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.
Ketan and Bhagwad
Firstly , you guys FIRST need to understand the PRIMARY motives of islamist extremists…..
1)PRIMARY MOTIVE :
Over throw of their respective states govt. which extremists consider as "puppets" of west ……..
For example , overthrow of the saudi king is the main motive of alqueda. Also note that , most govt. of Islamic countries are either dictatorships or dysfunctional democracies. Thats their primary aim.
Simply put: Establishing a taleban like state after overthrowing the "puppets" of the west……..thats their primary motive.
2)SECONDARY MOTIVE:
kicking out foreigners and western influence from their "islamic" lands. Palestine , Kashmir , Chechnya etc are some examples.
However , vast number of non-muslims dont know the above mentioned "primary motive"
Lastly , this "primary motive" was also because of USA. Initially during the early 70s , many Islamic countries were following something called "Islamic Socialism" . US , in order to counter that , started funding the extremists and encouraged them to rebel against their leaders using religion.
Thus we have these extremists…….its a complex process……
My recent post The stupidity of the average man
In reply to Indian Pundit
I agree – it is complicated IP. The situation has less to do with religion and more to do with the way things have been influenced by politics and economics…
My recent post Is Islam really the most violent religion
In reply to Indian Pundit
you should read Peace Not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter , former president of US
Disagree in few places.
All religious books have violent passages, and all religions have extremists. Its the deadly combination of these extremists interpreting those passages, and what number of them all matter. Just to quote , violent religion is not rated by passages alone, it is majorly due to its interpretation and practice.
Simple question, if you were asked rate all religions 1 to 10 for violent interpretations, how would they stand?
My recent post Snake charmers and goat eaters
In reply to bachodi
Well, let me think. I'm actually very handicapped since I haven't read enough of the quran to make a judgement. I know a good bit about hinduism though and there's not much gratuitous violence which is a good thing – though violence in the name of dharma and duty leaves a wide hole which can be exploited by those who choose to define "duty" as anything they want.
The bible is very much more violent than anything I've read in Hinduism though. And since the OT is common to both the bible and quran, there's a lot of convergence so christianity and islam are on the same pedestal IMHO….
Buddhism, Taoism etc are all are of course leagues apart – you can't find violence there, though "bushido" talks about doing your duty just like HInduism and if that involves violence then so bit it…
@bhagwad
I appreciate your comments but your comments would have more weight had you read the Quraan to form a correct opinion.
Again there is a question what is it that you call violence in Quraan?
If you fight religious persecution with force do you call it violence?
If Quraan says a murderer should be killed in retaliation for a murder unless the dependents of the deceased agree to forgive or accept blood money do you call it violence?
If Quraan says fight in the way of Allaah those who fight you do you call it violence?
If a muslim is allowed to protect his life, honour, family or property with all his might do you call it violence?
It is the Quraan which says if anyone kills an innocent person it is as if he has killed the whole humanity and if anyone save one person it is as if he has saved the whole humanity.
It is Islaam which prohibits muslim armies from killing women, children,aged and infirm people even in the battlefield.
it is Quraan which says there is no compulsion in religion.
The name itself means peace then how can Islam advocate violence.
How many armies in the history of the world have you seen forgive the people who persecuted them, killed their kith and kin and forced them out of their lands to migrate to another city.Muhammad(saw) was the one who forgave all his tormentors on his conquer of makkah and even forgave his sworn enemies.
Still you call Islaam as violent.
Why is it that Islaam is put to trial for what muslims do and the same was not done for Hitler, Mussolini, Veerappan, phoolan devi, Prabhakaran? Why ?
In reply to ajaz
Hitler, Mussolini, Veerappan, Phoolan Devi, Prabhakaran etc did not kill others simply because they refused to accept the dominance of their religion. In other words, Hitler did not kill because he was a Catholic…and so on. Osama bin Laden not only kills because he is a Muslim, he cites that as a call to murder. There is a distinction here. I would believe that all peaceful Muslims should be enraged at the idea of their religion being used as a pretext to violence.
My recent post A post on the lack thereof
I do not deny that some muslims these days resort to terrorism but where was this so called Islamic terrorism 20 years back???
If Islam was violent you would have seen terrorism throughout the last 1500 years and it would not be a recent phenomena.
Throwing of bombs and suicides bombs were not started by muslims but IRA and LTTE did it much before some muslims started doing it.
Still you blame Islam for terrorism.
Let me clarify here that i denounce suicide bombing and killing of innocent people in strongest possible terms as being acts strictly forbidden by Islaam but it is sheer ignorance and ignorant wickedness to blame Islaam for something it prohibits.
In reply to ajaz
Thanks for commenting Ajaz. The main point of my post was that Islam is not responsible for the actions of a few people and that there are 1 Billion muslims with only a few of them becoming violent…
At the same time, some of the material you've talked about – for example instances were force is sanctioned are open to interpretation. For example, someone could call the act of the pastor in the US (the threat of burning the quran) as "religious persecution" and use force to kill him. So that's my point. Depending on the mindset of the person involved, anything can be interpreted in a way that sanctions violence even for trivial things…
In reply to ajaz
You are either deluding yourself or, more likely, practicing Taqiyya when you ask “where were acts of terrorism 20 years ago” There have ALWAYS been acts of terror perpetrated by muslims, since mohammad had his first pipe dream over 600 years after the Birth of Christ! The Crusades people are always tasking Christians about were a DEFENSE against muslims violent expansion into Christian lands! Keep lying, youll get your 72 virgins yet.
In reply to Marie
Defense? What happened to turning the other cheek?
Good article Bhagwad. All religions have violent edicts in them. Some chose to focus on it while others ignore them. One of the definitions of violence is "exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse". Izaz's question: "If Quraan says a murderer should be killed in retaliation for a murder unless the dependents of the deceased agree to forgive or accept blood money do you call it violence?". The answer is obviously yes. It is a violent act. Irrespective of what the murder did or what the dependents of the deceased say, the very act of executing a human being is a violent act whether it is done by an individual, group or the state.
My recent post News Broadcasters Association of India Self Censorship
In reply to Hari
Yes Hari – Violence is violence irrespective of the disguise. Who is to say for example, that the victim would accept such a trade, where his/her life is traded off for blood money or forgiveness…
Nice one. I agree, all religions have their embarrassing bits not only condoning violence, but requiring it. Having given that discount to Islam, one needs to accept the fact that the violent phase of Christianity happened long ago, and as always, the religion has evolved into a more peaceful stage. Islam, on the other hand, is a much younger religion, and it is still in its violent stage. The problem is, today's world has nuclear weapons in it. If one of the people who choose to literally obey the violent portions of the Quran gets hold of a nuclear weapon, he can single-handedly destroy all of civilization. This is why one must take a realistic stand on this issue. While Christians commit crimes today, those crimes are rarely of religion, and even if they are, the casualties are nowhere near those from an Islamic attack. I am an atheist myself, and nothing embarrasses me as a human being more than organized religion. I just think that while we acknowledge the fact that all religions are violent in one way or another, we must append a realistic assessment of danger perceived by us to our analysis of any religion.
My recent post A post on the lack thereof
In reply to liberalcynic
I agree – the dangers of violence these days is far greater than what it used to be. But tell me, suppose Islam didn't exist. Would the violence stop, or would these people simply find another excuse to kill people – either in the name of race, or nationalism or something like that?
In reply to liberalcynic
I have a slightly different view. The question of what would happen if a person who obeys the violent portions of the Quran gets hold of a nuclear weapon can be addressed to a Christian as well. What would happen if fundamentalist Christians who cannot wait for the end times to arrive get hold of a nuclear weapon? Also we should remember that it is a democratically elected secular American government that dropped the bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So can we blame a fundamentalist Muslim if he/she made errors in judgment?
Then there is a question of perception. I agree that the most violent parts of Christian history ended some time ago (we should not ignore the religious and racial motivations that drove Hitlers Germany). But today the United States and Great Britain are thought of as Christian empires by many in the Muslim world. An American attack on Iraq and Afghanistan are perceived as Christian attack on Islam whether it is a valid assumption or not.
My recent post CWG- India Taking Unfair Criticism
Words of Swami Vivekananda ring true more than a century later: There has not been a religion that has clung to this dualism more than that founded by the Prophet of Arabia, and there has not been a religion which has shed so much blood and been so cruel to other men. In the Koran there is the doctrine that a man who does not believe these teachings should be killed; it is a mercy to kill him! And the surest way to get to heaven, where there are beautiful houris and all sorts of sense-enjoyments, is by killing these unbelievers. Think of the bloodshed there has been in consequence of such beliefs!
In the religion of Christ there was little of crudeness; there is very little difference between the pure religion of Christ and that of the Vedanta. You find there the idea of oneness; but Christ also preached dualistic ideas to the people in order to give them something tangible to take hold of, to lead them up to the highest ideal.
(I have the web link to this article but it no longer works… it is from his 'Practical Vedanta' lecture series).
In reply to Phase Shift
Like I mentioned PS, by picking and choosing, we can make even the bible seem peaceful. It's not.
Stop this Bullshit. Humans are evil, thats it. Go on with your useless debate, you elite Indians are doing nothing good to this world
Who start World War I where 17 million people killed?
France, Russia, Britain against Germany. Mostly Christians.
Not Muslim!
Who Start WW II where 55 million people killed? It’s Christians!
Read more war such as Crusade War, Iraq and Afghanistan War at: http://islammyreligion.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/is-islam-the-most-violent-religion-in-the-world