Does religion make Muslims more violent?

[Ray_of_Hope]

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 ?

Because they r the people who need to know that most.

 

[Turkish_FR]

Because they r the people who need to know that most.

Why they need to know that most ? and again why you feel like you have to prove something ?

 

[The SC]

Line from Anger Management "How does a guy who weighs over 600 lbs have the balls to teach people about self-discipline". Movies been out for 12 years. Haven't heard anyone being killed over it, have you? Compare that the Rushdie, the movie by the Egyptian guy, Charlie Hebdo, Danish cartoonist and then tell me the reaction is the same among followers of all religions.

When did Muslims make movies or satire of other religious beliefs or human conditions, to begin with?
All the movies, the books and journalism summed up as freedom of speech were targeting Specifically Islam as such and not some Muslims in particular, in the latter case you might have gotten the reaction of that person, but since those intents were to insult a religion that has proven to be peaceful and beneficial to humanity at large, the reaction came from practicing Muslims who find it unfair to insult such a religion.
I personally has no reaction to these attempts, since I know it is pure provocation based on ignorance or might I say fake fear of Islam, and also based on some knowledge of human psyche, since obviously many vulnerable Muslim minds will react to the provocation . Either way it is wrong, be it ignorance and faking fear or using knowledge to a bad end.

 

[Ray_of_Hope]

Why they need to know that most ? and again why you feel like you have to prove something ?

Bro,its really not that hard to understand that west,in general,runs majority of the politics of the world.And by west i generalize the non-muslim developed countries e.g europe,america,etc.Also whenever a terrorist activity happens anywhere in the world,in the end all the blame is poured down on islam.According to my POV,a terrorist is terrorist,he has no religion.But still the west blames islam by calling the terrorists as Islamic terrorists etc.

 

[TankMan]

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

No actually. Al Qaeda follows a corrupted version of Wahabi and/or Salafi ideology while ISIS is in a league of its own. They'll probably introduce some new methodology soon, because they've crossed the limits of practically everything. Unless they (hopefully) get wiped out soon, that is.

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

There is nothing in Deobandi ideology itself that makes it more virulent or dangerous, but @jamahir 's point about it being from the Indian subcontinent is valid in the sense that there is more instability here than it is in Wahabi areas like Saudi Arabia or UAE. Due to that instability, Deobandi mullahs are more likely to rouse rabbles and create problems than, say, Arab mullahs.

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

Admittedly there have been comparatively few cases of Barelvi terrorism, but there isn't anything in their ideology that makes them more peaceful than the other sects. Perhaps it is because they are the majority in the subcontinent and don't have to resort to violent tactics to gain political victories.

Otherwise, the same misconceptions, falsehoods and narratives that can be used to twist Deobandi-ism are also applicable to Barelvis because they ultimately follow the same School of thought, that is Hanafi. For example, the guy who shot Salman Taseer was supported by many Barelvi mullahs because of their extremely incorrect opinion about blasphemy.

It must also be noted that many Barelvis are also Sufis, so you are to some extent right about them being along Sufi lines. The majority isn't Sufi, but a good portion is.

Now here's an interesting graph - not sure how accurate it is, but it's from Dawn News, so it must have some basis.

(Ahl-e-Hadith = Salafi)
Source: An incurable disease? - Dawn.com

Now, having some knowledge about Deobandi ideology and being close to many Deobandis, I am surprised by this. Their ideology doesn't have anything that makes it so violent. In my view, the only logical explanation is that the Deobandi political mullahs are behind this. There's too many of those around, everywhere.

 

[jamahir]

Now, having some knowledge about Deobandi ideology and being close to many Deobandis, I am surprised by this. Their ideology doesn't have anything that makes it so violent. In my view, the only logical explanation is that the Deobandi political mullahs are behind this. There's too many of those around, everywhere.

the deobandis and tableeghis are the ideological fathers of various criminal/terrorist gangs in most regions... jemah "islamiya" of south east asia, ikhwaan and shabaab of africa, ikhwaan of syria and palestine ( hamas ), hizb-ut-tahrir in russia/china/central-asia, much of qaeda composition and of course, taliban... the rest of the groups like fsa, ntc, nusra, isis etc are rearrangements of aforementioned groups.

the wahabis are generally blamed but it is all indian ( and south asian ) poison which has corrupted most minds... the money is from gulf but the ideologues are south asian... we after all have prime idiots like zakir naik and his "peace tv", actually "peekh tv"

 

[TankMan]

the deobandis and tableeghis are the ideological fathers of various criminal/terrorist gangs in most regions... jemah "islamiya" of south east asia, ikhwaan and shabaab of africa, ikhwaan of syria and palestine ( hamas ), hizb-ut-tahrir in russia/china/central-asia, much of qaeda composition and of course, taliban... the rest of the groups like fsa, ntc, nusra, isis etc are rearrangements of aforementioned groups.

Again, there is nothing in their ideology specifically that does this. It's their molvis and mullahs that tend to support a terrorist narrative, for purely political reasons.

the wahabis are generally blamed but it is all indian ( and south asian ) poison which has corrupted most minds... the money is from gulf but the ideologues are south asian

South Asians are unfortunately very gullible people and the social and political landscape is perfect for people to abuse religion to achieve a variety of goals.

we after all have prime idiots like zakir naik and his "peace tv", actually "peekh tv"

What exactly do you consider to be idiotic about Zakir Naik? He disagrees with the dominant Barelvi point of view but there is absolutely nothing idiotic about him, as far as I'm aware. I haven't watched many of his talks, so I might be wrong in this.

So please do provide some evidence or backing to your statements, don't just parrot molvis. If you show me a video of Zakir Naik or Peace TV propagating an 'idiotic' or extremist mindset or narrative, I'll accept it and avoid them.

But without backing, this sounds like something ''the Molvi who cried Wahabi'' would say.

 

[Solomon2]

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

Fish wrote this in 2010 based on studies from 1995 and 1997: link. This statistic was incidental to his larger purpose, which was to compare large-scale political violence in Muslim societies to non-Muslim societies:

"...All we can say for sure is that we turn up no evidence that countries with a larger share of Muslims have experienced a disproportionate share of carnage in political strife in the postwar period...Whether Islamists are responsible for an inordinate amount of the world’s large-scale political violence is a separate question...Non-Islamist actors, such as revolutionary forces in China and partisans of interethnic struggles in Middle and East Africa, had a hand in instigating roughly as much strife and loss of life as Islamists did. Islamism has indeed been a wellspring of large-scale political violence in the postwar world, but it has been only one of numerous such sources."

The bloody period of China's revolutionary period ended with Mao's death nearly four decades ago, though it was most bloody in the 1950s which saw tens of millions dead. And I suppose if you re-class the African and Middle East struggles (most bloody: Iran-Iraq war) as "inter-ethnic" rather than religious you'll drop the "religious" head count further.

Where that leaves us TODAY Dr. Fish left unsaid - but does he really need to?

 

[Turkish_FR]

Bro,its really not that hard to understand that west,in general,runs majority of the politics of the world.And by west i generalize the non-muslim developed countries e.g europe,america,etc.Also whenever a terrorist activity happens anywhere in the world,in the end all the blame is poured down on islam.According to my POV,a terrorist is terrorist,he has no religion.But still the west blames islam by calling the terrorists as Islamic terrorists etc.

Sis, stop behave like an inferior person and dont try to prove anything for anyone. Stop to see yourself such weak. We need powerful minds/logics, we dont need persons like you. Change yourself.

 

[Ray_of_Hope]

Sis, stop behave like an inferior person and dont try to prove anything for anyone. Stop to see yourself such weak. We need powerful minds/logics, we dont need persons like you. Change yourself.

So we dont have to prove our innocence even if someone blames us of certain wrong doing? as per ur logic......

 

[Turkish_FR]

So we dont have to prove our innocence even if someone blames us of certain wrong doing? as per ur logic......

Yes you dont have to prove anything. If someone blames you for something, then you blame them too. Let them to try to prove their innocence. Dont be the sheep, try to be the sheepherd. I wont reply your post again, you are a hopeless case if still didnt understand.

 

[Ray_of_Hope]

Yes you dont have to prove anything. If someone blames you for something, then you blame them too. Let them to try to prove their innocence. Dont be the sheep, try to be the sheepherd. I wont reply your post again, you are a hopeless case if still didnt understand.

Ok.....................I m starting blaming them.....................waiting to see the results

 

[Schutz]

One things for sure judging from this post, muslims could never unite unless they had no other choice, i.e a beheading or two.

 

[Solomon2]

One things for sure judging from this post, muslims could never unite unless they had no other choice, i.e a beheading or two.

Depends on what you mean by, "unite". For example, Pakistanis are, by official yet unlawful diktat, united in public hatred of Israel.

 

[shuntmaster]

They say violent Jihad is actually the 6th pillar in Islam. None of the 5 pillars are actually found in the Quaran, but rather found in the sunna and hadiths. But Jihad is explicitly made mandatory for all Muslims in the Quran.