Muslims

[HOBBIT]

Originally Posted by Spock

If anyone with an open mind and a knowledge of the film and the times of T.E. Lawrence were to read this, THEY would understand.

No I'm talking about the comments that have said that the muslim religion is inerently violent and that the only solution is to Christianize all of them. :P A muslim would be offended by that. ;P

[Insidious Rex]

1# First, work at putting an end to Islam altogether by bringing them to Christ through a loving Christian witness and through prayer.

Lief your thinking here is horribly and dangerously flawed. If your real goal is to have peace then you can not get there by forcing conversion of non christians to Christianity. For that will GUARANTEE war. Because they will see it as an attack on their religion (and rightly so). And those you fail to convert will remain hostile to you for your intolerance of their religion. You preach a lot about how muslims want to conquer the world and then you make a horrifying statement like this?

As for justifying insulting people and not having it be racist well that’s just silly and not really the point frankly. It matters not at all what the context of the original quote was. When the quote is used to paint a religion with a broad brush (and its intent was a race originally) it is inherently damaging and denigrating. And is only asking for trouble. The language was NOT used (here) to refer to arab groups fighting each other it was used to castigate MUSLIMS from all over the world for protesting against the cartoons being published and some of them acting violently.

[Spock]

Indeed, if you put that "forcing Christianity" on the sentence.

However, Islam is a violent religion.

There are only three choices for unbelievers: 1) accept Islam, 2) pay the jizya (tax on unbelievers), 3) War .

Islamic theologians have asserted that the Verse of the Sword (ninth Sura 9:5)abrogates no fewer than 124 more peaceful and tolerant verses of the Qur'an.--Ibn Arabi, in Suyuti, Itquan iii, 60.Df. John Wansborough, Quranic Studies, Prometheus, 2003, 184.

[Lief Erikson]

As Spock said above, I never said anything about forcing conversion. I know that bringing new religious views into the area might very possibly invoke anti-Christian violence, but I consider persecution a worthwhile price to pay for doing what's right. This evangelism would not be done in an aggressive way. It would not be done in a way that attempts to force people to listen. If they show they aren't interested, then we just leave them alone.

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

No I'm talking about the comments that have said that the muslim religion is inerently violent and that the only solution is to Christianize all of them. :P A muslim would be offended by that. ;P

I hear comments from people condemning Christianity all the time. Didn't you know that before Christianity, there was no war and everyone lived happily and peacefully side by side as friends?

But the fact that these views might be offensive does not make them wrong.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

As for justifying insulting people and not having it be racist well that’s just silly and not really the point frankly. It matters not at all what the context of the original quote was. When the quote is used to paint a religion with a broad brush (and its intent was a race originally) it is inherently damaging and denigrating. And is only asking for trouble. The language was NOT used (here) to refer to arab groups fighting each other it was used to castigate MUSLIMS from all over the world for protesting against the cartoons being published and some of them acting violently.

None of us were talking about the cartoons, and I think Spock was talking about violent Muslims rather than all Muslims. Lawrence was talking about Arab tribes and saying that internal fighting makes them this way, not ethnicity, so it is clear he wasn't talking about racism. Also, he just said "Arab tribes." He wasn't talking about religion.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

a) definitely be solved without involving religion as it has been done in the past

Yet if the religion is itself inherently violent, such actions could only be delaying actions. That is why a more permanent solution is needed.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

b) maybe can only be solved by both sides putting the religious fundamentalism aside,

There you go. Even you admit Muslim fundamentalism must be put aside. Though I think Christian and Muslim fundamentalism have both resolved many ugly problems in the world. Some of the beliefs and practices of the Arab tribes Mohammed conquered were quite pagan, and the world is better off without them. Many of the views Christian missionaries have brought to an end through evangelism or violence also are views that nowadays would just be viewed as horrendous. For instance, the gladiatorial games in Rome.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

much like how the US has done it's best to separate religion from state matters and find the common ground as opposed to trying to change the uncommon ground

Well, I don't really approve of complete separation of church and state. But I guess I won't bother with going there now and certainly not here .

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Religion has been trying to solve these problems for thousands of years and frankly hasn't done all that well.

I think it has brilliantly solved a very, very broad number of problems, actually . For instance, I don't gossip. Nor do I have any STDs or take drugs. There are three problems religion has prevented right there . Sure, there are secular solutions to these too, but religion is another solution.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Maybe it's time to take the more recent, and often successful, tact of secular solutions.

I don't think so at all. I have no problem with secular people trying to apply secular solutions, so long as I think they're moral, but I think the religious solution is also a critically important and valuable one. That's because my worldview differs drastically from yours, I think.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yet if the religion is itself inherently violent, such actions could only be delaying actions. That is why a more permanent solution is needed.

But even you have admitted that there are muslims who have found the peaceful path, and found it in their own scriptures. Are you saying they are just going to wake up one day and go, "What was I thinking? Let's go kill the infidel?"

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

My point is not to argue whether or not any faith is true.

I'm not arguing that, either. I'm saying that if ANY faith - Islam, atheism, agnosticism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. - is true, then it will have true statements about REALITY in it. And as you pointed out, it's important to deal with reality. I agree.

My point is that the problems that exist in the world can:

a) definitely be solved without involving religion as it has been done in the past

Is this just a feeling of yours, or can you point to some repeated, large-scale successes? The U.N. leaps to mind, but not as a success ...

b) maybe can only be solved by both sides putting the religious fundamentalism aside, much like how the US has done it's best to separate religion from state matters and find the common ground as opposed to trying to change the uncommon ground

I think you have an erroneous view of separation of church and state, but that's for another thread.

Religion has been trying to solve these problems for thousands of years and frankly hasn't done all that well. Maybe it's time to take the more recent, and often successful, tact of secular solutions.

Several problems here. First off, from what I can tell, this involves marginalizing or eliminating ALL "religious" people. Is this correct; and if so, how is that right or fair? Second, you mention "secular" solutions - exactly what is a secular solution? You can have as many secular solutions as you have secular people. Some may involve loving your neighbor as yourself (sounds familiar - hey, isn't that religious?) and some may involve eliminating your neighbor if they're weaker than you. And since there is no standard to judge them against, how can you say which is right or wrong? (The second secular solution sounds Darwinian - how could that possibly be wrong, if it's brought us so far? (assuming that it is true, that is ...) )

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

As Spock said above, I never said anything about forcing conversion. I know that bringing new religious views into the area might very possibly invoke anti-Christian violence, but I consider persecution a worthwhile price to pay for doing what's right. This evangelism would not be done in an aggressive way. It would not be done in a way that attempts to force people to listen. If they show they aren't interested, then we just leave them alone.

You said converting them to christianity was your primary pillar toward "peace". If conversion doesnt happen (nevermind the antagonistic aspect of it) and according to your definitions having muslims in the world leads to war then whats the point of conversion at all then?

None of us were talking about the cartoons, and I think Spock was talking about violent Muslims rather than all Muslims. Lawrence was talking about Arab tribes and saying that internal fighting makes them this way, not ethnicity, so it is clear he wasn't talking about racism. Also, he just said "Arab tribes." He wasn't talking about religion.

But my point is those terms were used to describe muslims based on their religion earlier in this thread. There was no context of "tribe" used since the terms were used on any that excessively protested the cartoons in a way that was to us over the line of decency. And that happened all over. So you cant say indonesians and Iranians and Jordanians are all the same tribe. Just the same religion. And that kind of denigration is extremely counter productive and therefore certainly NOT a solution to the troubles we are currently dealing with.

I think it has brilliantly solved a very, very broad number of problems, actually . For instance, I don't gossip. Nor do I have any STDs or take drugs. There are three problems religion has prevented right there . Sure, there are secular solutions to these too, but religion is another solution.

And if we were all magically transformed into cockroaches we wouldnt have to worry about these things either (or religious strife!). But clearly thats impractical to propose... So why not attempt to have a rational solution that wont alienate half the worlds population and lead to further bloodshed.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think you have an erroneous view of separation of church and state, but that's for another thread.

All your questions are for another thread.

But I'll ask you the same question I just asked Lief. Is it not true that there are at least some muslims who have found a peaceful path within their own scriptures? And, if so, why not try to work in that direction, as opposed to trying to convert someone from the faith they have grown up with, which introduces a whole bunch of other issues?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

But even you have admitted that there are muslims who have found the peaceful path, and found it in their own scriptures. Are you saying they are just going to wake up one day and go, "What was I thinking? Let's go kill the infidel?"

It's broadly acknowledged that extremism is growing, not shrinking. There was a spike in global terror as a result of extremists putting a nasty interpretation on the war in Iraq, but radicalism was already growing before the war, as well.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Is it not true that there are at least some muslims who have found a peaceful path within their own scriptures? And, if so, why not try to work in that direction, as opposed to trying to convert someone from the faith they have grown up with, which introduces a whole bunch of other issues?

Working in that direction was one of the four main points I presented. I think it's very good to work at encouraging and strengthening that segment of the Muslim faith. However, one can work at more than one good strategy at the same time. These two strategies can both be implemented together. And there is a very good reason for implementing the evangelism strategy as well. If one acknowledges that Islam does have violence in its nature (and history shows that this is so), then Islam must be destroyed. Destroying Islam by violence would be horrific, so it should be changed in a peaceful way. Prayer and evangelism are key ways to accomplish this.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You said converting them to christianity was your primary pillar toward "peace". If conversion doesnt happen (nevermind the antagonistic aspect of it) and according to your definitions having muslims in the world leads to war then whats the point of conversion at all then?

Just because conversion might not always occur as a result of a Christian witness doesn't mean evangelism shouldn't be attempted.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And if we were all magically transformed into cockroaches we wouldnt have to worry about these things either (or religious strife!). But clearly thats impractical to propose... So why not attempt to have a rational solution that wont alienate half the worlds population and lead to further bloodshed.

The blood that would be shed would all be our blood. We wouldn't be trying to force conversions or push our faith on the unwilling. However, some Muslims would persecute us anyway- this is all already happening in conservative Muslim nations. We would be presenting what we see to be the truth in a loving way to those who are receptive, and praying that God will help bring change in people's lives and remove the violence. There is nothing wrong in this. As with brownjenkins, it's merely the fact that you're not a Christian that leads you to discard this part of the strategy. This part of my strategy comes purely from my own Christianity, so I don't expect any nonChristians to agree with it (and the main Christians I expect to agree with it are those Christians who agree with my views about Islam, though really all Christians are supposed to be witnesses anyway). If you accept that the Holy Spirit does perform wonders among people and does dramatically change large numbers of people's lives (sometimes tens of thousands or even millions- you should read about some of those Christian movements in Africa). If you accept that God does act in that way and that Jesus is the Prince of Peace and God of All, then it makes complete sense to appeal to him as part of a defense strategy against the threat to world security posed by Islam. If you don't accept my Christian premise though, it makes complete sense to think this is pointless and perhaps counter-productive. Because our premises are so different, I think this part of my strategy is rather beyond discussion in the Muslims Thread.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But my point is those terms were used to describe muslims based on their religion earlier in this thread. There was no context of "tribe" used since the terms were used on any that excessively protested the cartoons in a way that was to us over the line of decency. And that happened all over. So you cant say indonesians and Iranians and Jordanians are all the same tribe. Just the same religion. And that kind of denigration is extremely counter productive and therefore certainly NOT a solution to the troubles we are currently dealing with.

I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're saying this time . Sorry!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Spock

However, Islam is a violent religion.

It really isn't. At all.

I don't know a huge amount about Islam, but I'm quite sure that saying the jihad is a spiritual battle within one's own soul is a perfectly valid approach. I wish there was a real Muslim who could post in this thread.

After he got over his initial horror at some statements, he could shed some light on different interpretations of the Qu'ran. Now I wish I had taken time to read the display from my university's Muslim Students Association.

Originally Posted by Spock

There are only three choices for unbelievers: 1) accept Islam, 2) pay the jizya (tax on unbelievers), 3) War .

The fourth, which exists and is practiced by millions, is peace.

Originally Posted by Spock

Islamic theologians have asserted that the Verse of the Sword (ninth Sura 9:5)abrogates no fewer than 124 more peaceful and tolerant verses of the Qur'an.--Ibn Arabi, in Suyuti, Itquan iii, 60.Df. John Wansborough, Quranic Studies, Prometheus, 2003, 184.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. It seems good?

Lief, I imagine there is a Muslim somewhere thinking that Christianity is really the wrong approach, and it would be a great service to tell us all about Islam and get us all to convert. Who is right? You or the Muslim?

Also, eliminate Islam? That is the goal of converting people!? I thought one might tell others about Christianity and Jesus so they could know Him, and if they were moved to believe in Him, Christianity would gain another member. But for the goal to be to irradicate one of the world's major religions seems complete madness to me.

I mentioned earlier that culture and religion, especially Islam in this context, are deeply intertwined. If Islam ceased to exist so much wonderful culture would be lost. Small things like shawarmas with halal meat, and big things like beautiful Mosques, and Mecca would all be lost. Also, I heard that the Qu'ran is full of poetry. It would be a shame to lose that.

edited:
more on jizya. I don't consider Wikipedia to be the unvarnished truth, but this article seems pretty detailed.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't know a huge amount about Islam, but I'm quite sure that saying the jihad is a spiritual battle within one's own soul is a perfectly valid approach.

Well, history makes clear that this isn't the approach Mohammed or the early Muslims took.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Lief, I imagine there is a Muslim somewhere thinking that Christianity is really the wrong approach, and it would be a great service to tell us all about Islam and get us all to convert. Who is right? You or the Muslim?

I'd have to debate it with the Muslim in the Theology Thread.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Also, eliminate Islam? That is the goal of converting people!? I thought one might tell others about Christianity and Jesus so they could know Him, and if they were moved to believe in Him, Christianity would gain another member. But for the goal to be to irradicate one of the world's major religions seems complete madness to me.

Of course one must reach out to the Muslims in love so that they could know him. Irradicating an evil that controls many of them and threatens us is also very important, though. Irradicating that evil for our benefit as well as theirs is a perfectly valid and loving action, part of the ministry of evangelizing. I see it as banishing demons. If there aren't any demons there anymore, that has benefit for both sides. Christianity is supposed to be a religion of spiritual rather than flesh and blood war- that is why Paul tells us to put on the Armor of God and take up weapons of righteousness in both hands. Destroying evil and oppression is a critically important part of the Christian life, and a loving part of it. It often goes hand in hand with ministry.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I mentioned earlier that culture and religion, especially Islam in this context, are deeply intertwined. If Islam ceased to exist so much wonderful culture would be lost. Small things like shawarmas with halal meat, and big things like beautiful Mosques, and Mecca would all be lost. Also, I heard that the Qu'ran is full of poetry. It would be a shame to lose that.

This ignores the possibility that a lot of marvelous culture might come out of such a transformation too. Furthermore, not all of that need be lost. When Rome converted to Christianity, it maintained much of the culture of the Empire. It didn't lose all in the transformation.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

edited:
more on jizya. I don't consider Wikipedia to be the unvarnished truth, but this article seems pretty detailed.

According to that article, some say that jizya was a payment for being exempt from military service. But then that article also points out that jizya often was paid while the person was beaten around the head and neck. That doesn't exactly imply fair treatment. Furthermore, there were many laws that aren't part of the jizya, but were placed on non-Muslim communities. Like the one I mentioned earlier in this thread, that if a Muslim strikes a Christian and the Christian strikes back, the Christian is subject to the death penalty and the Muslim isn't. The laws were extremely unfair.

[Serenoli]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I wish there was a real Muslim who could post in this thread.

Your wish is my command!

I haven't read much of this thread. I remember I started once, but I felt too sick at points. I really don't want to answer back to any of the arguments, accusations and what-not, because the gulf seems too impassable. It makes me feel so awful to see you all just dismiss a whole way of life as 'violent' and 'dangerous'. How can I convince any of you, without showing you how my life is? My view-point here is so so different... and I am not a good one at arguments, I have not thought seriously about all this, or done as much research as some of you seem to have. I don't think I could ever convince you... but if you have any questions, I will try to answer.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If one acknowledges that Islam does have violence in its nature (and history shows that this is so), then Islam must be destroyed. Destroying Islam by violence would be horrific, so it should be changed in a peaceful way. Prayer and evangelism are key ways to accomplish this.

But christianity also has violence in it's history. Yet you are willing to just label these christians as "fake christians" and help them to the right path instead of saying "we must eliminate christianity".

I'm sorry Lief, but I think you are guilty of the exact same lack of vision that the muslim fundamentalists are. You understand christianity, so it seems like it must be the only way, but there really are many other equally valid paths to peaceful coexistance, you are just not willing to give them a chance. A real chance. Demanding that someone forsake their own heritage, no matter how much "love" you wrap it up in, is going to only lead to more violence.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Serenoli

I really don't want to answer back to any of the arguments, accusations and what-not, because the gulf seems too impassable. It makes me feel so awful to see you all just dismiss a whole way of life as 'violent' and 'dangerous'. How can I convince any of you, without showing you how my life is? My view-point here is so so different... and I am not a good one at arguments, I have not thought seriously about all this, or done as much research as some of you seem to have. I don't think I could ever convince you... but if you have any questions, I will try to answer.

Don't worry about it too much, there's a lot more barking than bite here.

And you don't have to convince me either. I believe people are good people 'till they prove otherwise, no matter what there flavor of belief is.

[Serenoli]

that's a good belief, brownie...

Lief, I just have one point to make. So, many years ago, there were laws, violent ones, too, like the jizya, and the one about the Christian being under a death penalty if he hit a Muslim.

Quite unfair to the non-Muslim, yes? But also very unfair that because of it, hundreds of years later, when we (the majority at any rate) no longer follow such laws, but stick to a more peaceful version of Islam, we should be asked to give up our religion for Christianity.

I mean, you may point all you like at the terrorists, but what percentage of Muslims do make bombs in their backyards, or cut off the hands of thieves? And, you rave on and on about Christianity, but all I see are societies of anarchy, with no rules, where anything goes, where morality takes a back-seat to freedom-to-do whatever you please. And that works for you, but maybe I do not want my world to disintegrate like that- and all of it because some people quoting the Bible, decide to eradicate my religion with love and evalengical teachings as the non-offensive weapons etc. I'm sorry if I seem to be attacking your religion, but I'm not - only pointing what my perception of Christian society is.

Destroying evil and oppression - is that really what you believe our lives to be, Lief? And that by introducing us to Jesus, you'll be doing us such a favour? We already know him!! He is in our religion as well, but perhaps you do not know that? Isaah is the name we have for him. He is one of a long line of prophets sent to earth to preach about God, and Mohammed was the last and the greatest. Such is our belief.

In fact, I have heard a completely different story of the Crucifixon from my grandfather (he read much more of the Quran than I did). If it won't offend you too much, I'll tell you...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Just because conversion might not always occur as a result of a Christian witness doesn't mean evangelism shouldn't be attempted.

If your goal is as you say truly peace then logically absolutely it should not be attempted. Because the results will only set things BACKWARDS not forwards. It will only lead to more bloodshed not less.

Lets look at the possible scenarios: attempt to convert a radical islmist or terrorist and you may get yourself or others killed for it. You will not turn them. So you send us backwards. Attempt to convert a moderate or “liberal� Muslim and you most likely offend them and push them more toward the radical side since you are speaking down to their religion which you describe as “evil�. Again you send us backwards instead of forwards toward peace and harmony.

So instead of conversion your approach should be a meeting of the minds. And in this way a conversion of more and more Muslims to the less radical and extremist approach to their religion. Losing their religion isn’t necessary just alienating the bad folks from the good and reducing the numbers of the bad folks out there. Right now too many of the decent folk in Muslim (and non Muslim) countries are less inclined to stand outright against the radicals because they feel they are being persecuted by the west who doesn’t understand them. Make an attempt to understand them and engage in activities that don’t alienate them and you can be sure the vast majority will isolate the radicals (the “evil� ones as you put it...) leading to a much better much less tense global situation.

Bring people TOGETHER Lief. Dont alienate them. In this way you are still “converting� them but you aren’t threatening their religion. You have no right to do this just as they have no right to threaten Christianity.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Serenoli

I mean, you may point all you like at the terrorists, but what percentage of Muslims do make bombs in their backyards, or cut off the hands of thieves? And, you rave on and on about Christianity, but all I see are societies of anarchy, with no rules, where anything goes, where morality takes a back-seat to freedom-to-do whatever you please. And that works for you, but maybe I do not want my world to disintegrate like that- and all of it because some people quoting the Bible, decide to eradicate my religion with love and evalengical teachings as the non-offensive weapons etc. I'm sorry if I seem to be attacking your religion, but I'm not - only pointing what my perception of Christian society is.

This is such wonderful stuff. Finally a validation of the reality of different perspectives. Serenoli, when I tried to bring up the fact that we have to understand different cultures and different peoples can have different perspectives on certain issues I was told it doesn’t matter. Good is good and bad is bad. Im glad you have posted here to verify just how important (and valid!) perspective is on this issue.

I think its really telling that this is your perception of Christianity. And I can certainly see how you could see that.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

But christianity also has violence in it's history. Yet you are willing to just label these christians as "fake christians" and help them to the right path instead of saying "we must eliminate christianity".

Your problem, brownie, is that you are looking at history of religion, rather than the religion itself. Lief is saying (and I'm not certain I agree) that Islam is inherently violent, not merely that it has violent adherents.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Serenoli, if I may address what you say concerning Christian society.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

I mean, you may point all you like at the terrorists, but what percentage of Muslims do make bombs in their backyards, or cut off the hands of thieves? And, you rave on and on about Christianity, but all I see are societies of anarchy, with no rules, where anything goes, where morality takes a back-seat to freedom-to-do whatever you please. And that works for you, but maybe I do not want my world to disintegrate like that- and all of it because some people quoting the Bible, decide to eradicate my religion with love and evalengical teachings as the non-offensive weapons etc. I'm sorry if I seem to be attacking your religion, but I'm not - only pointing what my perception of Christian society is.

I would say that you see in Western society is very much true. It is anarchical. There is no authority. Rules are blatantly disregarded, where they exist. Morality is considered by many a relic of the past. The pursuit of what one desires takes precedence over all. Pleasure is considered the ultimate good. This is not the way things should be. In fact, while I do think the West has a few things over Muslim societies, I think that probably the Muslim societies are superior to Western society considered as a whole.

However, what you and I see in the West is not a Christian society. One could possible make a case that the United States is, but with Europe it cannot be realistically done (and I think the case for the US would be pretty weak myself). Western society has reached the point where secularism is the state religion, no longer Christianity. I would say that it all began with the Reformation, but that's another discussion, but what Western society is is not a Christian society. There are certainly Christian bastions and remnants, which may make a come-back in the future, but as it stands, the Western culture and society is non-Christian.

Destroying evil and oppression - is that really what you believe our lives to be, Lief? And that by introducing us to Jesus, you'll be doing us such a favour? We already know him!! He is in our religion as well, but perhaps you do not know that? Isaah is the name we have for him. He is one of a long line of prophets sent to earth to preach about God, and Mohammed was the last and the greatest. Such is our belief.

In fact, I have heard a completely different story of the Crucifixon from my grandfather (he read much more of the Quran than I did). If it won't offend you too much, I'll tell you...

I'm familiar with the basics, but I'd be interested to hear more.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Your problem, brownie, is that you are looking at history of religion, rather than the religion itself. Lief is saying (and I'm not certain I agree) that Islam is inherently violent, not merely that it has violent adherents.

I know he is. And I think he is missing the big picture. I think violence stems from how you choose to practice your religion more than due to the fact that you simply have one. Sure, certain scriptures may contain more instances of violence than others, but the devil is in how you interpret those scriptures, along with what parts you follow and what parts you do not. Or whether you even allow yourself to be selective about such things. Many fundamentalists do not.

Violence has a lot more to do with other factors outside of religion. And, when religion becomes a factor, it is usually the fundamentalists of the faith that are behind it, no matter what that faith may be. So the problem is fundamentalism, or more simply put, putting written doctrine ahead of present-day realities.

I think you can even see this within a religion like christianity, which has so many different interpretations. Violence throughout history has been more common among the catholic sects, which tend to be much more fundamental by their very nature (and by that, I mean structured with somewhat inflexible rulesets), than it is among the less-structured protestant sects.