Does religion make Muslims more violent?

[45'22']

True, so where is the word "Achoot" derived from?

From the rig veda
We had the concept of Varn
which classifies humans into 4 categories as you know
the categories being Brahmin,kshatriyas,vaishyas and shudras

What people don't know is according to rig veda all humans are born shudras and based on his education and his qualities he will be categorized into his respective place(think of this as Harry potter with the 4 houses)

But as time passed away ....this system was closed and due to vested interests the caste system was started which was more because of the culture and less because of the religion

The caste system made the shudras as untouchables which you call achoot but now a days most of us do not believe in that concept.however I agree it still exists in some religious institutions and has to be abolished

 

[Turkish_FR]

Its just what we are trying to prove to the western world that Islam is a religion of peace.

Sorry, why are you trying to prove that ? Why you feel like you need to do that ? and another question, why Western people ? while there are much more people in the east ? What makes Westerners more important for you ?

 

[TankMan]

Don't worry, we won't be surprised if a Syrian or an Afghan shows up. But its not them attacking us, is it? Why is the guy who planned 9/11 a person of Pakistani descent (from Kuwait, no less)? Why were majority of the attackers from the KSA? What did we ever do to them? Why is the Times Square bomber Pakistani? Why are the London bombers of Pakistani descent? What did we do to Pakistan, other than not supporting you in your pissing contest with India, that would make you so hostile? There is a civil war in middle eastern countries, not because we attacked but because they don't know how to take care of themselves. They hated Saddam, we got rid of him now their fighting among themselves. How is that our fault? After the WWII, Germany and Japan went on to become successful societies. How is it that Iraq couldn't do it? We pumped in a lot of money into Iraq after Saddam. Why is it an abject failure? Why do you think Muslim countries need an autocrat just to keep them from self-destructing? Before you blame us for your failings, you need to take a good, hard look at yourself and ask yourself why among 50 odd Muslim countries, only a handful are successful, progressive states and why the rest either have to be ruled with an iron fist or are in complete chaos.

The real problem isn't terrorists. Every religion has its share of nutjobs. The real problem is people like you who make excuses and provide cover for what these people are doing. US attacks Iraq, we've got an idiot from some other country who's butthurt. What's the connection? Could it be your religion? Or are planning on living in denial for the rest of your life?

Your wall of text misses the point entirely. I never said it was only your or the US's fault. I said it was political warfare and conflicts that create terrorists. That means two or more sides are involved in it. Not just the US. Undoubtedly, many Muslim countries did a lot wrong. But that does not, in any way, make Islam responsible for it.

Don't worry, we won't be surprised if a Syrian or an Afghan shows up. But its not them attacking us, is it? Why is the guy who planned 9/11 a person of Pakistani descent (from Kuwait, no less)? Why were majority of the attackers from the KSA? What did we ever do to them? Why is the Times Square bomber Pakistani? Why are the London bombers of Pakistani descent? What did we do to Pakistan, other than not supporting you in your pissing contest with India, that would make you so hostile?

The Pakistanis who attack you and fight you are also fighting other Pakistanis and murdering our children. Forgot APS? You lost around 4000 people to 'Islamic' terrorists, we lost 40,000. If you're asking what you did to Pakistan, I'll ask what Pakistan did to those people.

Your country has done a lot, by the way. From drone attacks to sanctions, hypocrisy, hostile operations and activities (remember Salala Checkpost?). But It's politics and admittedly Pakistan has done enough too. That's practically how modern geopolitics work.

And by the way, you are wrong - the US did support Pakistan in it's 'pissing contest' with India, when it suited US interests to counter Soviet Russian influence from India.

There is a civil war in middle eastern countries, not because we attacked but because they don't know how to take care of themselves. They hated Saddam, we got rid of him now their fighting among themselves. How is that our fault?

Oh, how is it your fault? (By you, I mean US, since you seem to be very patriotic about it.)

Did the US support Saddam Hussain when it suited them, despite his clear violations of human rights and international law?
Did the US allow Saddam to develop chemical weapons when it suited them?
Did the US play games with Iraq as a puppet against Iran?
Did the US invade Iraq under a false pretext and false accusations?
Did the US directly support 'moderate terrorists' in Syria, Iraq's neighbor, to overthrow Assad?
Did the US provide weapons to said 'moderate' terrorists?

The answer to all those is 'yes, the US did it'. There you go, that's how it's 'your' fault.

By the way, you meant 'they're', not 'their' (highlighted in red). 'Their' shows possession, 'they're' is a short form of 'they are'.

After the WWII, Germany and Japan went on to become successful societies. How is it that Iraq couldn't do it? We pumped in a lot of money into Iraq after Saddam. Why is it an abject failure?

Germany and Japan were not divided among themselves in fifty ways and did not have militant groups active within them.
And Germany remained an 'abject failure' for a long time after WW2, when it was split into two by the Berlin wall. Sure, they never tried attacking anyone, because one side had brutal STASI to prevent that while the other was too deep down NATO to decide anything for itself, while the two blocs were forced into relative peace by the threat of nuclear annihilation.

Before you blame us for your failings, you need to take a good, hard look at yourself and ask yourself why among 50 odd Muslim countries, only a handful are successful, progressive states only a handful are successful, progressive states and why the rest either have to be ruled with an iron fist or are in complete chaos.

You are wrong, factually.
Out of 50 odd Muslim countries, the majority are actually pretty much alright. Only a few of them are in chaos or 'ruled with an iron fist'.
Let's see:

1. Islamic Republic of AFGHANISTAN
2. Republic of ALBANIA
3. People’s Democratic Republic of ALGERIA
4. Republic of AZERBAIJAN
5. Kingdom of BAHRAIN
6. People’s Republic of BANGLADESH
7. Republic of BENIN
8. BRUNEI-DARUSSALAM
9. BURKINA-FASO
10. Republic of CAMEROON
11. Republic of CHAD
12. Union of The COMOROS
13. Republic of COTE D'IVOIRE
14. Republic of DJIBOUTI
15. Arab Republic of EGYPT
16. Republic of GABON
17. Republic of The GAMBIA
18. Republic of GUINEA
19. Republic of GUINEA-BISSAU
20. Republic of GUYANA
21. Republic of INDONESIA
22. Islamic Republic of IRAN
23. Republic of IRAQ
24. Hashemite Kingdom of JORDAN
25. Republic of KAZAKHSTAN
26. State of KUWAIT
27. KYRGYZ Republic
28. Republic of LEBANON
29. Great Socialist People’s LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
30. MALAYSIA
31. Republic of MALDIVES
32. Republic of MALI
33. Islamic Republic of MAURITANIA
34. Kingdom of MOROCCO
35. Republic of MOZAMBIQUE
36. Republic of NIGER
37. Federal Republic of NIGERIA
38. Sultanate of OMAN
39. Islamic Republic of PAKISTAN
40. State of PALESTINE
41. State of QATAR
42. Kingdom of SAUDI ARABIA
43. Republic of SENEGAL
44. Republic of SIERRA LEONE
45. Republic of SOMALIA
46. Republic of The SUDAN
47. Republic of SURINAME
48. SYRIAN Arab Republic
49. Republic of TAJIKISTAN
50. Republic of TOGO
51. Republic of TUNISIA
52. Republic of TURKEY
53. Republic of TURKMENISTAN
54. Republic of UGANDA
55. State of The UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
56. Republic of UZBEKISTAN
57. Republic of YEMEN

Out of those, how many are at war, facing insurgencies or unstable?
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya , Nigeria, Lebanon, Mali, Yemen and Sudan. That's 11.

How many are 'ruled with an Iron fist? I don't know what you consider an Iron fist anyways, so I'll just count all those that don't have Western-style democracy.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar and Jordan. That's 6.

Combine the two and you get 17. 17 out of 57, in your very loose and very biased criteria. I'm sure that can be reduced if we are to use some better indicators for stability. For example, Qatar is ranked 22nd most peaceful in the Global Peace Index, yet, being as biased as you are, you'd gladly include it with the likes of Iraq that is ranked 159.

The real problem isn't terrorists. Every religion has its share of nutjobs. The real problem is people like you who make excuses and provide cover for what these people are doing.

When have I ever provided cover for terrorists? Do not make such heinous accusations. YOU are the one supporting terrorists. YOU propagate the narrative used by terrorists, while I counter it. Here I am, REFUTING the terrorist narrative that Islam is violent and YOU are supporting that same narrative. You brought in the politics that create terrorists. I was perfectly content with establishing that Islam is not violent, which it is not.

Every time you post crap like this, that Islam causes this and Islam causes that, you propagate the terrorists' narrative about Islam and thus support them. I'm trying to show that you can have a perfectly stable Muslim state while you're bringing in factually incorrect BS about Muslim countries to (unsuccessfully) refute my assertion that Muslim states can be peaceful and stable.

Please don't do that. Don't support terrorist narratives. Counter them with the truth and reality.

US attacks Iraq, we've got an idiot from some other country who's butthurt.

French Muslims attack French people (Charlie Hebdo), we've got some ''idiot'' from some other country who's ''butthurt''.
If you can support French people against terrorists, why can't we support Muslim people against (both Western and so-called 'Muslim') terrorists?

Double standards.

What's the connection? Could it be your religion? Or are planning on living in denial for the rest of your life?

Our religion does not promote or cause violence. Period. There is no denial. Certain Muslims do abuse religion to do terrorism. No doubt about it. That's why I'm countering their narratives on a daily basis. That's why I've spent days upon days actively debating and 'fighting' terrorists and their sympathizers.

Put yourself in a Muslim's shoes and think - what would you do? What would you be able to do? If you think you have any ideas about how a normal Muslim like me can fight terrorists more effectively, share them instead of opposing me.

facile omnes quom valemus recta consilia aegrotis damus
when we are healthy, we all have advice for those who are sick

 

[Norwegian]

Good job bro @TankMan with your detailed and conclusive replies for trolls here

 

[TankMan]

Is it really matter, where the verse was revealed?

Yes, it does. That's how you understand what a verse is referring to. Context always helps in scholarly discussions. It is not necessary for normal people but with all the extremism and false narratives spreading around nowadays I believe one should be prepared and capable of countering them.

why only Pakistanis introduce/divide them self or identify each other from 'school of thought' title.
It sound silly or some conspiracy with Islam, because not every Muslim kid knows that 'school of thoughts' explain contextual meaning and hence unnecessary divide, ready to be exploited with bit of falsification.
However, i found the translations to be simple enough to understand, with or without context.
i will not venture further, as i see you have lot in plate to explain.

It's not only Pakistanis, but I understand what you mean to say and I agree with it. That's why I refuse to identify with any sect myself.

sorry.. than i stand corrected, i'll try to look more into it, or you may post some link.

If you want a link, I'd recommend reading through this article:
Kafir - Exploring Islam
It has Quranic verses with both their Arabic and translations, and all the claims in it are based on the Quran with proper explanation.

Good job bro @TankMan with your detailed and conclusive replies for trolls here

Thank you for your support bro. It's Sunday and I have internet, it's my favourite past-time

 

[Neptune]

No it doesn't but his religious freak environment does.

 

[syedali73]

@TankMan Excellent debate my friend. I am sure you are aware of Javeid Ghamdi's take on the issue of Kaafir. Kaafir is a term specifically used for those who existed in the time of the Prophet (PBUH). After him, there are non-Muslims and not Kaafir.

 

[TankMan]

@TankMan Excellent debate my friend. I am sure you are aware of Javeid Ghamdi's take on the issue of Kaafir. Kaafir is a term specifically used for those who existed in the time of the Prophet (PBUH). After him, there are non-Muslims and not Kaafir.

Thank you, this concept was clarified to me by a friend a while ago. I must admit that for a long time I too had the same incorrect idea of Kaafir and Kufr as most people, which is that all non-Muslims are Kaafir. Thankfully, I cleared this up as it is clearly a counterproductive, confusing and misleading stance to have.

Thanks for sharing that video, it is a good explanation especially for any Pakistanis who aren't convinced by my words. I will look for it on Dailymotion or upload it myself, as YouTube is still banned in Pakistan.

And for non-Pakistanis, I find that this link (below) is enough to clarify this issue. Its stance is the same as that of Javed Ghamdi, only it is in English
Kafir - Exploring Islam

 

[TankMan]

I have uploaded the video that was shared by @syedali73 on Dailymotion so that people without access to YouTube can watch it:

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

then it is ancient. Adam is the first man on earth, now don't tell me some ppl came before Adam lol

In Genesis 1, Adam is created but this definition of adam means mankind as a whole, not the Adam of the Garden of Eden. (minus in the image of God).
In Genesis 2, it talks about the creation of Adam (individual) and the Garden of Eden, before which there was no man to till the ground (Agriculture not known to man yet?). So God creates a man and teaches him agriculture and the perfect civilization (Garden of Eden). However we became too smart for our own good (Tree of knowledge of good and evil) and punished by God and left his civilization to create our own.

At least in my opinion it's a story of how mankind were hunters and gatherers, left Africa, learned agriculture and built civilizations. Not a professional in religious books but I'm not sure where it mentions in Judaism, Christian or Islam that Adam from the Garden of Eden was the first man?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back on topic this was a common sense "duh" research that needed to be done for those that lack it.

 

[vsdave2302]

Muslim countries have an average of 2.4 murders per annum per 100,000 people: statistics . PHOTO: AFP

Any discussion on terrorism, almost always circles back to the widespread belief that Muslims are more violent because of their religion, Vox reported.

Although these conversations may always circle back to the bigoted question of whether religion makes Muslims more violent, they lack data and evidence to attribute violent behavior to Muslims.

According to UC-Berkeley Professor M Steven Fish, people in Muslim majority countries actually tend to be significantly less violent, judging by murder rates.

Statistics show that Muslim countries have an average of 2.4 murders per annum per 100,000 people in stark contrast to 7.5 murders in non-Muslim countries.

The percentage of Muslims is an extraordinarily good predictor of a country’s murder rate, the professor found.

To provide some concrete evidence, Fish used his findings and re-run the numbers to exclude non-Muslim majority states -such as Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, South Africa and Venezuela-with extraordinarily high murder rates. Those countries with many Muslim inhabitants were still less prone to murders by a large margin.

If Islam was the key factor in the cause of religiously motivated terrorism then it could be expected that ordinary Muslims too would be more violent than ordinary non-Muslims. However, there are over a billion believing Muslims globally and if Islam was intrinsically prone to violence then the data would suggest that. The data however, is quite contrary.

Despite this study, it goes without saying that religiously motivated terrorism is indeed a real phenomenon and a global problem. Fish argued that such terrorism could be a reaction to the Western foreign policy.

The data provided by Fish should be an important reminder that just like other religions, Islam too prohibits violence. Although it is dependent on who is interpreting Islam, it can be said that Islam is not intrinsically violent.
Does religion make Muslims more violent? – The Express Tribune

@hacsan @TankMan @Etilla @Srinivas @desert warrior @pumkinduke @wolfpack @rubyjackass @A.Rafay @Ahmad1996 @Armstrong @arushbhai @AstanoshKhan @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @balixd @batmannow @Bilal. @chauvunist @Crypto @Dr. Stranglove @Evil Flare @EyanKhan @Fahad Khan 2 @GIANTsasquatch @graphican @Green Arrow @Guleen Ahmed @HRK @Jazzbot @Junaid B @Jzaib @Khalidr @khawaja07 @Leader @Luftwaffe @Marshmallow @mr42O @Muhammad Omar @nomi007 @Pak123 @Pakistanisage @Peaceful Civilian @pkuser2k12 @PWFI @raazh @Rafael @Rashid Mahmood @RescueRanger @Saifkhan12 @Sedqal @SHAMK9 @Stealth @Strike X @SUPARCO @syedali73 @Tameem @Tayyab1796 @Zarvan @AdeelFaheem @Rajput_Pakistani @Men in Green @IceCold @LoveIcon @razahassan1997 @Cheetah786 @Dil Pakistan @asq @junaid hamza @Pukhtoon @jamahir @Strigon @Rafi @Ulla @420canada @sathya @HughSlaman @slapshot @raza_888 @SBD-3 @cb4 @AsianUnion @Aether @Proudpakistaniguy @WishLivePak @Waffen SS @Fracker @Ranches @ghoul @Jf Thunder @GreenFalcon @genmirajborgza786 @orangzaib @Pakistani Exile @KURUMAYA @Irfan Baloch @ali_raza @Syed.Ali.Haider @Patriots @muslim_pakistani @W.11 @Meengla @zaid butt @ajpirzada @Shoaib Rathore @CHARGER @yesboss @TheNoob @Bratva @Viny @StormShadow @suresh1773 @SOHEIL @Force-India @faisal6309 @S.U.R.B. @vsdave2302 @jarves @WAJsal @Winchester @janon @pak-marine @Donatello @Darth Vader @wolfschanzze @TheFlyingPretzel @DRAY @narcon @FaujHistorian @1000 @FNFAL @gau8av @abhi21 @naveen mishra @Kunwar Anurag Rathore @AgNoStiC MuSliM @MastanKhan @Agent Smith @shuntmaster @Slav Defence @sur @XenoEnsi-14 @DESERT FIGHTER @p100 @BDforever @hunter_hunted @Mav3rick @rockstar08 @asad71 @Major Sam @Faizan Memon @Spy Master @ozzy22 @Manticore @war khan @Afridistan @Razia Sultana @madmusti @ghazaliy2k @Khalid Newazi @Ammyy @bloo @Marxist @karan.1970 @thesolar65 @Not Sure @Arav_Rana @Avik274 @SamantK @Major Shaitan Singh @Omega007 @farhan_9909 @haviZsultan @Sidak @ranjeet @Yogijaat @Ravi Nair @WAR-rior @he-man @Indrani @Mike_Brando @SarthakGanguly @sreekumar @Pakistani shaheens @ChennaiDude @Akheilos @Hyperion @Soumitra @TimeTraveller @pursuit of happiness @TankMan @T-123456 @madooxno9 @scorpionx @Capt.Popeye @Tridibans @christian warrior @GR!FF!N @SpArK @utraash @Falcon29 @levina @Jf Thunder @Metanoia @halupridol @Krate M @dexter @jbgt90 @Pride @Star Wars @ROCKING @waleed3601 @ShowGun @danish_vij @manojb @Wolfhound @Koovie @KingMamba @venu309 @Pak_Sher @OrionHunter @Dr. NooB NinjA

In US lots of people are murdered. Here the question is what is behind those murders and who are murdered. If the people are murdered for money or any other enmity, it is all to gather a different issue. In so called Islamic countries, people are killed on the name of religion. Take for example 72 Sunnis killed in iraq and 71 shias killed in Pakistan last week. Here the people who were were killed had no enmity with the people who killed them. They were killed because of sole reason that they belonged to some different sect. This is happening in Islamic countries which is most dangerous.

 

[MastanKhan]

Don't worry, we won't be surprised if a Syrian or an Afghan shows up. But its not them attacking us, is it? Why is the guy who planned 9/11 a person of Pakistani descent (from Kuwait, no less)? Why were majority of the attackers from the KSA? What did we ever do to them? Why is the Times Square bomber Pakistani? Why are the London bombers of Pakistani descent? What did we do to Pakistan, other than not supporting you in your pissing contest with India, that would make you so hostile? There is a civil war in middle eastern countries, not because we attacked but because they don't know how to take care of themselves. They hated Saddam, we got rid of him now their fighting among themselves. How is that our fault? After the WWII, Germany and Japan went on to become successful societies. How is it that Iraq couldn't do it? We pumped in a lot of money into Iraq after Saddam. Why is it an abject failure? Why do you think Muslim countries need an autocrat just to keep them from self-destructing? Before you blame us for your failings, you need to take a good, hard look at yourself and ask yourself why among 50 odd Muslim countries, only a handful are successful, progressive states and why the rest either have to be ruled with an iron fist or are in complete chaos.

The real problem isn't terrorists. Every religion has its share of nutjobs. The real problem is people like you who make excuses and provide cover for what these people are doing. US attacks Iraq, we've got an idiot from some other country who's butthurt. What's the connection? Could it be your religion? Or are planning on living in denial for the rest of your life?

Hi,

They were your boys---you trained them---you had your differences with them---then they came to show ho good they had become.

What did the U S do to Pakistan-----it started bombing the Taliban and al qaeda from north of Afghanistan, corralled them and then pushed them south and then into Pakistan. So---instead of killing the al Qaeda in Afghanistan the U S pushed this misery out of Afghanistan into Pakistan.

Before that U S put sanctions on Pakistan---450 million dollars was paid for the F 16's upfront cash---no aid---U S kept the money for 10 years---.

I million plus afghans died during U S military invasion of Afghanistan.

You made a big show of hunting Osama---but then you let him escape---multiple times---then pakistai isi help u s by giving the a phone number to track which led to Osama---pak military helped the U S on the raid to Osama's hideout---but then U S smashed Pakistan on the world forum.

U S did not go into Iraq the second time to get rid the people of Saddam---it was the personal agenda of the Cheney Rumsfled team----it was a war designed by the defence contractors and carried out by the defence contractors---cost a one and a half million Iraqi lives and endless loss to Iraqi properties and HERITAGE.

Japan and Germany became successful societies because the U S military took control of the land they had conquered and took control on the nation----.

In Iraq after the conquest---the U S let the looters and plunderers take over. In gremany and japa---the U S built those nations---in Iraq---te U S just got it self paid by Iraqi oil.

The real problem is the murder of 2 1/2 million plus muslims----the real problem is destroying Libya and Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[nair]

just like other religions, Islam too prohibits violence. Although it is dependent on who is interpreting Islam

The biggest issue behind this so called "violence" is the above part......... "Interpretation"

 

[doppelganger]

deobandism ( from deoband town, present uttar pradesh ) and tableeghi jamaat are indianized and corrupted form of islam... and it is mainly this stream rather than wahabism that is responsible for most of today's "muslim" criminal gangs... so indian culture is responsible really for every fake-muslim gang committing terrorism from china to russia to afghanistan to africa to west asia.

Al Quaeda and its offshoot challenger to the throne ISIS are Deobandi?

The 4 schools of thought most widely accepted in Sunni Islam are Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki and Hanbali. Salafism doesn't adhere to them, though they agree on most things that are the basics of Islam but disagree on many of the peripheral elements (a few examples are the concept of saints and the qualities of the Holy Prophet)

Deobandism is not a sub group of Salafism as it follows the Hanafi school of thought. It is a subgroup of the Hanafi madhab, like the Barelvi subgroup that is the majority in the subcontinent. Deobandis, however, share some beliefs with Salafis (and 'Wahabis'), specifically those regarding saints and the Prophet's qualities.


Won't get into too much details, but the Barelvis believe in having saints and using them as 'intermediaries' to God while the Deobandis (and the Salafis and Wahabis) consider that to be against Islam. That's one of the main points of contention. Then come the smaller issues about whether or not the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) had knowledge of the unseen and whether he is metaphysical or omnipresent or not. Also, there are some conflicts on issues like where your hands should be while praying.

But, like I said before, there isn't anything relevant to terrorism or much that makes any sect more susceptible to terrorists than the others. For example, the most widely abused (by terrorists) concept of Jihad is practically the same among all these subdivisions.

The only difference is that Salafism is more flexible. That makes it potentially the most liberal and the most conservative of the sects, depending on individuals. I have personally interacted with both types of people (Salafis).

Thanks a lot for that post.

Do you agree with @jamahir that the Deobandis are a lot more virulent and dangerous than the Wahabis are?

What about Barelvis? Are they cool? Something along the Sufi lines?

 

[Turkish_FR]

Homeland