One thing all Islamophobes agree upon is that Islam is more violent than any other religion. They bolster this claim by pointing out various passages in the quran that uphold violence. Now I’m not saying that these passages don’t exist. Nor am I saying that those passages are good. But how come we end up ignoring all the violent passages in other religions?
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t support any kind of violence – whether it’s preached in the quran or the bible. But I like to level my criticisms consistently. Though I’m an atheist, I was born a christian. So I have a pretty good understanding of what’s written in the bible and I can tell you, it ain’t pretty.
The bible is easily one of the most violent religious books in existence. Blow for blow it outshines even Islam in sheer brutality and in the advocation of race based mass genocide.
Now many will say that the bible also contains the teachings of Jesus which are peaceful. Many christians will say that the peaceful teachings of the bible overwrite the violent ones. This is blatantly false as Jesus himself clearly says that the Old Testament (where all the violence is) is still valid and everything in it must be followed. To quote:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)
Of course, we can’t look for consistency in religious books. There are enough conflicting passages in all religious texts to provide fodder that can fuel any ideology. You want to prove that the bible is violent? No problem! After all, few can dispute that the god of the bible is a psycopath who delights in murdering and torturing people en masse. You want to prove that Islam is peaceful? Hey, that’s true too! Just handpick your relevant sections and you can provide any front to those who don’t know better.
Given all this, it’s hypocritical to say that Islam is the most violent religion. The problem is not Islam per se since Islam relies solely on the quran which is as good/bad as the bible. So we must then also call christianity the most violent religion!
It’s high time people realized that the reason for violence is the people who choose to become violent. You can’t absolve them of responsibility saying that they were driven to violence because of an ideology. Cause there are enough peaceful passages even in the quran for them to pick up on if they want. Just like there’s no shortage of violence in the bible. Ultimately, one who wants to find an excuse to fight and is receptive to being brainwashed can find ample justification to do so no matter what their religion is.
So stop treating Islam as a pariah. I’m not fond of Islam myself since I’m not fond of any religion. But I get nauseous when I see the “holier than thou” attitude from people who say that their religion is all so pure and virtuous and that their religion doesn’t endorse violence of any kind – all the while turning a blind eye to passages in their holy books that approve of wholesale slaughter.
I hear you!
Yeah, if you ask me I would say that Islam is capable of being violent, because violence has been committed in the name of it. But the same can be said for Christianity and any other religion for that matter. You're correct, if you read the Qu'ran and Bible and compared the two, the Bible wins hands down as being more violent.
See that's religion for you, it's like a double edged sword, it can be used to enormous amounts of good, but then it's also capable of being used to do so much evil. It's no wonder people view religion as being irrational and unstable.
In reply to RenKiss
Irrational and unstable are good adjectives to use!
This (click) is what I'd written on a related topic. Also, if time permits do read the follow up post I had referred to in the first paragraph.
I agree with you largely.
But what is the index to estimate violence in a particular ideology? E.g., very few would say that Nazism was not violent, precisely because its progenitors had explicitly stated what kind of people to kill & why. So, followers of Nazism had killed those certain kind of people despite knowing that killing thus is wrong. Likewise, certain religious verses have instructions (which were propounded by humans, just like Nazism) on what kind of non-believers to kill, why & how. And certain believers choose to adopt that ideology & do what certain verses say…
In both the above cases to reject the ideology as a whole is a practical choice, so what do I think of those who do not reject them?
Let me point out that the typical transmission rate of HIV through needle prick is less than 1 % (depending on depth of penetration, viral load of infected blood, time of contact, etc.). Meaning, overall contribution to number of deaths through needle pricks is very minuscule. But that in itself is not a reason to not fear HIV transmission & consider it a threat. Medical workers are extra cautious when handling an HIV-positive person. In fact, there are elaborate protocols on how to respond in event of such contact. Even if you take prevalence of HIV as a whole, it is not very high, it's contribution to total number of deaths is only fractional, yet, the medical community is spending lot of time, resources and money to be able to prevent acquisition & transmission of HIV, & if possible, for finding a cure once AIDS sets in. Is this fear of HIV-AIDS & expenditure unjustified? I believe, not. Because of two reasons: any case of preventable death is bad, & efforts must be expended to prevent it. Second, if certain kind of threat to life/health ceases to exist, there would be much greater peace of mind (think of polio, it hardly kills people, but still efforts are on to try to eradicate it).
An ideology may not 'cause' a person to kill, but it greatly contributes to their feeling 'good' about killing & prevents them from feeling bad, and also prevents peers from intervening as that ideology would be elevated to the level of 'holy', 'divine' & 'unquestionable'.
In reply to Ketan
Had gone through your post on Islamophobia earlier.
And you're right about what you say – that an ideology prevents others from intervening. The ideology provides a nice outlet for urges that are already there in a person. Also, some ideologies refer to killing in vague terms which can be interpreted in any way one chooses. For example, Krishna tells Arjun to "do his duty" and kill. Given a creative imagination, anything can become a "duty" – it's only a question of rationalizing to oneself properly and Voila – divine sanction!
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
Bhagwad,
Usually I don't believe in quotations, because I don't feel just because somebody famous had said so, it needs to be the best assertion. But one thing that I had been quite skeptical of, but quite lately started agreeing with is this:
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." – Steven Weinberg
I have seen many people claim that terrorists are cowards. But I very strongly disagree. Okay perhaps, those who just plant a bomb somewhere and escape to foreign countries that might provide them safe haven might be called cowards, that too stretching the definition of cowardice too much. But think of suicide bombers or gunmen who go on a rampage, can one honestly claim what they are doing is cowardice? We hate such people, but obfuscation is something that irritates me. A person fighting for one's country, or an NSA soldier or a fire fighter or even those who were involved in the 26/11 attack – all require to muster lot of courage for what they do. Of course, the consequences of the last would be considered dishonorable by many. To those who claim that the definition of courage depends not on the nature of risk posed to one's life and well being, but rather depends on the consequences of that act, I would like to ask: given a choice would you have gone to fight the terrorists involved in 26/11, would you have stuck explosives to your jacket and killed the terrorists by becoming a suicide bomber? Would knowing that the consequences of your act be noble (saving the lives of so many people and killing coward terrorists) make you cross the barrier of fear of injury and death? I'm assuming that most honest people would reply in negative. The point I am trying to make is that religious zeal makes it easier to overcome the above barrier. Of course, there are other kinds of zeals also (nationalism, loyalty to mafia, anti-statism, etc.)….
In reply to Ketan
I'm sure being a suicide bomber requires lots of courage. In fact, the comedian Bill Maher made this point after 9/11 and got fired from his show "Politically Incorrect" for that statement.
Plus of course believing in an afterlife makes it a bit easier to kill oneself. Not a lot easier mind you, but I imagine it helps…
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
…To briefly describe my personal journey, till I was in class 7, I used to believe in the concept of soul, reincarnation, and also that gods like Ram and Krishna truly used to live and more so, with the divine powers that were attributed to them. I was also inclined to believe the crap like "'Pushpak' of Ramayan was the modern aeroplane" and that "'Brahmastra' was the nuclear bomb" [of course, you know this kind of Hindu chest-thumping so these examples should suffice]. But in parallel, I had also started reading books like the "Young Scientist" [from the same publishers as some famous series called 'Child craft' if I remember the name properly]. Gradually, as I started understanding science better & I turned monotheist, my God started becoming less intrusive, and eventually he became deist. There was a point I turned agnostic and ultimately ended up as negative atheist. I can claim to have lived in a colony full of scientists and engineers with one of the best academic atmospheres, with some of the best teachers, with access to very good books on science. I used to ask my teachers lot of doubts and in turn answer lot of questions – I was praised for all this. But in certain ways, all this was also an accident! That served as a reinforcement for my attitude of critical thinking and enquiry. What would have been the case had these been not available? Had my parents been living in some village or obscure town, where there would have been very little encouragement to learn science? Where had I asked doubts, I would have been asked to keep quiet as asking doubts would be considered an insult or lack of faith? Or where I would have been encouraged to come up with my far more fantastic theories on why Hinduism was the bestest religion? Where no one would have questioned me on my fantastic theories as that would have been seen as affront to the greatness of Hinduism? Can you see what kind of warped World would have shaped me? While I cannot be sure, I think I might have got 'committed' to the path of mysticism and lost greatness of Hindu culture, which I might have been trying to restore, just like so many Hindus are trying to do. Every society promotes certain degree of religiosity. The problem with religiosity is not the verses per se, but the kind of social milieu that allows such verses to be regarded as 'holy', 'divine' and 'unquestionable'. The social milieu preserves the verses, and precisely those verses preserve the social milieu. It is for preservation of this milieu that I hold religion (and the verses) responsible. You might argue that each thing that I thought that led me to adoption of science, skepticism and naturalism was out of my own volition and free will, but honestly, I am not that confident. So not everything in what shaped me or my opinions and dispositions was purely a matter of choice. True, every human being has a volition, but to think that social conditioning plays no role would certainly be not wise….
In reply to Ketan
I fully believe that a person is almost entirely shaped by their circumstances and a bit by their inherent nature. This raises interesting questions for the concept of free will – and I've reached the conclusion that in the final analysis, choice is an illusion. An important illusion that keeps us sane, but an illusion nonetheless.
It also raises important questions in the field of "punishment" and morals. How can god send you to hell for example if you didn't really have a choice…!
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
Hahaha!
I couldn't have agreed more. You would be surprised to read this (click). My knowledge of quantum physics is quite rudimentary, and especially your being from physics background might make this sound silly, but would love to have your ideas on this post called Free Will (click).
Forget punishment by God, many times, I wonder about the futility of making moral judgments about others' and my own actions, given the conviction I have in determinism (which sort of rules out free will). :)
Thanks!
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
…I would like to bring out another example. Maybe, I had watched this on News X. It was a case of Khap honor killing, and the grandparents of the girl who had been murdered by the in-laws were being interviewed. The grandparents were crying inconsolably. Despite my skepticism, I did not feel that they were putting up an act (of being sympathetic and feeling a sense of loss), because of what they said, which I vaguely remember and paraphrase in English:
"What to do, our kids (both the bride and the groom) were naive, they had fallen in love with each other, but that our society does not allow! We loved our bitiya a lot. But they had broken the rule of the society, they had to be killed; those who killed them did the right thing" [Had they been lying, perhaps, they would have said something politically and legally more correct, which would have reduced their chances of being jailed; I don't know if they were jailed or not but perhaps a case of 'abetting' murder could have been made against them].
There is some debate whether Hindu scripture supports or opposes same-gotra marriage or not, but that is just not the issue, as you might easily recognize. The issue is that the villagers (including the daughter's grandparents) felt they were doing the right thing as the scripture/society prescribed it. Remove the factor of divinity of scripture and the status they enjoy, then on what pretext would have the grandparents allowed or supported the killing of their granddaughter who they loved so much? Again I am hazarding a guess, none. So, it was their religious belief that led them to do something that was very strongly discouraged by their conscience and love for their granddaughter.
Most phenomena in the universe, I believe are multifactorial, some factors increase the chances of occurrence of those phenomena, others decrease. Likewise, certain aspects of civilizations and societies discourage some acts and encourage others. What is encouraged would be done more commonly by people, what is discouraged would be less common. Yes, non-religious persons can commit crimes, or even religious persons can commit crimes for entirely non-religious reasons, but there is at least a subset of crimes that are committed overcoming higher barriers of conscience, abhorrence for violence, risk-benefit considerations, simply because verses and religions support such acts.
In reply to Ketan
The instance you gave is (I feel) a situation where religion diktats merged into social custom. Now while it's true that the grandparents used the crutch of religion to support their actions, I also think there are inherent urges in us humans that make us "punish" those who flout social norms.
After all, as a race we have survived largely because of our societal instinct. I'm hardly surprised to find that impulses that strengthen the coherence of a group by establishing and enforcing group norms are strong. Even without religion, the grandparents would have simply replaced religion with "It's not our custom" or "Society doesn't allow it!"
Ultimately this sort of group based religion is an outgrowth of our societal instincts merged with our desire to accept authority and probably more factors that I haven't thought of. Which is why mankind still sticks to religion so strongly. There's some inherent force in us that tilts us towards it.
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
Bhagwad,
But the thrust of my argument is that their most native instincts did not allow them to have their granddaughter killed – they had loved her too much. Perhaps, to give an analogy, sanction from society/religion acted like the overcoming of activation energy of a chemical reaction at least in this instance.
And look carefully at the same-gotra thing. Actually to maintain certain kind of exclusivity in membership of the gotra, same-gotra marriages should have been promoted, instead of being opposed! I've not been able to unearth any kind of rationale behind this proscription. Someone on twitter had claimed that same-gotra marriage amounted to incest, but I pointed out that since there was no consanguinity, it was wrong to consider it incestuous.
To repeat another analogy, the role of religion/tradition (is there any strong distinction between the two) in causing violence is similar to that of cigarette smoking in causing lung cancer. Lung cancer can occur in absence of cigarettes smoking owing to a carcinogen 'c'; it can also occur in absence of c, if the person smokes, but if a person is exposed to both c and smoking then lung cancer becomes lot more likely and severe. Of course, in exceptional cases it would occur in absence of both c and smoking, or alternatively, despite exposure to both, it might not occur! :)
In reply to Ketan
You're right that family instincts would have not led the grandparents to kill the girl. But my point is that there is another instinct that makes people punish those who flout social norms and that instinct is innate in our species just like the urge to love and protect one's children is an innate instinct.
It depends on which instinct is stronger. The stronger the group/community feeling the stronger will be the instinct to kill the girl because she flouted social norms.
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
Bhagwad,
With regard to Krishna convincing Arjun to fight, I was never convinced that Pandavas were in a more righteous position. For, Kauravas were the rightful inheritors of the Kingdom. So though, Duryodhan had been cruel and unethical in denying even a few villages for subsistence of Pandavas (convention was to allot at least some small kingdom to all the princes [including cousins] from where they could collect taxes), I never felt that 'Dharma' as people like to put it was on the side of Pandavas.
There is another conspiracy theory to explain this! ;) Okay, you might wonder about my penchant for conspiracy theories, that I am not even sparing mythical tales, but if you had NCERT Hindi course till tenth class, you would have read a one-act play by Bharat Bhushan Agarwal called 'Mahabharata ki Ek Saanjh', where the author argues that the names of Duryodhana and Duhshasana were actually 'Suyodhana' and 'Suhshasana' respectively and that Pandavas upon winning the war got all history written according to their wishes, that is why they appeared so goody-goody!
But still some might argue that Krishna was not wrong in that he was only asking to do what ethics demanded, and that too did not command but at least left it on the discretion of Arjuna.
I will cite even more glaring but easily-missed-by-people-examples of what could have been wrong with traditional Hinduism:
1. Have you seen the 'fan-shakers' in mythological serials and movies who would stand besides the King's throne and ventilate him? I don't know if this is faithful representation of how things used to be, what surprises me, is that people of India (in particular, Hindus) find nothing objectionable about this clear stratification of 'Class I' citizens – the king and 'Class II' citizens – the fan shakers. What is interesting is that even the pious kings like Krishna and Ram would enjoy these facilities in these representations. It never occurred to these gods that they were promoting the idea of sharp social stratification by enjoying those services and not even trying to correct them. Why should a king only because of accident of birth in a palace enjoy those comforts at the cost of brawn of some other people who were not fortunate enough to have taken birth? Did these megalomaniacal kings not find all this wrong? Similar is the case of existence of the maid – 'Manthra' in Ramayana. It seems she was a 'family domestic help', meaning her job profile was determined by circumstances of birth. This comes close to the concepts of caste, bonded labor and even slavery. But did Ram object? Not in my reading of Ramayan.
2. Sita had asked to hunt down Golden deer for her. Okay, there is elaborate mythical explanation that it was some asura called 'Marichha' who had wanted to tempt Ram away from Sita, so that Ravana could kidnap Sita. But what is surprising is that Ram never even once chastised Sita on the lines of "why do you want an innocent deer killed merely for pleasure? Why cause avoidable death?" And well, Ram is considered to be template of moral propriety. :) [This example had been highlighted by a blogger called Stupidosaur, so credit goes to him].
But still perhaps, what is good about these epics is that their modification is allowed. Their alteration is not considered blasphemous. Perhaps, that is what had allowed so many very different versions of Ramayan and Mahabharata to exist.
In reply to Ketan
As a student of the Mahabharat, I can tell you that Duryodhana was indeed called Suyodhana – and many other names too!
As far as the fan wavers go, I don't have an issue with servants per se as long as they get paid well. What I have an objection to is if they're forced to wave fans because of their birth. Of course, one might argue that the very concept of a king by birth is a form of caste discrimination…
It's fun to pick out little flaws in stories – like you did with the deer isn't it?
Go Bhagwad!
With the caveat that I dont know much abt the religious texts of even my faith, let alone others, I quite endorse your stand here.
In this context I would like to appreciate Nick Kristof's recent oped in the NYT apologizing to Muslims.
thanks,
Jai
PS: You asked me abt my blog. Well I do have a blog at jaicsDOTblogspotDOTcom that I update very infrequently.
If I understood your desire to "know more abt me" correctly :-) , it wont help you much. so let me tell you upfront.
Blogwise, I mainly spend time at Dilip D'souza: dcubedDOTblogspotDOTcom and read most of the blogs on his sidebar.
But I also read a clutch of blogs at INI (acorn and retributions) that I told you about.
you, Ketan, wisedonkey and IHM are recent additions to my reading list.
In reply to Jai_C
Gotcha! I'll take a look at some of the blogs :)
I too read Nick's editorial. For those who're interested, here's the link.
Good one.
The real problem is focusing on only one group of people. For example , people focus on only the "violent" part of followers of any religion but fail to take note of the vast majority of peaceful followers.
In reply to Indian Pundit
That too. Taking the total percentage of Muslims on earth, the number of violent followers would be just 0.01% – that is 100,000 violent Muslims out of a population of 1 Billion!
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
The violent part is doing something that matters to others. The peaceful felas are just singing their peace anthems and not making any difference to their violent counterparts are making. It is completely justified.
In reply to SJA
"It is completely justified."
What is?
Good point.
My take: if you look into middle ages, there were lots of wars in the name of christianity. After few centuries, its followers realized that its no good being violent and mellowed it into what it is now – a religion of peace (as they say). It is the same with Islam. Once these guys realize it is no good for them, Islam will become a religion of peace too.
Also it is the inherent need of every human to say ‘I’m powerful than you’ – it could be religion, cast, language, region, country, color whatever else it is.
Otherwise the labels of ‘violent religion’, ‘religion of peace’ are all just chocolate wrappers.
In reply to Joseph
Yup – the underlying cause is people. Religion is just the excuse.
Pal, I can only assume this is because I see hateful posts all over the Internet saying that Muslims are the root cause of all problems etc…So I just like to bring some balance.
By the way, why don't you put your blog URL in your profile here: http://intensedebate.com/profiles/rishi4fun . Edit your profile : http://intensedebate.com/editprofile That way I can get a link to your blog whenever you comment…
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
Don't get me wrong, Bhagwad, I wasn't referring to you – I was just wondering aloud, about why everybody is trying to defend Muslims around the world. And on the other hand, I guess I would defend Hindus too, if there was a mass generalisation that all Hindus are Saffron terrorists!! I'm just disappointed about the way our world works… everything works on the misuse of politics, power, money and religion. Instead of progressing towards higher goals of improving the life of people around us, we only go a step backward every time! and to think that religion that is supposed to unite, is the primary cause of problems!!
In reply to Pal
Pal and Bhagwad,
Sorry for butting in!
The reasons for this phenomenon are complex and many.
Of course, most prominent reason is that Muslims have been stereotyped and on a logical level, such stereotyping is wrong.
But the other reason is the guilt complex induced by coverage of their plight, which is in excess of coverage of groups that are similarly marginalized and the insinuation that directly/indirectly the other communities are responsible for all this (Bhagwad perhaps does not agree with this contention :) ).
Another reason is the fact that in our criticism of religion, we (especially so the theists) studiously avoid critiquing the reprehensible parts of faith (including Islam). It is so common to find people proclaim, "all religions teach love and peace, etc.", but this is far from truth. To console ourselves that we are not being dishonest, we overcompensate by sympathizing with Muslims. This was pointed out by 'Oldtimer' on my blog. What guides this covering up is the realization that the moment we criticize Islam or Muslims, they can also criticize our religion. But we do not usually want 'outsiders' to critique our own religion. To pre-empt that we ourselves criticize select people from our religion (not the religion itself) and avoid critiquing what is truly reprehensible in others' religion. This is the theist quid pro quo – "you keep mum about/praise my religion, I will do the same to yours" ["we"/"our" refers only to theists who indulge in this, and not me, as I am atheist].
I know, I had said the above things before also, but thought it was pertinent here, too.
I read the article by Nicholas Kristof, and one might accuse me of nit-picking, but I found in it something very typical of these kind of articles:
1. "girls kept out of school in Afghanistan in the name of religion" and "girls subjected to genital mutilation in Africa in the name of Islam" [Meaning, Islam/religion is not to be blamed; it has no role in what happens, and is totally absolved, and the only persons to be blamed are those committing the crime]
2. "who are inspired by the Koran to risk their lives to help others" [Means, Koran had at least some role in making people risk their lives and do good things. Nice!].
And who said religion is supposed to unite us! That would be the job of morality, ethics and simple pragmatism, which have nothing really to do with religion!
In reply to Ketan
I'm not so sure that criticizing a religion will help its followers see it better. If we were all logical, then this might work. But it usually makes the other person defensive and achieves the opposite result – namely a stronger affiliation to their religion when it's under threat.
But one thing i never understood is why most of the terrorists are following Islamic region and why they think their religion is in danger from others.
Why the feel insecure ?
My recent post 10 things I want to do or have !
In reply to Abhishek
Throughout the 70s , 80s , extremist elements of that religion received massive funding by a certain USA and its client states like Pak and friends like Saudia. These extremist elements have now achieved a life of their own……and doing all sorts of activities.
Repeated attacks on muslim countries by US is also responsible for their rise.
More than 2 million muslims were killed in the last decade……and this suffering is exploited by fanatics……..
My recent post The stupidity of the average man
In reply to Indian Pundit
You're right IP – that could be a major reason for it.
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
India Pundit and Bhagwad,
I am not sure. If what Indian Pundit points out were indeed true, then all that violence would have been directed against outsiders. But I have the impression that countries/societies from where the most terrorists originate have lot of violence directed against their own members who had not harmed them, so against those innocent Muslims there is nothing to really avenge.
In reply to Ketan
Well if a country like Pakistan is anything to go by, the attacks on its own citizens stem from a perceived collaboration between the "outsiders" and the "traitors" in the government…so there would be no attacks if the outsiders were absent in the first place.
In reply to Abhishek
"Chomsky points out that an analysis of official data for the government-supported RAND corporation found that the invasion of Iraq caused a "seven-fold increase in jihadism." If you really hate jihadism, you have to figure out what reduces it, rather than engage in bluster."- Johann Hari , british journalist after reading
"Hopes and Prospects" by chomsky
My recent post The stupidity of the average man
Yes, the concept of afterlife helps a lot. I feel sorry for people when they feel guilty for some misfortune as they would think that it is owing to some bad deeds that might have done in previous incarnations.
Afterlife and the theory of Karma (the rewards/punishments for deeds in one life are experienced in subsequent lives) seem to allow people of higher social/economic class to treat badly those from lower stratum.
one who wants to find an excuse to fight and is receptive to being brainwashed can find ample justification to do so no matter what their religion is.
Well said. It is the close minded nature of a certain people who are unable to tolerate others that causes such problems.