3 ms·

In Islam, there are "sword verses" and "peace verses". Christianity likewise has verses that are pretty violent (particularly in the Old Testament), and passage

In Islam, there are "sword verses" and "peace verses". Christianity likewise has verses that are pretty violent (particularly in the Old Testament), and passages that promote peace and tolerance. I do feel that comparing which text is more violent by nature is kind of pointless. Is Sura 9 any "better or worse" than Deuteronomy 20? I don't know, they both seem pretty vanquish-all-your-enemies to me. So what you focus on is "interpretations". And so many times, the "interpretations" have a political bent. That Islam is tied to so much radicalism and terrorism is troubling. But a lot of the root source of this does seem to be the petro-economy, particularly Saudi Arabia. Example: Would Islamic terrorism be so big had Saudi Arabia not pushed Wahhabism so hard, tying it to politics (and thus dominating more mystical forms of Islam like say the Sufis)? Would we have a Taliban had the Wahhabist Saudis not fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan (thus radicalizing the Deobandis)? The problem with calling out entire religions is that you often sweep up people who have much different interpretations. A Western equivalent (not in terms of impact perhaps but in ideas) would be to say that Christianity itself is anti-gay. Some Christian churches are anti-gay, and there are a couple passages in the Bible that are anti-homosexual, but there are also Christians that dismiss these verses. Judaism mostly downplays violent passages ala Deuteronomy 20, and likewise, Islam could downplay their violent side if they wanted to (some sects do in fact). Most religious holy books are very multi-faceted. The fact that a side of Islam doesn't has a lot to do, in my opinion, with the politics and military ties of certain kleptocrat petro-economies (Saudi Arabia is a big one) or other external events (the American invasion of Iraq is another as had that not happened, there probably would be no ISIS).

acqq 10y ago
> Most religious holy books are very multi-faceted. Most other books. But finding peaceful parts in the "book of the exact sayings of God" (according to that religion and the book itself (!)) is almost impossible except when the quote is not full. E.g. the US president quoted the part of 5:32 but not the 5:32 and 5:33 in full, which at once is much less peaceful, as everybody can check for himself. And the president would surely select a better one, if it existed. But it doesn't. Which presents the problem that simply just reading the original texts radicalizes the readers. That there's so much intolerant "stuff" inside is the major problem that most of people are still somehow too afraid to acknowledge (and even less check for themselves). > Islam could downplay their violent side if they wanted to (some sects do in fact) Only one sect I know of, less than 1.4 percent of the rest, founded 1889, and not accepted as believers by the remaining 98.6 percent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya Do you know some other?
- soundwave106 10y ago
  Well, I mentioned Sufism (which doesn't renounce all violence per se -- most religions don't -- but has a more mystical interpretation that makes it less prone to fundamentalist Islam style jihad), and there's also the Mouride. Of course, you can say that all of these combined is a low percentage of the dogma. I still am not sure where this line of reasoning goes though. We can spin lots of circles trying to prove one ancient very violent text is more violent in nature than the other. For the record, I would agree that the Quran "out-violences" the Old Testament. (I disagree that the Quran is not multi-faceted though). And yet, I am not sure that this matters much. I could also say that Buddhism is way more pacifist then either Christianity or Islam. Yet I can find examples of Buddhist terrorism. I can also describe the origins of Christianity as an apocalyptic cult (the "great tribulation" being a key cornerstone of that faith). Yet it doesn't appear to inspire ISIS style violence these days. As a general rule I am personally wary of linking violence in media very directly to external violence. I know in the United States all sorts of people try to link our often violent entertainment media to various other events (from school shootings to aggressive behavior). But the more in depth studies seem to only indicate casual correlation... or not even that. So sure, the text of the Quran is pretty violent, some conquer your enemies stuff, very Old Testament. The answer is, yes, and? If you're trying to directly link the Quran to terrorism (versus what I more suspect, terrorists using the Quran for their own ends), that's a pretty tall accusation. 1.6 billion people follow this book after all. Most of the 1.6 billion people are not terrorists or even very violent. There was a time when the "status" of Islam and Christianity was reversed, after all. From roughly 800 AD to 1300 AD, Islam experienced its "Golden Age"; certainly there was some military activity then, but the sections encouraging wisdom were also in play (resulting in many mathematical and scientific advances). It was the Abbasid caliphate leaders that encouraged this. The Christian world was meanwhile stuck in the Middle Ages, whose popes used Biblical dogma to justify the Crusades. Likewise today, I see far more connection between politics and Islamic terrorism versus the Quran itself and Islamic terrorism. If a heck of a lot of Islam followers do have a jihadist dominant interpretation of the Quran, I would blame that entirely on religious and political leaders that actually emphasize the jihadist portions. Not the book. This is religion after all. After all, some big political positions in religion arise that have nothing to do with holy texts at all. :)
benbenolson 10y ago
I don't dispute that the Bible has violent verses, but Deuteronomy 20 is not inciting violence. It's saying "When you go to war...", not that the reader SHOULD go to war. It also has a paragraph "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace." Later on, it mentions specific historical groups of people that the letter is specifically talking about. On the other hand, the Surah verse is more of a call to war, referring to "unbelievers" and "polytheists," also saying that the reader should "...kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush." I'm sure you could find verses in the Bible that are more violent, but I doubt you'll find any comparable to the worst that Islam has to offer.
bpodgursky 10y ago
Islam, fundamentally, has no new testament equivalent. Christians can draw a line between old and new rules without theological issues. Jews interpret the old testament as laws for Jews, by Jews. There is no prerogative to convert. Islam has neither of those. It is a violent old testament with a legal code inscribed focused on converting or otherwise making lives miserable for other people of the book (not to mention what they consider pagans).
- golergka 10y ago
  Judaism also has Talmud and a long tradition of interpretations of the Torah.

acqq 10y ago

> Most religious holy books are very multi-faceted. Most other books. But finding peaceful parts in the "book of the exact sayings of God" (according to that religion and the book itself (!)) is almost impossible except when the quote is not full. E.g. the US president quoted the part of 5:32 but not the 5:32 and 5:33 in full, which at once is much less peaceful, as everybody can check for himself. And the president would surely select a better one, if it existed. But it doesn't. Which presents the problem that simply just reading the original texts radicalizes the readers. That there's so much intolerant "stuff" inside is the major problem that most of people are still somehow too afraid to acknowledge (and even less check for themselves). > Islam could downplay their violent side if they wanted to (some sects do in fact) Only one sect I know of, less than 1.4 percent of the rest, founded 1889, and not accepted as believers by the remaining 98.6 percent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya Do you know some other?

soundwave106 10y ago
Well, I mentioned Sufism (which doesn't renounce all violence per se -- most religions don't -- but has a more mystical interpretation that makes it less prone to fundamentalist Islam style jihad), and there's also the Mouride. Of course, you can say that all of these combined is a low percentage of the dogma. I still am not sure where this line of reasoning goes though. We can spin lots of circles trying to prove one ancient very violent text is more violent in nature than the other. For the record, I would agree that the Quran "out-violences" the Old Testament. (I disagree that the Quran is not multi-faceted though). And yet, I am not sure that this matters much. I could also say that Buddhism is way more pacifist then either Christianity or Islam. Yet I can find examples of Buddhist terrorism. I can also describe the origins of Christianity as an apocalyptic cult (the "great tribulation" being a key cornerstone of that faith). Yet it doesn't appear to inspire ISIS style violence these days. As a general rule I am personally wary of linking violence in media very directly to external violence. I know in the United States all sorts of people try to link our often violent entertainment media to various other events (from school shootings to aggressive behavior). But the more in depth studies seem to only indicate casual correlation... or not even that. So sure, the text of the Quran is pretty violent, some conquer your enemies stuff, very Old Testament. The answer is, yes, and? If you're trying to directly link the Quran to terrorism (versus what I more suspect, terrorists using the Quran for their own ends), that's a pretty tall accusation. 1.6 billion people follow this book after all. Most of the 1.6 billion people are not terrorists or even very violent. There was a time when the "status" of Islam and Christianity was reversed, after all. From roughly 800 AD to 1300 AD, Islam experienced its "Golden Age"; certainly there was some military activity then, but the sections encouraging wisdom were also in play (resulting in many mathematical and scientific advances). It was the Abbasid caliphate leaders that encouraged this. The Christian world was meanwhile stuck in the Middle Ages, whose popes used Biblical dogma to justify the Crusades. Likewise today, I see far more connection between politics and Islamic terrorism versus the Quran itself and Islamic terrorism. If a heck of a lot of Islam followers do have a jihadist dominant interpretation of the Quran, I would blame that entirely on religious and political leaders that actually emphasize the jihadist portions. Not the book. This is religion after all. After all, some big political positions in religion arise that have nothing to do with holy texts at all. :)

benbenolson 10y ago

I don't dispute that the Bible has violent verses, but Deuteronomy 20 is not inciting violence. It's saying "When you go to war...", not that the reader SHOULD go to war. It also has a paragraph "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace." Later on, it mentions specific historical groups of people that the letter is specifically talking about. On the other hand, the Surah verse is more of a call to war, referring to "unbelievers" and "polytheists," also saying that the reader should "...kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush." I'm sure you could find verses in the Bible that are more violent, but I doubt you'll find any comparable to the worst that Islam has to offer.

bpodgursky 10y ago

Islam, fundamentally, has no new testament equivalent. Christians can draw a line between old and new rules without theological issues. Jews interpret the old testament as laws for Jews, by Jews. There is no prerogative to convert. Islam has neither of those. It is a violent old testament with a legal code inscribed focused on converting or otherwise making lives miserable for other people of the book (not to mention what they consider pagans).

golergka 10y ago
Judaism also has Talmud and a long tradition of interpretations of the Torah.