference is the violence is no accident, its because of the different values that are taught.

[Viking]

But, as I said before, most Christians try to disown the OT. This is why it's practically impossible to tell what is and is not sanctioned by Christianity. Same thing with Islam. The Meccan suras are often flatly contradictory to the Medinan suras, much the same way that the OT and NT conflict.

Wouldn't that make it pretty easy? They'd probably say if the OT contradicts the NT, use the NT.

[The Wrath]

Wouldn't that make it pretty easy? They'd probably say if the OT contradicts the NT, use the NT.

You'd think so, but in my experience, most of them try to reconcile the two.

[Viking]

You'd think so, but in my experience, most of them try to reconcile the two.

Many I've talked to say things like "But that is what he said to the Xs when they were in this situation. It does not apply here." I'm not a big fan of that line of arguing though, because that clouds up everything when I try to convince them that Christianity is false.

[Robert J. Kolker]

If you consider Christianity violent, then Judaism is most certainly violent. The most violent parts of the Bible are all in the Old Testament, which is the only part shared by Judaism. The New Testament is very pacificistic. The confusion is in whether or not we are supposed to disregard the entire OT, or if we are supposed to follow both.

The dominant book in Judaism is no longer the TNKH (Hebrew Scriptures). It is the Babylonian Talmud. Judaism ceased being a biblical religion about 2300 years ago. It is a Rabbinic religion.

Bob Kolker

[Moebius]

As far as Buddhism is concerned, a huge amount of its practitioners were extremely violent as late as WWII. I have heard it described as an atheistic philosophy. This doesn't mean that its practitioners are opposed to faith. They believe that transmigration of the soul happens. If one beleives that the soul will be sent through space and time to another body, the devaluing of life isn't a big stretch.

I am not saying that no Buddhists ever committed violent acts, because when you have a large enough population that's virtually impossible. But I have never, EVER heard of a war committed in the name of Buddhism. Men may be violent, but not Buddhism itself. Show me otherwise if you have proof.

Buddhism is atheistic in the sense that Buddha is not considered a God but rather an enlightened individual. But truthfully he might as well be divine the way Buddhism is practiced by many today. In Chinese culture in particular, Buddhism is so tied in with folk religions that the Buddha is essentially deified, idolized, and worshiped, although most worshipers have no real knowledge of the actual Buddhist sutras.

Finally, I disagree with your implications that transmigration of the soul in Buddhism leads to a devaluing of life, given the nature of the Buddhist belief in Karma -- that is, what you do in this life reflects what your next life will be. Simply talking about reincarnation would be taking Buddhism out of context.

[Moebius]

AChristianity is about sacrificing yourself, loving your enemy, etc, while Islam is about submission to Allah and doing just about anything is justified vs unbelievers. No, the difference is the violence is no accident, its because of the different values that are taught.

But, really, that is an extremely warped vision of what each religion is about. You could just as easily say that Christianity is about total and utter submission to God and Christ, and punishes non-Christians by having them suffer the cruelest imaginable punishments for an eternity in hell.

Like someone else said in this thread, Christianity is considerably older than Islam. Let's not forget that only a little over a century ago they were still barbequeing people en mass on stakes in the name of God.

[FeatherFall]

I am not saying that no Buddhists ever committed violent acts, because when you have a large enough population that's virtually impossible. But I have never, EVER heard of a war committed in the name of Buddhism. Men may be violent, but not Buddhism itself. Show me otherwise if you have proof.

[...]

Finally, I disagree with your implications that transmigration of the soul in Buddhism leads to a devaluing of life, given the nature of the Buddhist belief in Karma -- that is, what you do in this life reflects what your next life will be. Simply talking about reincarnation would be taking Buddhism out of context.

Well, to my knowledge there were no wars in the name of Atheism, but we know that atheists have engaged in aggressive wars and done other horrible things. Values systems must be judged by how they conform to the nature of man. If they promote his life, then I say, “bravo.” But Karma is not an idea that promotes man's life. It is an Idea that supposedly promotes his next life, and hence, it promotes no life at all. Transmigration is another ridiculous distraction from principles that work in this life.

If there are any positive aspects of Buddhist thought, it is the peripheral teachings that (seemingly by accident) help people deal with the here and now.

-edited to delete double post and for spelling.

Edited May 14, 2007 by FeatherFall

[LaszloWalrus]

There have been Buddhist theocracies as brutal as the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic ones.

Pre-invasion Tibet was a brutal place that ripped out tongues and gouged out eyes.

[Moebius]

Well, to my knowledge there were no wars in the name of Atheism, but we know that atheists have engaged in aggressive wars and done other horrible things. Values systems must be judged by how they conform to the nature of man. If they promote his life, then I say, “bravo.” But Karma is not an idea that promotes man's life. It is an Idea that supposedly promotes his next life, and hence, it promotes no life at all. Transmigration is another ridiculous distraction from principles that work in this life.

If there are any positive aspects of Buddhist thought, it is the peripheral teachings that (seemingly by accident) help people deal with the here and now.

We're not talking about whether Buddhism is valid philosophically. It isn't, for all the reasons you named, with an added dose of mysticism to boot.

What I said was in reference to all the ways you misinterpreted or made false implications regarding Buddhism. And nice try trying to equate Buddhism with Atheism, however it isn't the same.

There have been Buddhist theocracies as brutal as the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic ones.

Pre-invasion Tibet was a brutal place that ripped out tongues and gouged out eyes.

As a form of punishment? Or for fun? There's a large difference.

Again, I am aware of no wars fought in the name of Buddhism. Not saying that Buddhists don't fight wars, but they would never use their religion as an excuse because it clearly and unequivocally contradicts its teachings (unlike Christianity and Islam).

[Robert J. Kolker]

Like someone else said in this thread, Christianity is considerably older than Islam. Let's not forget that only a little over a century ago they were still barbequeing people en mass on stakes in the name of God.

The last -auto de fe- occured in Spain early in the 18-th century. That is over 200 years ago.

In England they stopped violent religious persecution during and after the Reign of William and Mary.

In Italy Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600. Galileo was placed under house arrest in 1632.

I think there has been a decrease in religious violence in Christendom. Alas, not so in the dar al Salaam.

Bob Kolker

[The Wrath]

The last -auto de fe- occured in Spain early in the 18-th century. That is over 200 years ago.

In England they stopped violent religious persecution during and after the Reign of William and Mary.

In Italy Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600. Galileo was placed under house arrest in 1632.

I think there has been a decrease in religious violence in Christendom. Alas, not so in the dar al Salaam.

Bob Kolker

Once again, you show your lack of critical thinking skills and your ignorance of a topic about which you apparently have a very strong opinion.

Islam is as old now as Christianity was during the Crusades. What about that is hard to understand? If given enough time, Islam will become moderated.

Edited June 4, 2007 by Moose

[D'kian]

Islam is as old now as Christianity was during the Crusades. What about that is hard to understand? If given enough time, Islam will become moderated.

What makes you think all religions will follow the same path as Christianity?

Islam was once moderated to the point that Western civilization largely resided within the rule of Islam (during the Dark ages in Europe), and much of it was preserved by Muslim scholars. in plan language: Islam has been regressing back to savagery for a while, and it looks as if its most ardent aherents want to go all the way there.

[The Wrath]

I think that, given enough time, it will become that way again if, for no other reason, fundamentalist Islam cannot survive indefinitely in a modern world that is continually moving into the future.

Even if I'm wrong, Bob is being ridiculously short-sighted by assuming that it can never happen.

[Inspector]

Islam is as old now as Christianity was during the Crusades. What about that is hard to understand? If given enough time, Islam will become moderated.

What is hard to understand is why you seem to think that religions have little egg timers on them and must become less violent on a predetermined time scale. Religions don't simply "moderate" over time, like a pie cooling on the window sill. This obliterates philosophical cause and effect as it pertains to religion. John Lewis details Islam's explicit rejection of Aristotle and enlightenment values in a recent issue of The Objective Standard. It's worth a read.

[Jon Pizzo]

In my opinion, it does not matter at all if the specific religion preaches violence or not. All religion preaches destruction, whether personal or on a larger scale. There is no way to really argue against that if you know the principles of reason and logic. So to me, whether or not islam preaches that you should strap bombs to yourself, it is destructive in itself.

[The Wrath]

I don't argue against the notion that all religion is destructive, and I doubt that anyone else on this board does either. I am just arguing against the notion that a correct interpretation of Islam will result in violence. Rather, I argue that there is no such thing as a correct interpretation of Islam.

Edited June 6, 2007 by Moose

[Robert J. Kolker]

If you consider Christianity violent, then Judaism is most certainly violent. The most violent parts of the Bible are all in the Old Testament, which is the only part shared by Judaism. The New Testament is very pacificistic. The confusion is in whether or not we are supposed to disregard the entire OT, or if we are supposed to follow both.

Pharisaic Judaism which is the version that survived all of the dispersions and conquests is not a biblical religion. Its main canon is the Talmud which is based on the teachings of the Rabbis and the Sages.

The Bible (meaning the TNKH or what Christians call the Old Testament) is mined mainly for the Commandments and these are modified and interpreted Rabbinically. For example "an eye for an eye" is Rabbinically interpreted to mean the punishment or settlement should be proportional to the damages done.

Bob Kolker

Judaism, on the other hand, I consider to be overtly violent. Judaism doesn't have an explicit code of violence, but it is clear that Judaic law is subject to the whims of a despotic cosmic dictator who often wills his subjects to commit genocide, filicide, infanticide, rape, slavery, incest, etc. There is little in the OT that can be referred to as "peaceful." Even the parts that are peaceful are best explained by the fact that YHWY wasn't pissed off at the time.

Those days are gone. It is now the Rabbis and the Sages that composed the Talmud that decides the Law.

Bob Kolker

[Jon Pizzo]

I see what you mean.

[Moebius]

Those days are gone. It is now the Rabbis and the Sages that composed the Talmud that decides the Law.

But by the same token Islam can theoretically evolve into something akin to Judaism given time, which I think is what Moose is essentially saying. No idea as to the likelihood of that happening though -- probably zero, within our lifetime.

However I honestly do think that as the world become more progressive, perhaps in another century or two (or even less) the grip of Islam on its population can be reduced to something similar to Christianity today. Globalization, digitization, the internet, and international commerce will all have far more powerful effects in the long run than religion.

[Robert J. Kolker]

But by the same token Islam can theoretically evolve into something akin to Judaism given time, which I think is what Moose is essentially saying. No idea as to the likelihood of that happening though -- probably zero, within our lifetime.

However I honestly do think that as the world become more progressive, perhaps in another century or two (or even less) the grip of Islam on its population can be reduced to something similar to Christianity today. Globalization, digitization, the internet, and international commerce will all have far more powerful effects in the long run than religion.

Unfortunately (for us) these religious lunatics can get their hands on weapons of mass destruction -- nukes, chemicals and biologicals. We have run out of time waiting for them to modify their religious extremism. If Islam had emerged in the year 300 C.E. rather than 623 C.E. we might not be having this conversation.

Bob Kolker

[AisA]

I don't argue against the notion that all religion is destructive, and I doubt that anyone else on this board does either. I am just arguing against the notion that a correct interpretation of Islam will result in violence. Rather, I argue that there is no such thing as a correct interpretation of Islam.

Have you read any of Robert Spencer's books?

[The Wrath]

Have you read any of Robert Spencer's books?

No, but I have read 3 of Ibn Warraq's.

[AisA]

I have not read any of Warraq'a books. But Spencer makes a convincing case that the jihadists are not simply "cherry picking" the violent verses of the Koran and arbitrarily ignoring the peaceful verses to justify their terrorist attacks.

Actually, that is a misstatement. It is not Spencer that makes that case – he merely shows how the most respected Islamic scholars and biographers make that case. And that is what is so useful about Spencer’s work. He simply provides page after page of quotes showing the logic by which these authority figures justify violent jihad against the infidel.

According to Spencer, Muslims are guided by three things. The Koran, the hadith and the Sira. The Koran is Allah’s revelations to Muhammad, but it is not complete (there are many subjects it does not cover) and in many places it is simply unintelligible. To assist in interpreting it, thousands of anecdotes about Muhammad’s life have been compiled describing the situations he faced at the time of the revelations. These compilations are called the hadith. According to Spencer, the two most respected of these (there are dozens) are those written by Ismail al-Bukhari and Muslim al-Qushayri. They are considered absolutely reliable. Other hadiths are considered “strong”, “good”, “weak” and some are even known to be “forged”.

The third thing Muslims are guided by is the Sira, the biography of Muhammad. The two most reliable of these were written by Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham.

Spencer shows how these Muslim authorities justify violent jihad. For instance, just to give one example, Spencer shows how they invoke the principle of abrogation to resolve conflicting verses in the Koran.

As you noted earlier, the peaceful verses were revealed early in Muhammad’s career when he was in Mecca, was relatively powerless and surrounded by fellow tribesmen who resented his claim to be the exclusive receiver of Allah's messages. The verses that feature violent calls to jihad came later, after he had gone to Medina, raised an army and commenced attacking the other tribes.

Bukhari, Muslim, Ishaq and Hisham resolve this as follows. Someone pointed out to Muhammad that Allah's messages were inconsistent. Previously Allah had said, "There is no compulsion in religion." Now he was saying, "Slay the infidels wherever you find them". Muhammad resolved this by having another revelation in which Allah tells him, "I can do all things, including giving you new, better revelations that abrogate earlier ones". (S. 2-106) Presto! Problem solved.

Thus, the principle of abrogation is used by Islamic authorities to claim that the calls for violent jihad trump any earlier verses to the contrary. To buttress this claim, these figures also point to Muhammad’s life and career of military conquest. In Islam, Muhammad is the absolute standard of morality; whatever he did is the good, and if he did conflicting things, whatever he did last is what counts.

This is why it is so difficult to get Muslims to absolutely denounce jihad. Doing so means denouncing Muhammad – and I’ve never heard a Muslim utter a single negative thing about Muhammad.

Spencer does not claim that this proves that “true Islam” is inherently violent. That is not his goal. His goal is to expose how the jihad recruiters – like bin Laden and al-Zawahiri – use Islamic authorities like Bukhari, Muslim, Ishaq and Hisham to convince Muslims that “true Islam” requires them to wage jihad against the infidel.

Spencer's critics cannot grasp this distinction; they constantly accuse him of "cherry picking" the Koran and "focusing on the hateful while ignoring the peaceful". But all you have to do is read his books to see that it is Islam's leading authorities that push such a focus, not Spencer.