'This has nothing to do with Islam'

[Svartalf]

I am sick and tired of "moderate" Muslims coming out after the fact to distance their "religion of peace" from acts of violence done in its name. Too late then bud.

QFT... if they managed to control their loose cannons, or signalled them to authorities in time to stop them (or do they do the latter, and the authorities can't act on it?), I'd take those denegations more seriously.

[Svartalf]

I suppose it has more or less the same relationship with Islam as the Crusades did with Christianity.

Beside minor fanatic movements like the Children's crusade, they were more about younger sons of the nobility going away to find fortune... kind of like what happened in Spain after 1492.

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

The only significant difference between Islam and Christianity is that a larger ratio of Christians now simply ignore the bulk of what is written in their Bible, while a smallish but quite active and effective proportion of Muslims ignore the manifold exhortations in the Koran to be equitable, peaceful and moderate. In a way, it could be argued that the activities of both Christians and Muslims today have rather more to do with social conditions than either Christian or Islamic doctrines.

You make a good point with the first sentence, and I quite agree. It fits with the views I expressed earlier about the effect that the development of enlightenment values eroding the power of the christian religion in the west. Apathy to religion is potent and real...
It's is pushing it, however, to suggest that the main message of the Koran is "to be equitable, peaceful and moderate". To other muslims, perhaps, but let the infidel beware...

There are many more exhortations to violence in the Koran than there are in the New Testament. Sure, there are many nasty bits in the Old Testament, and the hoary old quote "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." is often trotted out to somehow suggest that modern, mainstream christianity fully embraces Old Testament values, which is in virtually all cases an absurdity.

And sure, the majority of muslims around the world simply want to get on with their lives...

But the violent Islamic lunatics clearly and unequivocally state that their motivation comes from their religion; a fact not to be swept under the carpet by apologists of any stripe...

[Tyrannical]

Even a 10% general approval of Muslims for suicide bombing attacks is about 9.99% too high.

[Hermit]

Sure, there are many nasty bits in the Old Testament, and the hoary old quote "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." is often trotted out to somehow suggest that modern, mainstream christianity fully embraces Old Testament values, which is in virtually all cases an absurdity.

Just speaking for myself, I trotted the hoary old quote out merely to somehow suggest that modern, mainstream Christians fully ignore Old Testament values despite Christ's endorsement of them.

There are many more exhortations to violence in the Koran than there are in the New Testament.

I don't know if you have totted up the number of exhortations in either, but I have not done so myself. You could be right, I don't know, but this isn't a football game where the winner is determined by the number of points scored.

[JimC]

Sure, there are many nasty bits in the Old Testament, and the hoary old quote "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." is often trotted out to somehow suggest that modern, mainstream christianity fully embraces Old Testament values, which is in virtually all cases an absurdity.

Just speaking for myself, I trotted the hoary old quote out merely to somehow suggest that modern, mainstream Christians fully ignore Old Testament values despite Christ's endorsement of them.

There are many more exhortations to violence in the Koran than there are in the New Testament.

I don't know if you have totted up the number of exhortations in either, but I have not done so myself. You could be right, I don't know, but this isn't a football game where the winner is determined by the number of points scored.

It's true that I haven't, but I'd be prepared to bet that there would be a major difference, in the direction I suggested.

Let's say for the sake of argument that is in fact the case. It would be hard to make a case that the presence of many exhortations to violent jihad against infidels would have no impact on the likelihood of its adherents to be violent in the name of their prophet and holy scriptures...

The best christians can do is to get a little hostile towards moneychangers in the temple...

Which for predatory tele-evangelists is quite amusing...

[Hermit]

Let's say for the sake of argument that is in fact the case. It would be hard to make a case that the presence of many exhortations to violent jihad against infidels would have no impact on the likelihood of its adherents to be violent in the name of their prophet and holy scriptures...

The best christians can do is to get a little hostile towards moneychangers in the temple...

Unless of course they heed the many examples of the Christian God's obvious support to massacre their enemies. In one instance, he even stopped the night from falling as a result of his chosen people's plea for more daylight to allow the killing of more of them. And then - as I mentioned - there is Luke [19:27] Jesus said: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." So, Christians can justify on biblical text rather more than merely getting a little hostile towards moneychangers in the temple, and historically speaking have amply demonstrated that fact.

[klr]

One point about Islam is that not everything is in the Quran. A lot is based on the Hadith - sayings attributed to Big Mo, and things tacitly approved by him.

But there are factors more important than a count of violent and intolerant statements IMHO. Religious fervour (whether real or feigned) is what tends to mark out those who commit violence in the name of their God. And (discuss please!) Islam seems to have a much greater number of hardcore believers, even if it's still a minority of all Muslims.

[klr]

... the same observation might be made about political ideologies of course.

[JimC]

Let's say for the sake of argument that is in fact the case. It would be hard to make a case that the presence of many exhortations to violent jihad against infidels would have no impact on the likelihood of its adherents to be violent in the name of their prophet and holy scriptures...

The best christians can do is to get a little hostile towards moneychangers in the temple...

Unless of course they heed the many examples of the Christian God's obvious support to massacre their enemies. In one instance, he even stopped the night from falling as a result of his chosen people's plea for more daylight to allow the killing of more of them. And then - as I mentioned - there is Luke [19:27] Jesus said: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." So, Christians can justify on biblical text rather more than merely getting a little hostile towards moneychangers in the temple, and historically speaking have amply demonstrated that fact.

They certainly can in theory, and historically have, although they have far fewer quotes to choose from. After your Luke quote, what's left?

However, for a variety of reasons, they hardly ever do these days, but significant numbers of muslims can and do use their plethora of exhortations to violence very definitely, with malice and aforethought...

[Audley Strange]

And that argument would be a good one, if one could divorce it from the history, methodology and public practice of the various offshoots of the Jehovah cult. I see what you mean in so far as we don't consider the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan "Christian" any more than some moonbeam with a bomb blowing up an abortion clinic as "Christian". I'd say perhaps we should consider a religious motivation because I disagree that the social conditions of London, as compared to Somalia, are so intolerable for Muslims that they have little option but to run down and hack away at an innocent bystander.

[Mysturji]

I suppose it has more or less the same relationship with Islam as the Crusades did with Christianity.

Objection to this line of argument on the grounds that the crusades ended several centuries ago in 9 ... 8 ... 7 ... 6 ...

Would you prefer family-planning clinic firebombings?

[Mysturji]

I am sick and tired of "moderate" Muslims coming out after the fact to distance their "religion of peace" from acts of violence done in its name. Too late then bud.

QFT... if they managed to control their loose cannons, or signalled them to authorities in time to stop them (or do they do the latter, and the authorities can't act on it?), I'd take those denegations more seriously.

I'll start taking them seriously after the number and size of peaceful protests by Muslims, protesting against Islamist-inspired terrorism outnumber the violent protests by Muslims against cartoons and bad movies on the internet.

[mistermack]

Technically, it is to do with Christianity AND Islam.

Seeing as how it's all god's will. That makes it all Jehova's fault.

Kill the Jews ! Persecute !!

[Cormac]

The media and the populace have short and selective memories...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers