I would be interested to see some examples [of violent intolerant quotes] — Wayfarer

We could start with the one saying that homosexuals should be killed. Next up might be the admonition for parents to kill their children if disobedient.

The 'Christian West' does recognise the separation of Church and State — Wayfarer

No, it doesn't, because the Christian West is not an agent. Perhaps you mean that certain legal systems in some Western countries encode that separation in their constitutions. That's an entirely different thing and is to do with politics and law, not religion.

Further, such separation is not nearly as widely encoded as one might think. It is encoded in the US, but not in Australia or the UK, both of which facilitate Christian indoctrination in public schools.

Incidentally, this looks an interesting report, although from 2011 - Fear, Inc: The Roots of the Islamophobic Network

We could start with the one saying that homosexuals should be killed. Next up might be the admonition for parents to kill their children if disobedient. — andrewk

They're not quotations, but paraphrases.

Perhaps you mean that certain legal systems in Western countries encode that separation in their constitutions. — andrewk

What I was getting at is that 'the separation of church and state' is a principle of governance that is recognised in Western liberal democracies. It is part of the framework of the secular state, the point of which is to provide a framework for a plurality of views.

I think the question can be asked: if a religion doesn't recognize the distinction of church and state, then how can be accorded the protection of 'freedom of religion'? Because it might not itself recognise the kind of freedom that is being granted to it, in a secular democracy.

In Islamic theocracies, such as Saudi Arabia, proselytizing Christianity is a criminal offence punishable by death or imprisonment.

So I think it's a fair question to ask, should rights granted to religious groups be done on the basis of mutual recognition? In other words, why would a pluralist culture recognise the rights of a theocratic totalarianism, like Wahabism, part of the aim of which is the abolition of secular culture.

I think those kinds of questions need to be discussed, without immediately prompting accusations of 'Islamophobia' or racism.

What is important is that there are, on average, far lower levels of drinking in Muslim countries, and hence lower levels of violence. I felt much safer walking back streets in Pakistan, Iran and Turkey than I would in many neighbourhoods of the urban USA. — andrewk

The conceit! The narcissism!

Next time you take a quiet stroll round the back streets of Pakistan or Iran, while deluding yourself that because no one is enjoying a glass of wine with their pork casserole, you must be safer than in urban USA, please spare a thought for the victims of Islamic violence. It's not all about you.

Or perhaps you simply prefer to ignore the institutionalized violence of these countries. The death to apostates, the death to atheists, the death to bloggers and tweeters. The public beheadings and beatings are easily avoided I suppose, just don't follow the crowd.

The denigration of women is also easily ignored: the honour killings, the acid attacks, the beatings for wearing the hijab in not-quite-the-right way. The women would certainly be punished or worse for talking to you alone.

The game of 'who's more violent than me?' is a violent game.

In UK Muslims comprise ~5% of the population, but 20% of inmates in high security prisons. — tom

Muslims make up a little under 15% of prisoners overall. Most of them are in jail for ordinary crimes. It's a puzzle, but it seems more likely to be connected to socio-economic factors than to religion.

I really don't like Daniel Pipes, but I think he has a point when he says there's medieval Islam and there's Islamism. Moderate Islam is mostly a resident of the imagination. — Mongrel

I don't understand what you're saying here. Most Muslims are moderate people, just like the rest of us. Perhaps you mean that there aren't prominent Muslims who are widely quoted as being moderate. Well, I live in a town in the north of England, and here and across the north from Liverpool to Manchester and Leeds and up to Newcastle, there are atheists, Christians, Muslims and all sorts mostly living quiet lives.

Of course terrorism alarms me, I used to walk every day in Leeds past a house that turned out to be a bomb factory. And many terrorists are acting in the name of Islam. The UK police are doing a brilliant job in anti-terrorism. I think long-term progress though involves ordinary people not Othering someone else's religion, as if it were somehow more unreasonable than one's own. Let us judge our neighbours and colleagues and co-residents by their actions and words, not by what we imagine from our reading to be their thoughts.

Food for thought. How do Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Muslims and Jews treat co-religionists who leave their religion?

The argument that seeks to establish Islam as uniquely violent and oppressive which relies on cherry-picking it's doctrines (something all religions tend to do) and cherry picking acts of extreme violence in the modern world as representative of Muslim behavior strikes me as too simplistic and just unpersuasive. — VagabondSpectre

It isn't Islam, but there are certainly cultural attitudes amongst certain Islamic communities that are violent. Think of Sudanese Muslims circumcising women; it is not a practice by all Muslims, but rather a cultural practice that has become embedded into a religious one in that region, albeit a ridiculously stupid, vicious and violent practice. But the reality of perceptions against Islam in the West is exactly as you say, too simplistic. Not many people are aware of the various Islamic jurisprudential divisions - Hanbali, Ja‘fari, Shafi'i, Hanafi and Maliki - then you have Shi'a Islam, then even further still you have the syncretistic religions of the Near East such as Alawi, Ahl-e Haqq, Druze, Yezidi, (I published on this subject) and its relationship to historical and cultural traditions.

Further still, there are even more variations formed by the number of different hadiths that tend to be utilised more predominately than the ever ambiguous Qu'ran. These so-called 'teachings of the prophet' are the direct result of different interpretations and many of its sources are dubious to say the least, compelling some groups to justify violence.

Whatever the case is, though, there is a clear difficulty or tension between Islam and Democracy but to ignore a history of Ottoman rule in the region and post-colonial ramifications, factious international relations, proxy wars, globalisation and economic/social transformations and quite simply state that it is 'Islam' is just moronic.

Karen Armstrong presents a coherent historical account of religion and violence here:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/-sp-karen-armstrong-religious-violence-myth-secular

She contends that religion violence over a long history of spectacular violence has always had secular impact and eventually became separate from secular violence over the course of the last 400 years, in the West. The heretic, became the ethnic rebel. Fighting, and dying for one's faith became fighting and dying for one's country.


William T. Cavanaugh also asserts the myth of religious violence. The following from Wikipedia:

Religion is not a universal and transhistorical phenomenon. What counts as "religious" or "secular" in any context is a function of configurations of power both in the West and lands colonized by the West. The distinctions of "Religious/Secular" and "Religious/Political" are modern Western inventions.
The invention of the concept of "religious violence" helps the West reinforce superiority of Western social orders to "nonsecular" social orders, namely Muslims at the time of publication.
The concept of "religious violence" can be and is used to legitimate violence against non-Western "Others".
Peace depends on a balanced view of violence and recognition that so-called secular ideologies and institutions can be just as prone to absolutism, divisiveness, and irrationality.

How do we honestly confront the problem? Genocide them for thought crimes? Serious question... isn't that crazy asshole a maniac? — Wosret

Wosret, as this post immediately followed mine and contains a question, I think it may be directed to me, but, if so, I am unsure what you're asking. Which maniacal asshole do you speak of? Sam Harris? Harris has never advocated "genocide" in the Muslim world, for thought crimes or for anything else (some who distort his views erroneously suggest that he has advocated a nuclear first strike on the Muslim world, but this is not the case).

It isn't Islam, but there are certainly cultural attitudes amongst certain Islamic communities that are violent. Think of Sudanese Muslims circumcising women; it is not a practice by all Muslims, — TimeLine

According to UNICEF 200,000,000 girls and women alive today have suffered FGM.

According to UNICEF 100,000,000 of these girls and women are from Egypt, Ethiopia and Indonesia.

According to UNICEF 44,000,000 of those are girls under the age of 14.

According to UNICEF of the of the countries who mutilate girls under 14, the highest prevalence is in Gambia and Mauritania.

According to UNICEF about 50% of girls under 11 have been mutilated in Indonesia.

According to UNICEF Countries with the highest prevalence among girls and women aged 15 to 49 are Somalia 98%, Guinea 97% and Djibouti 93%.

In most of the countries the majority of girls were cut before reaching their fifth birthdays.

But yes, as you say, child mutilation also occurs in Sudan.

https://www.unicef.org/media/files/FGMC_2016_brochure_final_UNICEF_SPREAD.pdf

Food for thought. How do Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Muslims and Jews treat co-religionists who leave their religion? — Frederick KOH

Speaking as an atheist, no one seems to care, though there are 13 countries in which I would be murdered by the state for declaring atheism.

Well, yes, as I said it is a cultural practice that has become embedded in some Muslim countries, the Sudanese referring to FGM as pharaonic circumcision to imply its relationship to the Sudanese practice in Egypt that spread through sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East through the Arab slave trade.

It is called the spread of stupidity. Not an uncommon thing in human beings. Still got nothing to do with Islam though.

Some of the posts in this thread seem to suffer from a confusion as to what exactly is being asked in the OP (perhaps the OP was not spelled out in sufficient detail). If the question is, say, whether Islam or Christianity is the more violent religion, then I don't know if the question translates to how many violent crimes are committed by Christians, as opposed to Muslims, even if considered on a per capita basis (including whichever other metrics we deem to be relevant, including number of intra- or interstate wars begun by Christian- or Muslim-majority countries or whatever).

The fact that some person P commits an act of violence, and that P is member of some religion R, it doesn't follow that P committed said act of violence because of his religion. The more relevant criterion is how many adherents of a religion commit violence in the name of said religion, or due to said religion's doctrines.

This is not to say that such a criterion is a simple one to determine: for one thing, there are "No true [Muslim, Christian, etc] would do X"-style claims to contend with. For another, there are coding issues tied to ambiguities as to what exactly constitutes religiously-motivated violence. If there are religious fault lines between two groups involved in violent conflict, does that count as at least partially religiously-motivated violence even if the conflict is not inherently doctrinal or theological in nature? (The "Troubles" in Northern Ireland and the Balkan Wars come to mind here as such cases.)

So I think it's a fair question to ask, should rights granted to religious groups be done on the basis of mutual recognition? In other words, why would a pluralist culture recognise the rights of a theocratic totalarianism, like Wahabism, part of the aim of which is the abolition of secular culture. — Wayfarer

The question is not so much unfair as just incoherent. Exactly which rights are you suggesting should be taken away from these 'groups'? And given the fuzzy boundaries of Islam, like any other religion, how are you going to determine to whom this stripping of rights should be applied?

It is called the spread of stupidity. Not an uncommon thing in human beings. Still got nothing to do with Islam though. — TimeLine

Sure, nothing is to do with Islam, even if it is mandated in the Hadith.

Sure, nothing is to do with Islam, even if it is mandated in the Hadith. — tom

There is no the hadith. There are a number of different hadiths. I implore you to speak only when you know what you are talking about.

There is no the hadith. There are a number of different hadiths. I implore you to speak only when you know what you are talking about. — TimeLine

FGM is mandated in the Hadith. It's one of the fitra, and is referred to in many places across several books, most notable Sahi Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

... circumcision for men.

... circumcision for men. — TimeLine

This is just tragic.

The rule of hadith dictate that if it is not mentioned specifically or if the pronouns do not point to a certain gender, then the hadith is valid for both sexes. You being an apologist and expert must be aware of this.

Abu Hurayrah said: I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – circumcision, shaving the pubic hair, trimming the moustache, cutting the nails and plucking the armpit hairs.”

Abu al- Malih ibn `Usama's father relates that the Prophet said: "Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women."

Plenty of other references to circumcision for women both explicitly and implicitly.

But of course according to you, being an apologist, the hadith don't really exist. But then again, you are in denial!

Sudan? What a joke!

I don't understand what you're saying here. Most Muslims are moderate people, just like the rest of us. Perhaps you mean that there aren't prominent Muslims who are widely quoted as being moderate. Well, I live in a town in the north of England, and here and across the north from Liverpool to Manchester and Leeds and up to Newcastle, there are atheists, Christians, Muslims and all sorts mostly living quiet lives. — mcdoodle

Pipes' insight is not an indictment of the behavior of the average Muslim. It's the observation that there is no religious apparatus behind a so-called moderate Islamic viewpoint. That apparatus is like a baby trying to be born.

Well, I live in a town in the north of England, and here and across the north from Liverpool to Manchester and Leeds and up to Newcastle, there are atheists, Christians, Muslims and all sorts mostly living quiet lives. — mcdoodle

Anywhere near Rotherham?

Pipes' insight is not an indictment of the behavior of the average Muslim. It's the observation that there is no religious apparatus behind a so-called moderate Islamic viewpoint. That apparatus is like a baby trying to be born. — Mongrel

Actually there is, it's called the Ahmadiyyah Community, though membership of it risks you being murdered in Pakistan and UK.

I would be interested to see some examples [of violent intolerant quotes] — Wayfarer

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed. Leviticus 20:15

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Leviticus 20:13

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. Deuteronomy 13:6-11

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Matthew 5:17-18

If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed. Leviticus 20:15 — Michael

No such prohibition is to be found in the Quran or the Sahih.

The Quran does contain 109 verses that call Muslims to war with the kufar though.

George W. Bush is a Christian and started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama escalated into Pakistan (and Yemen?). John F. Kennedy escalated in Vietnam with an official approval for military engagement by a (christian) Congress in 1964. Hitler supported christianity (at least in his speeches). Yeah... if it concerns people who say they are Christian then it seems pretty clear cut that after Stalin, who was an atheist madman, Christians are best at starting wars and killing people.

According to UNICEF 200,000,000 girls and women alive today have suffered FGM. — tom

In order of highest percentage of FGM from the UNICEF document, here's a couple of statistics that show that it isn't a practise informed by Islam but by culture with the notable exception of Indonesia. Indonesia imported the practise when it imported Islam.

Togo, 20% Muslim, 29% Christian, 51% indigenuous.
Kenya, 83% Christian, 11% Muslim
Ghana, 71% Christian, 17% Muslim
Tanzania, est. 30-40% both Christian and Muslim each
Burkina Faso, 60% Muslim, 29% Christian
Iraq, 95% Muslim
Benin, 43% Christian, 24% Muslim

Well, you get the picture. FMG is a cultural practise and doesn't really care about what religion you believe in. Local Muslim leaders will sometimes issue edicts that require Islam but in a lovely twist of fate in Niger 55 percent of Christian women and girls had experienced it, compared with two percent of their Muslim counterparts.

Also, FGM is banned in Egypt following the conclusion from important imams that it does not find any basis in the Qu'Ran (since 2007). That people continue to do it, is the same stupidity that has born again Christians blowing up abortion clinics with people in them even though the Pope is quite clear on the "thou shalt not kill" edict in the Bible.

In order of highest percentage of FGM from the UNICEF document, here's a couple of statistics that show that it isn't a practise informed by Islam — Benkei

According to UNICEF 100,000,000 of these girls and women are from Egypt, Ethiopia and Indonesia.

FGM is also banned in UK. There are 1000's of cases of FGM notified in UK every year. As yet not a single prosecution.

Actually the Egypt "ban" appears to be nothing more than a ministerial decree which only affects those that work under the auspices of the Ministry of Health.

If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed. Leviticus 20:15
— Michael

No such prohibition is to be found in the Quran or the Sahih.

The Quran does contain 109 verses that call Muslims to war with the kufar though. — tom

So, are we to suppose here that there are no objections to sex with an animal in Islam? I doubt it.

So, are we to suppose here that there are no objections to sex with an animal in Islam? I doubt it. — Bitter Crank

What do you think is worse, having sex with a goat or raping a child?

And this is why good intentions aren't enough to make one an expert. The point tom is about to make regarding Sunnis is correct.