Why does Islam produce murderers?

totally against them
what does that have to do with Mohammed being a warlord who inspires muslim violence

 

Why don't we discuss why "I choose to be a Christian"?

I am Christian because I believe in the creed, I love Jesus, social justice.

I learned about Islam to respect other people helping needy. I have too much faith in Jesus to reject him.

I was born a Christian.

 

This seems to me to open up a number of other questions rather than directly answer the question.

I know that Muslims believe that the Quran is the verbatim word of God (Arabic: الله; Romanised as Allah). It is my understanding that it can only be read correctly in the original Classical Arabic.

If the Quran does incite these atrocities why is it that such a small number of Muslims commit them?

Are those Muslims who commit atrocities able to read the Quran in Classical Arabic and fully understand it?

 

I'm getting a sense of don't be racist or show your prejudice and let's defend Muslims.

I'm not being racist. I live in an area with a large Muslim population. I engage with Muslims on an all most daily basis. I know the majority of Muslims are not extremists. However, there does seem to be groups within Islam that believe it's appropriate to commit atrocities in the name of their faith. I don't believe we see the same with other religions.

There has to be some aspect of the Muslim Faith that leads to the extremist views, which while they may be held by the minority, are held by a significant minority. I'm more interested in why they commit heinous acts against innocent people. I wasn't asking about the fundamentalist forms of Islam in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Iran or Afghanistan where non-Muslims aren't tolerated, where some Muslim sects aren't tolerated, where women are treated as the possessions of men and as second class citizens, etc.

 

I think the observation about the Saudi and extremist strands of Islam are indoctrinating and exporting potential terrorists is a valid one. Especially as social media has escalated factionism in all sorts of societies, it makes sense that non-geographic lines of influence are being drawn. Fundamentalism (of any religion, really) can make on prone to anger, and anger is easily manipulated toward violence given a sufficiently persuasive and devious Imam (or Pastor Bobby Joe, or Rabbi Whomever).

(Nobody has mentioned Buddhist violence yet, a little surprisingly. That's been an issue lately in... Myanmar?)

Anyone (or any group) that feels threatened is more likely to act in a retaliatory manner. Western secularism is seen as a massive threat to conservative Islam, so they lash out at Western things (and they often equate secularism with Christianity). It's a similar phenomenon that gave rise to the January 6th incident here in the USA with a feeling-threatened right wing, and the Zionist Nationalist movement pushing against their ancient rivals next door.

So, at this moment in history, the Muslim world is somewhat cornered, geopolitically speaking, which is why it looks like it is now "their turn" to breed more baddies for local terror. Personally I think we should take this as a warning and an opportunity. It's a warning for the religious-political right wing of our own churchmen who are getting increasingly angry and feeling disenfranchised in "their own country" - we have to pastor them in the way of Christ and avoid such evils. And it's an opportunity in the face of that violence to show the world what the way of Christ truly looks like when faced with such brutality and hate.

 

Of course it does. You said 'I do not see this in other religions besides Islam.' and I responded 'This is perhaps a contemporary observation. I think the point I was trying to make is that we have seen it in many religious and other traditions.'

A former Prime Minister of Australia and ardent Catholic, Tony Abbott, at one stage suggested that Islam needed a reformation. Clearly there are a vast number of nuances that this observation was based upon. It did ask the question I guess of what the reformation had achieved for the Christian Church. Some of that is based in individual responsibility and choice, rather than simple passive acceptance, and some of it is based on what we have come to see as the separation of Church and State. Sometimes I wonder how it is that the Church following Jesus who said 'my kingdom is not of this world' ended up on Christmas Day in the year 800 crowning Charlemagne as 'Holy Roman Emperor'. Partly I conclude that we lost sight that the battle is for hearts and minds, not kingdoms and caliphates.

Power and authority are often exercised in this world through dominance and fear, and even though we know that the power of the gospel is love, even the Church has sought other means to advance it's cause along the way, with Crusades, Inquisitions, and hellfire preaching.

That is how I understand it as well. There are a number of authors who have addressed this question, but ultimately it is a brick wall. The Quran was written across several periods of the prophets life, and it is not nicely assembled in chronological order. There are numbers of passages that do not seem to sit well with others, and possibly reflect different periods of the Prophets life, some of which was in peace, and some of which was on campaign. It is not possible for the Muslim to ask the question of the context and the Sitz-em-Leben when it comes to understanding the text.

The same problem can be seen in the text of Scripture. So if we look at Psalm 137.9 we read 'Blessed shall he be that taketh thy children and throweth them against the stones', we know that we are not to take this as an instruction but rather understand to lament of those bereft of homeland in exile in Babylon. We read this in the context of the words around it, and in the context of the history of the people of Israel.

I don't think that the Quran does necessarily incite atrocities, and many many Muslims will want to point you to passages that promote peace. However it can be used to promote violence. Some part of this is in the hands of those who expound the text, and those who use the text.

I suspect more Muslim can understand Arabic than we imagine.

Islam presents three faces to the world.

• A way of life, centred at the oasis in the desert
• A Noble faith tradition of the Children of Abraham
• A serious geo-political force for those who have been wronged.

Sadly of course that probably provides us with more questions yet rather than a definitive answer.

 

I'm sure that is true, but Arabic is not like English. You're in Australia, I'm from the UK and if we both met up with a chap from the US we could converse. However, if a man from far western Morocco was to meet up with another from far eastern Iraq they wouldn't understand each other despite both speaking Arabic. To be able to converse they would both need to switch to Modern Standard Arabic. However, that is not the language of the Quran. That book of Islamic scripture is written, I understand, in Classical Arabic. No one has spoken Classical Arabic since about the ninth century AD. That predates Chaucer. Now, I cannot read and understand Chaucerian English. Perhaps in that time span Arabic has not changed to the same extent as English. However, it does leave me still wondering how many Muslims, or indeed anybody, can read and understand Classical Arabic. I am pressing on this point because I believe Islam claims the Quran can only be truly understood in its original language and not in any modern vernacular translation.

 

This is 100% correct. No one converses in Classical Arabic. The Arabic of the Qur’an plays much the same role in Islam as Ecclesiastical Latin did for pre-VC2 Catholicism. Those who are educated in the faith know what they’re saying when they recite the prayers or the Qur’an, but - for non-Arabic speakers - that doesn’t translate (literally) to an ability to converse in that language.

 

I understand what you mean, since you were born into a RC family. But actually, no one is born a Christian because no one is born a follower of, or a believer in, Christ. We are saved by grace through faith in Him, not through our heritage, neither through the faith of our relatives. Even membership in a religious body (being on a church's membership list) cannot save anyone. I'm not saying you think any of these latter things, however there are some people in the world who have a mistaken understanding about this so it seemed wise to mention the distinction.

 

Although I do accept that a lot of violence has been carried out by different religions throughout history, today's white supremacists are the stuff of Nazi nightmares, and we all saw where that led. Any time one group of people thinks they are superior to another, or pretend they think that because of their fears, then violence is bound to raise its ugly head. No one group holds the monopoly on violence though.

 

I do not think all atrocities are inspired by a person's warped understanding of their religion. However, I would say that white, right-wing, supremacists have behaviours and beliefs that are not dissimilar to extreme fundamentalist religious belief.

 

While there might be an occasional right-wing race-supremacist, racism is probably more predominant in the extreme left than the extreme right, as this article explains. Hitler (a socialist) and Mussolini (a Marxist) are textbook examples of leftist race-supremacists.

 

Neither of these identifications are wholly accurate, and the conclusion is debatable.

The outdated (and artificial) “right vs. left” dichotomy isn’t terribly useful for describing the actual spectrum of political convictions in modern democratic societies, and is best dispensed with. If we’re going to say that traditional conservatives are “right wing”, then it is wholly inaccurate to lump them together with white nationalists, who are about as far from conservative values as it’s possible to be.

 

I am note sure that that is all that helpful.

ASIO’s response
We continue to adapt our counter-terrorism efforts to respond to the changing security environment. Our unique collection capabilities, investigations and analysis continue to identify threats. And our advice has contributed to broader government understanding of the terrorist threat environment within Australia, our near region, and globally. In cooperation with our law enforcement partners, our work has led to arrests and convictions.

In early 2021, we changed the language we use to describe terrorism and violent extremism to better reflect the evolving threat environment. Terms like ‘left-wing extremism’ and ‘right-wing extremism’ are no longer fit for purpose when a growing number of extremists do not sit on the left–right spectrum at all.​

Instead, we now use religiously motivated violent extremism and ideologically motivated violent extremism as umbrella terms, with more specific terminology available when we refer to particular threats. This new language allows us to more accurately, objectively and flexibly describe the threats Australia faces.

https://www.asio.gov.au/director-generals-review.html​

I think that may be his assessment that the terms have served the purpose and should be retired is something that makes better sense of things. I don't find left or right particularly useful, and most people I know who use these terms think I am whatever they are not. Most of us in the west have seen a growing trend of indistinct-ability between the major political parties, and it is not that they are centrist, but rather all over the shop chasing votes.

 

ISTM that we are saying much the same thing.

 

Sorry, I was really replying in same vein as you to the same post by @Rexlion.

 

Here is an Israeli-Jewish perspective on the matter. And if the original crime weren’t despicable enough, we may reflect on this. As the ultra-Orthodox become a greater and greater share of the Israeli population, we should expect religiously motivated terrorism on the part of Jews to become a bigger and bigger problem there.

 

Well, since my main desire in making that post was to push back against the false notion that 'white supremacist' = 'far right wing' or that 'racist nationalist' = 'far right wing', I think we are basically in agreement.

 

BTW anyone interested in a list (with descriptions) of religiously motivated Jewish terrorism in Israel and the Occupied Territories may consult this. And what a list it is. These attacks were carried out by fundamentalists, and the targets were frequently Muslim and Christian religious sites.