What causes muslims to be violent

[PeteJ]

I don't think it's an either/or. There can be more than one reason for a person preferring one sort of sect over another. For some, the trigger may be purely emotional, it's true; but for others, the key issue can be theological.

For example, suppose somebody decides to become a Pentecostal. Is that because he/she is particularly emotional? But if that's ALL that it is, we would have to say that he/she is "selling out" truth in order to find something comfortable...and he/she might not at all accept that characterization. Would we be surprised if such a person also had theological motives, not just emotional ones, that lent urgency to the decision? In fact, wouldn't we be surprised if he/she didn't?

Or is it, on the other hand, that he/she has for a long time been drawn to the idea of a more experiential faith, notes some latitude for that in the Biblical text, finds it modelled better in Pentecostalism than in, say, Presbyterianism or Puritanism, and changes denominations out of theological conviction? And if he/she does that, does that rule out that he/she might also be more emotionally pleased by the change than by remaining with the other sects? And if he/she is emotionally pleased, does that diminish the theological issue that was key in the first place?

I wouldn't see this as having theological motives, just preferences as to forms of practice and some minor details of what to believe. But i see what you're saying and agree.

I know what you mean by it here, but normally I would dismiss the phrase 'experiential faith' as an oxymoron.

So grouping the three under "Abrahamic" seems a little odd.

Not odd since it is a common practice. But thanks for pointing out it is extremely lazy. Until I check out the justifcation for this practice I'll stop using it.

I think the observation is more useful when applied within a particular metaphysical persuasion or "religion", rather than among different ones. For example, if a person is born in an Islamic country, but is of highly emotional disposition, does that even remotely suggest he/she will opt for Pentecostalism over Islamic Conservatism? That seems implausible, but especially implausible if Pentecostalism isn't even an option on offer where he/she is. Or if a person is raised Pentecostal but is of legalistic disposition, does that imply he/she will be converting to Islam?

So inter-religious migration or conversion from one faith to the other probably needs a different explanation.

For the dogmatic religions you're right. I endorse a certain interpretation of Islam but struggle mightily on an emotional and cultural level.

But the situation is different if you include the rest. I'm suggesting that inter-religious migration or conversion from one faith to another is not necessary for a Muslim to become a Christian or vice versa, such that the choice may be made on temperamental or social grounds. But this would only be the case when they see (rightly or wrongly) that the underlying doctrine is the same.

So I'm not suggesting there's anything wreng or even trivial about emotional choices and social preferences etc. Each of us must find our own path to Heaven, Enlightenment, Happiness or whatever it is we're pursuing, and a like-minded community is bound to be helpful.

[Immanuel Can]

Would I be correct in thinking that the Shia faith is more sympathetic to Sufism than that of the Sunnis?

They seem to be, so far as the NYT and other sources say. I can't say I have ever met a Sufi, let alone asked a Shiite about their views on them, so I can't speak personally about that. All I can tell you is the Shiites and the Sunnis really hate each other.

[Immanuel Can]

I know what you mean by it here, but normally I would dismiss the phrase 'experiential faith' as an oxymoron.

As would I. But here, it just refers to those people who attempt to ground their faith in terms of personal experience. For example, some Pentecostals insist you aren't genuine until you've spoken in "tongues" or participated in "miraculous healings," or at least had some sort of ecstatic vision, and so forth. Most other Christians would disagree with that, but some Pentecostals and Charismatics would insist upon it.

I endorse a certain interpretation of Islam but struggle mightily on an emotional and cultural level.

That's interesting. My understanding is that Islam fuses belief with culture and politics. In Islam, there's no legitimate separation between the three recognized. Islamism is Sharia and the Five Pillars. That's because it's predominantly a religion of works, not of belief. To submit to Islam is to do all that is required by Islam. The rest is clearly detail, including the private counsels of the heart. It might be 'nice,' from an Islamic perspective, if you believed a particular set of things, too...but it's not mandated. The Koran doesn't even really concern itself much with belief. I checked. I read it, cover-to-cover.

What branch of Islam do you endorse?

Each of us must find our own path to Heaven, Enlightenment, Happiness or whatever it is we're pursuing, and a like-minded community is bound to be helpful.

Why?

Why must "each of us find our own path"?

I don't question that each of us has to choose a path for himself to walk, and nobody can choose it for us. That's just a fact of personal conscience, and nobody can disagree with that. But I do find claims that there are as many paths as there are people highly suspect -- if that is implied by the phrase "find our own path."

After all, that would mean that ANY path was as good as any other, which would then mean that no particular path was a "path" at all. For paths are defined by being "the way to" someplace, in exclusion of other possible "paths": and if all paths lead to the same place, there is no need of a path at all.

But yes, a community is bound to be helpful IF they are on the right path. If they are not, then a community would be more likely to be a hindrance to a person finding the right path in the first place.

Doesn't that seem apparent, too?

[Belinda]

I think this is all very true. I'd like to add that some families, neighbourhoods, and ethnic groups encourage emotionality while others encourage keeping emotions well hidden from view.

Yes, that's true.

Now, in Islam, there are various sects -- though Islam prefers us all to think there is only one Ummah, one Islam, and that the proliferation of sects raises questions about the validity of a religion, and particularly about Judaism and Christianity. But the proliferation of sects is tied to other concerns than truthfulness, such as the availability of choice and the seriousness with which people are treating theology within their groups (stronger belief tends to produce more sects). Judaism famously has four major divisions, plus lesser ones, for example. And they are separated by the degree of intensity with which they adhere to various traditions, teachers or texts. But all are accepted within Judaism, albeit with some internal grumbling.

Islam has two major divisions, the Shia and the Sunni, and then minor sub-sects, like the Sufis, the Ahmadi and the Bahai. The latter three, especially in the west, tend to be much more liberal than the first two: but the first two are also vastly dominant. But there is a remarkable degree of hatred between the Shia and the Sunni. You can see that in Iran/Iraq tensions and wars, for example. Even in western contexts, the two often will have nothing to do with each other -- to the point of even refusing to sit beside each other, denying that each other's mosques are really mosques, or saying that the other side drinks urine, and other such canards. (I have seen all this first hand.)

So even a religion as autocratic and tyrannical as Islam has sects. All religions end up with them. However, in Islam, the Sunnis are about 80% and the Shia about 20%...the remainder of sects being absorbed in one or the other, or else excluded by both from any consideration as genuine Islam.

My next door neighbour, a middle class prosperous Muslim enlightened me to the fact of Islamic sectarianism of which I had previously been ignorant. Social class and educational level influence how Muslims do Islam.

[PeteJ]

As would I. But here, it just refers to those people who attempt to ground their faith in terms of personal experience.

I get your meaning. But it seems to me they make no attempt to do this. They seem to encourage subjective experiences that have nothing to do with knowledge or realisation. 'Grounding' a faith means swapping it for knowledge. 'Bolstering their faith' or perhaps celebrating it how I'd describe the Pentecostal practices you mention. I'd see the individualism and subjectivity of these practices as an aspect of the emotionalism we've discussed.

That's interesting. My understanding is that Islam fuses belief with culture and politics. In Islam, there's no legitimate separation between the three recognized. Islamism is Sharia and the Five Pillars. That's because it's predominantly a religion of works, not of belief. To submit to Islam is to do all that is required by Islam. The rest is clearly detail, including the private counsels of the heart. It might be 'nice,' from an Islamic perspective, if you believed a particular set of things, too...but it's not mandated. The Koran doesn't even really concern itself much with belief. I checked. I read it, cover-to-cover.

What branch of Islam do you endorse?

You describe the institutional view. I share the Sufi view, by which Islam is not about belief, faith or dogma but just about walking in the path of the prophet and discovering what he discovered. This idea is heretical for many Muslims. The situation is mirrored in Christianity, which I'd also endorse when stripped of belief, faith and dogma.

Why must "each of us find our own path"?

Because we all start in different places armed with different skills and temperaments.

I don't question that each of us has to choose a path for himself to walk, and nobody can choose it for us. That's just a fact of personal conscience, and nobody can disagree with that. But I do find claims that there are as many paths as there are people highly suspect -- if that is implied by the phrase "find our own path."

Hmm. That every path is unique seems inevitable to me. Of course, all roads lead to Rome so the paths eventually converge and merge.

After all, that would mean that ANY path was as good as any other, which would then mean that no particular path was a "path" at all. For paths are defined by being "the way to" someplace, in exclusion of other possible "paths": and if all paths lead to the same place, there is no need of a path at all.

The different paths are requited because of the different starting-points. All paths (if they really are a path) lead to the same place, but I cannot travel on your path or you on mine. In the same way. every person takes a different path to learning the guitar. I need this lesson, you need that lesson and so on. But in a sense there would only be one path since they all converge in the end. This is the path spoken of by Jesus that passes through Him. Iow, the path eventually leads us to what today's Christian mystics sometimes call 'Jesus consciousness' or what Taoists call the 'True Man'.

But yes, a community is bound to be helpful IF they are on the right path. If they are not, then a community would be more likely to be a hindrance to a person finding the right path in the first place.

Doesn't that seem apparent, too?

Yes! This is exactly my problem with Pentecostalism. But members of these kind of group-hugs are not usually looking for a path to Truth and Knowledge and rarely expect to acquire any, and would regard my view as heretical. I was thinking more of the early Christian community or the Buddhist sangha.

Interesting discussion.

[Immanuel Can]

Social class and educational level influence how Muslims do Islam.

That's interesting.

Can you explain? How do education and social class change things?

[Immanuel Can]

'Grounding' a faith means swapping it for knowledge. 'Bolstering their faith' or perhaps celebrating it how I'd describe the Pentecostal practices you mention. I'd see the individualism and subjectivity of these practices as an aspect of the emotionalism we've discussed.

That's my poor word-choice, then.

What I mean is that they take experience, intensity of emotion and mystical enthusiasm as the certification of genuine religiosity. One thing common in Pentecostalism is a skepticism about any religious expression that is too calm, to knowledge-based or too dispassionate. They take that for 'dead' religion. For them, the very intensity of the experience is self-certifying.

I share the Sufi view, by which Islam is not about belief, faith or dogma but just about walking in the path of the prophet and discovering what he discovered. This idea is heretical for many Muslims. The situation is mirrored in Christianity, which I'd also endorse when stripped of belief, faith and dogma.

Interesting. I am aware that Sufism, as I said earlier, is regarded as inferior or non-authentic by what you call the "institutional" Muslims. Why is that?

Why must "each of us find our own path"?

Because we all start in different places armed with different skills and temperaments.

That's the part I don't find hard to agree with. And that's what I mean when I say "each of us has to choose a path": the starting point, not the end.

But there are still more problems with the idea that the "paths" remain individual and different from one another. If that is true, they are not a "path" at all, since only one person every walks one. And since they are said to converge at the end, and "lead to Rome," so to speak, none of them is a "wrong" path, and neither is the choice of any of them of any importance at all. For then, all the "paths" differ only in the beginning and middle, but all are the "right" path, so to speak.

If that's so, then "institutional" Muslims are on something every bit as good "path wise" as Sufis...and so are Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Atheists, pagans, and people who have no thought of God at all.

So then, on what basis do you find Sufism recommendable? Its "path" would be of no particular merit.

(Understand here, please, I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm trying to understand how this sort of view works.)

Of course, all roads lead to Rome so the paths eventually converge and merge.

If all roads lead to Rome, that will make Catholics very happy. But it may not quite delight you or me.

...eventually leads us to what today's Christian mystics sometimes call 'Jesus consciousness' or what Taoists call the 'True Man'.

That sounds inclusive at first, but could be quite imperious. It would be to dissolve the Christian belief into the Taoist, and then absorb both into another narrative that is neither Taoist nor Christian.

It goes back to the problem that if all such "paths" go to the same place, then no "path" -- presumably even including Sufism -- is recommendable over any other. However, what you say next seems to contradict this conclusion, because you say...

But members of these kind of group-hugs are not usually looking for a path to Truth and Knowledge and rarely expect to acquire any, and would regard my view as heretical.

But "these kinds of group-hugs" are just a different "path." And whether it entails any "Truth and Knowledge" would be immaterial, since it will still get them "to Rome." So you must be implying that their "path" is, for some reason not yet evident to me," not really a "path" at all. That is, if by "Rome" you mean "Truth and Knowledge."

I'd like to hear more about how you keep those two claims -- namely that all paths are good and that that path is not good -- believable together. It seems to me that the first wipes out the second, or the second makes the first impossible.

Interesting discussion.

Indeed so.

[Belinda]

Social class and educational level influence how Muslims do Islam.

That's interesting.

Can you explain? How do education and social class change things?

I don't know, but I think people who are educated and affluent have more power of choice, and so have less need to cling to ritualised ethnic behaviours and traditional ideas. Too, educated people are sometimes more aware of the historicity of events and can view the Koran, for instance, as set within a historical rather that an eternal context.

[Immanuel Can]

Social class and educational level influence how Muslims do Islam.

That's interesting.

Can you explain? How do education and social class change things?

I don't know, but I think people who are educated and affluent have more power of choice, and so have less need to cling to ritualised ethnic behaviours and traditional ideas.

Maybe. But many of the most conservative Islamists are very, very wealthy and highly educated. So it doesn't seem quite the right explanation of how things play out in reality.

[Belinda]

That's interesting.

Can you explain? How do education and social class change things?

I don't know, but I think people who are educated and affluent have more power of choice, and so have less need to cling to ritualised ethnic behaviours and traditional ideas.

Maybe. But many of the most conservative Islamists are very, very wealthy and highly educated. So it doesn't seem quite the right explanation of how things play out in reality.

'

"Most conservative" and "highly educated" are mutually exclusive.

[Immanuel Can]

"Most conservative" and "highly educated" are mutually exclusive.

Not at all. A lot of Sharia Muslims are very well-educated, privileged at the top of their society, and very, very well-to-do.

So you need a much better explanation. To say, "conservatives are just ignorant," even when speaking of Islamic conservatives, is manifestly not so. You may feel justified in being angry at them, but you're clearly underestimating your opponent. That can be exceedingly dangerous. Just ask the victims of 9-11, who were all killed by highly-educated Muslims.

[Belinda]

"Most conservative" and "highly educated" are mutually exclusive.

Not at all. A lot of Sharia Muslims are very well-educated, privileged at the top of their society, and very, very well-to-do.

So you need a much better explanation. To say, "conservatives are just ignorant," even when speaking of Islamic conservatives, is manifestly not so. You may feel justified in being angry at them, but you're clearly underestimating your opponent. That can be exceedingly dangerous. Just ask the victims of 9-11, who were all killed by highly-educated Muslims.

Terrorists are by definition not highly educated. All terrorists are badly educated .Level of education or skill is not quality of education.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

.

[Belinda]

.

The same as Muslims. When Biblical rules and regulations are taken to be direct and literal commands from interventionist God.This is what happened with the horrible witch burnings 15th-18th century.

[Sculptor]

The followers of Islam seem to be the most violent among the three Abrahamic religions.
What you think?

I think you need to justify this statistically.
The emphasis is on the word "SEEMS".

Historically, of course it is Christianity which as produced the most violence.

I think might want to look at the way media concentrates on Muslims, yet fails to fully focus on all the wars caused by say, the USA, recently.
Were you to take actual deaths ,Vietnam alone would more than swamp any Muslim based violence statistic since 1945.