Does Islam promote violence?

[Badran]

So, why is there such a strong tendency for muslim societies to be cruel, corrupt and violent? Why is there such a strong tendency for non-religious societies to avoid these defects?

Thats not true i'm afraid. There is no strong tendency for non-religious societies to avoid these 'defects'.

Also, the conditions of societies are determined by many factors, only one of which is religion. You've decided to leave them all out and blame a religion for those negative aspects in those societies.

 

[Looncall]

Thats not true i'm afraid. There is no strong tendency for non-religious societies to avoid these 'defects'.

Also, the conditions of societies are determined by many factors, only one of which is religion. You've decided to leave them all out and blame a religion for those negative aspects in those societies.

I do see that tendency. If one considers a sequence from, say, Afghanistan through Pakistan, the Middle East, Indonesia, the United States and Canada to Scandinavia, these defects (cruelty, corruption and violence) decrease just as religiosity does and they abruptly lessen as the religiosity ceases to be islamic.

 

[Badran]

I do see that tendency. If one considers a sequence from, say, Afghanistan through Pakistan, the Middle East, Indonesia, the United States and Canada to Scandinavia, these defects (cruelty, corruption and violence) decrease just as religiosity does and they abruptly lessen as the religiosity ceases to be islamic.

So basically, you understood nothing from what i said?

Again, i said religion is only one of the many factors that play a role in a country's condition, you've picked that one factor out of all others, and assumed that its responsible.

And you made a false claim that non-religious countries have a "strong" tendency to avoid such things.

 

[Looncall]

So basically, you understood nothing from what i said?

Again, i said religion is only one of the many factors that play a role in a country's condition, you've picked that one factor out of all others, and assumed that its responsible.

And you made a false claim that non-religious countries have a "strong" tendency to avoid such things.

I understand well enough. I just don't buy it. You are claiming that whatever it is that brings social dysfunction only happens to correlate with the presence of islam.

You need to explain why muslim societies, of widely varied cultural backgrounds, suffer from such similar social disorders and why non-muslim but still religious ones, such as the USA suffer from reduced versions and why largely non-religious ones, such as Sweden, hardly suffer from them at all.

If you want something more specific, just consider the use of torture. It is endemic in muslim coutries, it occasionally occurs in the USA (but is illegal) and is almost unheard of in Sweden. I suggest an experiment: do web searches on "torture Pakistan", "torture United States" and "torture Sweden". See how many different instances you see on the first page of hits for each.

 

[Bismillah]

I understand well enough. I just don't buy it. You are claiming that whatever it is that brings social dysfunction only happens to correlate with the presence of islam.

Ah yes because such countries are the "only" countries to suffer from what were was that ranting earlier on about? Ah yes "cruel, corrupt, and violent".

Could it possibly be other factors? Economic? Political? Education? Cultural? Nah, let's throw that rubbish out of the window!

 

[sandandfoam]

I imagine many more people have had violence visited upon them in the name of freedom and democracy than of Islam in the last year, decade or century.

 

[Badran]

I understand well enough. I just don't buy it. You are claiming that whatever it is that brings social dysfunction only happens to correlate with the presence of islam.

Nope, thats not what i said. I did acknowledge that religion is a factor, it is one amongst many. You however, want to make it the only one, for whatever purposes.

You need to explain why muslim societies, of widely varied cultural backgrounds, suffer from such similar social disorders and why non-muslim but still religious ones, such as the USA suffer from reduced versions and why largely non-religious ones, such as Sweden, hardly suffer from them at all.

If you want something more specific, just consider the use of torture. It is endemic in muslim coutries, it occasionally occurs in the USA (but is illegal) and is almost unheard of in Sweden. I suggest an experiment: do web searches on "torture Pakistan", "torture United States" and "torture Sweden". See how many different instances you see on the first page of hits for each.

Here are the factors that usually affect a country's condition:

1) The relation between religion and government. The more defined, organized, realizing justice for all those under it, not forcing it on others etc... the better a country's conditions become.

2) Education.

3) Political circumstances and history (which should speak for itself, i hope).

4) Culture and religion in general.

5) Social issues.

6) Financial position.

All of these factors contribute to whether or not a country is doing good. Muslim societies share many, and in some cases all the same problems regarding those points.

Now, regarding your other claim, that non-religious societies, that can simply be addressed by the fact that all sorts of different societies had ups and downs, sometimes while being religious and some times while not. In other words, Muslim societies were at one point at the peak of power and accomplishments, now they're not doing too great. And actually, just an aside, they're now less religious than they were at their peak.

Other countries, which were more inclined to being non-religious, at some points were horrible examples of corruption and fascism, while at other points, are doing good for themselves, such as many examples today. So, in a nut shell, you can't claim that Islam is responsible for the circumstances of these countries, any more than non-religiousness is responsible for the corruption of the likes of Russia in the times of Stalin, or China today.

 

[Looncall]

Nope, thats not what i said. I did acknowledge that religion is a factor, it is one amongst many. You however, want to make it the only one, for whatever purposes.



Here are the factors that usually affect a country's condition:

1) The relation between religion and government. The more defined, organized, realizing justice for all those under it, not forcing it on others etc... the better a country's conditions become.

2) Education.

3) Political circumstances and history (which should speak for itself, i hope).

4) Culture and religion in general.

5) Social issues.

6) Financial position.

All of these factors contribute to whether or not a country is doing good. Muslim societies share many, and in some cases all the same problems regarding those points.

Now, regarding your other claim, that non-religious societies, that can simply be addressed by the fact that all sorts of different societies had ups and downs, sometimes while being religious and some times while not. In other words, Muslim societies were at one point at the peak of power and accomplishments, now they're not doing too great. And actually, just an aside, they're now less religious than they were at their peak.

Other countries, which were more inclined to being non-religious, at some points were horrible examples of corruption and fascism, while at other points, are doing good for themselves, such as many examples today. So, in a nut shell, you can't claim that Islam is responsible for the circumstances of these countries, any more than non-religiousness is responsible for the corruption of the likes of Russia in the times of Stalin, or China today.

I suppose that the "Arab Spring" will be a litmus test for our debate. If decent, civilized societies emerge, I will be delighted to reverse my opinion. If not, I will find my opinion confirmed.

 

[Bismillah]

I will find my opinion confirmed.

I'm sure you will

 

[Badran]

I suppose that the "Arab Spring" will be a litmus test for our debate. If decent, civilized societies emerge, I will be delighted to reverse my opinion. If not, I will find my opinion confirmed.

Not necessarily, for more than one reason. Its not assured yet that the will of the people will win all the way and that they'll get what they want.

Aside from that, i didn't actually say that they are great societies, i was disputing the thing you blamed the negative aspects of those societies on.

 

[Bismillah]

Let's not forget to acknowledge the pinnacle of Western society, imposing a new flavor of "freedom" since 9/11.

 

[Looncall]

I'm sure you will

I very much hope not, but I don't see that anyone can make predictions yet.

 

[Looncall]

Let's not forget to acknowledge the pinnacle of Western society, imposing a new flavor of "freedom" since 9/11.

I doubt anyone other than americans considers the USA (I suppose that's who you mean) to be any such pinnacle. I have a suspicion that the americans tend to emulate their foes. They learned Byzantine bureaucracy from the USSR and are now learning terror and torture from the muslims.

 

[Looncall]

Nope, thats not what i said. I did acknowledge that religion is a factor, it is one amongst many. You however, want to make it the only one, for whatever purposes.



Here are the factors that usually affect a country's condition:

1) The relation between religion and government. The more defined, organized, realizing justice for all those under it, not forcing it on others etc... the better a country's conditions become.

2) Education.

3) Political circumstances and history (which should speak for itself, i hope).

4) Culture and religion in general.

5) Social issues.

6) Financial position.

All of these factors contribute to whether or not a country is doing good. Muslim societies share many, and in some cases all the same problems regarding those points.

Now, regarding your other claim, that non-religious societies, that can simply be addressed by the fact that all sorts of different societies had ups and downs, sometimes while being religious and some times while not. In other words, Muslim societies were at one point at the peak of power and accomplishments, now they're not doing too great. And actually, just an aside, they're now less religious than they were at their peak.

Other countries, which were more inclined to being non-religious, at some points were horrible examples of corruption and fascism, while at other points, are doing good for themselves, such as many examples today. So, in a nut shell, you can't claim that Islam is responsible for the circumstances of these countries, any more than non-religiousness is responsible for the corruption of the likes of Russia in the times of Stalin, or China today.

I grant you the influence of these factors. However, why are these unsatisfactory in muslim-dominated places, even very wealthy ones, but satisfactory elsewhere?

For the sake of simplicity, let's just consider the use of torture, since it is not so clearly a function of most of your influences. Has there ever been a muslim-dominated society in which torture has not been endemic? (I ask in a spirit of enquiry. I do not know the answer.) After all, we know of lots of non-muslim societies in which torture is not endemic.

 

[Shades-o-Blue]

The OP was more of an accusation than a respectful question and we could have just closed the thread instead of moving it.

Muslims can reply here as well if they choose to.

If you have a problem with how this forum is ran, please start a thread in "site feedback" where you can have a private conversation with the staff.

Though I agree the OP appears argumentitive, I appreciate Bringing Truth's explanation. I think there are quite a few Americans who believe the Koran promotes violence against "non-believers", and this helps clear a potential misconception about Islam.

 

[Kathryn]

There are so many Islamic and ethnic factions throughout predominately Muslim countries, that from the outside it's hard to make sense of any of the violence. If you're a Muslim living in a predominately Muslim country, you're much more likely to be killed by a terrorist attack carried out by another Muslim, than you are to be killed by anyone else.

I think that's a very sad state of affairs and my heart goes out to the people in these countries who are simply trying to raise their families and survive.

My experiences with moderate Muslims, especially those who live in the US, do not support the idea that Islam itself promotes violence and racism.

But I'm certainly no expert on Islam.

 

[Bismillah]

I very much hope not, but I don't see that anyone can make predictions yet.

I don't see why anyone could make such a monumental and idiotic decision based on such a confined and narrowed view, but of course save for one very obvious answer.

now learning terror and torture from the muslims.

Cultural chauvinism at its finest, thanks for confirming your bigoted view!

 

[Badran]

I grant you the influence of these factors. However, why are these unsatisfactory in muslim-dominated places, even very wealthy ones, but satisfactory elsewhere?

They're not only unsatisfactory in Muslim dominated societies. Things weren't always satisfactory in those other places you're referring to, and things were satisfactory at some points in Muslim dominated societies.

As for even when they're wealthy, wealth doesn't equal good conditions. It helps, but it doesn't come near guaranteeing it. Its only one factor, and it only has a certain positive effect in one part, the rest however is also dependent on the other factors.

For the sake of simplicity, let's just consider the use of torture, since it is not so clearly a function of most of your influences. Has there ever been a muslim-dominated society in which torture has not been endemic? (I ask in a spirit of enquiry. I do not know the answer.) After all, we know of lots of non-muslim societies in which torture is not endemic.

What kind of torture? Accepted torture?

That is, torture embraced by society?

And what is the criteria based on which you'll qualify something to be torture and something else to be just punishment?

 

[Looncall]

They're not only unsatisfactory in Muslim dominated societies. Things weren't always satisfactory in those other places you're referring to, and things were satisfactory at some points in Muslim dominated societies.

As for even when they're wealthy, wealth doesn't equal good conditions. It helps, but it doesn't come near guaranteeing it. Its only one factor, and it only has a certain positive effect in one part, the rest however is also dependent on the other factors.



What kind of torture? Accepted torture?

That is, torture embraced by society?

And what is the criteria based on which you'll qualify something to be torture and something else to be just punishment?

Any deliberate infliction of pain is torture, except when unavoidable in a medical setting. I am mostly interested in state sponsored or abetted torture. The recent revelations of torture in Afghan prisons give examples.

 

[Looncall]

I don't see why anyone could make such a monumental and idiotic decision based on such a confined and narrowed view, but of course save for one very obvious answer. Cultural chauvinism at its finest, thanks for confirming your bigoted view!

You may have misunderstood me. I very much hope that the Arab Spring will lead to a good result. I just don't yet know if it will.