And Who Else Might Be Violent?

Good site! I'll stay reading! Keep improving!

Asking such a question regarding whether Islam or any other religion such as Judaism, Christianity, etc. is as broad and inconclusive as asking are all the stars we see in the nighttime sky are physically identical. Every member of the faithful could answer that question by their actions; since actions and behaviors speak much louder than words and write more firmly then ink.
Despite what sermons and scripture says and how we've interpret them, the question regarding any religion's stance toward violence are answered by how the individual members of the faithful treats other people? Are these faithful individuals trustworthy? Can they be relied upon to contribute to the common good or what's only good for them? Do individuals of any faith charitable and law abiding? Also the most important question of all would be; does anyone among the faithful allow their interests to overshadow the truth, common sense, logic, reason and the law of a qualified civil society? Every member of any religious faith could answer these specified questions from their day to day actions, the decisions they’ve made, the impact that person has socially achieved with other people and most of all, would this person's existence be an overall benefit to all of humanity or would the world be better off if that particular person was never born?
These are the questions I think about when I conceive anyone regardless of cultural, national, racial, gender, age, philosophical and religious identities. I also think about the fact that despite my careful approach to conceiving people, there's always a possibility that my conceptions could be wrong.
That's the best way I could do in conceiving someone I meet, read about, or even talk about. But the question regarding any religion being violent is just simply too broad of a question to answer.

sflv deyq rfuyp tiayhwod wvsdhrxof wtbagkvn zhdvoj

sflv deyq rfuyp tiayhwod wvsdhrxof wtbagkvn zhdvoj

sflv deyq rfuyp tiayhwod wvsdhrxof wtbagkvn zhdvoj

The question is not whether or not a culture is violent, it is whether or not a religion is violent. All cultures are violent in one way or another...as humans are inherenly this way. But the issue at hand are those that profess to follow their beliefs and don't, and those who actually do. Muslims have the greatest "shield" and "reason" in the world to be violent: God tells them to for certain reasons. Why would they ever stop?

Sick and Insane Teachings of the TALMUD (MODERN JUDAHISM, NO WONDER RABBI's ARE ALL SECRET CHILD MOLESTORS):

Sanhedrin 55b . A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old).

Sanhedrin 54b . A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.

Gustav does have the following statement correct:

"..which is that we (Americans, among others) seem to like violence, or at least accord it value as entertainment"

The question Gustav does not seem to ask, or atleast he seems to not have the curiosity to delve is WHY DO AMERICANS HAVE A PASSION FOR VIOLENCE?????

I'll tell you why.

Because they have been PROGRAMMED TO!!!! BY the media (specifically TV and Radio), as well as the video games and sports events. This did not happen overnight, not by a long shot. It happened slowly. IT BEGAN WHEN THE KHAZARIAN JEWS CAME OVER HERE FROM EUROPE IN THE 1930'S!!!!!

Ever since that time, Hollywood has increasingly and ever so steadily injected more and more degrading and obscene movies and sitcoms.

Anyone with any education in the matters of speak of will agree. Others will again claim that we have just drank bad water.

WHOEVER USED MY NAME IN THE PRECEDING POST IS NOT VICTORIA THE MUSLIM WHO USUSALLY APPEARS

possibly there i another victoria, but i never once have called anyone stupid- ever- and especially not reasonable viejita

i sure hope some islamophobe isnt using my name to post hate messages

also i have my own clearly e.e. cummings style of writing

you can easily see the difference by my respectful and polite tone

Islam and viloence wouldn't have gotten much traction in the U.S. 25 years ago? Perhaps. But do you recall General "Black Jack" Pershing? I recently read an article and unfortunately do not remember from whence it came. I did copy this informative article as an excellent solution using the least amount of resistance. I will put it all in quotation marks---"Just before WWI, there were a number of terrorist attacks on the U.S. forces in the Philippines by Muslim extremists. So General Pershing captured 50 terrorists and had them tied to posts for execution. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the now horrified terrorists. Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are flthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won't even touch pigs at all, nor any of their by-products. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise (and those virgins) and doomed to hell. The soldiers then soaked their bullets in the pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad. The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist's bodies and covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc. They let the 50th man go. And for the next forty-two years, there was not a single Muslim extremist attack anywhere in the world. Maybe it is time for this segment of history to repeat itself, maybe in Iraq? The question is, where do we find another Black Jack Pershing?"
Since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, sin entered the world and man's heart. Until the Day of Judgement there will be violence, crimes of horrific nature beyond our imagining. One perfect Man came to earth, born, lived, died with all of mankind's sins---by His own choice-- so that on that Day when every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. He did that by defeating sin and death with His resurrection which the Muslim's deny.
The Muslims are extremists. They will not allow anyone to practice his faith or no faith in peace and without fear of persecution or death. They will not be satisfied until they have overcome all the world's resistance. They are the bloodiest of all, and the world has seen some bloody wars. They are worst on any of their own who try to leave the madness.
Thursday is the National Day of Prayer. This can be a powerful tool for those who love the Lord

ebplvwms vxhuibjay ihmptrlk xvftqap micakdfgu vljehkf nrgzoa http://www.caym.mrpnzhu.com

ebplvwms vxhuibjay ihmptrlk xvftqap micakdfgu vljehkf nrgzoa http://www.caym.mrpnzhu.com

ylcwb mxnyqu nbfk hkxoen rgpe uiexqp minq

The anonymous ones always have the "smartest" things to say. Easy to whisper from the shadows, isn't it? "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

To those who misunderstood my reference to the filmed "Passion" I was making a point about our fascination with violence. That film got more attention than many a legitimate religious conversation; it is more a part of our violent, nominally Christian but mostly secular culture than of any particular religion. Sorry, I thought the connection would be obvious.

Hey Courtney,

It's me: David! I am your friend, Hastey-man. Reduce your post length!

Henry James:

Since you are the Religious Forum Police, maybe you should write out another citation..

Anon

If a Muslim poster had submitted
over and over again
a 1,000 line post,

absolutely
i would tell him/her he is a sociopath
and advise him to get help
and to turn in his guns.

Submitting 1,000 line posts is sociopathic
no matter what religion you claim

Henry James:

Would you have said that to one of the Muslim posters?

Mav is right again Frank

you are a Terrorist

and you are a Sociopath.

look up the definition

you fit all 13 points

1000 line postings are just one sick symptom.

get help, man

you may be the next mass murderer.

Frank,

With your frequent lengthy post bombings, unceasing rants, fundamentalist and radical right wing interpretation of Islamic scripture, I would say you qualify as a terrorist. A comment board terrorist.

only one religion is violent - ISLAM. it is the only religion that even riots when they are criticized for spreading islam through violence. they had millions rioting over the pope saying it was evil to spread islam through violence. millions said it was a right given to them in the koran.
while individuals can violate their own tenants and force their religion on others, they have to violate their own religion to do it. islam, on the other hand, tells them to hate and murder to force islam on even thought who do not want to join.
when moho started this war, 1400 years ago, no one even knew of islam, so islamics would be hard pressed to say they were attacked first. and in 1400 years they have kept their attacks up.
while jews were disbanded by the romans, and the catholic church is no longer a secular power and does not act as one, while the hindu's no longer possess armies to enfore the desires of their masters, only islam continues to war with everyone not islamic, and a good number of those that are.

so lets look at some islamic history and not forget that it is in accord with the demands of islam that they took place, not inspite of the religious demands of islam. so lets look at the real cause of the crusades, islamics love to piss and moan about them.

The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

Jihadist

do you need a traveling secretary?
I have plenty of free time, being Dead.

You are always in such a hurry,
and you always energize and provoke and illuminate us.

Merci.

Bon Voyage.

....and I just saw Nabil Fahmy's thread. Let it flow......as always:)

Professor Niebuhr,

You are one of the On Faith panelists I always look forward to reading even when I should not due to time.

Good points raised by you as always. I submit to you, for your consideration, these very short observations (multiple points that should be elaborated, but I don't have the time):

Colonized lands in Africa, the Middle East are artificial borders. Colonial powers stitched domains of various and sometimes warring religious, cultural and ethnic groups into one adminstered state.

Colonized power controlled those lands by force of arms to bring order and peace (an oxymoron).

Colonized lands attained independence, mostly after WWII with violence in most cases, and great reluctance by colonial powers due to cost of WWII and weakened in every way by WWII. Would be nice to continue to have colonized lands in Africa and Asia that are almost unscath by the ravages of war in Europe for revenues to rebuild the ravaged lands and depleted revenues of the colonial powers.

Colonized lands, newly independent, find themselves inheriting problems left behind due to "artificial" borders, and to contend with myriad groups within, and resorted to force to maintain order, stability and national integrity. This at a time when their state capacities, human capabilities and abilities are still under-developed or developing, to address the problems and issues adequately.

Violence in the third world countries is very expensive in material and human cost for both individuals and states. An M16 or AK47 cost as much as it would to feed a family of four for a month at least. Buying a Soviet/Russian MIG plane cost more than building a hundred basic health clinics.

Third world states in inter-state and intra-state conflict are mired in underdevelopment as resources that should be spent on health, education and infrastructure are spent on security/armed forces. The best minds and resources of states are redirected and refocussed to addressing conflicts instead of needed national development.

Sub-state and non-state actors (including insurgents, seperatists, freedom fighters, terrorists) engaging in conflicts with states are usually funded and assisted by external third parties, including foreign governments and sympathetic organizations with specific interests.

Violence is not cultural-specific. It is a universal impulse to make a point - whether in frustration, anger, vengeance, and assertion of personal, group and national will. Usually as a last resort in most cases when demands are not meet or negotiations failed.

Muslims resorting to violence and in coopting Islam, specific Suras and Hadiths, or "new and revised interpretations" of the aforementioned, is a ready alternative to whomever they are against - including failed or repressive governments (regardless of form and ideology), or against colonizers/foreign occupiers. There is the convenience of not having to come up with new alternate "ideology" like fascism, Nazism, or communism as a compelling and unifying factor in the quest for justice, social justice and peace or any other objective. It worked for the independence movements in Muslim states. In post-independence times, with a few creative modifications and justifications, some activist and/or terrorist groups (including the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda) have done likewise to suit and attain their objectives.

By the way, on semantics, saying Islam is violent is like saying Christianity is violent. Should it not be Muslims or Christians are violent? However one look at it, both usage is generalized and inaccurate statements perpetuated by the mass media - just like "war on terror" or "war against terror". Should it not be "war on terrorism" or "war against terrorists"?

English can be confusing to non-native speakers. I have never heard of a "war against rape". As absurb as "war against drugs". Add "abuse" or "drugs cartel" in that sentence and it would make more sense.

Whenever anyone say we are having a "war against drugs", I have visions of bongs or poppers being nuked by Stealth bombers.

The mind is a terrible thing to have, er, to waste. So, what good is having a mind, in committing and loving mindless violence?

As always, from the young man who committed the mass murder at Virginia Tech to Al Qaeda, in committing violence, its perpetrators justify them. Are we listening, reading the signals and noticing the signs before they they took up arms and mow us down?

All religions are violent. That's what makes them religions -- people will kill and die for them.

New, growing religions tend to be more violent than old, declining religions. So while the Roman Empire and its antecedents were expanding, the violence of Christianity spanned the globe.

Now that the growth religion is Islam, Islamic violence is seen in places from Morocco to Indonesia (Indian subcontinent of 1 billion Hindus excepted). And of course, the fundamentalist Islamics see Christianity's violence in America's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Sorry, I meant to write, Every bonobo is BOTH homosexual and heterosexual, whenever it is convenient.

Mohamed MALLECK,

First, every bonobo is either homosexual or heterosexual, whenever it is convenient. Bonobos use sex as a bartering tool, and they are very peaceful, and matriarchal. In fact, humanity would do well to learn from bonobos' way of life. We are far too much like common chimpanzees nowadays.

Second, their being driven to extinction has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with their being peaceful or having homosexual. It has everything to do with the fact that the forests that they live in are being cut down by the hectares everyday. The armed militia in the Democratic Rep of Congo have hunted the bonobo for busmeat as the Congo is engaged in a civil war.

Your ignorance and willingness to distort the truth to cover up your own sexual insecurities is astounding and shameful, sir.

Nice article Prof. Niebuhr. Another suggestion! You have made some nice points.

RE: Mohamed MALLECK, Swift Current, Canada

Your comment was:
"Let me recall at least one important point -- it is not as if the best state for a moral individual to be in is absolute non-violence. It has again and again been pointed out by evolutionary biologists that the bonobo ape is threatened with extinction because it has not, during its evolution, developed the aggressive instinct to its optimal level. Bonobo apes deflect acts of aggression or hostility by going into a tantric dance of submission and it has been shown also that the prevalence of homosexuality is pronounced in them. Witin-specie the trantic dance results in homosexuality. "

So, what is your point, brother? Muslims are fighting for self-preservation? And failing to do so might result in them becoming homosexual (in addition to a possible "extinction")? Don't you see that as a rather preposterous and skewed explanation for all the violence that has been perpetrated in the name of Islam since around 600 AD?

RE Viejita del oeste:
Kinda stupid comparing the violence in a film (nonetheless directed towards Jesus, as Mavaddat rightly pointed out) to all the violence committed by radical islamo-facist groups!

you appear to have tried to change the topic. lots of people are and can be violent but what religion's "official" writings demand violence and what religions people will riot for the right to be violent and riot if anyone says that their religion is evil if they spread it through violence.
welcome to the wonderful world of islam.

Haloczel -

Dar al-Harb means "Abode of Warfare" and it was in use looooong before the term "Fascist" came to be used. Ignoring that "Islamofascism" is an essentially meaningless term meant to get people behind a cause by disgustingly referencing the worst crime in human history (I think the 4,000+ killed on 9/11 was terrible, but comparable to the 6,500,000 killed in the Holocaust? get real), you completely misinterpret it.

Dar al-Harb was in direct contrast to Dar al-Salaam ("Abode of Peace") because it was an area that Islamic law did not cover, thus it could not be guaranteed there was justice for a Muslim. It was assumed only Islamic law ensured peace and order. Whether that was the case or not is an entirely different matter...

One has to remember that ours is a violent society that comes from our genetic upbringing. In order to survive to the extent that we have, we have needed to adopt and adapt. Be it in adapting to the climate (by developing weapons to kill fur-bearing animals for clothing and food) to developing tribes and providing defense for those tribes by creating a military force, humanity has always lived with violence in close proximity.

Religion reflects that reality just as readily as our culture does. In the bible, there are atrocities that would turn a person's stomach that are divinely ordained and/or condoned, and yet today we look at the same atrocities being committed and cultures hardly bat an eyelash at the activities. The God of Islam is no more violent than the God of Christ or of Judaism since they all come from the same texts and have the same source. All of them are reflections of the violent world that they existed in at that time, trying to make sense of a world that seemed senseless.

Often I hear people talk about how theirs is a religion of peace, and yet in the same discussion they talk of wanting various groups and/or individuals dead. Theirs is a god of love, unless you're not a follower at which point you are fair game. If this sounds familiar, it should as it's been reflected repeatedly throughout history. The destruction of X because of Y is common, and the most common thread binding those actions is because of differences in belief.

The problem is how do you stop what cannot truly be stopped? We hear the words, but the actions that are carried out in the name of Allah/Jesus/Mohammad/God tend to be much louder. And in this day and age, it can be sent around the world within seconds, inciting others towards action... and the circle continues.

"Religions posessing twin capacities for immense destructuion and great societal benefience" is at least half correct. Immense destruction is the history of the three great faiths that begins with Israelites killing each other at the command of God. Islam has done nothing recently to counter the notion that it too, being of Moses origin, is a promoter of violence as a spreader of itself.

Moses sold his soul, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul and the great prophet of Islam, Muhammad is just another Moses imitator. Christianity certainly has a violent beginning that is white washed by Christian historians, the only historians that will be allowed to speak. Shall the history of Islam be white washed as well, in the interest of peace of course?

I'm still waithing for religion to do some "societal beneficence." Christians could begin by returning the gold to it's rightful owners that the pope so proudly displays in religious articles, in the interest of world peace of course.

According to my very modest thinking abilities, the substance of this essay is superb except for the last three paragraphs.

The 'cultural' or 'psychotic' fascination with individual or samll scale civilian acts of violence is very marginal relative to the mass killings of organised massacres, whether state/Geneva-Convention-sanctioned-and-declared wars or stateless-but-terror.group/network-organised terror wars, or resistance-movement-inspired-violence gone awry. It is an issue to be addressed by psychiatrists, but one must keep in mind the theses of R.D. Laing about the divided self.

Now, the other issue of organised wars. Somebody asked me when is it all right to kill a man and I answered. The next question is: when is it all right to wage organised wars or a just war? This is complex and involves issues of aggregation besides individual morality or individual values.

Let me recall at least one important point -- it is not as if the best state for a moral individual to be in is absolute non-violence. It has again and again been pointed out by evolutionary biologists that the bonobo ape is threatened with extinction because it has not, during its evolution, developed the aggressive instinct to its optimal level. Bonobo apes deflect acts of aggression or hostility by going into a tantric dance of submission and it has been shown also that the prevalence of homosexuality is pronounced in them. Witin-specie the trantic dance results in homosexuality. Across-species, conflicts lead to death because preparedness to stave off aggression with return violence is not deveoped.

House of War,Dar al-harb,an islamofacistical concept.

That means the land outside sharia law which rejects human rights,women rights,democracy and rationality.
That means the land where has not yet been subjugated and strictly speaking a perpetual state of Jihad,holy war.

Concept of Dar al-harb(house of war) fosters,encourages and feeds violence.

I wrote, I think that the Bush administration has taken to dominating the Middle East because of the Islamic threat.

And oil, of course. That's a nice bonus.

"And why, considering the stated aims of the Bush administration and of the clergymen who claim to speak for the U.S., do we find it so unlikely that Muslim societies would become so paranoid about our intentions that they would feel themselves at war with us and with the 'modernity' we represent?"

This is a good point, but I think that the causality is backwards. I think that the Bush administration has taken to dominating the Middle East because of the Islamic threat. The Islamic threat itself arose from the Middle Eastern resentment of the state of Israel, and a general distaste for what they see to be the lax moral atmosphere of the US, which they spread through a perceived cultural hegemony.

So it's all circular: The West becomes successful and threatens the values, culture, and land of the Muslims. The Muslims, in their turn, threaten the lives and values of the West. The West takes offence to this and threatens back, which further enrages the Muslims and so on...

Viejita del oeste,

Wasn't the violence in "the Passion" done by the Romans toward Jesus? How does that entice or justify violence? I find it a bit of unclear thinking to cite a movie that shows a man enduring violence as thereby inclining others to violence.

This gets to the point that some of the previous comments seemed to be reaching for. It brings up two problems that have bothered me about the question itself.

Who are we to decide who are what is inclined towards violence, when the most popular recent Christian film was the grisly -- and supposedly biblically accurate -- "Passion of the Christ"?

And why, considering the stated aims of the Bush administration and of the clergymen who claim to speak for the U.S., do we find it so unlikely that Muslim societies would become so paranoid about our intentions that they would feel themselves at war with us and with the "modernity" we represent?