“Is America Islamophobic?,” asks Time magazine. The lead story is abridged online here. I have little opinion on the title question, partly because I’m not a public opinion researcher, and partly because I don’t know what exactly “Islamophobic” means. And paragraphs such as this don’t help much:
Although the American strain of Islamophobia lacks some of the traditional elements of religious persecution — there’s no sign that violence against Muslims is on the rise, for instance — there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence that hate speech against Muslims and Islam is growing both more widespread and more heated. Meanwhile, a new TIME–Abt SRBI poll found that 46% of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers. Only 37% know a Muslim American. Overall, 61% oppose the Park51 project, while just 26% are in favor of it. Just 23% say it would be a symbol of religious tolerance, while 44% say it would be an insult to those who died on 9/11.
So 46% of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers — which, as best I can tell, is an accurate belief. I don’t think most Muslims support violence against nonbelievers. But it seems to me that Islam as we see it in the world today is more likely than most other major faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers, at least if we focus on encouragement that actually makes the violence materially likely (which is the sort of encouragement that I suspect most people are worried about).
This observation is hardly evidence of a “phobia” in the sense of “irrational fear” or “irrational prejudice” (it’s quite rational), or even in the sense of “hatred or hostility towards the group” (which is how I think “-phobia” tends to often be used in terms such as “Islamophobia” and “homophobia” are used). And if “Islamophobia” simply means “holding negative views about some strains of Islam,” then Islamophobia becomes a virtue (if practiced properly) and not a vice — just as I think it’s correct to hold negative views about some strains of Christianity, Judaism, and so on, or to be aware of accurate generalizations about what is especially likely to be encouraged by Protestantism, Catholicism, Mormonism, and so on.
Loose juxtaposition of justified worry about Islam with the label “homphobia” also makes me wonder just how the authors define “hate speech against Muslims and Islam.” As readers of the blog are aware, I have publicly condemned what strikes me as unjustified discrimination against Muslims, or unjustified rejection of Muslims’ reasonable requests for religious accommodation (see, e.g., with regard to the near-Ground-Zero mosque, accommodations for Muslim women doctors, religious accommodations for Muslims generally, accommodations for Muslim women athletes, accommodations of Muslim headgear in court, and the propriety of Muslim witnesses’ swearing on the Koran). I’ve even done this in two articles on National Review Online, see here and here. But insisting on fair and equal treatment of Muslims doesn’t require blindness to the perils posed by some strains of Islam, and awareness of those perils doesn’t require refusal to give fair and equal treatment to Muslims.
Floridan says:
EV: And if “Islamophobia” simply means “holding negative views about some strains of Islam,”. . .
Why would “Islamophobia” mean holding negative views about some strains of Islam?
Would having negative views about abortion clinic bombers be properly termed anti-Christian?
August 20, 2010, 5:48 pmB.D. says:
Uh oh. 300 comments, at least.
August 20, 2010, 5:50 pmCheckEnclosed says:
I’ve always thought that the pro-gay rights folks scored a huge poltical/linguistic success in getting so many in the media to adopt the word “homophobic” instead of the phrase “opposed to what the gay rights folks want”. What better way to win an argument before it starts than to get the newspaper to label your opponents’ position as the result of an irrational fear — a mental disorder perhaps — before ever getting to the merits of the argument. Surely Orwell would have loved the term as a not-un-subtle example of politics in the English language.
So, yeah, I don’t relish any widespread use of the term “Islamophobic” either (neither do I like the term “anti-immigrant, but that’s another thread).
As far as propensity to violence, my very crude understanding of things (those who know better are invited to show I’m wrong)is that there is no Pope, Patriarch, or similar chief officer of Islamic clerics. So, while the Pope could say something like, the Catholic Church does not endorse Proposition P, and be widely credited, the same is not true of any particular Imam/Mullah/Ayatollah. Instead, it seems like any Imam can hang out a shingle, issue fatwas, and endorse any propositions they choose. In such a system, there will always be extremist clerics providing summport for extremist actions. (Perhaps, if there were a Caliphate, then the Caliph, as a Secular/Religious leader could speak more authoritatively, but there ain’t no Caliph.)
August 20, 2010, 5:54 pmMark M says:
Lots of empirical evidence to back this up, I’m sure. Can you enlighten us as to the comparative rates of endorsements of materially-likely violence among the various faiths? Love to see the data sets you’ve collected here.
August 20, 2010, 6:00 pmKamal says:
Wow Eugene, can’t believe you said that. What is compelling you to generalize a subset of beliefs to an arbitrarily higher level of classification? Why not generalize further and state that Monotheists encourage violence against non-believers more than atheists?
This is hateful, and even as an atheist I am appalled.
Even if such an observation appeared true – the fact that you are trying to paint a picture that the entire religion, and not the particular beliefs, are evil, is very dangerous.
August 20, 2010, 6:00 pmPerpetua says:
Muslims strongly believe that criticizing Islam is morally wrong. They confuse freedom of religion with freedom from insults of their religion. So they have latched on to the word “Islamophobia” to express this “injustice”. They view it as injustice because they truly believe insults to Islam violate their rights to “protection of religion and “protection of dignity and honour”.
In Imam Rauf’s discussion of the five or six pillars of Sharia Law for the Sharia Index Project he cited two as protection of religion and protection of dignity and honour:
So, they are objecting to the insult to their dignity and honour and their religion, it doesn’t matter if it is true.
August 20, 2010, 6:02 pmwhit says:
if evidence OF violence is evidence of it having been encouraged, then the question is a no brainer
as soon as christians, atheists, jews, hindus, etc. start rioting and murdering over cartoons, for example, i might change my mind.
as soon as christians, jews, etc. cow even the vaunted NYT into self censoring and then offering excuses, i might change my mind
August 20, 2010, 6:04 pmGuy says:
I think the problem here is one of equivocation. Does the fact that some extremists encourage violence mean that Islam is an inherently violent religion? Of course not, so which questions do the pollees think they are answering?
August 20, 2010, 6:07 pmKamal says:
so someone has to be either a christians, atheists, jews, or hindu *and* perform the same specific act some extremist muslims did before you stop equating religions?
August 20, 2010, 6:07 pmwhit says:
so, much like canada’s laws against “hate speech”, it is not really like slander, because (as in the canadian hate speech laws) truth is not a defense.
August 20, 2010, 6:08 pmJohn Burgess says:
‘Islamophobia’ is a category error. It takes the behavior and/or beliefs of certain members of the group and applies it to all members, usually in a derogatory manner.
It’s one thing to recognize that violence does result from particular interpretation of Islamic doctrine. It’s another to conclude that all Muslims follow that doctrine, to the letter, and thus represent a realistic threat. There certainly a great deal of Hindu violence, for example, directed primarily against Muslims and Christians, but most people are not concluding that Hindus represent an existential threat.
Most Muslims are not interested in the New Caliphate. Most Muslims don’t approve of taqiyya as a general rule. Most Muslims, in fact, are more concerned about putting bread on their tables and getting their kids educated and producing grandchildren than they are in any global conquest or universal conversion.
August 20, 2010, 6:08 pmwhit says:
i am not equating anything
i am setting one religion apart from the others, because that one particular religion has a metric buttload of adherents who routinely get violent and advocate same over insults to their precious religion.
it is the exact opposite of “equating”. it is called “contrasting”
August 20, 2010, 6:10 pmGuy says:
I’m with Kamal, all Christians share in the moral responsibility for 9/11, because they worship the same God as the terrorists. Thankfully, I’m a morally superior agnostic. I just hope no Christians try to open a church near ground zero, that would be intolerably offensive.
August 20, 2010, 6:10 pmKamal says:
We have Christians and Jews here who don’t believe you have to stone to death someone for planting two different types of crops in the same field, or stone someone to death if they lay in bed with another man, or any of the other barbaric customs of their text, right? If so, then stop trying to pretend that a religion’s views apply to all of their believers.
August 20, 2010, 6:10 pmKamal says:
I’m personally more worried about churches near playgrounds. If we are going to continue to push the boundaries of logic, why not?
August 20, 2010, 6:11 pmwhit says:
i think that’s a red herring. this whole “inherently” crap. what is relevant to me is what IS. iow, the simple fact is that tons of muslim extremists routinely commit acts of violence, threats and intimidation over mere insults to their religion. this sets islam AS PRACTICED apart from other religions
if page X of the (insert religion here) holy book says “if anybody criticizes our religion, kill them” but nobody FOLLOWS that , then who cares? it’s words in a book
we are talking about islam AS PRACTICED, not in some theoretical sense
this is usually where the moral equivalence people bring up some reference to the inquisition or the crusades.
which is wonderful, except we are talking about NOW, not history
August 20, 2010, 6:13 pmKamal says:
equate – compare: consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous;
August 20, 2010, 6:13 pmBruce Hayden says:
I agree with EV – there does seem to be evidence that Islam is more likely to encourage violence against nonbelievers. And, so, I guess I am a bigot. Never mind the low grade war that al Qaeda waged against us for a decade or so before 9/11, all the other terrorist attacks against us, etc. It is obviously bigoted to take the religion of the perpetrators into account when making such generalities.
August 20, 2010, 6:16 pmElliot says:
I’m really not sure what the problem is with criticizing religion. Religions are fashioned and created by men. It’s fair game. There is nothing different in criticizing religion than in criticizing proposals for national health care or tax cuts.
August 20, 2010, 6:17 pmwhit says:
nice strawman. nobody is claiming that ALL or even most muslims are doing this stuff. it’s nowhere NEAR that many. the vast majority of muslims are peaceful.
otoh, if you look at polling data, a very substantial percentage of muslims EVEN IN THE US, think all sorts of violence against nonbelievers and criticizers of islam ARE justified.
the issue isn’t a religions views, it’s the adherents to said religions ACTIONS.
August 20, 2010, 6:17 pmRichard Nieporent says:
Kamal, that is an interesting position you take. You are an atheist who defends Islam and attacks Catholics.
August 20, 2010, 6:17 pmwhit says:
which is the exact opposite of what i am doing
hth
August 20, 2010, 6:18 pmKamal says:
As you seem to have a someone basic understanding of logic (by referencing red herring) , let me explain what you are doing:
These are, loosely, your predicates:
Many Muslims are Extreme Believers
Many Extreme Believers are Violent
This can be written:
Some M are EB
Some EB are V
Draw a venn diagram of that, and tell us what you can say in regards to Muslims being Violent.
August 20, 2010, 6:19 pmJohn David Galt says:
I think the folks at Time are missing an important distinction.
A majority of Americans are Christian, but far fewer than a majority are Christianist (= one who would enact Christian religious laws as government laws and enforce them on everybody, including non-believers). And in fact, a large part of America’s population fears Christianism (but not Christianity), and with reason.
Similarly, there are good reasons for Americans to fear Islamism (but not Islam). The trick is telling them apart.
Both America’s general population and law enforcement need to learn the difference, and make the effort to apply it. An America where the authorities no longer presume innocence is not the constitutional republic I grew up in — and I want it back.
Of course, it will help if the Islamic community, both here and abroad, made some effort to distance themselves from Islamists, so that we CAN tell the two apart.
August 20, 2010, 6:19 pmGuy says:
And all Muslims practice their religion in the same way, and hold the same interpretion of their religion. This is a bullet-proof argument. I’m just worried about all the people around me worshipping that terrorist-God of Abraham.
August 20, 2010, 6:19 pmSarcastro says:
In order to prove people make unwarranted generalizations about a religion, I’ll start by referring to the religion as homogeneous in my poll questions and see where I go from there!
I can’t fail! Literally.
August 20, 2010, 6:20 pmwhit says:
this would be like saying that people who believe that men are more likely than women to commit bank robbery are sexists and “malephobic”
it’s simply a statistical reality
August 20, 2010, 6:21 pmGuy says:
Did you even read his comment? The analogy was supposed to show how preposterous this line of thinking was.
August 20, 2010, 6:21 pmwhit says:
please quote where i said ‘all’
that’s your insane unsupported strawman
analogy
i say: men are more likely than women to commit armed robbery
i am not saying all men commit armed robbery.
hth
August 20, 2010, 6:23 pmGuy says:
That was more or less my point about equivocation, this poll doesn’t tell us much of anything.
August 20, 2010, 6:23 pmKamal says:
I am pointing out hypocrisy. My morality is far closer to Christianity than it is to Islam.
August 20, 2010, 6:23 pmKamal says:
If that’s true, then talk about people, and their actions, not religions, and their actions.
August 20, 2010, 6:24 pmGuy says:
But does that mean maleness is more likely than other genders to encourage violence? You can see how the poll is ambiguous. It posits a causal correlation.
August 20, 2010, 6:24 pmwhit says:
right. for example, the vast majority of americans are christian
true also in the armed forces.
however, in both instances i have heard of where a soldier fragged his own coworkers (ft hood and overseas) it was a muslim male
done in the name of his religion.
but god forbid we contrast. that would be ‘islamophobic’
August 20, 2010, 6:26 pmElliot says:
What is the difference between Christian and Muslim morality?
August 20, 2010, 6:26 pmKamal says:
And similarly, the question is more surprising than the answer.
August 20, 2010, 6:26 pmRichard Nieporent says:
Okay so he is an atheist who defends Islam. It is just the rest of the atheists who attack Christianity.
August 20, 2010, 6:27 pmKamal says:
Christ found the rich to be evil. I won’t equate them much more beyond that, as generalizations as such usually wrong. Most christians today probably find protecting property more important than ensuring there are no rich people, so such generalizations of a religion’s tenants aren’t fair.
So.. Yeah, saying my morality is more similar to Christianity is probably a mistake.
August 20, 2010, 6:28 pmSarcastro says:
I know I assume that every enwanged human is about to hit me. That’s why I’m against putting urinals anywhere near sites of past punchings.
August 20, 2010, 6:29 pmElliot says:
So, your Christian morality leads you to embrace personal poverty?
August 20, 2010, 6:30 pmKamal says:
So you would you be more pleased if I criticized Islamic violence, or if I defended Christian pedophilia?
August 20, 2010, 6:31 pmKamal says:
The point of poverty was in jest; Christ is very clear on this point, yet most Christians don’t obey this tenant. Likewise, even if was true that Islam was violent at its core, if their members don’t all follow it, then what is advanced by critiquing the religion as opposed to the actions?
August 20, 2010, 6:33 pmElliot says:
How old was Aisha? Role model? Islamic morality?
August 20, 2010, 6:35 pmIndependent Patriot says:
When the US was attacked by radical Moslems, we saw moslems dancing in the street from Jakarta to Patterson, NJ. I have yet to see a Moslem Peace Movement or a Moslem nation that has suddently started building churches everywhere, no need for synagogues since the Moslem world is basically judenrein due to their governmental policies. When there are demonstrations in the streets of the Arab world demanding peace with the US, Israel and an end to calling suicide bombers martyrs then people will stop seeing Moslems as violent. Remember the moslem world holds telethons for the families of “martyrs” and their religious leaders condone even promote suicide bombings, while they condemn terrorism, anyone ever heard of double speak, as if we cannot parcel out nonsense masquerading as sincerity. Whether anyone likes it or not you are responsible for how the world perceives you either by your actions or in the case maybe as here, inactions on the part of Moslems who disagree with the radical violent jihadists view of Islam.
August 20, 2010, 6:36 pmKamal says:
So you would rather defend Christian Pedophilia. Interesting.
August 20, 2010, 6:37 pmRichard Nieporent says:
I would be more pleased if you were consistent in your views. And by the way I am not a Christian, so I have no dog in this fight.
August 20, 2010, 6:38 pmscattergood says:
The issue is whether Islam ‘encourages violence against non-believers more so than other religions’, let’s stick with that.
There are some reasonable empirical the logical tests that one can do to see if the question can be answered in one way or the other:
1) In Muslim dominated and / or Sharia based countries, is violence against non-believers higher or lower than in Christian dominated and / or Halacha or Canon Law dominated countries?
I think the answer is pretty clear that in Muslim countries violence against non – believer is tangibly higher in terms of number of attacks and % of population attacked than in non-Muslim countries. Christian Copts, Assyrian Christians, Buddists in Thailand, etc. are all attacked on a regular basis. The level of violence against non-Jews in Israel and non-Christians in North America and Europe is not comparable at all.
2) Do Islamic texts and teachings, as understood by Muslims, support violence against non-believers more or less than other faiths?
All four schools of Sunni Islam as well as mainstream Shi‘ism consider idolatry (shirk), apostasy (irtidad), and hypocrisy (nifiq, munafaqah, or riya’) to be capital offenses, as presented by Majid Khadduri in “War and Peace in the Law of Islam”. Prof. Khadduri was a Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University.
3) Are the attitudes in Muslim countries reflective of a belief that non-believers should be met with violence?
Peruse: http://pewglobal.org/2005/07/14/islamic-extremism-common-concern-for-muslim-and-western-publics/3/
…the numbers are quite telling.
August 20, 2010, 6:42 pmwhit says:
i’m not aware of a lot of christian pedophilia. i am aware of tons of christians who commit pedophilia but not IN THE NAME OF their religion and justified by it. i am referring to priests, among others.
when somebody kills somebody in the name of allah (a la ft hood), they are doing it in the name of their religion and motivated by same
i am not aware of many, if any, pedophiles who justify their pedophilia by their religion.
lots of pedophiles are christians (and lots aren’t)
christ did not find the rich to be evil. he found that it was more difficult for the rich to be moral, but those are not the same things
August 20, 2010, 6:43 pmathEIst says:
It is my understanding that death is the required punishment for apostasy. This it is my understanding comes directly from Mohammad. Is this correct?
August 20, 2010, 6:43 pmjack burton says:
!) Who are ~you~ to determine what “extremism” is in another religion which is not yours?
2) From where to these alleged “extremists” find their reasoning for violence?
3) If you even dream of comparing the “extremists” of Christianity to the “extremists” of Islam then please explain why you have a handful on one side and millions on the other.
August 20, 2010, 6:46 pmKamal says:
Here’s the consistency: If you are going to hold a religion responsible for their worst members, then by attacking Muslims for being violent you open up Christianity to the attack of being judged it by it’s worst members as well. As I am against logical fallacy, I recognize both fallacious arguments as invalid, and am attempting to illustrate the errors of using them.
August 20, 2010, 6:46 pmSarcastro says:
[The issue here is that answering any question about all of Islam is impossible. But keep on generalizing!]
August 20, 2010, 6:47 pmBleh says:
Professor Volokh,
I’m sorry, but the generalizations you’re making seem very biased to me. Maybe if you even bothered to consider alternatives I could accept that you came to these conclusions based on reasoned analysis rather than irrational assumptions. How about the alternative hypothesis that people who live in third-world conditions are more easily incited to violence (especially when educated people with malevolent purposes are doing the inciting)?
What time period are you looking at (last 5 years, 10 years, longer)? Does the fact that most people don’t know enough about history to know that the death toll of Islam is probably on par with many other religions make their fear more or less rational?
I suppose if you narrow the timeframe down to just the current (this moment in time) likelihood of religions to encourage violence, you might start to get at your assumption. But how do you mark the dividing line? You seem to accept that some branches of the Muslim religion do not encourage violence, but many people don’t seem to be distinguishing in any way between branches and that doesn’t seem to trouble you. Would you say that people have any responsibility to inform themselves before applying generalizations to specific groups (a la ground-zero debate), or does it continue to be rational to just assume that all members of a certain amalgamated group carry some negative trait? So as an agnostic, why shouldn’t I just assume that all religions encourage violence, especially the monotheistic ones (and I think history would back me up on the assumption). The fact that only certain religious sects continue to be very violent shouldn’t make my assumption any less rationale by your logic.
I can’t speak for Kamal, but as an agnostic I would say that I think most of the major organized religions are pretty equally likely to be wrong on a lot of the big issues. I certainly don’t think that Islam is less or more worthy of attack on those grounds than Catholicism (but I really don’t feel a need to attack any religion). But that doesn’t mean I can’t defend Islam against being singled out as somehow special in its violence. To me history shows that just about every religion (except maybe the Quakers) has done pretty well at encouraging violence at one point or another. To me the more rational view is that violence probably has a lot more to do with us being human, than any particular belief system. Although I tend to think that factors such as education, access to the basic necessities for survival, and a functional legal system help change the rate of violence in any given area — regardless of religious factors.
August 20, 2010, 6:47 pmDon Miller says:
That isn’t what Christ said. He said the “love of money” is evil.
Other people point to the “its easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle” quote. Eye of a Needle was the common name for a small gate that was used at night after the main gates closed. A camel would have to be unloaded and crawl through the gate on its knees. Not impossible, just difficult. The point was many rich people are infected by the “love of money” problem Christ pointed out earlier.
Being Rich in and of itself is not evil.
August 20, 2010, 6:48 pmWaste93 says:
You could also criticize Islamic pedophilia which is also rather wide spread. At least by how we here in the US define it.
Back to the original question. I’m actually surprised the number was that low. Not all Muslims are terrorists, nor are all terrorists Muslims. However there seem to be far greater percentage in relation to their percent of the world population. Here is the list of terrorist organizations recognized by the State Department.
Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
Abu Sayyaf Group
Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
Al-Shabaab
Ansar al-Islam
Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
Asbat al-Ansar
Aum Shinrikyo
Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army (CPP/NPA)
Continuity Irish Republican Army
Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group)
HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami/Bangladesh (HUJI-B)
Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)
Hizballah (Party of God)
Islamic Jihad Group
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed)
Jemaah Islamiya organization (JI)
Kahane Chai (Kach)
Kata’ib Hizballah
Kongra-Gel (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Workers’ Party, PKK, KADEK)
Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LT) (Army of the Righteous)
Lashkar i Jhangvi
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)
Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM)
Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK)
National Liberation Army (ELN)
Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLF)
PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC)
Tanzim Qa’idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) (al-Qaida in Iraq) (formerly Jama’at al-Tawhid wa’al-Jihad, JTJ, al-Zarqawi Network)
al-Qa’ida
al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)
al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (formerly GSPC)
Real IRA
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
Revolutionary Organization 17 November
Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)
Revolutionary Struggle
Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)
United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)
Harakat-ul Jihad Islami (HUJI)
I’d say Islam is rather well represented in that list. Here is the link
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
August 20, 2010, 6:49 pmwhit says:
in many muslim countries, it is illegal and iiuc punishable even by DEATH in some cases for somebody to try to convert a muslim to another religion
if that is not proof positive of the issue being discussed here, i don’t know what is
August 20, 2010, 6:50 pmjack burton says:
By your definition I think very few people indeed would be guilty of Islamphibia. And just how do you measure “most”? If only 10 percent of 1.3 BILLION Muslims believe in the “global conquest or universal conversion” then we have a significant problem.
August 20, 2010, 6:51 pmTed says:
Is this pushing the boundaries of logic? I mean, prohibiting catholic churches near schools and playgrounds seems like it could be rational under the idea that preventing sexual abuse is so important that we shouldn’t risk priests being near children, even if it only reduces the rate of sexual abuse by a unit of 1. Sounds reasonable to me. Think of the children!
August 20, 2010, 6:53 pmjack burton says:
So…. if some random woman on the street claims to be your wife… it must be true? She claimed it. She believes it. Gotta be the “same.”
Or…perhaps she is in error? Delusional, so to speak?
You might want to work on your theology before you make claims on behalf of God.
August 20, 2010, 6:55 pmSarcastro says:
Not all blacks are criminals, and not all criminals are black. However there seem to be far greater percentage in relation to their percent of the US population.
August 20, 2010, 6:55 pmKamal says:
Jesus said: “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
If you think it’s just very difficult for a camel to fit through a needle, then your right. If you understand that it’s impossible for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle, you’ll recognize you are wrong.
August 20, 2010, 6:57 pmq says:
Are you daft? Eugene explicitly says most Muslims don’t adhere to violence, so it makes no sense to interpret his statement as a description of all of Islam when it clearly isn’t. But his observation is really quite easy to understand: Compare all self-proclaimed adherents of Islam with all self-proclaimed adherents of Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, whatever. Which percentage of adherents are more likely to engage in violence on religious grounds? Unless you’re trying to argue that Muslim extremists aren’t truly Muslim. But there really is no principled way to distinguish one set of self-proclaimed adherents from another. And yes, that means Christianity is more likely than Buddhism to encourage violence. (I think, though it is a Western-centric viewpoint and I have heard of Buddhist-motivated violence in Tibet or Thailand.)
August 20, 2010, 6:57 pmjack burton says:
And this is the best he can do, eh.
August 20, 2010, 6:58 pmKamal says:
That is a ridiculous stretch. No serious scholar believes that is what he meant.
August 20, 2010, 6:58 pmKamal says:
Except my point is that arguing about a group based on some (even if it’s many) of it’s members is invalid from a standpoint of logic. It’s appealing to do, but for telling reasons.
August 20, 2010, 6:59 pmBleh says:
Really? Millions? What constitutes an extremist to you? Would you care to back that up with any kind of data? Even if you included the insurgents in Iraq I’m not sure how you’d get to millions of Islamic extremists.
Professor Volokh, does pulling numbers out of ones ass make their fear more or less rational?
August 20, 2010, 6:59 pmjack burton says:
Got a quote on that? Didn’t think so…
August 20, 2010, 7:00 pmElliot says:
That is true. However, it’s rare for the sentence to be imposed. For example, the authorities regularly apprehended expats in Saudi Arabia for preaching Christianity, but their punishment was a function of nationality. Westerners were given a first time warnig, and expelled the second time. Indians and Filipinos were deported the first time, with or without an unpleasant visit to the basement of the police station.
There were lots of executions there, but most were for murder or drugs.
The laws may be on the books, but there is major tension between the religious conservatives and more liberal factions of the population.
And I say all that a week after the Taliban whacked a bunch of folks for preaching…
August 20, 2010, 7:01 pmThrobert McGee says:
I’d just like to observe that if Catholics wanted to build church next to the very same playground where a group of 19 priests had once molested almost 3,000 children on the same day in some kind of nightmarish C!alis-fueled feeding frenzy, it would indeed be an affront to decency and a slap in the face to sex-abuse victims.
But if we’re talking about playgrounds in general — most of which are NOT notorious as the location of a horrific event — then there’s no analogy with Ground Zero. This “building churches next to playgrounds” line was, therefore, a rather weak gag when The Daily Show did it a few days ago, and Kamal’s retelling hasn’t improved it.
August 20, 2010, 7:03 pmq says:
Clearly you don’t understand the concept of hyperbole. Anyway, Jesus did from time to time associate with rich and powerful figures (Matthew, Nicodemus), so it’s a stretch to say he considered them “evil” in the modern sense of the word. More likely to follow their money than God is clearly what he meant.
August 20, 2010, 7:04 pmWaste93 says:
Kamal,
The difference is that the Catholic Church doesn’t endorse or call for buggering small children. Islam does endorse pedophilia and killing of infidels.
August 20, 2010, 7:04 pmjack burton says:
So where is the concept of “evil” in that quote? Non-existant, eh. Totally made up from thin air to please what you want to think.
August 20, 2010, 7:05 pmKamal says:
Replace Islam with “Black” , Christianity with “White”, and Buddhism with “Asian”. If you still found interesting differences in levels of violence, would you attribute it to their race?
August 20, 2010, 7:06 pmwhit says:
exactly. you made the point better than me.
August 20, 2010, 7:06 pmKamal says:
You want me to dig up the hundreds of references in Leviticus sanctioning using slaves from other countries, permitting you to sell your daughter into slavery, killing people for swearing, etc?
August 20, 2010, 7:09 pmwhit says:
you do realize that people do things out of motivation. black and white are not motivations
when people commit an act in the name of islam and readily admit it was inspired by their belief in islam that is qualitatively different than a person doing an act who happens to be either white or black
you are rapidly devolving into absurd sophistry if you can’t distinguish the difference between race and motivation based on belief systems
August 20, 2010, 7:09 pmq says:
There isn’t any convincing reason to think one’s race is a causal factor in one’s tendency to be violent. There certainly is a lot of reason to think one’s religion is a causal factor in one’s tendency to encourage violence against non-believers. I’m surprised you don’t see that.
August 20, 2010, 7:11 pmBama 1L says:
The story you are telling, which I have no doubt you believe in good faith as I once did, was made up by preachers perhaps as early as the late middle ages. Certainly it is a staple of sermons and Sunday school lessons today.
There is simply no ancient source attesting that “common name.” Either Jesus was using a figure of speech that is nowhere else attested or else he literally meant a tiny needle. This is impossible without supernatural aid, but isn’t that the point?
You might want to read the next couple verses, in which the listeners say that it is impossible but Jesus says that all things are possible through God.
August 20, 2010, 7:11 pmDonBoy says:
On the one hand, the claim that there was a small gate called “Eye of the Needle” seems to be a recent invention, although I can’t find where I read that.
On the other hand, there seems to be some dispute as to whether or not “camel” is actually a mistranslation of a word meaning “rope”, thus presumably leaving “eye of the needle” to mean what it sounds like.
And now I’m wondering how they made such fine-grained tools back then anyway.
August 20, 2010, 7:11 pmWaste93 says:
Muslims are not a race. Race is an inherant characteristic that can not be changed. Islam is a religion. People can convert into or out of Islam as they can with other relgions.
The other difference is that race doesn’t indicate ones moral code. Islam, like all religions, is a moral code.
Your analogy is flawed.
August 20, 2010, 7:12 pmGuy says:
“Is atheism more likely than other faiths to encourage attacks on Christianity?”
August 20, 2010, 7:13 pmq says:
Yawn, come back when you dig up Christians endorsing such measures. It’s pretty sad watching you try this silly game of moral equivalence.
August 20, 2010, 7:13 pmjack burton says:
Okay… give me a “extremist” percentage that you are comfortable with… one percent? Calculator out, fingers moving… One percent of 1.3 BILLION is 13 million. You say one percent is too high… okay… lets drop it down to just one tenth of one percent… that still gives us 1.3 million extremists who blow up trade centers, women, children, and any one who disagrees with them.
Go ahead and find me 1.3 million Christians who do the same SOLELY in the name of their religion.
A head in the sand approach denial of reality just because you don’t like it won’t get us anywhere.
August 20, 2010, 7:13 pmKamal says:
You premise that on a belief that people act primarily in accordance with their professed religion. That is observably incorrect.
Poverty level is a much better indicator of violence, but we are not calling for the elimination of the poor.
August 20, 2010, 7:14 pmKamal says:
You don’t believe there are still Christians who think that gays should be put to death?
August 20, 2010, 7:16 pmwhit says:
here we go again . the issue is not what leviticus says. the issue is what people DO.
i am not aware of any christian or jewish religious group engaging in slavery or selling their daughters into slavery and justifying it via leviticus. are you?
the issue is NOT what the texts of the various religions say
the issue is what the adherents of the religions DO
it’s really not that difficult to understand the distinction
and btw, if you want to talk about slavery IN THE CURRENT WORLD (iow what we are talking about), let’s do that. but that’s not what you are talking about. you are talking about texts.
August 20, 2010, 7:16 pmjack burton says:
Gee… I wonder why you don’t find too many people who are willing to risk a death penalty. Why could that be?
Of course it is “rare.” Doh!
But it is telling that you have to go to foreigners to show the supposed mercy of the Saudias.
August 20, 2010, 7:17 pmwhit says:
again, this isn’t about BELIEFS. it’s about ACTIONS.
August 20, 2010, 7:18 pmjack burton says:
But we are not speaking of “race” are we? So your point is meaningless. Unless you want to deny that what a person believes in influences the way he acts on that belief.
August 20, 2010, 7:18 pmKamal says:
Your the one believing it’s SOLELY due to their religion as opposed to things like US foreign policy, and the Palestinians.
August 20, 2010, 7:18 pmGuy says:
My point is that such equivalences are meaningless. You can claim the Christian God is not the Muslim God, but so to can some Muslims disclaim the God of other Muslims. Please try to read my comments more fairly.
August 20, 2010, 7:19 pmTed says:
Your right, there is no analogy with Ground Zero and the playground. A Mosque would not endanger the residents in or near ground zero. In fact, it might dissuade the provably violent Muslims from a second attack in Manhattan.
In contrast, a Catholic church “erected” near a playground or school may actually increase the likely hood of a new “attack” on the residents in and near the school/playground. Its almost like the opposite of placing a Mosque at Ground Zero.
So, which should we condemn?
August 20, 2010, 7:19 pmWaste93 says:
Feel free. However you should know that there is a difference between old and new testaments. Also in Christianity, can’t speak for Judaism as I know little about it, they recognize the gospel is God’s word as interpreted by man so there can be errors. You also have the Vatican that can interprut church doctrine which is why we don’t still do those things.
Islam however is supposedly the direct word of god and as such is not open to change or interpretation. Which is why in Saudi they are talking about severing someones spine because he paralyzed someone in a brawl.
August 20, 2010, 7:20 pmGuy says:
Here’s a thought experiment, let’s imagine that most Christians live in third world countries, and most Muslims live in economically advanced democracies. Wouldn’t most terrorists be Christians using their faith to justify their violence? Think about it carefully before you answer.
August 20, 2010, 7:21 pmKamal says:
You are making the same type of fallacious argument. Just because the nouns were changed doesn’t affect the basic error of trying to attribute the actions of a group to the group itself.
August 20, 2010, 7:21 pmRuss says:
Timing
In ‘A World Without Islam,’ Not Much Would Change
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129131992
He makes a good argument that Islam is no more violent than any other religion.
August 20, 2010, 7:21 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
Unless muslims reject significant portions of their foundational text, there’s good reason to think that Islam is more likely to encourage violence against non-believers than other religions.
August 20, 2010, 7:22 pmGuy says:
I deny that which religion a person follows has an influence on their actual religious or moral beliefs, outside of abstract religious canons, and except insofar as they happen to be culturally correlated.
August 20, 2010, 7:23 pmjack burton says:
I’d like you to “dig up a reference” that shows that this activity is ongoing today as a major portion of Judaism or Christianity.
August 20, 2010, 7:23 pmwhit says:
let’s conduct a little experiment, kamal
go to any majority christian nation and stand in a public place with a poster that says “jesus was a subhuman piece of filth”
do the same thing in a majority muslim country except the sign says “mohammed was a subhuman piece of filth”
see which gets a more violent reaction.
hth
August 20, 2010, 7:23 pmGuy says:
Same goes for Christianity, have you read the Old Testament?
August 20, 2010, 7:24 pmTed says:
Wait, I thought this was about BELIEFS that MOTIVATE ACTIONS? Am I missing something?
August 20, 2010, 7:24 pmKamal says:
They do reject it, similar to how Christians reject the old testament.
August 20, 2010, 7:25 pmWaste93 says:
Mosques are main centers of radical indoctrination. This isn’t something the radicals are learning in their homes for the most part. They have also been repeatedly used to make and store munitions. So I’m not sure how you came to this conclusion. You may have also missed the story about tapes surfacing from the imam for the GZ Mosque supporting Osama bin Ladens violence, calling for an end to Israel, and supporting wahabism. Granted we won’t know the extend of those tapes to next week supposedly. But the imam has also refused to say Hamas is a terrorist group and that 9/11 was the fault of US policies. I’m inclined to believe there will be more gloating at the mosque than disuassion from the imam.
August 20, 2010, 7:26 pmjack burton says:
Come back when you can find us a couple of million who are actually, you know, DOING IT.
August 20, 2010, 7:26 pmGuy says:
Just because democracy and Christianity are both correlated with the west doesn’t prove the correlation is causal. Medieval Europe disproves the causality. The difference is economic and political advancement.
August 20, 2010, 7:26 pmwhit says:
yea, right
im still waiting for the “edgy” artist in a muslim country (heck, even in the US) create a piece of art called “piss quran” where he/she displays a quran dunked in urine.
that WAS done in the US … with a crucifix and got… wait for it… criticism
try doing that with a quran and get back to me…
August 20, 2010, 7:27 pmKamal says:
I thought you were the one who understood what a strawman was.
August 20, 2010, 7:28 pmGuy says:
So because the United States has laws that proves Christianity is a better religion? Then why, as I alluded to above, was Medieval Europe such a crap hole?
August 20, 2010, 7:28 pmq says:
You’re attacking a ridiculous strawman. Eugene (who you first criticized) is not calling for the elimination of Islam.
But anyway I had a feeling you’d say something like that and was tempted to preempt the argument. But I kind of agree with you. If I were born to poor Muslim parents in Saudi Arabia, there’s a significant chance I would believe violence against non-believers is justified.
But you miss one important factor: the role culture plays in one’s upbringing. Religion is culture. So it’s still accurate to say Islam is more likely to encourage religious violence. Maybe not the principles laid out in the Quran, but rather the culture that revolves around certain sects of Islam today.
We can certainly say Christianity a thousand years ago was more likely to encourage religious violence than Christianity of today.
Why must you erect such ridiculous strawmen? I’m sure there are many Christians who think gays should be put to death, just like I know there are some Christians who think abortion doctors should be put to death. The relevant question, however, is the frequency of those beliefs held by Christian adherents. Again, your attempt at moral equivalence is pathetic. This is a matter of degree, not absolutes. I would think this would be clear from the term “more likely,” but apparently it needs to be hammered into that thick-skulled head of yours.
August 20, 2010, 7:28 pmjack burton says:
Yes I do believe that… which is much more reasonable to believe than the strawman of foreign policy or Palestine.
August 20, 2010, 7:29 pmOrder of the Coif says:
Guilty.
August 20, 2010, 7:29 pmjack burton says:
I read it fairly and I commented on it fairly. It really was the best you could do.
August 20, 2010, 7:30 pmGuy says:
So what’s your answer to my thought experiment?
August 20, 2010, 7:31 pmKamal says:
No, that’s *your* question, apparently.
August 20, 2010, 7:32 pmwhit says:
no, the difference is that christians don’t (in the 21st century) routinely riot, maim and kill over insults to their religion
ditto for jews, buddhists, etc.
again, do it and get back to me
i’m not talking about MEDIEVAL times.
we are talking about the here and now, so spare me the inquisition and crusades references too
this has nothing to do with any inherent nature of christianity vs. islam or any such rubbish
we are talking about the practitioners of various religions IN THE PRESENT DAY
and there is a significant difference
August 20, 2010, 7:32 pmOrder of the Coif says:
Guilty. Even worse, I believe the best place to defend is on THEIR territory and BEFORE they are ready to fight. As George S. Patton said “Make the other poor bastard die for his [beliefs].” A legacy of my military service, I suppose.
August 20, 2010, 7:32 pmGuy says:
You deny that Christianity and Islam are founded on the same oral traditions?
August 20, 2010, 7:33 pmjack burton says:
What gives you evidence that Christians would justify their violence thru their faith. Give detail. Be specific.
You made the charge. It is up to you to back it up.
August 20, 2010, 7:33 pmt1 says:
“This observation is hardly evidence of a “phobia” in the sense of “irrational fear” or “irrational prejudice” (it’s quite rational)”
Given the fact that the United States (mostly Christian) has killed at least 100,000 Muslims (and perhaps as many as 600,000) in the past decade while Muslims have killed less than 20,000 Christians, anyone who believes that Muslims are more like to commit or encourage violence against non-believers is, quite demonstrably, an idiot. Probably Islamophobic, too.
Or maybe we’re just better at killin’.
Oh nevermind, those Muslims were all killed for being terrorists who caused 9/11. I forgot.
August 20, 2010, 7:33 pmElliot says:
1. It is not rare for people to be apprehended for preaching in Saudi. It is rare for them to be executed for that. They may be deterred by the threat of deportation, but not by a legal penalty that is not applied.
2. Well, Saudis have a lot of Sharia in their civil code. And they are foreigners. So, I’m not sure how to speak of Saudis without speaking of foreigners.
3. I have no reason to think mercy enters the calculation. I simply observe the way things are done in a country that prides itself on its Sharia law.
4. It’s a mistake to presume practice follows the written law in many countries.
August 20, 2010, 7:34 pmjack burton says:
You got your tit caught in the wringer on that one and you can’t get out of it. Race of one group and the belief system of another are not the same when comparing actions of the groups.
August 20, 2010, 7:35 pmGuy says:
Then you’re not controlling for other factors. The difference is the economic and political situations of countries which happen to be Muslim. The religion is irrelevant.
August 20, 2010, 7:35 pmKamal says:
Right, because there couldn’t be any legitimate anger from displacing hundreds of thousands of people into foreign countries that are not equipped to handle them. Or any anger from having us invade Arab countries for Oil. It’s much more plausible that they just ‘hate freedom’.
August 20, 2010, 7:35 pmMarc says:
I agree that the percentage of Muslims that are violent for religious reasons seems higher then other religions.
But Christianity has its current violent factions also
Local christian priests in Nigera are accusing children of being witchs and having the community kill them to increase the priests influence.
The christian faction is Uganga is trying to pass a law to execute all gays and long jail for anyone helping gays. They are being supported by some christian priests in the US that went to Uganda to help write the laws. That seems to meet the definition of international terrorism
(terrorism practiced in a foreign country by terrorists who are not native to that country)
(Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.)
The only difference with these two examples is that they are not against other religions, just people that are powerless in those countries.
August 20, 2010, 7:36 pmjack burton says:
Okay… deny away… and everyone around you looks at the real world and realizes that some denials are much more similar to flat earthers than the deniers realize.
August 20, 2010, 7:37 pmGuy says:
Bombing of abortion clinics? The fact that history has always shown that extremists will use their religion to justify their extremism? I’m not trying to prove you wrong, I’m asking you to think critically about the question.
August 20, 2010, 7:37 pmByomtov says:
So 46% of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers — which, as best I can tell, is an accurate belief….
This observation is hardly evidence of a “phobia” in the sense of “irrational fear” or “irrational prejudice” (it’s quite rational), or even in the sense of “hatred or hostility towards the group” (which is how I think “-phobia” tends to often be used in terms such as “Islamophobia” and “homophobia” are used).
It is if unsupported by reasonable evidence, even if it happens to be true. If I believe, without reasonable evidence, that Group X is more likely to commit murder than Group Y, then I am bigoted against Group X. It doesn’t matter if it later turns out that my belief was correct.
It is not the accuracy of the belief, but the basis for it, that determines whether it is bigotry. Using the word “prejudice” would make this clear.
In effect, you are excusing those who hold a certain belief because you hold it too.
August 20, 2010, 7:38 pmwhit says:
lots of christians live in third world countries. they still don’t routinely riot, kill and threaten to do so over slights to their religion.
August 20, 2010, 7:38 pmKamal says:
I keep questioning whether discussion can really elucidate the logical fallacies they are making (in this case, the “fallacy of composition”), but i’m starting to think that it’s pointless.
Have fun continuing this topic, i’m done.
August 20, 2010, 7:39 pmjack burton says:
Yes. It is purely economics that would determine that the poster holder in a Muslim country would be dead within a few moments.
August 20, 2010, 7:39 pmGuy says:
Why do conservative Catholics, Jews, and Christians agree with each other more on “moral” questions than they do with their liberal coreligionists? I don’t think I’m being unrealistic here.
August 20, 2010, 7:40 pmjack burton says:
Gotta go back how many centuries to make a point. Four… Five… do we hear six?
August 20, 2010, 7:40 pmGuy says:
Lack of democracy increases sectarian religious hatred.
August 20, 2010, 7:41 pmElliot says:
The 9/11 terrorists who acted in the name of Islam did not come from poverty. Nor did Osama bin Laden or the people who planned it.
August 20, 2010, 7:41 pmGuy says:
How does that undermine my point?
August 20, 2010, 7:42 pmwhit says:
utter rubbish.
there are metric assloads of christians in poor countries. they still don’t do this stuff.
and this doesn’t have to do with poverty
feel free to go to downtown riyadh holding a sign saying “mohammed rapes little boys and sodomizes penguins” and see what happens.
August 20, 2010, 7:43 pmGuy says:
Fixed for obvious error, d’oh.
August 20, 2010, 7:44 pmSarcastro says:
Because Islam is a religion, it’s okay to generalize about it, unlike blackness.
Thus, all Mosques must be seen as radicalization factories/ammo depots for the hordes of sleeper terrorists, as Waste93 noted.
August 20, 2010, 7:44 pmwhit says:
lots of abysmally poor countries have relatively low rates of violence.
it’s an absurd evasion…
August 20, 2010, 7:45 pmjack burton says:
Yep. I can claim you’re a chicken but that doesn’t make you one. The big Mo can claim whatever he wanted to about the origin of his Islam but that doesn’t make it so. The fact that he cribbed significant parts of the
August 20, 2010, 7:45 pmBible just make him a plagiarizer… not a prophet.
Waste93 says:
The problem is that Islam prohibits the economic, scientific, and political advancement. Islam is not just a relgion. It’s also a political and judicial system and the parts are not seperable in Islam. Yes many Muslims do so. Look at the level of scientific advancement in the mid east, or more specificially the lack thereof. Here is an example of scientific advancement from that region.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/7937123/Giant-Mecca-clock-seeks-to-call-time-on-Greenwich.html
Europe saw the dark ages while the Mid East retained much of it’s knowledge. Yet the Reformation, Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution occurred in Europe. Why?
August 20, 2010, 7:46 pmjack burton says:
Get back to us when you have a number of the actual Saudies who are apprehended… and what happens to them.
August 20, 2010, 7:47 pmGuy says:
What do you mean when you claim the Christian god is different from the God of Islam? What is the factual meaning of that claim? I’m not a chicken because I don’t have feathers and wings.
August 20, 2010, 7:47 pmwhit says:
i haven’t seen any generalizations. i have seen comparisons
if i say men are far more likely to be armed robbers than women, am i “generalizing” about men?
no
similarly, if i say muslims are far more likely to engage in violence over slights to islam am i generalizing? no
August 20, 2010, 7:48 pmyankee says:
What evidence do you base this on, comparisons of sermons?
Not that this claim is false; it seems plausible enough, at least these days. But it’s a tricky analytical question, as you have to define what counts as a religion (what level of granularity?), what counts as a religion encouraging something and what counts as “encouraging violence against nonbelievers” (what if you argue that violence is justified as self-defense because the members of the other religion are violent fanatics who are trying to kill us first? what if you encourage violence against members of group X, which is mostly made up of nonbelievers, but for facially nonreligious reasons?). Then you have to find some way of measuring it.
August 20, 2010, 7:48 pmjack burton says:
yes… because we all know that the Muslim faith never, ever, once, encourage violence against non-believers until just a few years ago.
August 20, 2010, 7:49 pmSarcastro says:
English is a conspiracy to keep ideas like this down!
August 20, 2010, 7:50 pmWaste93 says:
Not all. But are you more likely to see a terrorist come from a mosque, synagoguge, buddhist temple, or a church? Which one are you more likely to find bombs and weapons stored in?
Never said all but denying reality doesn’t make it any less deadly.
August 20, 2010, 7:51 pmGuy says:
Hate to repeat a question, but why do conservative Catholics, Jews, and Protestants agree with each other more than they do with liberals of their faiths on religious moral beliefs? I’d really like to hear an answer on this one from someone who believes that religion is a good indicator of a person’s beliefs.
August 20, 2010, 7:52 pmSenatorX says:
The Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk: Unless Muslims reject significant portions of their foundational text, there’s good reason to think that Islam is more likely to encourage violence against non-believers than other religions.
Same goes for Christianity, have you read the Old Testament?
So the question is what changed and can the Muslims change too? Clearly some can and are not extremists. There are few main factors I think(oh there are probably lots but this is what I am thinking):
1. The difference between Mohammad and Jesus. Completely different moral messages.
2. The difference between the bible and the Koran.
3. The difference between the mergers of state and religion in the countries.
For 1 & 2 I think beyond the similarities there are core differences which lend to believers committing more violence against non-believers. However I thing # 3 might be the real problem in allowing rational believers to shuck off the nastier parts of their religious mandates. Is it random chance that in Islamic portions of the world religion and state are so tight? And places where it is not, appear to contain less extremist Muslims.
August 20, 2010, 7:53 pmIs it completely nutty to think that perhaps pushing for separation of church and state might be our best long term method of reducing Muslim extremists? You can’t do anything about the Koran, or the prophet.
jack burton says:
You mean all those hundreds of thousands who ran because they were told the Israelies were going to be driven into the sea in a few days and they could come back and claim the best pickings for themselves? Those people?
Who ran to Jordan and other countries where they have been forcibly kept in isolation in refugee camps since 1967 — 43 years without being able to become a part of the country. When Isreal… a fraction of the same size managed to “handle” hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced out of Muslim countries. And turn them into productive citizens.
You want to point fingers… start with Jordan.
August 20, 2010, 7:53 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
Guy:
I’d be more impressed by such comments if they were made by folks who had some genuine fluency with the relgious texts involved. I’ve found that’s almost never the case. Your comment fairly demonstrates you did not bother reading the linked article before responding. So you’re not really even attempting to address the argument actually made.
Kamal:
What’s your evidence that most muslims reject the Sword Verses, among other passages, of the Qur’an? If you have some data indicating that most muslims do so, I’d genuinely like to see it.
But even if such evidence exists, is it not the case that the Sword Verses are more likely to encourage violence against non-believers now, even if only among a minority of muslims, than, say, the Hebrew Bible’s verses indicating that the Jews were to destroy the Ammonites (a people who no longer exist)?
August 20, 2010, 7:53 pmSarcastro says:
[I agree this is not a generalization. Though this like of discussion is really only useful if you plan to indict Islam as a whole, which is quite the generalization.]
August 20, 2010, 7:54 pmjack burton says:
Let’s have some cites, eh.
August 20, 2010, 7:54 pmWaste93 says:
You’re confusing some issues. Did the US kill those people because they were Muslims? Or were they killed and happened to be Muslims? Did Muslims kill those Christians because they were Christians or were did they just happen to be so? Big difference between the two.
That is what the original question is. Not how many of a certain religion were killed. But WHY they were killed.
August 20, 2010, 7:56 pmElliot says:
Religion is part of culture. Cultures create them and they are practiced in the context of cultures. I don’t think we can separate them. It’s much more than correlation.
The practice and implementation of Islam varies greatly from one culture to another. Turkey, Saudi, and Indonesia are all Islamic countries, but their culture shapes their interpretation of Islam. In many ways, religion is used to reinforce cultural values. Living in Saudi and Indonesia is like being on two different planets. (If you have a choice, pick Planet Indonesia.)
August 20, 2010, 7:56 pmjack burton says:
And I am asking you to think critically about how silly you sound comparing abortion bombers to anyone. The actions were soundly condemned by every major and minor pro-life organizations and at the best there were a handful of bombings. Trying to correlate that into wholesale violence by Christians is nonsense… and you know it.
August 20, 2010, 7:57 pmjack burton says:
Because we are using the same measuring stick and the liberals use a crooked one. That’s neither hard to understand nor anywhere near the point of anything that has been discussed to point.
August 20, 2010, 7:59 pmjack burton says:
I thought there was no “sectarian religious hatred” on the part of the Muslims. Are you bigoted or something?
August 20, 2010, 8:01 pmjack burton says:
Because we are speaking of people being killed in the name of religion today.
August 20, 2010, 8:03 pmjack burton says:
Simple. One is one thing… and the other is another. Do I need to break it down more basic than that?
August 20, 2010, 8:05 pmKirk Lazarus says:
At last reality rears its awful head above the sea of categorical blather. It’s obvious that the relative likelihood a terrorist, clitoris-cutter or reportage-inspired journalist killer will attribute their acts to Islam instead of to any other religion or secular belief system is very large. Moreover its reasonable to infer that persons who make a habit of attributing their behavior to Islam are much more likely than persons who don’t to be terrorists, clitoris-cutters or reportage-inspired journalist killers.
August 20, 2010, 8:06 pmSarcastro says:
Yeah, Muslims never kill Muslims!
August 20, 2010, 8:07 pmjack burton says:
Asked and answered.
August 20, 2010, 8:07 pmGuy says:
As near as I can tell, the point of the article is that it’s different because Christians reject the moral message of God’s command to kill, and modern Muslims don’t. Well, that doesn’t contradict my response to your statement.
I thought we were talking about the inherent nature of religions, by whatever your definition is. Did the Christians of Medieval Europe worship the same God as modern Christians?
August 20, 2010, 8:07 pmMarc says:
Jake Burton said: Let’s have some cites, eh.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7764575.stm
Nigeria ‘child witch killer’ held:
Campaigners are looking after 170 children accused of being witches. Police in south-east Nigeria have arrested a man who claimed to have killed 110 child “witches”.
“Bishop” Sunday Ulup-Aya told a documentary film team he “delivered” children from demonic possession.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/01/link_between_american_evangeli.html
Link Between American Evangelicals and Ugandan Gay-Execution Movement Scrutinized
My point is even just looking at current affairs, they are some violent religious people that claim to be christians.
August 20, 2010, 8:08 pmGuy says:
Yes, as near as I can tell, you’re making a claim with no semantic content.
August 20, 2010, 8:08 pmGuy says:
So why can’t Muslims use the same measuring stick? Since you seem to agree that moral measuring sticks are irrelevant to religion.
August 20, 2010, 8:10 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
Query:
If Islam is not more likely to encourage violence against non-believers, then how does one account for the very different responses to the Danish Cartoons and A. Serrano’s Piss Christ? Or the very different reactions to N. Kazantzakis’s The Last Temptation of Christ and S. Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses (though muslims admittedly might regard Rushdie as more of an apostate than a non-believer per se)?
August 20, 2010, 8:12 pmGuy says:
Piss Christ would undoubtedly have provoked a violent response in a Christian theocracy.
August 20, 2010, 8:14 pmElliot says:
I don’t see causality in democracy and Christianity, but I do see it between democracy and Western European culture. But, we can’t isolate that culture and Christianity.
August 20, 2010, 8:16 pmGuy says:
Really? Is America really that bad at assimilating immigrants? I always thought we were pretty good at it.
August 20, 2010, 8:18 pmjuris imprudent says:
Give that man a cigar (only if he isn’t offended by smoke of course).
August 20, 2010, 8:25 pmWill McLean says:
And what if, nine years later, a group of Quakers wanted to build a community center two blocks from that location, with space for worship inside? And Christianity was, in that alternate universe, a poorly understood minority religion in that country. Many citizens would assume, incorrectly, that the all or most Christians were similar to the worst members of the sect associated with the atrocity. Their sense of affront would be understandable but unjust.
Islam is a more diverse religion than many Americans realize, and Wahhabis and Sufis are probably at least as different as Catholics and Quakers
August 20, 2010, 8:29 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
Well, no, we’re talking about whether the two religions’ foundational texts are as susceptible to violent interpretation in the present. Here’s the key passage of the article, I think:
The point is not that contemporary “Christians reject the moral message of God’s command to kill,” as you put it. I imgaine that many muslims do too. But the point is that the Sword Verses simply are more susceptible to an interpretation of violence against non-believers in the present than the Old Testment recitation to slay a specific people in a specific time (e.g., the Canaanites). And, even if many or most modern muslims reject that interpretation of the Sword Verses, that does not really change the fact that those verse are readily susceptible to a violent present-day interpretation in a way that the Old Testament is not.
August 20, 2010, 8:31 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
Of course, the Danish Cartoons provoked a violent response in a Western Democracy too.
August 20, 2010, 8:38 pmElliot says:
I personally knew five over a ten year period in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. One was American and the rest were Indian or Filipno. None were executed. The law in this case does not distinguish different treatment for Saudia and expats. In general, third world expats are treated much more harshly under the law than Saudis.
I can’t provide stats for the rest of the country.
I’m not aware of any Saudi who was apprehended for preaching Christianity. Nor did I ever encounter or hear of a Christian Saudi. Executions were all announced in advance and the offense was listed. The executions took place after Friday noon prayers in front of the mosque closest to the scene of the crime.
One Saudi was executed in Safaniya for claiming Mohammed was just an ordinary guy. However, the people from Safaniya I talked to say it was a convenient excuse to get rid of a guy who had become a general pain in the ass to the prevailing cuture of graft.
And just to pour fuel on the fire, I also personally witnessed many Christian religious services to which the authorities turned a blind eye. However, such services were explicitly outlawed.
August 20, 2010, 8:38 pmGoggins says:
A few years ago, the Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca gave a sermon during the Haj. Islam has no Pope, of course, but this was a sermon in one of the holiest mosques in Islam, during the holiest time in Islam. He ended his sermon thusly: “May God bring glory to the Muslims, and may He destroy the Jews.” I wonder if that generated the tiniest bit of controversy among the gathered adherents? I don’t know what kind of “data sets” the author of an early comment is looking for, but for other examples, ad infinitum, of “anecdotal” evidence, just visit MEMRI.org.
August 20, 2010, 8:44 pmAlessandra says:
Not only a mental disorder, but combined with the intense labeling of any idea that does not follow liberal dogma on human homosexuality is equal to “hate speech,” what homosexuality activists have done is to brandish their opponents either as mentally disturbed or as criminals, if possible hurling both slurs simultaneously, plus personal attacks.
Not only would Orwell love it, but Goebels would hire all these activists to work for him. Same tactics of constant, multiple smearings.
Aside from issues of misinformation and the widespread ignorance that a mass of Americans presents concerning sexuality, the practice of such underhanded labeling can only take place because of what Hannah Arendt wrote a long time ago: it takes two people to tell a lie, one to tell it, and another to believe in it.
Voilà one of the fundamental dynamics of American society.
I think it’s the politics involved that incites the violence. And even thinking about the question of violence against children and women in Islam, without knowing all that much about Islam itself, I would venture that just like Christianity, Islam could go anywhere from enforcing very oppressive, patriarchal systems to instilling a respect for women and children, while still being the same religion.
August 20, 2010, 8:46 pmElliot says:
I’ve always been puzzled that two religions that each claim to be monotheistic can contend they worship different gods. The Muslims probably have a better (if very weak) claim since they say Christians worship three gods while they worship one. The Muslims would contend Christianity is not monotheistic.
August 20, 2010, 8:48 pmwhit says:
Let’s quit all da wankin’ and get down to the reality.
The question posed was — IS ISLAM MORE LIKELY THAN OTHER FAITHS TO ENCOURAGE VIOLENCE AGAINST NONBELIEVERS
if you answer no, you are saying it is NOT more likely and thus it is just as likely OR less likely to encourage violence against nonbelievers than other faiths.
does anybody with an operating set of neurons honestly believe that?
there are three possibilities
1) islam is more likely than…
2) islam is less likely than…
3) islam is just as likely to…
so, 46% of americans are “islamophobic” because they believe 1 is true…
that’s beyond absurd.
46% of Americans Believe Islam Is More Likely Than Other Faiths to Encourage Violence Against Nonbelievers” = Evidence of “Islamophobia”?
August 20, 2010, 8:48 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
Or to use another example, South Park has made fun of Christianity in general, Mormons in particular, as well as Scientologists, for example, without incident. Yet an entirely different result occurred when South Park merely attempted to depict Mohammed. Again, if Islam is not more likely to encourage violence against non-believers than other religions, what accounts for this fact?
August 20, 2010, 8:50 pmElliot says:
I’d say they ate two different cultures/religions. As I said before, we can’t isolate either religion or culture.
And just for the fun of it, can someone tell us what religion is?
August 20, 2010, 8:55 pmwhit says:
what is more telling is that there *is* no “piss koran” and for good reason.
artists don’t want to die.
in a country with over 200 million christians they know they have little to nothing to fear by dunking a crucifix in urine.
yet, they would rightly fear dunking a koran in urine. if christians and muslims were even EQUALLY predisposed to violence over slights to their religion, than the piss christ would be FAR more dangerous, merely because there are many many many more christians than muslims in the US
the reality is that even though there are literally scores of millions more christians than muslims in the US, only a piss koran would be suicidal
it’s really inarguable. if not, go ahead and do some piss qurans and get back to me
August 20, 2010, 8:56 pmathEIst says:
Waste 93 said “People can convert into or out of Islam as they can with other relgions.”
August 20, 2010, 8:57 pmThat’s not true. The reason Christians don’t have to do all that nonsense in Leviticus etc. is because Jesus changed all that. Nobody changed Mohammad’s command that the punishment for apostasy be death and no one is likely to.
Han Solo says:
Exhibit A: Christianity – Founded by a peaceful rabbi teacher who taught his followers to love your fellow man, even your enemy.
Exhibit B: Islam – Founded by a pedophile WARLORD sand murderer who PERSONALLY led his followers on campaigns around the desert where they robbed, killed, raped, and pillaged other villages and people. He taught his followers that anyone who denies him should be killed, and that their duty from now until the end of time is to take over the entire world until its all under their totalitarian religious pseudo-state control by either conversion, slavery, or death of all the peoples of the world.
Yeah, you guys are right…I see no difference there either. I can’t imagine why the followers of Islam are so different than the followers of every single other religion on the planet.
August 20, 2010, 8:57 pmyankee says:
I know nothing about the Sword Verses, but if you think the Old Testament is not susceptible to a violent present-day interpretation you need to reread your Old Testament. Among other things, it prescribes the death penalty for worshipping other gods (Exodus 22:20, Deuteronomy 17:2-7), blasphemy (Levitivus 24:14-16), trying to convert someone to another religion (Deuteronomy 13:1-11), and failing to observe the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14). It also prescribes death for everyone in a city where the people become apostates (Deuteronomy 13:12-15). If that’s not violence against non-believers then I don’t know what is.
August 20, 2010, 8:57 pmSarcastro says:
[A good question, and really the only useful question that the poll's proposition leads to.
The totalitarian governments that majority Islam occurs in, the general socioeconomic class of it's followers, the stronger voice the fundamentalists have at the moment.]
August 20, 2010, 8:58 pmwhit says:
and last i checked, the “mohammed” episode of south park is to this day, STILL not available at southparkstudios.com (but EVERY other episode is), and has still not been replayed by comedy central.
south park has even ripped on atheists.
and scientologists (with some not so subtle references to lawsuits in the credits)
but god forbid they should depict mohammed
heck, they depicted one of the religious leaders SNORTING coke without incident, and moses as a tron-like CPU. jesus has a talk show in south park. jews are relentless ripped on (the jewbilee episode is hilarious) etc. etc.
August 20, 2010, 9:02 pmHan Solo says:
Clue…the governments are the RESULT of Islam, not the other way around.
August 20, 2010, 9:03 pmSarcastro says:
Wow, that’s some mighty good proovin ya did there!
August 20, 2010, 9:07 pmjack burton says:
1) as has been pointed out already, God’s “commaand to kill” was specific… not a general attribute of Judiasm.
2) yes… the same God… but a more mature church today that has rejected much of the venial nature of the middle ages church.
Well… I am now typing by candlelight using a generator to power the computer. The refrigerator just has to take second place.
August 20, 2010, 9:18 pmjack burton says:
This isn’t hard, you know. You just have to make an honest effort on your part.
Let me break it down for you in a simple analogy (and like all analogies, this is not perfect. Don’t try to stretch it too far).
Fred claims that his bio-father is Sam.
Luke claims that Fred’s bio-father is not Sam, but Bill.
Both are adamant.
YOU in turn, don’t have to know Fred, Sam, Luke, or Bill to know that at least one of them is wrong. They both could be wrong… but only one can be right.
The Bible claims certain things about itself and about God. The Koran contradicts it in a number of key areas, and most importantly, in the nature of God.
They both cannot be right. You don’t have to know God, the Bible, or the Koran to understand that. You may feel that they are both wrong. So be it. But they both cannot be right as contradictory as they are.
Simple eh.
And my power just came back on… should I trust it and shut down the generator?
August 20, 2010, 9:25 pmJK says:
This all seems extremely subjective. Lot of rocks, lot of glass houses. The only conclusion that really seems demonstratable as that there are both peace loving and warlike people of all religions (including atheism) and cultures, so to what extent there is any causality between religion/culture and propensity to violence it’s likely a week causality compared to other factors.
A more interesting discussion might be what, if any, correlation there is between degree of certainty in one’s “religious” beliefs and propensity to violence?
August 20, 2010, 9:26 pmjack burton says:
Made up from thin air. I never said, expressed, or hinted that.
August 20, 2010, 9:26 pmDave Hardy says:
OK, I have a simple way to settle Eugene’s statement, once and for all.
Some years ago some what-passes-for-artist-day produced a photo of a crucifix in a jar of urine, entitled “Piss Christ.” There were sermons and press conferences to denounce this.
Anyone who thinks Eugene is wrong can prove it. Get a Koran, stick it in a jar, take a big, refreshing whizz on it, take a pic and publish it as, oh “Piss on Islam.” Over your real name.
Be my guest. That would prove that you really do believe that Islam does not have uniquely homicidal traits.
August 20, 2010, 9:27 pmAlessandra says:
It depends on your knowledge frame of reference for the question. Are you interested in a sociological definition of religion? Perhaps merely legal?
August 20, 2010, 9:28 pmq says:
If you had half a brain, you’d realize that’s clearly the question triggered by Eugene’s statement: “I don’t think most Muslims support violence against nonbelievers. But it seems to me that Islam as we see it in the world today is more likely than most other major faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers.” That you were so ruffled by it strikes me as odd given its obvious truth. As a percentage of its total adherents, there are more Muslims encouraging religious violence than any of the other major religions. Your attempt to compare Christianity-motivated violence to Islamic-motivated violence is utterly disingenuous. Nobody disputes that both exist; Eugene’s statement is about to what degree they exist.
Yeah, which is why Muslim extremists stick to targeting U.S. interests right? Oh, wait…
August 20, 2010, 9:28 pmwhit says:
you realize i already proposed this, right?
August 20, 2010, 9:29 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
yankee:
A problem with your argument is reality. If the Old Testament is as susceptible to violent interpretation in the present, then why isn’t it in fact interpreted this way in the present by anyone? It’s just coincidental that no one interprets it in such a fashion?
Keep in mind, the claim at issue is a relative one as well (i.e., whether Islam is more likely to encourage non-violence against non-believers than other religions). So finding examples of violence in the Old Testment is not particularly telling, unless you can make the case that these verses played a foundational role in the religion that continues to resonate in the present.
I also tentatively would suggest that much of the law from which cite was for Jews as a people set apart, as opposed to a set of rules that were to be applied to non-Jews. Take, for example, the Exodus 31 passage that you cite:
This really does not seem to entail a command to put non-Jews to death for failure to honor the Sabbath, though perhaps it could be so interpreted. I could be mistaken, but the Old Testament’s law, even most of the bloodier provisions, seems very inward looking (i.e., having to do with the governance of the Jews); whereas, Islam’s foundational text envisions a world in which muslims are actively expanding Islam’s frontiers and expressly concerns itself with non-muslims. There’s just no denying that the Exodus 31 passage is in no way comparable to Qur. 9:5′s imperative to convert or slay “the idolators.”
August 20, 2010, 9:33 pmyankee says:
Then how do you explain the Old Testament law’s prescriptions of death for blasphemy, practicing other religions, trying to convert people to other religions, etc.?
August 20, 2010, 9:35 pmElliot says:
Well, if there are two definitions, then I guess we need both.
August 20, 2010, 9:37 pmbailey says:
This is almost as entertaining to read as when Bernstein mentions Israel and the jew hating Volokh reader contingent oozes out of their slumber. Islam more violent in the present day-you don’t have to be a genius to figure that out, just slightly sentient.
August 20, 2010, 9:37 pmJasmindad says:
One doesn’t have to be an “Islamaphobe” to point to the fact that the status of non-Muslims is quite precarious in Muslim-majority countries, with Indonesia being a big and welcome exception, and Bangladesh a possible second, though not an assured one. OTOH, Muslims appreciate the value of secularism when they are in a minority, as Indian Muslims do. Pretty much all the Muslim organizations in India are in favor of secularism for India, but they won’t sign on to this as a general principle that would apply to Muslim majority countries. In this sense, Islam is unique in today’s world. So, it seems quite right to push the leadership of Islam into examining this imbalance. Characterizing Islam as a problem for non-Muslims in a way other religions are not a problem for people who don’t belong to them is not akin to racism — it is in fact taking their own professed dogmas seriously. I think it is also doing Muslims a favor, because without a strong — very strong — nudge in the direction of tolerance, the welfare of Muslims itself will continue to suffer. In Pakistan, first Islam was declared the state religion. Then various Islamic sects — Ahmadis, Islamalias, etc. — were declared non-Islamic, and the state was allowed to discriminate against them. Soon violence was unleashed against them. Now, the Sunnis want to declare Shias as not Muslims, and periodic violence against them erupts. In Egypt and Pakistan, the security of Christians is increasingly under threat. Saying that ordinary Muslims simply want to put bread on the table is true, quite true in fact, but that misses the dynamics of power in Islamic societies. Honesty and self-interest require us to see reality, without falling into discrimination against Muslims as individuals or in their entirely legitimate quest for equality in the public sphere.
August 20, 2010, 9:38 pmjack burton says:
You redoubtably think so, certainly. No evidence.
August 20, 2010, 9:40 pmbailey says:
Good point, Curmudgeon. A similar misinterpretation was when commentators would excuse Rev. Wright’s ravings by stating he was preaching in the style of the “prophets”. Of course, the prophets were pointing their fingers inward and castigating their brethren, not outward and telling their flock it’s everyone else’s fault.
August 20, 2010, 9:41 pmElliot says:
It’s interesting that some of the same folks who have no problem accusing the Tea Party folks of being violent object to the notion that Islam is violent.
So, which is more violent? Tea Party or Islam?
August 20, 2010, 9:42 pmDave Hardy says:
Whit says
“you realize i already proposed this, right?”
With 185 comments and rising, I didn’t stop to read! I bet you’ve had a dozen or so takers already! (Grin … I assume none).
August 20, 2010, 9:42 pmjack burton says:
Errr…. Americans and Pinoys are not Saudies. When you find some Saudies who have been spared the death penalty for preaching the Christian gospel then get back to us.
And the Saudies are just as good at real-politik as the rest of the countries. Of course they are not going to execute a foreigner for church services no matter what their book says.
August 20, 2010, 9:45 pmyankee says:
Coincidental? Absolutely not. People are very good at interpreting holy texts to mean what they want them to mean, even if it involves pretzel-like contortions, and ignoring the bits they don’t like. (We Americans like to do this with a particular uniquely American holy text.) Fortunately, Christians have reached the point where it’s no longer considered acceptable to execute people for blasphemy, so Christians just ignore that stuff. But the ones who don’t like gay sex manage to find that the passages about gay sex get an exemption from the “this doesn’t apply anymore” rule, unlike all the other rules that prohibit stuff they like to do like eat shellfish and combine different fabrics.
I don’t see how it’s a defense to say that the command to kill members of other religions only applies if they’re members of a specific ethnic group. The Qu’ranic passage you cite may be even worse, but whatever the Old Testament law on this issue is it’s not a proclaimation of nonviolence against members of other religions.
August 20, 2010, 9:46 pmjack burton says:
If Fred claims he’s a chicken and Susie claims she’s a chicken why in the world do you believe that Fred and Susie must be the same person?
And Christian doctrine concerning the Trinity doesn’t have to be validated by an illiterate goatherder named Mo.
August 20, 2010, 9:48 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
It’s human beings’ attempt to understand, interact with, and possibly influence whatever there is that transcends our physical space-time existence.
August 20, 2010, 9:50 pmjack burton says:
And we see all these tens of millions of Christians acting out their beliefs on these verses every day, eh. No wonder the streets are full of bodies on my way to work.
August 20, 2010, 9:51 pmbailey says:
I love how the apologists cite to chapter and verse in the Old Testament but are completely blind to the actual level of violence perpetrated in the name of Islam today. Why, it’s irrational to say Islam is violent, look at this verse in Leviticus.
August 20, 2010, 9:51 pmjack burton says:
I’m extremely certain and I go to a church with other extremely certain people yet we haven’t killed any one yet for our faith.
August 20, 2010, 9:53 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Abdul Rahman (Persian: عبدالرحمن) (born 1965) is an Afghan citizen who was arrested in February 2006 and threatened with the death penalty for converting to Christianity.[1] On March 26, 2006, under heavy pressure from foreign governments, the court returned his case to prosecutors, citing “investigative gaps”.[2] He was released from prison to his family on the night of March 27.[3] On March 29, Abdul Rahman arrived in Italy after the Italian government offered him asylum.[4]
August 20, 2010, 9:54 pmAbdul Rahman’s arrest and trial brought international attention to an apparent contradiction in the Constitution of Afghanistan, which recognizes both a limited form of freedom of religion and the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence, which mandates the death penalty for apostasy from Islam.
Byomtov says:
Curmudgeonly ex-clerk,
the Old Testament’s law, even most of the bloodier provisions, seems very inward looking (i.e., having to do with the governance of the Jews);
Take a look at the Book of Joshua sometime.
August 20, 2010, 9:54 pmwhit says:
yes, but you can just stop to read MY comments, and ignore the rest and be assured you have a strong understanding of the issues :)
August 20, 2010, 9:54 pmjack burton says:
Find an example of each of these and then we’ll discuss it.
August 20, 2010, 9:55 pmbailey says:
By the way, one of the knuckle dragging right wing no doubt christianist websites is claiming to have about 13 hours of really interesting tapes of the peace loving moderate Imam Rauf. Should be interesting to see and hear if they can back it up. Of course, as a matter of tolerance, it really doesn’t matter if he actually celebrates the 9/11 attacks. Right?
August 20, 2010, 9:56 pmAlessandra says:
There are more than two definitions actually. You will find a reasonably different definition in anthropology than in sociology, there is social psychology, etc. But the sociological one is the one I most like to delve into.
From a social systems perspective, religions establish a few fundamental tenets for a group:
a) what reality is and is not,
b) what is right and wrong,
c) rules/laws/roles/attitudes based on values, to guide social relations/behavior,
d) it defines what is important and what is not,
e) it selects which people (issues/views) will be heard and which will be ignored,
f) power and political hierarchies.
(This is a tiny little blurb, you can read books about it if you want to think more. Unfortunately I don’t have the reference with me of a great book on the subject, but I’m sure you wouldn’t have trouble finding one). Anthropologists will probably deal more with deity systems, creation beliefs, etc.
As for the legal definition, I’m not part of the lawyer crowd, so…
August 20, 2010, 9:57 pmElliot says:
I realize Indians and Filipinos are not Saudis. They are also aware of that. But, since everyone in Saudi is subject to Saudi law, and Christian preachers are not executed for preaching, we have no basis to claim they are.
Note the Christian church services are tolerated, although they are explicitly outlawed under Saudi law. Authorities have many options besides execution.
More fuel for the fire: I have personally carried about twenty bibles (one at a time) into Saudi, had them inspected by customs, and walked them into the country. They were for Indians and Filipinos who didn’t get out nearly as often as I did.
August 20, 2010, 9:59 pmElliot says:
If I was a monochickist, what choice would I have?
If I was a polychickist, it would be easy to say there were two divine chickens.
Islam and Christianity both claim to be monochickists.
August 20, 2010, 10:05 pmBama 1L says:
If a theocracy doesn’t punish blasphemous art, what’s the point in having a theocracy?
August 20, 2010, 10:07 pmSarcastro says:
The key is to talk about all of Islam being violent, because generalization saves on brain power!
August 20, 2010, 10:11 pmLib says:
Race is not something the individual chooses. What, if any, religion to follow is a personal choice. Two very different things.
August 20, 2010, 10:11 pmElliot says:
If one applies Alessandra’s sociological definition of religion from a few posts up, the religion may have defined under section “c” that such expressions are to be tolerated.
Are you using a different definition of religion?
August 20, 2010, 10:15 pmyankee says:
The claim I was responding to was that the Qu’ran is susceptible to a “violent present-day interpretation,” but the Old Testament is not. It’s nonsense.
The actual behavior of contemporary Christians and Muslims is a completely different issue.
August 20, 2010, 10:17 pmJK says:
Sure, but I have noticed a slight correlation between the religion people are born with and the religion they practice as adults…
August 20, 2010, 10:18 pmElliot says:
We might also note religion comes with a set of defined rules, roles, and relationships. Races don’t.
August 20, 2010, 10:22 pmathEIst says:
yankee:
Then how do you explain the Old Testament law’s prescriptions of death for blasphemy, practicing other religions, trying to convert people to other religions, etc.?
That’s why it’s called the Old Testament. Jesus(I’m speaking in the hypothetical here) changed all that.
August 20, 2010, 10:23 pmneurodoc says:
That Ft. Hood massacre was, of course, perpetrated by Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who put on his business card after his name “SoA,” which is understood among Islamists to mean either “Soldier of Allah” or “Servant of Allah.” But how can it go unnoted here that Hasan was encouraged to commit those murders of fellow service members, 13 of them, by a Muslim cleric, Anwar al-Alwaki, who has inspired a great many young Muslim males to take up the sword (gun, bomb, etc.) in the name of Islam and kill “infidels.”
August 20, 2010, 10:24 pmpmorem says:
“Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence against non-believers”
I think people are missing a big part of the picture.
Non-believers do not include only Christians, Jews, Buddhists and others.
Some Sunni count Shia as non-believers. Some Shia count Sunni as non-believers. IIUC, the toll of that particular bit of violence against non-believers exceeds the number of non-muslims killed by muslims.
Is that particular bloodbath encouraged by Islam?
I believe it is.
Does it make me Islamophobic to believe that some sects of Islam encourage followers to kill “the non-believers” who follow other sects?
August 20, 2010, 10:26 pmyankee says:
Well, the problem Christians have to face when they make this argument is that in Matthew 5:17 Jesus says the Old Testament law is still in effect. Also they tend to want to keep some of the other Old Testament laws around.
August 20, 2010, 10:29 pmpmorem says:
One choice for the monochickists is to believe that one of the self-proclaimed chickens is lying.
Consider the following:
I am a follower of the one true god, Allah. Allah told me that he never said a word to that Mohammed guy. The whole thing was just something Mohammed made up because he wanted to impress people and get laid.
August 20, 2010, 10:31 pmpoll dancing says:
I’m thinking if we polled Time Mag and similar outlets over their opinion on the exercise of free speech, the percentages would show a high incidence of cartoonMohammed
August 20, 2010, 10:35 pmphobia“respect.”neurodoc says:
It is know as the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, but I think it should be known as the “no true Muslim” fallacy, since it is so often used by Muslims who would deny that so much violence is perpetrated in the name of their religion.
Does anyone have a number or % of so-called “suicide bombers” who have been other than Muslims?
August 20, 2010, 10:38 pmBenjamin Davis says:
Two words: Northern Ireland – 600 years of stuff there and of course the French night of the St. Bartholomew.
August 20, 2010, 10:39 pmBest,
Ben
Benjamin Davis says:
Of course we can also go through the hundreds of years of the “civilizing mission” of Christianity during the slave trade and colonialism. Seeing the splinter in the other’s eye, and not seeing the log in one’s own eye.
August 20, 2010, 10:41 pmBest,
Ben
Dear Time: says:
We irrational American peoples are getting increasingly chronophobic, too.
August 20, 2010, 10:41 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
Joshua is not categorized as the law (torah), but is among the prophets. Yankee confined himself to the law, so I did so in my response. Do you have a particular part of Joshua in mind that you claim serves as a foundational part of Judaism’s (or Christianity’s) theology that continues to resonate in the present such that modern Jews or Christians rely on it in their dealings with non-believers?
August 20, 2010, 10:42 pmAlessandra says:
Sublimely represented using the art of cartooning by Mike Lester:
http://www.caglecartoons.com/viewimage.asp?ID={82D3CD2F-D9F4-41D0-92D9-86D21848196D}
Lester deserves a cartoon prize for this one.
August 20, 2010, 10:45 pmpoll dancing says:
The talk of Old Testament and centuries old sins is a tactic designed to distract from the point of the post about the poll. But whatever.
Here’s something horrible going on now:
Slavery in modern, current day Africa perpetuated by Arab and African Muslims.
Of course, there are the wars, genocides, mutilations, as well.
August 20, 2010, 10:51 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
No, actually, here is what I wrote:
I think it’s telling that you have to mischaracterize my argument in order to respond to it.
August 20, 2010, 10:55 pmChrisTS says:
A few words:
Bosnia/Herzogovina
Chechnya
China
Kashmir
Muslims – even in recent times – have been victims because of their religion. No one has a monopoly on violence or evil.
And why anyone should care what 46% of Americans who bothered to respond to some poll think is beyond me. I think Eugene is trolling his own blog.
August 20, 2010, 11:00 pmDebrah says:
Eugene Volokh opines:
“But it seems to me that Islam as we see it in the world today is more likely than most other major faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers…..”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is there really an argument against this statement? Really?
The Fort Hood shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, carried a business card identifying himself as SoA: Soldier of Allah, just as a matter of course.
Yet those around him chose, or had been indoctrinated in such a way, to look over his rabid shimagh strain.
Avoidance of the obvious continues the absurd.
The refusal to acknowledge who out there is trying to kill Americans and why might suggest the presence of a death wish for the sake of cosmo PC.
A brand of “giving all” for the cause, no?
Moreover, the media seem to have banned from the vocabulary terms such as jihadist, Islamist and Islamic terrorism.
Bravo!
August 20, 2010, 11:00 pmFloridan says:
There are about as many Muslims in the United States as there are people in Utah (probably more).
In 2008, there were 6,207 violent crimes in Utah, including 39 murders, 893 forceable rapes and over 3,700 aggravated assaults.
The question is, how does criminal violence by American Muslims compare to the numbers in Utah.
August 20, 2010, 11:00 pmBleh says:
Really? After pulling numbers like this:
out of your behind, you’re now asking for numbers and cites?
Still, to even begin to answer that question, I would still need to know what you consider to be an Islamic extremist? Anyone who fights for any cause even tangentially related to Islam, whether or not their reason is religious? Anyone who has ever even thought of raising arms for one of those causes? Anyone who has protested? Or do you just mean anyone who is a devout Muslim?
Since you’re so ready to come up with figures (one percent, and one-tenth of one percent) to produce estimates you must have some knowledge of the incidence of extremism, right? Please, share.
August 20, 2010, 11:03 pmElliot says:
Doesn’t matter why they are worshipping. Monotheists have one and only one target for worship.
August 20, 2010, 11:10 pmElliot says:
Correct. Organized Christianity has a horribly bloody history. And we could point to times when Muslims populations were far more peaceful than Christian popuation. Today is not one of those times. Religion changes as culture changes. We will probably see roles reverse again in the future.
August 20, 2010, 11:15 pmwhit says:
and again, for the 100th time, the issue is not what the books tell people to do
the issue is WHAT DO THEY DO
August 20, 2010, 11:16 pmBleh says:
Ditto.
August 20, 2010, 11:16 pmwhit says:
it can only go unnoted here by people who refuse to see reality
there were a few in the 2nd world war, by another name of course
:)
August 20, 2010, 11:21 pmwhit says:
which point has been made ad nauseum. except the poll wasn’t about what happened hundred(s) of years ago
it’s about present-day-reality ™
August 20, 2010, 11:23 pmpoll dancing says:
Floridan, you are not at all responding to Time’s polling question or to the point of the post. Maybe this will help:
Meanwhile, a new TIME–Abt SRBI poll found that 46% of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers.
What percentage of those stats you cite are “hate” crimes committed by Christians and Jews murdering infidels and extraterrestrials (Scientologists)?
There are numerous tapes of imams preaching violence and calling for death to the Jews, Christians, Americans, westerners, and apostates, and not too many of even white Christianist televangelists doing same, although they may wish hellfire to rain down on most of us damned from on high…
August 20, 2010, 11:27 pmChrisTS says:
Ok, I’ll bite: what’s the answer?
August 20, 2010, 11:27 pmFerrell S. says:
ChrisTS, you got suckered. No one says they’re on a rampage. Just some big events from time to time.
August 20, 2010, 11:31 pmMark Field says:
Ditto.
August 20, 2010, 11:35 pmNickM says:
Yes. Comparison of sermons (multiplied by their # of listeners, for greater accuracy) would be the optimal measure. Without a formal study, I’ll go with the compiled anecdotes and say that most of those preaching violence against nonbelievers are Muslim preachers.
Nick
August 20, 2010, 11:41 pmChrisTS says:
OMG. I scrolled up and found a completely sensible, nonvitriolic – indeed, nonargumentative – comment.
To be fair, I think this is what Kamal was after in noting logical fallacies. We actually have folks commenting here as to what Islam does or does not do.
I do think that at this point in time [a narrow slice], there are many Muslims who are turning to a radicalized and politicized ‘version’ of their faith. (I think it would be more accurate to say they are being turned towards someone’s espousal of the meaning of that faith.) This is because those who wish to radicalize people, especially in the Middle East, have found this a useful tool for doing so. To turn this into an argument over what a religion encourages people to do is silly. Thus, several folks have pointed out that there is much ugliness to be drawn upon from the texts of other religions.
Look, almost any faith, cause, or belief system can be used to get people to behave violently. (Ok, Quakerism gets a break, here.) The important questions are (1) how are decent people seduced by those who use these faiths/causes/belief systems and (2) what can we do to thwart this in the given case?
August 20, 2010, 11:45 pmKen Arromdee says:
This question describes an impossible situation. The kind of people who embrace terrorism and theocracy and killing people over cartoons are barbarians. Their backwards social structure makes them completely incapable of running an economically advanced democracy. It’s just bad luck that they have oil which lets them get rich without having the kind of society that’s normally necessary to get rich.
You seem to want the answer “it’s the third world-ness of their country that makes them into barbarians.” I’d argue the other way around–it’s them being barbarians which makes their country third world.
August 20, 2010, 11:47 pmGuy says:
Richard Nixon doesn’t count?
August 20, 2010, 11:49 pmneurodoc says:
Scenario A: My colleague and I are listening to the radio when there is a news bulletin advising that there has been a shooting at a nearby manufacturing plant, with five known dead so far. No information is given about the shooter, but I say to no one in particular, “Gee, another guy has gone ‘postal,” I hope the police get him before he manages to kill any more people.” Have I revealed myself to be bigoted and/or prejudiced by assuming that the perpetrator of this crime was a man rather than a woman, jumping to that conclusion in the absence of any evidence pointing to a man rather than a woman? And it wouldn’t matter if I were subsequently proven right, that is it did turn out that a man was the shooter?
Scenario B: That radio bulletin does not announce a shooting at a nearby manufacturing plant, instead it announces that a series of bombs went off within minutes of one another on different Washington, DC subway trains killing and wounding an undetermined number of people. A colleague says he’ll bet $3 against anyone else’s $1 that the perpetrators will turn out to be Muslims. My friend says that’s not a fair bet, it should be at least $10 to $1. I say I’d take the bet if our colleague would up the ante to $5 to $1. Since both my friend and I think it sufficiently likely that Muslims perpretrated this act of terrorism that neither of us will spring for an even money bet, or even one at 3:1 odds, have we both revealed ourselves as bigoted and/or prejudiced? Ought I be judged less bigoted and/or prejudiced than my friend, since I didn’t think it quite as likely that Muslims were the perpretrators as he did, and thus I was willing to take the bed at lesser odds? And again, it would not matter for purposes of judging us whether the perpretrators proved to be Muslims or not?
August 20, 2010, 11:52 pmGuy says:
If the first sentence is supposed to logically follow from the second, I don’t see how.
August 20, 2010, 11:52 pmGuy says:
I agree with that, but I don’t think the social structure is a result of their religion, I don’t see the causal connection. Industrialization and the Enlightenment were not the result of Christianity, they were the result of political peace, improved economic stability, and communication among intellectuals.
There was a time when it was believed that democracy and Catholicism were fundamentally incompatible, no one believes that anymore.
August 20, 2010, 11:59 pmSolon says:
The Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk: yankee:A problem with your argument is reality.If the Old Testament is as susceptible to violent interpretation in the present, then why isn’t it in fact interpreted this way in the present by anyone?It’s just coincidental that no one interprets it in such a fashion?
I assume that these are rhetorical questions and, while I tend to find your underlying point convincing (that the Old Testament is not as susceptible to violent interpretation as the “sword verses”), there do appear to be external factors (socioeconomic, for example, as someone pointed out earlier) which could impact the interpretation such that there would be a demonstrable difference why the Old Testament is not interpreted in quite the same way as the “sword verses”. The U.S. Constitution has certainly often been interpreted differently according to social and historical conditions (whether is should be or not), and that is a foundational ideological text similar to the religious laws discussed here.
August 21, 2010, 12:02 amThis does not mean that muslim ideology has no impact on the frequency of religious violence by muslims (I tend to think religious ideology can be very motivational), just that it can probably be tempered or inflamed by social conditions.
I don’t think recognizing this deserves the condemnation associated with such a term as “islamaphobia”.
ChrisTS says:
I think his mother was a Quaker. And, of course, “a saint” whom he could never hope to emulate. :-)
August 21, 2010, 12:02 amSarcastro says:
[Okay, I don't see many folks disagreeing that, Islam in general is more prone to violence against nonbelievers at the moment.
The question is where do you go from there.
Some folks decide to indict everyone who is Islamic. This is where some folks brought in the Christian/Black parallels.
Other people look at causes, and that is an interesting conversation (minus Han Solo, the rogue!)]
August 21, 2010, 12:03 amChrisTS says:
Guy:
The former, absolutely not. The latter, only in a kind of “I love Dad, but he’s wrong” way at best (Kant).
August 21, 2010, 12:05 amSarcastro says:
[I might argue reverse causality. The printing press allowed personal bibles at a vastly reduced cost, allowing Protestants' doctrine of individual biblical interpretation.]
August 21, 2010, 12:11 amSolon says:
My understanding is that the court also stated this man had intellectual deficiencies which could mitigate his crime (though I heard others say that the court was suggesting that his conversion was evidence of his mental instability).
August 21, 2010, 12:12 amNickM says:
Are the editors of Time trolling their own magazine too?
Nick
August 21, 2010, 12:16 amChrisTS says:
That’s a good point. Of course, they [the early Protestants] had to hide the facts that they had Bibles in a language they could read and that they could read. By the time we get to Kant, it is more the familial “kids gotta go their own way” thing. And, of course, some kids are less independent than others. :-)
August 21, 2010, 12:17 amandrew graham says:
It’d be nice if everyone added which religion they practice, if any, to their posts since we’re all talking about the difficult subject now. (I’m agnostic.) Since the question Mr. Volokh raised — weather or not Islam “as we see it in the world today is more likely than most other major faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers” — isn’t a question about Islam so much as it is a question about most major faiths, it isn’t very productive to focus on the ugly parts of one religion and not the others.
So let’s be straightforward with the unavoidable conflicts of interest; no one’s even close to objective in these types of discussions — which doesn’t mean one can’t be right or convincing.
August 21, 2010, 12:21 amChrisTS says:
Nick:
:-) That’s a good question. Strictly speaking, I imagine they have greater financial incentive to do so.
Pace Eugene: I think I have learned what ‘trolling” usually means [when not simply a term of abuse]. If I understand the descriptive – not prescriptive – definition, it seems to include “just trying to be provocative.”
August 21, 2010, 12:22 amChrisTS says:
@andrew graham:
Not sure how it helps, but I am a nontheist. If I were to be a theist, I would probably be a pantheist. Or, a pananimist.
August 21, 2010, 12:25 amneurodoc says:
The ones I think you are alluding to were at it for less than a year; their targets were all military ones, mostly warships; and they had to give it up once and for all after a couple of atom bombs were dropped on the homeland. And we should note that they too had some rather noxious religious beliefs that made them contemptuous of others and exceedingly cruel to them, e.g., the Rape of Nanking, bushido, horrific human experimentation, etc..
August 21, 2010, 12:29 amChrisTS says:
Almost there.
August 21, 2010, 12:33 amBarb says:
So well put by Mr. V. That’s what I’ve been saying –that the RELIGION produces some well-documented tendencies in the nations where it is the major religion. And it is not irrational for us to wonder just how peaceful Muslims are generally –do they believe in revenge? or forgiveness? Do they tolerate other religions? Not much in nations where they are the majority and in charge of the gov’t. Do they agree with the progressive Muslim American columnist who thought it served missionaries right if they get imprisoned for proselytizing? Does their religion tell them to love their enemies and Christians and Jews, seeking to convert us because they love us and want us to go to Allah’s Paradise? Not that I’ve noticed.
August 21, 2010, 12:43 am1040 says:
ok, so no churches in downtown atlanta next to the eric rudolph massacre, and nothing in wichita near the roeder christian killings then.
August 21, 2010, 12:50 ampoppie says:
It’s interesting that the other poll that was released in the past few days – showing that 1/3 of republicans think that Obama is Muslim – doesn’t merit a VC post.
Not unlike Mr. Bernsteins obsessive posts about “who is Mr. Green Helmet” while Israel was busy slaughtering civilians.
Anything to distract from inconvenient facts, I guess.
August 21, 2010, 12:52 amLiam says:
For someone who wants to attribute modern Islamic extremism to socioeconomic/cultural, rather than “religious” factors (whatever the distinction may be), Kamal & co. have done an astoundingly poor job of discussing probably the most compelling evidence that Islam isn’t the only religion capable of being subverted to violent ends.
Then again, bringing up Liberation Theology would also raise the unfair* question of why modern Catholicism was able to so effectively stamp out extremism within its camp, where modern Islam has miserably failed, so I suppose I could see why they wouldn’t want to mention it.
That, or they’re actually only informed enough to spout the mindless recycled crap about how Christianity is evil b/c of the Crusades, rather than provide an informed historical perspective.
*Not unfair in terms of legitimate rational inquiry, but just in that it leads one away from the “correct” conclusion that modern Islam is no worse than any other religion.
August 21, 2010, 1:33 amElliot says:
I agree. And the easiest way to deal with those ad nauseums is to simply acknowledge them.
August 21, 2010, 1:35 amOliver says:
Your post cites no evidence whatsoever to support your belief. None. It just assumes it.
I hope that tomorrow you will see why this was a mistake.
August 21, 2010, 1:36 amRicardo says:
I don’t know that anyone seeks to dodge that question. The most direct answer, of course, is the Inquisition and the amount of centralized power that the Pope had. Islam used to have a relatively centralized hierarchy in the form of the Abbasid Caliphate but then Baghdad had the misfortune of being destroyed by Mongols in 1258.
August 21, 2010, 1:47 amyankee says:
Sorry, I had interpreted your phrase “in a way that the Old Testament is not,” as essentially a longer way of saying “which the Old Testament is not,” which was apparently a misreading. This seems like a pretty nuanced position—both the Old Testament and the sword verses of the Qu’ran can be interpreted as invocations to violence against nonbelievers in the present, but not in the same way? The distinction you’re trying to make is eluding me.
August 21, 2010, 3:35 amUrsus Maritimus says:
“Most Muslims are not interested in the New Caliphate. Most Muslims don’t approve of taqiyya as a general rule. Most Muslims, in fact, are more concerned about putting bread on their tables and getting their kids educated and producing grandchildren than they are in any global conquest or universal conversion.”
August 21, 2010, 4:08 amSarcastro says:
[Close, Ursus Maritimus, but in reality, the parallel would be
Most Spartans disliked war, most French did not support Napoleon, most Russians disproved of Stalin, most southerners hated slaves.]
August 21, 2010, 4:32 amSG says:
If I can’t dislike somebody because of what they choose to believe, what can I dislike them for?
August 21, 2010, 4:55 amDavid Schwartz says:
It’s nothing like saying that. If you said “adherents to the religion of Islam are more likely to be suicide bombers”, that would be statistical reality.
We’re talking about whether “Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers”. This is not about what any *people* do. It is about what *Islam* does. It would be akin to arguing that Christianity is more likely than other faith to encourage bank robbery because most bank robbers are Christian.
This kind of conclusion cannot be made with simple statistics. It is an attribution of causality that requires more than correlation. Even if, for example, a much higher percentage of adherents of a particular faith perform a particular act, that does not establish that it’s their faith that encourages or causes it.
For what it’s worth, I happen to think it’s true. But it cannot be established by simple statistics. And, again for what it’s worth, the irrational notion that motivates suicide bombers is that if you believe God wants you to do something, you should do it. All who share that belief share the blame. That is the appropriate level of generality.
August 21, 2010, 5:50 amKen Arromdee says:
Yet when people agreed with basically that, Time took it as a sign of Islamophobia.
August 21, 2010, 6:00 ampmorem says:
Ok, I’ll put it another way.
I declare myself a monotheist. There is no true God but Sheogorath.
If you can reconcile Sheogorath and Allah as being “the same God”, your grasp on reason and reality is worse than mine. Not to mention that being a very offensive view.
Better to say that someone (perhaps even me) is mistaken.
Exodus 20:3 (NIV) “You shall have no other gods before me.” That really doesn’t strike me as being a refutation of the existence of other gods. Merely assigning an order for them.
While monotheists may believe there is only one God, that really doesn’t mean they believe in the same God.
… and Sheogorath is his name.
August 21, 2010, 6:06 amDebrah says:
Unfortunately, it’s a little something like saying that.
Although most would prefer that the opposite is true, past experiences illustrate the contrary.
One solitary factor—still, in the 21st century, no less—that sets Islam apart is the silence of its “peaceful” followers in the face of untold, horrific destruction from its radical followers.
And the reason for this—if we are to believe that most of Islam do not subscribe to the anti-Western and anti-Israel rabidity—is that Islamofascism, (the term equating modern Islamic twenty-first century movements with the European fascist movements of the early twentieth century), is that they are afraid to speak out against their brethren.
Or face certain death, themselves.
Quite unlike most religions.
Are there other religions whose followers sport ignited cummerbunds when they get peeved?
August 21, 2010, 7:24 amDebrah says:
Which version of Islam will prevail in America?
August 21, 2010, 7:30 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Islam is what Muslims say it is. Christianity is what Christians say it is. Etc.
Here’s one difference between Islam and Judaism and Christianity: While you can convert to Islam or Judaism (and the first actively proselytizes, while the second doesn’t,) you’re a Muslim or Jew by default if you’re born to a Muslim or Jewish family. I think that in Islam it’s enough if your father is Muslim, and in Judaism it’s enough if your mother is, but I can’t cite that right now.
Whereas, you’re only a Christian if you personally decide to be one. No one is Christian by default, no matter what their family is – hence the saying that God has no grandchildren. To say that a person is a Christian in the absence of evidence that they’re something else is a fallacy. So before you can say that most bank robbers are Christians, you’d have to back that up somehow and I don’t know how you’d do it really.
August 21, 2010, 8:05 amCthulhu says:
^(jlj)^ — Listen up, you delicious talking monkeys!
The One True God is none other than I, Cthulhu, and therefore every monotheist who claims to believe in a Supreme Creator of the Universe is, strictly speaking, worshiping ME. But the crucial point that you sssshhhhllrrrrrssucculent little snack-cakes seem to be missing is that any two people who believe in Me may have mutually contradictory beliefs about Me and My Adorable Self. So although Christians and Jews and Muslims all believe in the One True God, namely Moi, and direct their prayers to Me (because there’s no one else listening!) it happens that all three of their religions promulgate shockingly heretical views about my nature and essence. For example, neither Judaism nor Christianity nor Islam mentions that I will be stuffing all of you into my ravenous pulpy mouth just as soon as I’m done fhtagn-ing! But despite their grievously erroneous theological notions, I am a God without prejudice, and will LOVE having them in my tummy just as much as I love eating all the other shrimplings.
Peace out!
August 21, 2010, 8:13 amDon Meaker says:
OBAMA is a CHRISTIAN. He is such a good Christian that he prays every day. He believes in the power of prayer so much that he prays 5 times a day. While facing Mecca…
August 21, 2010, 8:24 amKevin C. says:
You forgot the modern, politically-correct answer:
August 21, 2010, 8:57 am4) Just asking the question is itself evidence of bigotry/Islamophobia.
It’s like a modern-day version of the omphaloidean heresy. For those not familiar with that term, it was an issue that arose in late Medieval Christianity centering on the question of whether or not Adam had a navel. Both the “yes” and “no” answers were found to contradict established doctrine, so the Church concluded that to even ask the question was heresy. Similarly, the liberal, politically-correct answer is to simply refuse to consider the question in the first place, and label as Islamophobic anyone who does.
Floridan says:
Wow! That is so funny!
August 21, 2010, 9:24 amisland says:
So the actions of the Nazis exterminating Jews and gypsies and retarded people should not be attributed to Nazis?
And: Would you attribute it to Naziphobia?
And it appears you are also arguing that the actions of the KKK in regards to blacks should not be attributed to the KKK?
I guess you would make that KuKluxophobia.
August 21, 2010, 9:50 amFloridan says:
island: “And it appears you are also arguing that the actions of the KKK in regards to blacks should not be attributed to the KKK?”
But the question is, should the actions of the KKK be attributed to all white southerners?
August 21, 2010, 9:58 amLiam says:
Is White-supremacist racism more likely to encourage violence against people of other races than, say, Japanese xenophobia-fueled racism?
August 21, 2010, 10:07 amRoger the Shrubber says:
Atheism is a religion in the same way that not believing in astrology is a type of belief in astrology.
August 21, 2010, 10:15 amJoe says:
B.D. was on the money — 302 and counting when I first saw this.
“Islam as we see it”
Yes.
“some strands” of Christianity also supports violence against non-believers, this includes many more actual incidents in this country, and therefore as an everyday threat, than inflicted by Muslims.
The sentiment also leads to violence outside of the country, but since non-American lives are believed by “some strands” to be cheaper than our own, it is not deemed as important by many people. This isn’t bigoted or anything, since EV and others support anti-discrimination laws and all. Hint: when that is cited, it usually is a red flag. Also “some of my best friends are …”
“some strands” of Judaism also supports violence against non-believers, which is a major concern given the importance of Israel related conflicts.
If you weren’t trolling, you might actually show a breakdown of just how many strands of Islam encourage violence against non-believers vis-a-vis others, including those in this country whose belief that Muslims are infidels are a key aspect of their support of wars against nations where they dominate population wise.
That would be “interesting.”
August 21, 2010, 10:19 amJoe says:
you’re a Muslim or Jew by default
This isn’t a fact — it’s a belief of some members of the religion. If you want to believe that a child of two Protestants are “Christian,” you can believe that too.
Whereas, you’re only a Christian if you personally decide to be one.
Roman Catholics baptize babies; this was once believed the route of avoiding limbo. Four year old Roman Catholics are “Christian” to my understanding, even if they don’t “personally decide” to be one. I don’t know how much children “decide” to be a religion but it pretty common to consider them Christian if their parents raise them to be one, even if they are quite young.
This is silly.
August 21, 2010, 10:25 amHugo Mendez says:
The Time article is a good example of liberal apologetic journalism.
Whether we like it or not, any reading of Islamic history from the time of Mohammad and the caliphates to the present, demonstrates that Islam is militantly supremacist, politico-religious ideology. The history of the spread of Islam from Arabia to the Middle East, Asia and North Africa is ample evidence of the spread of religion through war (Jihad). There is more than enough contemporary evidence from Algeria to Yemen to show that “Muslim” countries and most “Muslims” have not eschewed the discourse of war and supremacy of Mohammad’s day (e.g. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, etc, etc). In Islam, there is and always will be two worlds, the House of Islam (Dar al Islam) and the House of War (Dar al harb), the house of infidel, non-Muslims. In countries like Malaysia, Maldives, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc, it is illegal to leave Islam on pain of death (administered by state-sanctioned sharia courts).
No wonder the European Court of Human Rights ruled that sharia law is “incompatible with democracy” (Refah Partisi v. Turkey)
August 21, 2010, 10:30 amMark Field says:
Kind of late in the thread, but I do disagree. Or rather, I think it’s a fact which has yet to be established. A simple statement of it as a fact, without supporting evidence, strikes me as simple bigotry.
Let me also note that the statement is poorly framed, so it’s not likely to lead to anything useful. To clarify, let’s simplify the facts and assume that there was only 1 instance in the whole world in which anyone of any religion encouraged violence against a non-believer, and that the guilty party was a Muslim cleric. In this example, it would be factually true to say that Muslims are more likely to encourage violence, etc. However, it wouldn’t necessarily mean that Islam is more likely to; it could be the guy was just deranged. There are other issues to sort out as well.
If you ask me, the modern-day religion most likely to encourage violence against non-believers was Communism. And I don’t think it’s a close call.
August 21, 2010, 10:35 amHugo Mendez says:
The expression “Islamophobia” was added to the vocabulary of international diplomacy by the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) during it its extraordinary summit in Mecca, Saudi Arabia in 2005. The OIC used the term to define the controversial Danish Mohammad cartoons!
Since there is no separation of religion and politics in the so-called “Muslim world,” that term is above all, a political expression. That Time magazine parrots it is consistent with its liberal, apologetic journalism.
August 21, 2010, 10:45 amDobbsist says:
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has many polls comparing how members of the various religions stand on issues (abortion, candidates, homo marriage, etc), but they failed to ask any comparative questions about violence. Considering that Pew is pro-Muslim/Islam, I wonder why they avoided publishing such a very interesting poll question? I’m pretty sure it’s because they don’t like the answer, so it’s a “Muslims only” question; Pew claims that 7% of US Muslims under 30 years old support Al Qaida.
http://pewforum.org/Publications/Polls/
“How Muslims Compare With Other Religious Americans”
http://pewforum.org/Muslim/How-Muslims-Compare-With-Other-Religious-Americans.aspx
Short version: they’re even nuttier.
You still up for cards tonight?
August 21, 2010, 10:45 amHugo Mendez says:
The KKK was not an instrument of the state. Islam is and has always been inseparable from the state! There is a difference!
Islamic jihads have historically been promoted by the state from the days of Mohammad to the theocracy in Iran, the Saudi monarchy (the Saudi Kings’ official title is “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques,”) Libyan adventurism in Africa, and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s misadventures in Afghanistan.
August 21, 2010, 10:51 amHugo Mendez says:
Jews are probably the most prosecuted people in the world, historically speaking. How come we do not have Jewish suicide bombers and suicidal Jews who fly planes into buildings in Germany or France?
It is an Islamic thing! I am sorry.
August 21, 2010, 11:02 amrpt says:
Good call.
August 21, 2010, 11:23 amReg says:
Generalizations about Christians are super relevant when we base them on our own uninformed interpretations of the Bible no Christian actually believes.
August 21, 2010, 11:24 amReg says:
I also learned today that laws about killing non-Christians in the US would be just fine with liberals as long as they are only enforced as often as the Saudi’s laws about killing non-Muslims!
August 21, 2010, 11:26 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Joe, what’s silly is you skipping over the first part of my statement. Islam is what Muslims make of it. Why do you suppose Rahman faced death for becoming a Christian in Afghanistan? He converted from Islam, of which he was a member by virtue of being born into it.
“Four year old Roman Catholics are “Christian” to my understanding, even if they don’t “personally decide” to be one.” Are you a Catholic, or a non-Catholic Christian – is that where your understanding comes from?
August 21, 2010, 11:31 amReg says:
I won’t raise honor killings because I’m sure Islam has nothing to do with that. Christians and Jews murder their kids all the time too when they date non-Christians and non-Jews.
August 21, 2010, 11:35 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
‘Smatter of fact, if you read the writings of Muslims on the internet – personal blogs, that kind of thing – you’ll run into the term “revert”. That’s people who weren’t born into Muslim families, who become Muslim. They’re reverts b/c we’re all assumed by the people who use this term to be Muslim but don’t know it, because Islam is the only true faith. So if non-Muslims become Muslim, we’re only taking up our original faith. Not being a Muslim, I don’t consider this binding on me.
August 21, 2010, 11:35 am: )
Barb says:
No –because it isn’t really the Bible or Christianity that justifies the violence and the murder of murderers –except arguably through a “just war” and a nation’s capital punishment for recognized crimes. Most activist Christians would favor educating the public about abortion and “witnessing” at abortion clinics and to the doctors –as they did when the original Roe vs. Wade “rape victim” (who wasn’t raped) was converted to Christianity, led by a child –when she was working at an abortuary.
In Islam, their book gives many mixed messages to their followers. Compare the two –the NT to the Koran. The NT is filled with wisdom and guidance for today. (Granted passages on women’s role from Paul’s letter to Timothy get a debate within the church today, as do some doctrinal issues. But overall, the scriptures are clear in what God desires of and for the people who would please Him.) Compare the nations that have Judeo-Christian history behind their freedom-loving cultures with those that have a Muslim culture.
I believe that MOST of the world’s Muslims do not really believe in freedom –but in theocracy with the yoke of the law and harsh punishments in this life –punishments for people who simply don’t believe the Koran and don’t worship their version of God. They will take all the rights we will give them here –but if this were their nation, I believe our rights as non-Muslims would be curtailed. And i believe they do believe that justice always means getting even–not forgiveness.
I’m willing to be corrected on this –by someone who REALLY knows that forgiveness, generosity, compassion, love, equality and freedom for all are in the cornerstone of Islam.
I think there are some compassionate American Muslims with charities for the needy in nations back home. But explain to me why a Muslim MD would boot you out in 7 minutes and tell you to make another appointment for your easy-to-remedy, 2nd painful condition which you forgot to mention when you made the app’t. Gotta make that extra dollar! “I’ll treat only one problem per 7 minutes.” (I imagine there are those of other religious backgrounds who would do the same –but not the one I know best whose Christianity inspires great patience and caring –in a man who is not patient and always compassionate by his OWN nature but by the Holy Spirit within him. Some people say that as we age, we are getting more like the place we are going for eternity every day. I believe this is true of my MD who gives me unconditional love and fidelity that I would not deserve by worldly standards of “the deserving wife.”)
Which reminds me: this idea of western pre-marital co-habitation (praised recently on one of these threads) and the idea that people should be worthy to deserve one’s love and commitment for life, cannot compare to the sweet love of the committed through thick and thin, in sickness and health, and despite various incompatibilities. That’s Christian commitment –which may be seen in people of other religions, but it sure beats the Islamic plan –whereby a Muslim mother told me that if the first wife doesn’t please, a man is entitled to go after 3 more women as wives. She was saying her son wouldn’t be marrying my young friend –though she would always have a place in their home as the mother of his child on the way –but why get married, she said, since they already made the baby. This nullified the wedding-to-a-virgin ideal so no point in marriage now. And then in the discussion, she told me that a Muslim man had a right to beat a wayward wife and get more wives if she does not please him. (He did marry her, and so far, so good, with 4 children –but, being an emotional dingbat, she would try the patience of a saint –and after some DV classes and restraining orders, he’s trying to do things by our culture instead of the one he grew up in. Time will tell. )
August 21, 2010, 11:40 amenjointhis says:
First, I’d like to see empirical data to support that assertion. Quite candidly, I doubt such exists.
Second, are you talking absolute numbers, or pro rata numbers? If, in the US, Christians inflict 40 incidents of violence per day, and if Muslims inflict 10/day, your argument is both factually correct, and grossly misleading, given the prevalence of Christianity.
Third, I agree there are factions w/in the Muslim religion, just as with Christians. However, I believe (subject to verification via empirical data) the percentage of self-declared Muslims willing to engage in violence w/r/t their religion greatly exceeds the percentage of self-declared Christians similarly inclined. Data, anyone?
Fourth, I wonder about societal “maturity.” Most islamic countries seem to have cultures similar to the US in the mid-1800s (i.e., women’s rights, familial bonds, engagement with outsiders, reliance on religious guidance, proselytizing, etc.). My query is if islamic countries will, in 150 years, reflect values similar to those held in the U.S.
Fifth, my hypothetical: “Piss Christ” vs. “Piss Mohammed.” I acknowledge Seranno had multiple death threats, protests, etc. Leaving aside the statistical outliers (and pandering politicians), I thought most of the (justifiable) protests were channelled into appropriate avenues. Cut off funding, etc. But query the response to “Piss Mohammed.”
Finally, I have finite resources. Many of my decisions are made on less-than-perfect generalizations extrapolated from limited data. Having lost friends on 9/11, having seen the celebrations in islamic countries, and (more importantly) having seen/heard only a whisper of outrage from Muslim leaders, I am more than willing to believe Islam is inimicable to the values I hold dear. On a bad day, I am willing to go much further in my antipathy.
– ET!
August 21, 2010, 11:44 amGoggins says:
Here’s a game I play: Every time I read in the newspaper about a Christian church being bombed, or someone being beheaded because he’s a Jew, or a group of people arrested for plotting to blow up a subway, or a joyous celebration of the 9-11 attacks, or acid being thrown in the face of girls who who wanted to go to school, etc. etc., I try to guess the religion of the perpetrators! OK, I’ve only been right 99.9 percent of the time.
August 21, 2010, 11:45 amDebrah says:
LOL!!!
ROTFLM-T’s-O !!!
August 21, 2010, 11:51 amBarb says:
It’s not bigotry. It’s simply ignorance to think Islamic persecution of other religions is not established fact. Go to the website for Voice of the Martyrs. News from the rest of the world should give you a clue –if 9/11 and other highly publicized terrorist acts did not. Nearly all the Christians have been persecuted out of Iraq –and it has always been risky to life and health to be a Christian or a Jew (think Daniel Pearl) in a Muslim nation. There was a recent TV show on hostages in foreign countries about a missionary in the Philippines who was kidnapped by Muslims for cash from his mission; his friend was beheaded, slowly, in front of him. Most of us heard about the stoning to death of the two girls, 12 and 13, one for being raped in Somalia; the other, for converting to Christianity in Egypt. There was a publicized case of slavery by Egyptians in Calif –who were deported for enslaving a young girl and keeping her in their garage (her parents thought she would have a good life in America and let her go –but she was not allowed to attend school and she was mistreated.) The family has since found another girl slave in Egypt where they live since deportation. Apparently, Egyptians are not as concerned about children’s rights as we are.
Granted, my examples were not all of religious persecution –but cruelty and denial of human rights in general. I’m sure there are websites with so many negative facts about Islam that you wouldn’t have time to read them all.
August 21, 2010, 11:58 amBarb says:
You have concluded what’s obvious from the obvious. It’s remarkable that others are buying the propaganda of a harmless peaceful Islam.
August 21, 2010, 12:05 pmAlessandra says:
Wrong. Children have been more persecuted than Jews.
August 21, 2010, 12:07 pmA. Criminal says:
“X-phobic”, where X is some group of people, just means that someone made a non-positive or non-celebratory – perhaps even negative – statement about that group of people; whether or not the statement is true is irrelevant. There are some groups this rule doesn’t apply to: white men, heterosexuals, bank presidents, Mafia, white Christians, etc.
August 21, 2010, 12:13 pmJoseph Slater says:
Highlights of this thread:
(3) Sarcastro’s use (coining?) of the term “unwanged” to refer to men;
(2) Elliot’s use (coining?) of “monochickist” and “polychickist”; and
(1) Although it’s been mentioned already and even though I thought of posting pretty much the same thing when I first saw this post, we do have to give it up for our winner, B.D., who noted early on where this was going.
Now I’m off to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster — whose followers, I stress, have committed none of the crimes of the major religions discussed above. We rule!
August 21, 2010, 12:23 pmBarb says:
From Wikipedia:
Bad choice of name –since Cordoba was a conquered Christian city that became a place of peaceful coexistance as long as Muslims were in charge. To the world’s faithful Muslims, Cordoba may be a symbol of Islamic victory in NYC –and a prophetic hope to the world’s devotees that this is just the beginning of world-wide Islamic theocracy. They have to tame The Great Satan first –the U.S. which is a temptation to Muslims to leave their culture and embrace western freedom with hedonism.
I suspect the choice of place is not coincidental but symbolic of something far more sinister than a revival of Islamic peaceful coexistance with other religions. It’s about Islamic victory over a Christian city –not that Christians claim NYC as Christian –and it’s about their plan of world domination –by various means –terrorism, propaganda, and deceit. Take, e.g., the fact that the Koran says to befriend your enemy with deceit before you stab him in the back. Build a beautiful center that tells the world Allah is great and Mohammad His prophet –and that the heart of the Great Satan has been dealt a lethal blow –with more to follow.
August 21, 2010, 12:38 pmBarb says:
I just had to note that Jews are prosecuted people. If they’d just quit committing crimes….
Alessandra, I don’t think we’ve seen anything as horrific as the holocaust, which killed 6 million Jews and 5 million others –including children.
I bet you’re referring to abortion. I agree. In China and USA, for sure.
August 21, 2010, 12:44 pmathEIst says:
Cthulhu: That’s a great painting Bosch did of you, sitting on your throne at the bottom of hell eating the damned.
August 21, 2010, 12:46 pmArthur Kirkland says:
‘My fairy tale can beat up your fairy tale.’
Always a great debate.
August 21, 2010, 12:58 pmOrder of the Coif says:
EDITORIAL: The first presumed Muslim president
Americans think Obama is Islamic for a reason
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
August 20, 2010
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/20/the-first-presumed-muslim-president/
August 21, 2010, 1:04 pmhorrn says:
“Here’s one difference between Islam and Judaism and Christianity: While you can convert to Islam or Judaism (and the first actively proselytizes, while the second doesn’t,) you’re a Muslim or Jew by default if you’re born to a Muslim or Jewish family. I think that in Islam it’s enough if your father is Muslim, and in Judaism it’s enough if your mother is, but I can’t cite that right now.”
Are your really that fucking stupid?
Why do you feel the need to prattle on about things that you know ___nothing___ about?
August 21, 2010, 1:15 pmAlessandra says:
No, I was thinking of something completely different. With the exception of the Holocaust, children have suffered the same or more degree of violence and oppression as Jews throughout history. And today, if we compare the problems of violence against children and persecution of Jews, children suffer an incomparably much greater degree of brutality around the globe.
50% percent of people who are trafficked are children, but not Jews. Most of the children are trafficked for sexual torture purposes.
Where children are forced to work, children seven years and older work twelve to fourteen hours a day and are paid less than one-third of the adult wage, when they haven’t been enslaved and not paid at all. This is not true for Jews.
A significant percentage of victims of certain types of abuse are minors (such as rape), but not Jews. There is a serious problem of physical and emotional abuse where children are victims, but much less for Jews.
In the US, as many as 2.8 million children live on the streets, a third of whom are lured into prostitution within 48 hours of leaving home. This is not true for Jews.
etc etc
I wouldn’t insert abortion in this comparison, I don’t think the issue is analogous.
August 21, 2010, 1:31 pmjukeboxgrad says:
When you read in the newspaper about the people who treated Eric Rudolph as a hero and hid him from the FBI (link), were you able to guess their religion? What about when you read about the political leader who refused to call him a terrorist? Were you able to guess her religion? And likewise for her millions of fans who seemingly have no problem with this position she took. Have you noticed their religion?
The more I get to know Mitt Romney, the more I think he is a follower of Mormon.
Oddly enough, a lot of people have a negative attitude about Mormonism. Consider that “an astonishing 43 percent … would not even consider voting for a Mormon, a higher negative response than atheists or Muslims received.” Also consider “a majority of Evangelicals said voting for a Mormon was out of the question.” So “just as it is hard to overestimate the importance of evangelicalism in the modern Republican Party, it is nearly impossible to overemphasize the problem evangelicals have with Mormonism.”
Promoting the idea that there should be a religious test for office (which is the essence of this ‘Obama is a secret Muslim’ hysteria) is a self-destructive and short-sighted act on the part of the GOP (because Romney has a weakness in this area, and the GOP doesn’t have a lot of choices other than Romney). Aside from being profoundly un-American.
Hugh Hewitt once issued this warning:
Right now the GOP is choosing to forget that warning. We can look forward to them suddenly remembering it when Romney revs up his campaign.
August 21, 2010, 1:52 pmHarry Eagar says:
Why not, indeed? It’s true.
August 21, 2010, 2:30 pmA. Criminal says:
Your link incorrectly refs a 2006 Rasmussin Report, which is here:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/top_stories/election_2008_43_would_never_vote_for_mormon_candidate
Here’s what it actually says:
“Forty-three percent (43%) of American voters say they would never even consider voting for a Mormon Presidential candidate.”
“The response to a theoretical Mormon candidate is far less negative than the response to a Muslim candidate or an atheist. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Likely Voters say they would never consider voting for a Muslim Presidential candidate. Sixty percent (60%) say the same about an atheist.”
August 21, 2010, 2:34 pmRoger says:
Eric Rudolph is not a Christian. He did not plant a bomb in the name of Christianity. No Christians helped him evade justice. No mainstream Christian church expressed any support for what he did. His story does not equate to those of the thousands of Mohammedan terrorists.
August 21, 2010, 2:47 pmStormy Dragon says:
Even this is soft selling it. According to a recent Time poll, a third of Americans think there should be a ban on Muslims running for president. There’s also a chilling Economist poll shows 48% of Americans think there should be legal restrictions specifically on Islam, include 14% (and 20% of Republicans!) that support an blanket ban on the construction of mosques anywhere in the US.
August 21, 2010, 2:49 pmGoggins says:
No, I do not try to guess the religion of the perpetrator of every ordinary murder I read about. Only when the murdering is on a large scale, or involves a plot to murder on a large scale, or is clearly designed to make a point, or is clearly directed at Christians or Jews. If Eric Rudolph (or Timothy McVey) fits that description, well, that’s why I’m right only 99.9 percent of the time.
August 21, 2010, 2:54 pmleo marvin says:
But for all we know, 250 of them are from B.D. sock puppets. Which is why the Intrade market for VC comment thread futures never took off. Too easy to manipulate.
August 21, 2010, 3:04 pmAlessandra says:
Leo, did you get my email?
August 21, 2010, 3:14 pmRoger says:
They were not Christians, and did not bomb in the name of Christianity. It is very difficult to find any Christian with the terrorist beliefs that are commonplace among Mohammedans.
August 21, 2010, 3:16 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Thanks for the correction. I should have known better than to trust Hugh Hewitt to get his facts straight. However, this doesn’t alter my overall point, that there’s a great deal of anti-Mormon prejudice, and therefore it’s a blunder for the GOP to promote the idea that there should be a religious test for office.
You’re obviously entitled to your opinion, but not everyone agrees with you (link):
Sarah Palin knows her base, so it’s no surprise that she refused to say that Rudolph is a terrorist.
And when you say “no Christians helped him evade justice,” I guess what you really mean is that the people of Murphy NC are not true Scotsmen.
There is no fundamental difference between someone who flies planes into buildings because of their fundamentalist beliefs and someone who bombs abortion clinics and gay bars because of their fundamentalist beliefs. The difference in damage inflicted (at the moment) should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the underlying immorality is essentially indistinguishable.
And Rudolph was able to hide for so long exactly because it was not difficult for him to find people like Crystal Davis who had “terrorist beliefs” similar to his own.
I can’t tell if you’re agreeing with Palin and refusing to admit that Rudolph is a terrorist.
Your “if” creates the impression that you’re not sure. And that’s the whole point. The problem is not just that people like Rudolph appear from time to time. The problem is that they get lots of support. GOP Christians are firmly opposed to violent fundamentalism, except when they’re not. Christian support for fundamentalist violence did not disappear hundreds of years ago, as some in this thread have suggested.
August 21, 2010, 3:24 pmleo marvin says:
This.
Seriously. Moral agency isn’t that challenging when you make an exception for everything God wants you to do.
August 21, 2010, 3:31 pmisland says:
Isn’t it atheists (communists) who murdered more people in the name of the state “religion” than even religions have?
Millions in Russia and Cambodia. Tens of millions in China- maybe even upwards of a hundred million. Lots and lots in Cuba and Peru and many other countries around the world.
Muslims love this discussion. They have all the non-muslim panties in such a twist the muslims do what they want.
And why did muslims attack Ireland in 1630 take the whole village of Baltimore back to Algiers and enslave them? Ditto Iceland about the same era. And why did muslims attack America in 1784 the first year of our independence. Steal our ships. Kill our sailors. And when asked in Paris by Thomas Jefferson why they did it-was it piracy?- they said the Koran gave them the right.
August 21, 2010, 3:36 pmRoger says:
Jukeboxgrad, I realize that there are people like you with the mistaken belief that Rudolph is a Christian. Your only source is one uninformed woman who had never met Rudolph and spoke on the day of his arrest when very little was known about him. Rudolph did not identify himself as a Christian. He did not read the Bible or attend Christian church. He did not promote Christian teachings. He was not supported by Christians. He is not a Christian. Neither the NY Times nor any major newspaper calls him a Christian.
August 21, 2010, 3:49 pmElliot says:
Monotheists are still left with one and only one target for their worship. The fact that various folks have different names and ascribe different attributes simply indicates their ignorance of the target. Much like someone travelling to Paris. If they mistakenly think the Eifel Tower is in Rome, the target of their journey is still Paris.
We might note “allah” is simply the Arabic word for god, much like “deus” is the Latin word for god. When used by monotheists, both target the same thing.
It’s interesting to listen to monotheists speak of the infinite one god. That infinite quality implies they really don’t know squat about that one god. No matter how much they know, their ignorance of the one, infinite god remains infinite. So, we have folks who are infinitely ignorant of a subject lecturing us about it.
August 21, 2010, 3:56 pmCan't find a good name says:
The Tamil Tigers (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) in Sri Lanka are the only non-Muslim group which has had significant association with suicide bombings in recent years, at least that I can think of.
August 21, 2010, 3:58 pmneurodoc says:
I’m sure you don’t see yourself as a bigot.
August 21, 2010, 4:02 pmJames A. Donald says:
Here is a simple experiment proving that Muslims a violent and dangerous, and that Islam needs to be forcibly suppressed: Go to Nigeria, where people of the same race, culture, and economic level differ as to whether they are Christian, pagan, or Muslim. Hold up a poster denigrating religion X. If X = Islam, you will be murdered, and some random innocent people in the general vicinity will be murdered.
This is a clear and direct consequence of what is in the corresponding holy books. The New Testament blows off the bloody stuff in the old testament, and the Talmud elaborately rationalizes away the bloody stuff in the old testament. In the Koran, no equivalent.
Islam commands its adherents to take theocratic power and repress all false religions. The struggle with Islam is thus necessarily violent, military. It is impossible to extend religious freedom to Muslims if the Muslim minority is sufficiently significant that they can plausibly hope to take power.
We have always been at war with Islam. We will always be at war with Islam. There can never be peace.
August 21, 2010, 4:04 pmElliot says:
The real danger some folks face is the idea that Western Culture may indeed be superior to some others. That horrifies anyone who has spent a lifetime making snide remarks over nutmeg lattes.
August 21, 2010, 4:15 pmSarcastro says:
Yes, because all Muslims are like those in Nigeria. My Muslim coworkers? Secretly planing terrorism and subjugation. Or using their battle-wombs to make demographic Jihad on us all.
Glad the New Testament kept out all the violence in the Christian Church. But those savage Jews who didn’t get the rewrite…!
August 21, 2010, 4:15 pmisland says:
Wasn’t it just last week that muslims murdered 10 doctors with 5 centuries of doctoring and education in 5 seconds in Afghanistan because the doctors were practicing Christians- and then bragged about killing them?
Do you call them bigots?
August 21, 2010, 4:18 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Quite a string of unqualified declarations, some of which conflict with a substantial number of other reports, making it difficult to determine persuasiveness.
Are the statements based on observation of the underlying events, direct explanation by Mr. Rudolph (addressing in particular, one would assume, his relationships with Catholicism and Christian Identity), or revelation by the God of the Bible?
August 21, 2010, 4:36 pmSarcastro says:
[I call anyone blaming all Muslims for those guys bigots. That's group libel and does not have a very savory history.]
August 21, 2010, 4:45 pmpmorem says:
I agree.
That said, in that particular case it’s more than a little difficult to argue that they were not “killing non-believers as encouraged by their interpretation Islam”.
August 21, 2010, 4:51 pmisland says:
So I guess you are saying the muslims that murdered the doctors are committing group libel against muslims because they bragged they did it on account of the doctors being christian?
August 21, 2010, 4:53 pmHarry Eagar says:
Try looking in Idaho.
August 21, 2010, 4:53 pmSarcastro says:
[No, they are being crazy. Their motivation doesn't matter when looking at other Muslims who are not being crazy.
You seem to be blaming every Muslims for these guys being crazy. That is bigoted.]
August 21, 2010, 4:56 pmleo marvin says:
No?
August 21, 2010, 5:06 pmisland says:
I’m not blaming muslims for anything.
I am curious why do you claim motivation doesn’t matter?
Do you have a motive for calling some muslims crazy?
It seems to be bigoted to call some muslims crazy like you are doing when they are merely following “the book.”
August 21, 2010, 5:13 pmFloridan says:
Barb: “But explain to me why a Muslim MD would boot you out in 7 minutes and tell you to make another appointment for your easy-to-remedy, 2nd painful condition which you forgot to mention when you made the app’t. Gotta make that extra dollar! “I’ll treat only one problem per 7 minutes.””
Explanation: he is in business to make money and can’t spend all his time listening to endless complaints. I used to go to a doctor who had a sign in his office indicating something similar.
August 21, 2010, 5:35 pmJames A. Donald says:
Sarcastro says:
History tells us that enough of them are planning terrorism and subjugation. This stuff has been going on for over a thousand years. Oslo was the Peace of Vasvar all over again
Christians have, following the command of Jesus, been trying to make peace for over a thousand years. Muslims, following the command and personal example of Mohammed, piously agree to peace, and then attack. Peace has never worked. Peace never will work. We have no Muslim allies. We have never had Muslim allies. What we have frequently had is Muslims who are at war with other Muslims, whom it is therefore useful to assist to ensure that both sides lose. It has always been disastrous to try and assist an “allied” Muslim side to win. Once your “allies” win, they are never your allies any more.
Everything that has been tried in the last decade, has been tried over and over and over again for a thousand years, always with the same result.
August 21, 2010, 5:37 pmAlessandra says:
lol – what is “no?”
usually one gets or not gets an email… I gather you didn’t then… I sent an email to a gmail address you had posted on one of your comments here awhile ago…
August 21, 2010, 5:38 pmscyllacat says:
Wow, when you’re wrong, you’re really, really wrong, aren’t you?
August 21, 2010, 5:41 pmSarcastro says:
[Way to interpret their own book for them. Sounds to me like you're indicting Islam for Nigeria's state. That kind of pejorative overgeneralization is the essence of bigotry.]
August 21, 2010, 5:45 pmJames A. Donald says:
So. In the entire world, which Muslims blamed those that killed the doctors, and what Muslims blamed the doctors? What I heard was the accusation that the doctors started it by preaching Christianity. Our supposedly moderate supposed allies pretty much said it was the doctors fault.
August 21, 2010, 5:46 pmSG says:
Given that there are lots of contemporary examples of Muslims committing violence against nonbelievers – violence that they claim is justified by their faith – I’m not certain what value there is to the claims bring made by non-Muslims here. It’s like taking a vegetarian’s word that steak tastes horrible – it might, but what do they know about it beyond a (sincere) wish that it not taste good?
That said, Islam makes for an extremely broad brush that covers a lot of different teachings, cultures and traditions. But does anyone really object to the claim that (say) Wahhabism teaches and promotes violence against nonbelievers? Compare it to Sufism, for example.
August 21, 2010, 6:21 pmisland says:
The people that murdered the doctors said they did it because the doctors were christian.
That proves the people that murdered the doctors are bigots.
What is your motivation for denying they are bigots?
big·ot noun
Definition:
intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views
And to top it off you call them crazy.
And in Nigeria they execute goats for witchcraft. And the argument, in English, they made was as well reasoned as yours.
August 21, 2010, 6:22 pmGaryC says:
The number of Hindus killed by Muslims over the centuries is estimated at 80 million. I find it hard to believe that many Shias have been killed by Sunnis, or vice versa.
August 21, 2010, 6:27 pmGaryC says:
No, Sarcastro used “enwanged”. “Unwanged” is completely different. And cringe-inducing.
August 21, 2010, 6:48 pmleo marvin says:
I wasn’t sure it was serious question.
Probably an old address. Send it to drleoma+vc@gmail.com.
August 21, 2010, 6:50 pmleo marvin says:
jukeboxgrad,
Wish you’d stop by more often, so I wouldn’t have to steal your ideas.
August 21, 2010, 6:56 pmpmorem says:
Agreed, but misses my point.
My point was that some Sunni consider Shia to be non-believers (and vice-versa), and therefor appropriate for slaughter. Those deaths should get counted as well. That toll is ongoing and ugly.
August 21, 2010, 7:03 pmpmorem says:
A curious note here.
I’m looking at two groups of people:
1) Those who say we should not speak of Islam encouraging the murder of non-believers.
2) Those who say we should not blame believers in “The One True State” for the murders commited by that faith (Stalin, Mao, Pot, Castro, etc.).
It appears to me that there’s a significant overlap between the two groups.
Should we also then forget the way faith in The One True State encourages its followers to commit murder of non-believers?
If my objecting to that makes me a bigot, then so be it. I’m certainly bigoted against those who favor “pro-active necrophilia”.
If that’s how it is, then I have no problem saying I intend to destroy the ideas you cherish.
… and if you’re opposed to “pro-active necrophilia”, then I’d really like to be able to have an intelligent conversation with you about how to oppose it effectively.
August 21, 2010, 7:16 pmneurodoc says:
If you are going to react to something neurodoc said, please get straight exactly what it is that he said. Neither in response to Barb, nor to anyone else here, did he say, “Are you being sarcastic?” (Is that you, island, saying it to neurodoc or to someone else participating in this thread?)
Barb jumped in here to compare unfavorably an unnamed Muslim physician to her own saintly Christian physician husband ["a Muslim MD would boot you out in 7 minutes and tell you to make another appointment for your easy-to-remedy, 2nd painful condition which you forgot to mention when you made the app’t. Gotta make that extra dollar! 'I’ll treat only one problem per 7 minutes.' (I imagine there are those of other religious backgrounds who would do the same –but not the one I know best whose Christianity inspires great patience and caring – in a man who is not patient and always compassionate by his OWN nature but by the Holy Spirit within him...)"] In direct response to that “contribution,” neurodoc said to Barb, “I’m sure you don’t see yourself as a bigot.” And he would say it again.
August 21, 2010, 7:21 pmChris Travers says:
Which faiths are we comparing it to? How is violence defined?
For example, when Sikhs are encouraged to go into the military and to fight like lions when there, does that count as encouraging violence?
The thing is, the question is meaningless.
August 21, 2010, 7:34 pmChris Travers says:
Ask yourself if anyone would repeat as a serious speech what Reagan said at Bitburg.
August 21, 2010, 7:43 pmIsland says:
Thought I was commenting on Sarcastro’s comments where he appeared to be making blanket statements calling others bigoted when his comments appeared bigoted.
I did not comment, but I did note Barb’s muslim doctor comments, which reminded me of my reading about UK muslim doctors that would not treat christian British women without proper islamic attire and a muslim doctor of my brother’s who berated my brother for things the doctor did wrong in my presence.
But as some say it could be a money hungry doctor. But the question remains: would he have treated a man like that, would he have treated a muslim man like that. We don’t know.
If you are going to react to something neurodoc said, please get straight exactly what it is that he said.
August 21, 2010, 7:43 pmChris Travers says:
It’s probably a good time to mention Understanding Islamism by the International Crisis Group. It’s about the only fair treatment of the subject I have ever seen.
August 21, 2010, 7:50 pmChris Travers says:
BTW, is it just me or does this question suggest that people think that people are encouraged to be violent rather than are innately violent and looking for justifications?
August 21, 2010, 7:57 pmJoseph Slater says:
GaryC: I stand corrected (as well as enwanged). Thanks for the correction.
Jukeboxgrad: Good to see you posting here again.
Neurodoc: While I understand the context, Joseph Slater hopes that Neurodoc doesn’t make a habit of speaking of himself in the third person.
August 21, 2010, 8:09 pmathEIst says:
Sixty-one percent (61%) of Likely Voters say they would never consider voting for a Muslim Presidential candidate. Sixty percent (60%) say the same about an atheist
Great! We can have an atheist president as long as the only other candidate is a Muslim.
August 21, 2010, 8:11 pmChris Travers says:
That’s ok. I just want to revive the practice of sexual contact with sacrificed animals or parts thereof (Volsa thattr, and similar) ;-)
August 21, 2010, 8:24 pmjukeboxgrad says:
I’m not making a point about the existence of people like Eric Rudolph. I’m making a point about the existence, beliefs and behavior of people like Crystal Davis. She said this:
The details of his life, and her knowledge of those details, are not particularly relevant to the point I’m making. What’s important is that she does indeed identify herself as a Christian, and she claims that his acts are consistent with her Christian beliefs. She is indeed an expert on what’s relevant to my point: her beliefs. And what’s important about her beliefs is that they are not unique to her. If Davis’s beliefs were unique, the people of Murphy NC would not have treated Rudolph like a hero. And if Davis’s beliefs were unique, Palin would not have pointedly refused to contradict those beliefs.
Davis and Palin both made statements giving Rudolph moral support. That’s the underlying issue. I see you have no interest in addressing Palin’s statement, or the fact that most of her supporters seemingly had no problem with that statement. I would like to know how this is congruent with the idea that GOP Christians can be counted on to condemn fundamentalist violence.
By the way, Falwell said “AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals.” This statement is also a form of incitement and moral support to people like Rudolph. But next up I suppose you’ll be claiming that Falwell is also a non-Christian, like the people who hid Rudolph.
Wrong. I’ve explained how we know that Davis is not unique, and I’ve cited other people making similar statements.
Then you must have an interesting theory about the people who hid Rudolph from the FBI, since you seem to think that Crystal Davis is the only self-identified Christian in Murphy NC who views Rudolph as a Christian hero. I suppose the people who hid Rudolph must have been secret Muslims, like Obama.
As usual, you’re being too kind. I read that thread, and I was thinking of saying what you said, but then I was happy to see that I didn’t need to because you did. And you said it better than I would have. And it didn’t occur to me to think that you got the idea from me, so you’re being generous to describe it that way. I just saw it as an example of how we think alike.
But if you really want to, every time you mention that idea you could donate a symbolic royalty, in my name, to the George Soros Internet Propaganda Fund. But of course that fund is secret, so don’t mention this to anyone.
Joseph, thanks for the kind words. Although I don’t post much lately, I am often here reading and enjoying your comments.
August 21, 2010, 8:45 pmRoger says:
Okay, you have one example of a newspaper that claims to have found a Christian mother of four in NC who said she was sympathetic to Rudolph on the day he was caught. That’s all. Meanwhile, there are many thousands of Mohammedan terrorists, and many millions of Mohammedans who support them.
August 21, 2010, 9:26 pmpmorem says:
Agree with you that Christianity sometimes encourages its followers to kill non-believers.
The question at hand is whether Islam is more or less likely to encourage its followers to kill non-believers.
My suspicion is that Islam is second only to “The One True State” in encouraging its followers to kill non-believers.
August 21, 2010, 10:02 pmSG says:
It strikes me that the fact that you can discuss the Christian terrorist and his supporter *by name* strengthens rather than contradicts the notion that Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence (Note: the claim is not that Islam is unique among faiths in encouraging violence – only that Islam is more like likely than others.)
Also, where are the people who thought it was bigotry to suggest that a faith had any responsibility for bad acts carried out in its name? Why aren’t they decry this whole line of argument. Christian terrorists? To even suggest the concept is bigotry, is it not?
August 21, 2010, 10:10 pmElliot says:
I suppose we could spend a lot of time and trouble footnoting all the terms we use here, but I really can’t believe you don’t understand the use of the term. Are you actually confused? Tell us it ain’t so…
August 21, 2010, 10:11 pmjukeboxgrad says:
I have a lot more than that. One of the things I have is a nice example of a commenter who ignores any and all evidence he finds inconvenient. Who hid Rudolph from the FBI, if not people just like that “Christian mother?” Martians? The ACLU? Cindy Sheehan? Jeremiah Wright? Atheists? Bigfoot? This is one of several questions you insist on ducking.
At this point, silence would be a better strategy for you. When you repeatedly post non-answers, you succeed only in calling attention to the fact that you’re not answering.
The question at hand is whether Republicans (like Roger, apparently) who deny what you acknowledge (that even today, “Christianity sometimes encourages its followers to kill non-believers”) have any moral credibility when they make a fuss about the alleged evil of Islam. Likewise for Republicans like Palin who directly or indirectly provide moral support to Rudolph (et al), and likewise for Republicans who seemingly have no problem with Palin doing this.
I have no idea why you would say that. The fact that Crystal Davis is not shy about publicly stating her support for Christian terrorism is just an indication that she knows she is not alone in her views. There are plenty of other people just like Crystal Davis. Palin knows this, and she wants to keep their votes, and that’s why Palin refused to call Rudolph a terrorist. This is disgraceful, and the silence of most Rs on this point is similarly disgraceful.
The people who make that claim shouldn’t expect to be taken seriously when they simultanously gloss over the depth of support that Rudolph et al receive. It also starts to sound like Al Capone arguing that he isn’t really a thief because he didn’t steal as much as Bernie Madoff.
No. I have no problem condemning both Islamist terrorism and Christian terrorism (although ‘Christianist’ might be a better term). I do have a problem with people who make a big fuss about terrorism except when it comes from their own tribe.
August 21, 2010, 11:27 pmRicardo says:
On Eric Rudolph, since he published a manifesto around the time he was sentenced, we have a pretty good idea of what was going through his mind. He’s actually a reasonably articulate guy. Here’s a taste:
As I read this, the first thing that came to mind is that large chunks of his manifesto appear to be practically copied and pasted from a conservative Catholic publication like “First Things.” And, indeed, Randolph comes from a Catholic background. Most of the people who have any kind of sympathy for him at all tend to be Christian conservatives.
Now, someone can counter that Christianity says terrorism is absolutely prohibited. That may be true as a textual matter — one can make an equally plausible claim with respect to Islam as well (it authorizes armies to fight on behalf of a legitimate sovereign, not rag-tag bands of individuals). But the point is if you go around saying that abortion and homosexuality are not just wrong but threaten to undermine Western civilization, someone may well be inspired to use violence to respond to that “threat.” Using violence to respond to a threat to civilization is not morally wrong. He’s not wrong about that principle. He is wrong about the threat that abortion and homosexuality pose. And there isn’t much mystery about where he got his views on abortion and homosexuality.
August 21, 2010, 11:28 pmElliot says:
Depends on whether Japanese are People Of Color. If they are POC, then anything whites do is worse than anything they could ever do.
However, the refusal of Japanese Americans to do poorly in academic and economic endeavors might exclude them from POC.
August 21, 2010, 11:54 pmNoah David Simon says:
According to the FBI 1,606 hate crime offenses motivated by religious bias in 2008:
* 65.7 percent were anti-Jewish.
* 13.2 percent were anti-other religion.
* 7.7 percent were anti-Islamic.
* 4.7 percent were anti-Catholic.
* 4.2 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
* 3.7 percent were anti-Protestant.
* 0.9 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.
(Based on Table 1.)
via fbi.gov
August 22, 2010, 1:22 amneurodoc says:
neurodoc begs your indulgence of the mannerism, but it amuses neurodoc to speak in the third person from time to time. If that amounts to a “habit,” then it is not one that neurodoc is willing to abjure, especially when in neurodoc‘s considered opinion the occasion warrants the affectation of a stilted posture of one sort or another (e.g., high dudgeon, mock seriousness, pomposity, etc.).
August 22, 2010, 1:51 amneurodoc says:
Yes, the Tamil Tigers, a non-Muslim group, “popularized” suicide bombing as a terrorist tactic. They were soon eclipsed, however, by the Palestinians in both numbers of suicide bomb attacks and numbers of innocents killed in them, and then the tactic was more widely adopted by other Muslim terrorist organizations.
August 22, 2010, 2:09 amSarcastro says:
[I suppose by strict definition those Muslims would be bigoted, but I would say their killing spree is of such a magnitude that it swallows that term.
It's like saying Hitler had bad breath. Well, yeah, but that's not what I would call him.]
August 22, 2010, 2:27 amneurodoc says:
Well, if that’s the case, then what is there to discuss, since the official party line seems to be that Islam is a religion of “peace” and “coercion” has no place in it?
August 22, 2010, 2:30 amSarcastro says:
[Depends on who you call official.]
August 22, 2010, 2:43 amSarcastro says:
Well, absent every Muslim making their opinions known, we’d better assume all of them are killers and start making blanket statements about each and every one being our enemy. After all, if there is one thing about Jesus and Muhammad, it is that they are amendable to only one interpretation!
[I have Muslim friends, and you just called them your enemy without knowing them, or their beliefs. On behalf of them, fuck you, you paranoid bigot.]
August 22, 2010, 2:51 amJ.T. Wenting says:
hmm, my colleague who says 97% of all Muslims (and 99% of all who convert to Islam voluntarilly) are mentally ill must be severely islamophobic…
Except, he is a Muslim himself :)
August 22, 2010, 2:53 amB.D. says:
Damn, over 400 posts now!
August 22, 2010, 3:23 amJames A. Donald says:
Sure. But that also means they will not do anything to oppose or criticize those acting in their name who are interested in global conquest – that the invisible silent majority of supposedly moderate Muslims are invisible and silent.
Similarly, I suppose that during World War II the majority of Germans were more concerned with putting bread on their tables than world conquest, but if we had attempted to follow a policy of only killing those that really were provably Nazis, we would have lost.
August 22, 2010, 4:17 amStephen Lathrop says:
Let’s put aside all facts for moment and assume an absurd hypothetical. Let’s assume that Christians are more likely to provoke violence than anyone, and that when they do, the form the violence takes is often concerted action against Muslims. And to continue the premise, for some reason—bad information, self-regard or whatever—the Christians don’t have the perspective to understand what they are doing, and anyway they regard themselves as peaceful and unwarlike.
Two points:
1. Given part two of that premise, wouldn’t every violent action taken by Muslims, however defensive in fact, be interpreted by Christians as an initiation of violence by Muslims, and indeed as as a characteristic of being Muslim?
2. Isn’t the premise, as absurd as it obviously is, more or less congruent with the worldview attributed to violent Muslim leaders? Given this thread, wouldn’t all the violent Muslims be saying exactly what most of the posters here are saying, but in reverse?
I don’t pretend this hypothetical can settle anything within the context of the topic of this thread. I do contend it shows the topic is pretty useless.
A better thread would shift the subject slightly: How many Americans believe Muslims worldwide now wage concerted aggressive war against the U.S.? That seems to be the premise actually assumed by those who object to the Ground Zero mosque—the issue behind this thread. Maybe that wouldn’t shift the arguments at all, but it would be interesting to see if it did.
August 22, 2010, 5:23 ampmorem says:
It seems to me that there is some serious disagreement within Islam as to what Islam is.
That is to say, there are schisms resulting in sectarian violence, which have at various times been open warfare.
Are all who follow Islam correct? Are none of them correct? Is there some one follower of Islam who is correct, which no outsider can correctly identify?
It seems to me there are some serious limitations as to what anyone can assert about Islam without at least some element of error. That condition will persist at least as long as the followers of Islam are killing each other.
August 22, 2010, 5:59 amJames A. Donald says:
That is a pretty stupid question. If Muslims world wide wage aggressive war against the US, it might well be that we started it, and they would stop it if we were sufficiently nice, thus regardless of what the answer to the question is, it proves nothing.
If, however, Muslims word wide aggressive war against everyone they have contact with along the bloody borders of Islam, the chief victims being Nigeria, Thailand, Burma, India, and so on and so forth, then it is pretty obvious that we did not start it, and no amount of niceness and foreign aid can persuade them to stop it – that the only way to get peace is the colonial era prescription – a bunch of settlers who engage in one hell of a lot more mass murder, terrorism, pillage, rape, sacrilege, desecration, and piracy than Muslims do, until Muslims start seeking peace.
August 22, 2010, 6:15 amisland says:
MY MY!
Past your bedtime I see.
Calling everyone paranoid and a bigot that does not agree with you.
And calling many [in]famous muslims liars too!
“Well, absent every Muslim making their opinions known,”
Sacastro claims to have muslim friends, yet doesn’t know and can’t name any muslim that condemned the doctor’s being murdered in the name of Islam.
And Sarcastro calls the muslims, who stated they murdered the doctors in the name of Islam, liars.
Why does he call muslims liars?
Because they said they did it in the name of Islam.
Here is a small list of the muslims that he smears with the term “liar”:
It is clear that he is calling the twin towers/pentagon/capitol-pennsylvania ground zero 19 hijackers liars.
And he calling Osama bin Laden a liar.
And he is calling Major Hassan a liar.
He is calling the muslims that murdered the Israeli athletes in 1972 Olympics liars.
He is calling the North Caroline University SUV jihadist a liar.
He is calling a whole lot of muslims liars.
Five hundred years of doctors’ education and training and help eradicated in 5 seconds by people who proclaim they did it in the name of Islam– and Sarcastro blames the victims.
August 22, 2010, 7:33 amJames A. Donald says:
Recall what happened when a Korean committed an act of terrorism: the Virginia Tech Massacre. A very large number of Koreans did make their opinions known. That Korean may have been a Muslim, from his martyrdom videotape “Am al Quaeda” and his nom de guerre “Ismail Ax” Strangely, no Muslims made their opinions known, total silence, except, of course, on the usual Jihad sites where they hailed him a glorious martyr.
August 22, 2010, 7:50 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
1 – I read the little screed from Rudolph up there. I didn’t see “God says” or “Jesus says” or “the Church says” or anything like that. You are perhaps aware that Iran has no homosexuals, according to Ahmadinejad. They see to that by hanging them when they find them. Clearly Ahmadinejad is a Catholic.
2 – Neurodoc, what Sarcastro said. Also, I used inaccurate language when I said that religions are what their adherents say they are – what I meant was that they are what their adherents make of them. Actions are part of speech. In Memphis, in addition to the city hospital, there are hospitals named Baptist, Methodist, and St. Francis, which is Catholic of course. This is an example of people saying what their religion is. (Now somebody come in and tell me that Baptist Hospital is not solely operated and staffed by Baptists.) St. Peter’s Village is a home for kids whose parents can’t care for them. Guess who set it up.
3 – James, here.
August 22, 2010, 9:49 amStephen Lathrop says:
That really is a dishonorable, or maybe just obtuse, distortion of what Sarcastro wrote.
August 22, 2010, 10:56 amOrson says:
Why do American’s believe Islam prmotes more violence against other religions? Perhaps because they do:
“78% of Pakistanis support death for apostates”
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2009/09/22/why-do-78-of-pakistani-muslims-favor-killing-“apostates”-from-islam/
(Pakistan, for those who don’t know, is the second largest officially Muslim nation in the world.)