8 ms·

I've encountered this explanation before (most notably from Sam Harris), and I don't feel qualified to disagree with it, but I wonder how you account for the di

by rtl49 11y ago

I've encountered this explanation before (most notably from Sam Harris), and I don't feel qualified to disagree with it, but I wonder how you account for the difference between the actions of Muslims and those of other religious traditions whose holy texts contain comparable passages. If language advocating violence in a religion's scriptures were in itself sufficient to motivate its adherents to commit acts of violence, I would expect comparable levels of violence from these other religions. Given that this is clearly a problem unique to Islam in the modern age, it seems that the proximate cause can't be the Islamic scriptures alone. Even if I'm not convinced, I disagree that you deserve to be downvoted. You've voiced an unpopular opinion, but it isn't rude or inflammatory (except possibly for the Santa analogy) and doesn't advocate inhumane behavior toward Muslims.

insoluble 11y ago
> it seems that the proximate cause can't be the Islamic scriptures alone. My hypothesis is twofold: (1) The people doing the violence have been sold on these passages of the scriptures by others; and (2) The people doing this selling are acting for another reason. Hence, the scriptures are serving as a justification, not a cause in and of themselves. There were plenty of times in history where Christians used passages to justify their actions, while the actions themselves were motivated by completely different desires. Essentially the people in discussion here are using scriptures in the same way that lawyers use legal code -- not as a reason to sue, but as a justification of why suit is permissible. It's all too easy to point a finger at the justification being used. In fact, the ego loves doing so since it helps one to remain willfully ignorant of the actual reasons behind the occurrences. Religion is not the cause; Religion is the justification. Without looking at the cause, one cannot answer the why, nor can one know how to resolve the issue without jumping on the "It's all the religion's fault" bandwagon. The ego loves the path of least resistance.
- rtl49 11y ago
  I think this is a reasonable interpretation, but those who disagree with you might point to a large number of instances where extremists' political grievances are only intelligible in the context of religious beliefs derived from the Quran. For example, the Tsarnaev brothers were born in Kyrgyzstan and raised and educated in the West, yet they committed acts of violence against the United States in retaliation for its foreign policy in Afghanistan and Iraq. What would have motivated them to commit these acts on behalf of Afghanistan and Iraq, countries to which they had no personal attachment, except for their religious belief that jihad was justified after the invasion of Muslim lands? In other words, what renders a person susceptible to "being sold" Islamic demagoguery other than the content of Islam itself?
  - insoluble 11y ago
    Indeed, some of the acts must have been motivated more from the Quran than anything else. This could probably be said of the Bible and various other texts as well. One question is the proportion for each various classification of root cause. Something tells me that the greater the size of the group acting in a particular instance, the less likely it is to be motivated merely by the Quran. There are plenty of instances of individuals in the West having unusual religious and or cult-like beliefs who then go on to act in violence out of those beliefs. As far as susceptibility, I would imagine it's pretty much the same as for all sorts of other fringe groups, such as the KKK. Sometime individuals join such groups to give themselves a sense of brotherhood, which is probably more tempting for individuals who don't fit into other circles of society for one reason or another. Perhaps what makes these Islamic extremist groups different from many others is that (a) they are often completely underground and (b) they actively (and successfully) recruit people who may be susceptible. My guess is this active recruitment (a) makes the groups bigger, (b) provides them with the tools they need, and (c) gives the participants an assurance that they will be remembered for helping the group in its goals. Back to the original point, I'm thinking that those at the top of these groups are like politicians in Western states -- they issue plans and orders to those below them, who don't necessary know what the true cause behind the acts is. By appealing to a higher power (the Quran), the higher-ups are able to obscure the true reasons behind the plans. The true reasons are probably known only at the top. Any grievances between groups of people could be included in these reasons, whether over resources, dominance, influence, ethnicity, land, or culture. I guess what I was trying to say from the beginning is that the primary drive is probably one of the more common reasons listed above, while the official justification involves the scriptures. Few groups of people in this world, it seems, will admit that they are acting out of self-interest. A more popular approach seems to be saying it was a higher power's wishes. A good counterargument might be that these people are acting in violence to gain their reward(s) in the afterlife. The Bible too calls for violence in various instances, to my understanding, but it sounds like the Quran is more explicit about the rewards for violence. Nevertheless, people are tricksters. It would not surprise me if the higher-ups are using these rewards to drive those at the bottom to carry out acts toward a defined worldly goal. After all, then there would be benefit both for the higher-ups and for the suicide bombers. Being able to convince others that they will receive grand rewards in the afterlife if they just carry out your plans would be a very powerful tool.
theheck 11y ago
My beliefs were definitely influenced by Sam Harris' writing (on religion anyhow, not a fan of his views on statism and torture). You're right that other religions have similarly violent claims (like Christianity), but we generally don't see people going around committing violent acts and using the Bible as justification for them. Here's how I account for the difference -- most Christians no longer deeply believe in the more violent passages in the Bible anymore. For example, what would the average Christian say if you asked that person, "should adulterers be put to death?" [1] The far majority of Christians will say no. You don't see many pastors and priests preaching fire and brimstone anymore. All their parishioners have gone elsewhere (but those verses are still in the Bible!) Nonetheless, Christians certainly had their turn in senselessly murdering people (e.g. the Crusades), and those people rationalized their actions using actual verses in the Bible. However, if you ask the average Muslim, "Can suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam be justified?" A large percentage of them will say yes! [2] Even if it's not a majority of Muslims, the fact that there are double-digit percentages who either "sometimes" or "rarely" say such actions are justified is scary. Now as for the question of WHY do most Christians no longer believe in violence while Muslims do, I don't have a fully formed opinion on that matter, so I'll withhold it. But I still think it's valid to claim that religious texts can and are used as justification for violence. [1] Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death." [2] Using the numbering at the bottom of the page, see the table on page 53 --http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60 http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-ameri...
- rtl49 11y ago
  I think few would disagree that religious scriptures can be used as a pretense or "justification" for violence, but I believe your comment cited the content of the Quran as the "root cause" of Muslim violence. Given that people are always motivated by their beliefs, isn't the reason that Muslims hold their beliefs the "root cause" of Muslim violence? You seem to argue that the reason is simply that violence is promoted by the Quran. But this begs the question of why they believe the violent parts of the Quran, while other religious groups ignore similar passages in their own holy texts. I think those who disagree with you would claim that many Muslims hold to a fundamentalist interpretation of their scriptures for historical reasons unrelated to the text itself, Western misadventures in the Near East among them.

by rtl49 11y ago

insoluble 11y ago

> it seems that the proximate cause can't be the Islamic scriptures alone. My hypothesis is twofold: (1) The people doing the violence have been sold on these passages of the scriptures by others; and (2) The people doing this selling are acting for another reason. Hence, the scriptures are serving as a justification, not a cause in and of themselves. There were plenty of times in history where Christians used passages to justify their actions, while the actions themselves were motivated by completely different desires. Essentially the people in discussion here are using scriptures in the same way that lawyers use legal code -- not as a reason to sue, but as a justification of why suit is permissible. It's all too easy to point a finger at the justification being used. In fact, the ego loves doing so since it helps one to remain willfully ignorant of the actual reasons behind the occurrences. Religion is not the cause; Religion is the justification. Without looking at the cause, one cannot answer the why, nor can one know how to resolve the issue without jumping on the "It's all the religion's fault" bandwagon. The ego loves the path of least resistance.

rtl49 11y ago
I think this is a reasonable interpretation, but those who disagree with you might point to a large number of instances where extremists' political grievances are only intelligible in the context of religious beliefs derived from the Quran. For example, the Tsarnaev brothers were born in Kyrgyzstan and raised and educated in the West, yet they committed acts of violence against the United States in retaliation for its foreign policy in Afghanistan and Iraq. What would have motivated them to commit these acts on behalf of Afghanistan and Iraq, countries to which they had no personal attachment, except for their religious belief that jihad was justified after the invasion of Muslim lands? In other words, what renders a person susceptible to "being sold" Islamic demagoguery other than the content of Islam itself?
- insoluble 11y ago
  Indeed, some of the acts must have been motivated more from the Quran than anything else. This could probably be said of the Bible and various other texts as well. One question is the proportion for each various classification of root cause. Something tells me that the greater the size of the group acting in a particular instance, the less likely it is to be motivated merely by the Quran. There are plenty of instances of individuals in the West having unusual religious and or cult-like beliefs who then go on to act in violence out of those beliefs. As far as susceptibility, I would imagine it's pretty much the same as for all sorts of other fringe groups, such as the KKK. Sometime individuals join such groups to give themselves a sense of brotherhood, which is probably more tempting for individuals who don't fit into other circles of society for one reason or another. Perhaps what makes these Islamic extremist groups different from many others is that (a) they are often completely underground and (b) they actively (and successfully) recruit people who may be susceptible. My guess is this active recruitment (a) makes the groups bigger, (b) provides them with the tools they need, and (c) gives the participants an assurance that they will be remembered for helping the group in its goals. Back to the original point, I'm thinking that those at the top of these groups are like politicians in Western states -- they issue plans and orders to those below them, who don't necessary know what the true cause behind the acts is. By appealing to a higher power (the Quran), the higher-ups are able to obscure the true reasons behind the plans. The true reasons are probably known only at the top. Any grievances between groups of people could be included in these reasons, whether over resources, dominance, influence, ethnicity, land, or culture. I guess what I was trying to say from the beginning is that the primary drive is probably one of the more common reasons listed above, while the official justification involves the scriptures. Few groups of people in this world, it seems, will admit that they are acting out of self-interest. A more popular approach seems to be saying it was a higher power's wishes. A good counterargument might be that these people are acting in violence to gain their reward(s) in the afterlife. The Bible too calls for violence in various instances, to my understanding, but it sounds like the Quran is more explicit about the rewards for violence. Nevertheless, people are tricksters. It would not surprise me if the higher-ups are using these rewards to drive those at the bottom to carry out acts toward a defined worldly goal. After all, then there would be benefit both for the higher-ups and for the suicide bombers. Being able to convince others that they will receive grand rewards in the afterlife if they just carry out your plans would be a very powerful tool.

theheck 11y ago

My beliefs were definitely influenced by Sam Harris' writing (on religion anyhow, not a fan of his views on statism and torture). You're right that other religions have similarly violent claims (like Christianity), but we generally don't see people going around committing violent acts and using the Bible as justification for them. Here's how I account for the difference -- most Christians no longer deeply believe in the more violent passages in the Bible anymore. For example, what would the average Christian say if you asked that person, "should adulterers be put to death?" [1] The far majority of Christians will say no. You don't see many pastors and priests preaching fire and brimstone anymore. All their parishioners have gone elsewhere (but those verses are still in the Bible!) Nonetheless, Christians certainly had their turn in senselessly murdering people (e.g. the Crusades), and those people rationalized their actions using actual verses in the Bible. However, if you ask the average Muslim, "Can suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam be justified?" A large percentage of them will say yes! [2] Even if it's not a majority of Muslims, the fact that there are double-digit percentages who either "sometimes" or "rarely" say such actions are justified is scary. Now as for the question of WHY do most Christians no longer believe in violence while Muslims do, I don't have a fully formed opinion on that matter, so I'll withhold it. But I still think it's valid to claim that religious texts can and are used as justification for violence. [1] Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death." [2] Using the numbering at the bottom of the page, see the table on page 53 --http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60 http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-ameri...

rtl49 11y ago
I think few would disagree that religious scriptures can be used as a pretense or "justification" for violence, but I believe your comment cited the content of the Quran as the "root cause" of Muslim violence. Given that people are always motivated by their beliefs, isn't the reason that Muslims hold their beliefs the "root cause" of Muslim violence? You seem to argue that the reason is simply that violence is promoted by the Quran. But this begs the question of why they believe the violent parts of the Quran, while other religious groups ignore similar passages in their own holy texts. I think those who disagree with you would claim that many Muslims hold to a fundamentalist interpretation of their scriptures for historical reasons unrelated to the text itself, Western misadventures in the Near East among them.