And what about Christian terrorists? Does anyone demand Christians agree to a statement condemning “radical anti-abortionism”? Do we fear Christianity as a whole because we don’t have this assurance?
It’s a stupid generalization not based on any concrete evidence. You cannot cite a single study which shows that muslims are more violent, at the margin, than anyother religious group.
Let’s see, there’ve been what, 5 doctors shot at, total, in all recorded history, by so-called christians. Whom, when asked, say they think doctors are murdering children.
And you think the average person should be worried about being similarly targeted by christians?
Contrast that with the extremely large number of people that have been murdered by muslims for the crime of being “not a muslim”. And I think you’ll see why people aren’t asking christians to do as you suggest.
Not that I’m endorsing any such requirement. I think the muslim problem of wahabiist propaganda won’t be alleviated by war, but rather by technology. When we aren’t bathing the arab world in money for which they didn’t have to work (ie, trading them money for oil) then they’ll be too busy making a living to conduct jihad, and there won’t be frivolous money to throw at jihadist organizations.
So basically, we need mass biodiesel 
It’s a stupid generalization not based on any concrete evidence. You cannot cite a single study which shows that muslims are more violent, at the margin, than anyother religious group.
And even if you could, it wouldn’t say much - as I think Groucho and Clayton among others are saying these types of things don’t fit into the category that most people insist on placing them in.
When one starts doing this all they are doing is setting up a “game” and expecting someone to play by thier rules and fulfilling thier own self fulfilling prophecy. It’s a rhetorical trick.
No, it’s not that at all. I don’t see the justification for connecting crimes commited by individuals to their religion (or ethnicity, or language, or music, etc) since it is collectivist and is the kind of thinking that compels prior restraint. That aside, what percentage of Muslims commit terrorist acts? Something like 0.0000000001% maybe? That does not even remotely suggest a causal relationship.
I don’t know how many were murdered for that supposed reason, especially if you are including 911 victims, since their murderers all died along with them. And I find it very hard to believe our simply “not being Muslim” is what inspired them (or the ones who organized them) to cause such desctuction. If that were it, I would think they’d be keeping themselves busy killing all of the non-muslims they don’t have to travel halfway around the earth to get to.
+1 Esuric,vive
The whole line of discussion is impossibly prejudicial and irreconcilable in terms of facts and reason.
News of Muslim violence (and Israeli/US/NATO violence against Muslims) is like the price of gold: both are heavily manipulated for political reasons. Therefore, there is no reason to believe we have any kind of objective information about how violent Muslims are vis-a-vis non-Muslims or how proportionate and justifiable Israeli/US/NATO violence against Muslims is. To believe otherwise is like believing that the price of gold is a true reflection of supply of and demand for gold or that the rate of interest is a true reflection of the supply of savings and demand for borrowed funds. It’s squeezing your eyes shut and burying your head in the sand.
Clayton -
“Why does that matter?”
If it is anarchistic, there should anarchists. In judaism and Christianity there are anarchists. The same should be true for Islam, if your theory is correct.
Sin doesn’t exist in Islam. Getting killed for apostasy only happens when Islam is applied in a statist context.
There is sin. And if Islam was not statist, there would not be a statist context.
No Islamic states exist today. Almost all Muslim countries are ruled by American puppets. Look up the Muslim World when it was ruled by Muslims. It was way more libertarian than the West."
This is nonsense and you know it. The only people who say this are Wahabis and Salafists (those who want a true return to ‘real Islam’) who want stronger states, less personal freedoms, and more xenophobia. I’m sure many people in the middle-east want more liberty than they currently have and maybe as much as the West, their religion is not libertarian.
If anyone is interested in reading more about this, there is a bit on wikipedia in the Dhimmi section. There might be more on this subject in other pages on wikipedia. I’ll quote a couple of passages:
And don’t forget there were also innocent Muslims killed in the 9/11 attacks.
“Why does that matter?”
If it is anarchistic, there should anarchists. In judaism and Christianity there are anarchists. The same should be true for Islam, if your theory is correct.
Can’t google ‘Muslim anarchists?’
Sin doesn’t exist in Islam. Getting killed for apostasy only happens when Islam is applied in a statist context.
There is sin. And if Islam was not statist, there would not be a statist context.
So what? Islam is way more libertarian then all other major religions. In Islam, EVERYTHING is voluntary. Compulsion doesn’t exist in Islam. WEar the hijab or don’t, Allah/God won’t force you to. The only reason why women get attacked for not wearing them is b/c Islam in those cases is mixed w/ statism. Keep Islam and state separate and there’s nothing coercive about it. I don’t even think ISlam is the reason for all the violence in the Muslim world. The Muslim World was way less war-hungry then the Christian world and still is. When has a Muslim country ruled on Islamic Law invaded another country?
Is that before or after you’re forced to convert or die? Dirty secret of Islam, it was spread primarily at the point of the sword, especially early on.
But his servants on earth will. I have a friend who is an adult woman living in Saudi Arabia. She is unable to leave the country unless her male relative assents.
Coercion is inherent in Islam as a political religion. Sharia is the conflation of government coercion and Islamic morality.
So you’re saying Islam isn’t inherently statist, but there are statist islamists. I suppose I can respect that.
Are there any countries doing that today?
Are you even remotely familiar with the history of the middle ages? The crusades were even begun by Muslims attacking the Byzantines and other christian held territories. Are you familiar with the Muslim occupation of Spain, the Umayyad caliphate, for what 300 years? Iran, an aggressor nation in the modern world, is technically an Islamic theocracy. That doesn’t belie your point for you?
Is that before or after you’re forced to convert or die? Dirty secret of Islam, it was spread primarily at the point of the sword, especially early on.
No it wasn’t. Most people who converted to Islam early on did so VOLUNTARILY. Egypt for example. Islam is a 100% voluntary religion. Show me a source which says Islam was spread by the sword.
But his servants on earth will. I have a friend who is an adult woman living in Saudi Arabia. She is unable to leave the country unless her male relative assents.
So what? Islam is hardly a monolith. Why judge a religion by what some of its followers do?
Coercion is inherent in Islam as a political religion. Sharia is the conflation of government coercion and Islamic morality.
Show me where the Quran explicitly calls for coercion. Sharia isn’t even in the Quran but the Hadith which most Muslims believe are fake.
So you’re saying Islam isn’t inherently statist, but there are statist islamists. I suppose I can respect that.
There are statist libertarians as well (minarchists.) What does that mean?
Are there any countries doing that today?
There are Muslim anarchists. Islam was anti-statist and libertarian for most of its history. The muslim world had free markets w/ almost no state intervention and they didn’t have all the problems we have in the statist west. Read a book on the subject written before the west became anti-islam.
Are you even remotely familiar with the history of the middle ages? The crusades were even begun by Muslims attacking the Byzantines and other christian held territories. Are you familiar with the Muslim occupation of Spain, the Umayyad caliphate, for what 300 years? Iran, an aggressor nation in the modern world, is technically an Islamic theocracy. That doesn’t belie your point for you?
The crusades have been debunked millions of times. Islam NEVER calls for aggression unless aggression has been exercised against muslims or the faith. Islam had an nearly version of the NAP.
My source is, the Quran:
Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not. (2:216)
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (9:5)
Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29).
Little known fact about christianity–they’re never commanded to war with unbelievers :\
Because it’s not just ‘some’ it’s the majority.
If most muslims believe it fake, why are there so many muslim countries being run by sharia principles? Why is Egypt’s new constitution touting sharia principles, it’s leading party?
A statist libertarian is a nonsensical concept, mis-applying the ‘libertarian’ label to himself.
Of course there are muslim anarchists. But you have to realize something about anarchists–they are at root tribalists. And tribalism is just another form of collectivism, substituting the tribe for the state. The tribe means all, loyalty to the tribe. Not to principles of truth, freedom, justice.
Anarchists haven’t realized it yet, but anarchism is a reversion to tribalism, not a new concept at all.
The west is not anti-islam. Islam is anti-west. The west does not run around calling islamists “the great satan”. Nor starting wars with islam and calling it jihad and calling upon others of the same religion to join in.
I don’t think you can backup the idea that islam was previously anti-statist, because Islam has historically been based on individuals territories ruled with a king-like fist by caliphates, which represents near total collection of power in the hands of the caliphate, which is a statist method of ruling and living. And there are elements in islam calling for a return to caliphates, whereas there is no one in the west calling for a return to kings, though they are following policies that will result in dictatorship.
Ultimately none of that history much matters. Today, the islamic world is completely beholden to mystic influences with no regard to rationalism.
The west has made a leap the islamic world never has–the separation of church and state. And if you’re honest with yourself you’ll admit, to yourself, that this sort of break is never likely to happen, because Islam is a political religion. Jesus was not a political figure, did not act politically, and had no political ambitions.
Muhammad is exactly the opposite. He’s a figure who was inherently political, who conducted wars and conquests, and came to literally rule a territory.
Whatever enlightened body of thought once existed in the free muslim countries of the past has been left in the past, perhaps never to arise again.
Can you say that reason is highly respected in the muslim world? It clearly is not. The Koran is much more influential. It’s a shame.
“Sharia isn’t even in the Quran but the Hadith which most Muslims believe are fake.”
It is the body of law, which includes Quran, sunnah/hadith (words of the prophet himself), and different schools of jurisprudence.
Muslims do not believe the words of the prophet are fake. That would mean at the very least that none would pray every day or go to mecca. The Shia do not follow sunnah, but they are 10 percent of muslims. But still follow Sharia.
Freedom4Me, what books have you read on Islam?
Bottom line for me is that, despite w/e you want to claim about the historical muslim world (the west was free-er in the past as well), nothing in Islam has prevented the modern muslim world from becoming just as statist and collectivist as the rest of the world in the modern era, if not more so.
If it had, you might have a point, but it hasn’t. No point. Pretty much end of discussion.
@Anenome: Precisely. That’s why I noted at the outset the glaring similarity between all the most widespread religions in the modern world: monotheism. We can predict from a praxeological approach that monotheism will predominate in a social order in which the State monopolizes the priesthood/religion. How can it be any other way? The whole point of monopolizing something is to eliminate competition. Polytheism is the tolerance of competing religious practices, permitting the gold to be brought to other temples, enriching priesthoods that are not under the Prince’s control. So, monotheism is an absolutely predictable outcome of State monopolization of the priesthood/religion.
F4M is the resident wingnut. His espousals of Islam are hare-brained. Muslims and Islam are, in fact, being demonized in Western media but that doesn’t mean that Islam is some kind of model ideology.
Clayton -
That’s an interesting insight, Clayton. Except that it belies how these monotheist religions came about, not as a result of some government power but previous to them. India and China’s history and religious practices would seem to belie your point as well. No place is more statist than China, yet they did not develop monotheism.
That’s an anti-Muslim website known for spewing out neocon lies. Go talk to any Muslim and they will show you WHY their religion is peaceful in its nature and DID NOT spread by the sword.
Because it’s not just ‘some’ it’s the majority.
So would you say Christianity is also statist since the vast majority of Christians are statist?
I don’t think you can backup the idea that islam was previously anti-statist, because Islam has historically been based on individuals territories ruled with a king-like fist by caliphates, which represents near total collection of power in the hands of the caliphate, which is a statist method of ruling and living. And there are elements in islam calling for a return to caliphates, whereas there is no one in the west calling for a return to kings, though they are following policies that will result in dictatorship.
I’ll give you the same argument Muslim anarchists have told me: Muhammad was it. There is no one else like Muhammad. Anyone after him is a fraud. The Islamic state was supposed to have died when Muhammad did. The state in this case was a necessity and after Muhammad it wasn’t needed anymore. All these statist Muslims are just buying into a distorted version of what Muhammad’s original intent was.
Bottom line for me is that, despite w/e you want to claim about the historical muslim world (the west was free-er in the past as well), nothing in Islam has prevented the modern muslim world from becoming just as statist and collectivist as the rest of the world in the modern era, if not more so.
If it had, you might have a point, but it hasn’t. No point. Pretty much end of discussion.
You are putting Islam in a vacuum w/o mentioning all the western imperialism in the region or the fact that the Middle East has been invaded more times in history then any other region.
I’m not talking about existence, I’m talking about prevalence. Monotheism was definitely not prevalent before about 600 AD or so.
How does India belie it? Their history is a massive confirmation of this thesis… India’s religions were conscientiously polytheistic and their political structures were decentralized over long stretches of time.
I’m not familiar enough with China’s history to rebut you - but my point is not that “States cause monotheism” but, rather “State monopolization of religion causes monotheism.” So, did China’s historical states control a vast array of religions in a polytheistic (tolerant) manner?? Count me skeptical…
Clayton -