Rant on Islam comments

[formergothardite]

Would Cliven Bundy have been labeled a terrorist if he had been Muslim instead of a Christian? If a Muslim had said this:

We're about ready to take the country over with force!"

while calling in friends with guns to face off federal workers, would it been called an act of terrorism against the American government?

[Terrie]

While I wouldn't argue with the idea that Islamic terrorism is more common than Christian terrorism, I have two words for people who think Christian terrorism doesn't and wouldn't happen: Eric Rudolph.

And he wasn't isolated in his beliefs. In the rural parts of North Carolina where he was believed to be hiding out, some shops would have signs up that said "Run Rudolph, Run!"

I was think more like the LRA in Uganda as an example of terrorism where we don't talk about the religious connection.

[Terrie]

Let me add, in the US, at least, we are much more at risk from right-wing extremists than Islamic ones. These groups often have ties to extremist Christian groups, such as Christian Identity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opini ... .html?_r=0

[FundieFarmer]

I would concur that Christian terrorism is just as prevalent, but in a very different way which in turn makes it easier to dismiss. The evidence of domestic Christian terrorism that I could find via a very brief Google were carried out, for the most part, by one or two people. While yes, there are individual acts of terrorism within Islam, it is much easier to write off a lone wolf as not connected to a group or religion and instead just someone who is suffering from mental illness. Even the religion itself, no matter how aggressive it is, can denounce the person. That is difficult to do when there is concerted, premeditated actions by a group of 19 men and evidence of support from the religion.

That thought process, I think, is another crutch that closed-minded Christians use to protect themselves from the possibility that they too may be part of a religion that is capable of violence.

[VelociRapture]

I posted about this over in AYTFJ? before I saw this thread. But I feel its appropriate to put here as well and I think it's a topic worth discussing. Forgive me for how long this turned out to be. And for those of you who have read this elsewhere already - sorry!

There was one poster (possibly PregnantPornStar - forgive me if I'm wrong!) on the other thread who made comments regarding Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, who was 6 when they married and 9 or 10 when the marriage was consummated. I just want to take a moment to address this and explain why I think we shouldn't judge him too harshly on this specifically (please read this before labeling me a pedophile sympathizer):

Yes, Muhammad's marriage to Aisha is extremely troubling and offends modern sensibilities. Most rational adults in western societies today would agree that marrying a 6 year old and having sex with a 9 year old is beyond repugnant. At the time Muhammad and Aisha lived, however, it was not considered as such - it was considered a strategic move to strengthen his position in society. Additionally, a young female who had reached puberty and started to menstruate was thought to be eligible for marriage across many different cultures, including cultures in the Middle-East, because she was biologically capable of bearing children - which was one of the main purposes for marriage in the first place. Muhammad reportedly allowed Aisha to remain with her parents until she reached puberty - it was at that point that she left home and conjugal relations began.

There are plenty of examples from history that show this isn't something limited only to Middle-Eastern cultures either. For instance:

- Margaret Beaufort, who was about 12 when her second marriage was consummated and 13 when she gave birth to her only child, Henry Tudor (later, King Henry VII of England).

- Isabella of Valois, who was was 6 at the time she married King Richard II of England (then 29) and who was 9 when she was widowed.

- Marie Antoinette was 14 at the time of her marriage to the Dauphin Louis of France, who was 15. Their first child was born 7 years later, leading some to question whether they knew what to do in order to conceive.

- The last Emperor of China, Puyi (then 16), choose his bride, 16 year-old Gobulo Wan Rong, from a photo lineup. They had no children and whether the marriage was consummated is in doubt.

- Ankhesenamun was about 13 when she married her younger half-brother, Tutankhamun (who was around 9 or 10.) They had two daughters, both stillborn, before his death at age 19.

- Prince Arthur of England and his bride, Katherine of Aragon (later married to his brother Henry VIII), were both 16 when they married. Please see the creation of the Anglican Church for why the question of consummation of this marriage was so important.

- Elisabeth of Bavaria was 16 when she married Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria, who was 24 at the time. They had several children together.

- King John of England was 34 when he married Isabella of Angouleme, then 12. Their first child was born 7 years after the wedding - so either they waited to consummate the marriage or they just had rotten luck with conceiving. (Thanks for reminding me of this one sawasdee!)

- Queen Victoria's eldest daughter, Emperess Victoria of Germany, married her husband (Frederick) when she was 17 and he was 27.

- Judith of France was likely about 13 or 14 when she married King Æthelwulf of Wessex in 856 - when the King was about 50. They had no children and the King died shortly into the marriage. She was then married to his son - who also died before they had children.

- Margaret of Bohemia, Queen of Hungary, married Louis I of Hungary at 7. She died at age 14 without having any children.

- Beatrice of Luxembourg married Charles I of Hungary when she was about 13 - Charles was about 30. Beatrice died in childbirth a year later at the age of 14 or 15.

- Isabella of Hainault was married at the age of 10 to Philip II of France, who was 15. It's likely the marriage was consummated soon after because only a few years later her husband was considering setting her aside for failure to provide an heir (she was 14); he didn't set her aside due to her overwhelming popularity with the common folk. She had one son at the age of 17 and died in childbirth (giving birth to twins who died 4 days after her) when she was just about to turn 20.

- Joan I of Navarre married Philip IV of France when she was 11 and he was 16. Their first child was born when she was about 15.

Yes, Muhammad's marriage to Aisha is extremely troubling and offends modern sensibilities. At the time they lived, however, it was not considered as such. And as the list I compiled above shows, this was not something simply limited to Middle-Eastern cultures or only to the time period in which Muhammad lived. He was far from alone in marrying and having sexual relations with someone we would consider a child in modern times.

We can judge all we like, but I find it a bit unreasonable to impose modern beliefs and standards on people who lived in such a different time and place. Should we judge those who use Muhammad's marriage to Aisha as justification for child marriage in modern times? Absolutely - because they live in a time where we know better.

Can we know how Muhammad would act if he were alive today? No. We have no clue what he would think or do because his time and place in history is so different from our own.

[latraviata]

[Yes, Muhammad's marriage to Aisha is extremely troubling and offends modern sensibilities. At the time they lived, however, it was not considered as such. And as the list I compiled above shows, this was not something simply limited to Middle-Eastern cultures or only to the time period in which Muhammad lived. He was far from alone in marrying and having sexual relations with someone we would consider a child in modern times.*]

All true, but in Islamic countries child brides are nothing out of the ordinary because their prophet did the same.

[FundieFarmer]

[Yes, Muhammad's marriage to Aisha is extremely troubling and offends modern sensibilities. At the time they lived, however, it was not considered as such. And as the list I compiled above shows, this was not something simply limited to Middle-Eastern cultures or only to the time period in which Muhammad lived. He was far from alone in marrying and having sexual relations with someone we would consider a child in modern times.*]

All true, but in Islamic countries child brides are nothing out of the ordinary because their prophet did the same.

I find it weird that if people are so outraged by child brides in Islamic countries, there's not more uproar about the actions of FLDS here.

[latraviata]

I find it weird that if people are so outraged by child brides in Islamic countries, there's not more uproar about the actions of FLDS here.

Why should I? Do you think Europe should organise an uproar because of something in the USA?

FLDS is a minority the American legal system should deal with.

Child brides in the Islamic countries are rampant and thank god there are some local groups fighting against it.

Every comparison between islamic culture, religion and the Western countries, culture, religion is flawed and hardly an argument.

In short, they live in the dark ages, we don't.

[FundieFarmer]

Why should I? Do you think Europe should organise an uproar because of something in the USA?

FLDS is a minority the American legal system should deal with.

Child brides in the Islamic countries are rampant and thank god there are some local groups fighting against it.

Every comparison between islamic culture, religion and the Western countries, culture, religion is flawed and hardly an argument.

In short, they live in the dark ages, we don't.

This has nothing to do with Europe, so I am not sure where you pulled that. My point is that there are parallels. If one is concerned about child brides in Islam, he/she should be concerned about child brides across all cultures and religions. MENA/Islam is not the only culture/religion where there is child marriage.

To me, if someone is offended by Muhammad's marriage to Aisha because "it offends modern sensibilities", then they should definitely be offended by underage marriages that are taking place at all, regardless of where, what religion, or how small the sect is.

Anyway, I wasn't speaking specifically to your quote but instead to the discussion as a whole as it pertains to individuals who are upset by underage marriages, regardless of nationality. ETA: VR's post is about modern cultural reactions to the historical practices of underage marriage. I think that if someone finds history offensive, they should really take a reality check that it's still happening under their noses and be more offended about that.

[VelociRapture]

[Yes, Muhammad's marriage to Aisha is extremely troubling and offends modern sensibilities. At the time they lived, however, it was not considered as such. And as the list I compiled above shows, this was not something simply limited to Middle-Eastern cultures or only to the time period in which Muhammad lived. He was far from alone in marrying and having sexual relations with someone we would consider a child in modern times.*]

All true, but in Islamic countries child brides are nothing out of the ordinary because their prophet did the same.

Fair point. As I said in my post it may be unfair to judge Muhammad by modern sensibilities, but the same isn't true for his followers who continue the practice today. Humans and our morals have evolved over the 1500 years (or so) since Muhammad lived. What was the norm is his time is not the norm now. At the time Muhammad lived, adulthood was classified as beginning with the onset of puberty - by the standards of his day, Muhammad would have done nothing wrong. By the standards of today, he would have done something very wrong because the start of adulthood has shifted.

Furthermore, unless I'm very mistaken (and I could be), the Qu'ran actually states that marriage is only valid between two consenting adults and that a woman has the right to choose her husband. Again, based off what we know about the culture of Muhammad's time, Aisha and Muhammad's marriage would have been perfectly valid when they lived because she fit the criteria for adulthood when the marriage is said to have been consummated; in modern times, it wouldn't (and rightfully so) because we recognize that the onset of puberty doesn't coincide with the maturity needed for a sexually-based relationship and the responsibilities of marriage.

The Muslim people in modern times who participate in child marriages (or other forced marriages) are not following what Muhammad seems to have taught, as least as I understand it. They are reading what was written very literally in my opinion, kind of in the same way that Fundamentalist Christians read the creation narrative very literally. Its possible that they do so because it provides justification for marrying their children off due to economic reasons.

[latraviata]

Fair point. As I said in my post it may be unfair to judge Muhammad by modern sensibilities, but the same isn't true for his followers who continue the practice today. Humans and our morals have evolved over the 1500 years (or so) since Muhammad lived. What was the norm is his time is not the norm now. At the time Muhammad lived, adulthood was classified as beginning with the onset of puberty - by the standards of his day, Muhammad would have done nothing wrong. By the standards of today, he would have done something very wrong because the start of adulthood has shifted.

Furthermore, unless I'm very mistaken (and I could be), the Qu'ran actually states that marriage is only valid between two consenting adults and that a woman has the right to choose her husband. Again, based off what we know about the culture of Muhammad's time, Aisha and Muhammad's marriage would have been perfectly valid when they lived because she fit the criteria for adulthood when the marriage is said to have been consummated; in modern times, it wouldn't (and rightfully so) because we recognize that the onset of puberty doesn't coincide with the maturity needed for a sexually-based relationship and the responsibilities of marriage.

The Muslim people in modern times who participate in child marriages (or other forced marriages) are not following what Muhammad seems to have taught, as least as I understand it. They are reading what was written very literally in my opinion, kind of in the same way that Fundamentalist Christians read the creation narrative very literally. Its possible that they do so because it provides justification for marrying their children off due to economic reasons.

There were child brides at the courts of ancient Europe. But these marriages were for political/economical reasons and were not consummated until the bride and groom were mature enough.

There are serious doubts whether Mohammed actually existed. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122669909279629451.

[Cleopatra7]

Why should I? Do you think Europe should organise an uproar because of something in the USA?

FLDS is a minority the American legal system should deal with.

Child brides in the Islamic countries are rampant and thank god there are some local groups fighting against it.

Every comparison between islamic culture, religion and the Western countries, culture, religion is flawed and hardly an argument.

In short, they live in the dark ages, we don't.

If the marriage of Muhammed and Aisha was simply a case of people from the past with different ideas about marriage and sexuality it would be one thing. However, Salafi Muslims of 2015 believe that Muhammed was the most perfect human being ever and that all of us should act as he and his companions did, which includes marrying children. That's the difference between Muhammed and say, Margaret Beaufort, as no one in the West is using her life story as a blueprint for how 21st century life should be carried out.

Also, I believe that the reluctance of US law enforcement to do anything about the flagellant lawbreaking of the FLDS goes back to the Short Creek raid, which blew up in the authorities faces when the public saw children being taken away from their fathers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Creek_raid

I'm personally of an opinion that the FLDS and other polygamous sects are a pox on society, especially since everyone knows incest, welfare fraud, and underage marriages are a norm in these groups. However, I also suspect that these groups are heavily armed in the case that another raid occurs, which could be another reason that they are simply left alone.

[VelociRapture]

There were child brides at the courts of ancient Europe. But these marriages were for political/economical reasons and were not consummated until the bride and groom were mature enough.

There are serious doubts whether Mohammed actually existed. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122669909279629451.

I'm aware that there are debates over whether Muhammad existed, much as there are debates over whether Jesus or Abraham existed.

The child marriages in the Middle-East in ancient times were performed for the exact reasons you mentioned for child marriages in ancient Europe - economic and political purposes. For a leader, such as Muhammad, strengthening your political position through marriage was incredibly important just as it was for European Kings. While I don't know for sure what happened in other marriages of the time, it appears that Muhammad and Aisha (if they existed) didn't start a sexual relationship until she met the criteria for adulthood, which meant the onset of puberty and which appears to have been true for many other cultures in ancient history as well - as distasteful as it is to consider.

[latraviata]

I'm aware that there are debates over whether Muhammad existed, much as there are debates over whether Jesus or Abraham existed.

The child marriages in the Middle-East in ancient times were performed for the exact reasons you mentioned for child marriages in ancient Europe - economic and political purposes. For a leader, such as Muhammad, strengthening your political position through marriage was incredibly important just as it was for European Kings. While I don't know for sure what happened in other marriages of the time, it appears that Muhammad and Aisha (if they existed) didn't start a sexual relationship until she met the criteria for adulthood, which meant the onset of puberty and which appears to have been true for many other cultures in ancient history as well - as distasteful as it is to consider.

He married her at 5 and consummated the marriage when she was 9. It is in the Ahadith of Mohammed, if he existed.

[VelociRapture]

If the marriage of Muhammed and Aisha was simply a case of people from the past with different ideas about marriage and sexuality it would be one thing. However, Salafi Muslims of 2015 believe that Muhammed was the most perfect human being ever and that all of us should act as he and his companions did, which includes marrying children. That's the difference between Muhammed and say, Margaret Beaufort, as no one in the West is using her life story as a blueprint for how 21st century life should be carried out.

Also, I believe that the reluctance of US law enforcement to do anything about the flagellant lawbreaking of the FLDS goes back to the Short Creek raid, which blew up in the authorities faces when the public saw children being taken away from their fathers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Creek_raid

I'm personally of an opinion that the FLDS and other polygamous sects are a pox on society, especially since everyone knows incest, welfare fraud, and underage marriages are a norm in these groups. However, I also suspect that these groups are heavily armed in the case that another raid occurs, which could be another reason that they are simply left alone.

I agree with you (especially about the FLDS.) However, I still find it unfair to judge someone from a very different time period using modern beliefs. Additionally, as far as I know (and I could be wrong), Muhammad himself never ordered anyone to take child brides. I guess I just don't understand why people target Muhammad specifically for acting in a way normal for his time when he had no way of knowing how societies and cultures would evolve... And the vast majority of comments I see condemning child marriages in Islam are quick to blame Muhammad and not the people responsible for the marriages (like the parents.)

He married her at 5 and consummated the marriage when she was 9. It is in the Ahadith of Mohammed, if he existed.

Again, I'm aware of that and I flat out stated that in my other post.

[nausicaa]

Why should I? Do you think Europe should organise an uproar because of something in the USA?

FLDS is a minority the American legal system should deal with.

Child brides in the Islamic countries are rampant and thank god there are some local groups fighting against it.

Every comparison between islamic culture, religion and the Western countries, culture, religion is flawed and hardly an argument.

In short, they live in the dark ages, we don't.

What is your definition of Islamic countries? Countries that follow Sharia law, countries with a Muslim majority, or just countries with a sizeable Muslim population?

And child brides are not rampant in all "Islamic countries." It is very uncommon in Turkey, Bosnia, Algeria, Albania, Singapore, Qatar, and the UAE.

Africa has a higher incidence of child marriage than the Middle East, and it occurs amongst Christians in Pakistan, Kenya, and Ethiopia, as well as Hindus in India. It is also common in Latin America. I would say, much like female circumcision, the practice is much more cultural than religious. And might have a thing or two to do with poverty...

"they live in the dark ages." Who are "they"? All 1.6 billion Muslims?

And there are also serious doubts as to whether Jesus existed. What's your point?

[VelociRapture]

What is your definition of Islamic countries? Countries that follow Sharia law, countries with a Muslim majority, or just countries with a sizeable Muslim population?

And child brides are not rampant in all "Islamic countries." It is very uncommon in Turkey, Bosnia, Algeria, Albania, Singapore, Qatar, and the UAE.

Africa has a higher incidence of child marriage than the Middle East, and it occurs amongst Christians in Pakistan, Kenya, and Ethiopia, as well as Hindus in India. It is also common in Latin America. I would say, much like female circumcision, the practice is much more cultural than religious. And might have a thing or two to do with poverty...

"they live in the dark ages." Who are "they"? All 1.6 billion Muslims?

And there are also serious doubts as to whether Jesus existed. What's your point?

Here is a table I found that lists the countries with the most instances of child marriages in modern times:

Rank Country Name % girls married before 18

• 1 Niger 75
  2 Chad 68
  3 Central African Republic 68
  4 Bangladesh 66
  5 Guinea 63
  6 Mozambique 56
  7 Mali 55
  8 Burkina Faso 52
  9 South Sudan 52
  10 Malawi 50
  11 Madagascar 48
  12 Eritrea 47
  13 India 47
  14 Somalia 45
  15 Sierra Leone 44
  16 Zambia 42
  17 Dominican Republic 41
  18 Ethiopia 41
  19 Nepal 41
  20 Nicaragua 41

* Child marriage prevalence is defined as the percentage of women 20-24 years old who were married or in union before age 18.

Source: UNICEF State of the World's Children, 2013 - data from UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and other national surveys, and refers to the most recent year available during the period 2002-2011. Source: United Nations

Source: icrw.org/child-marriage-facts-and-figures

This website points out that the highest percentage of child marriages are in parts of Africa, but the vast number of people in Southern Asia make that the place that has the most overall child marriages. And from the same website:

No one religious affiliation is associated with child marriage. Rather, a variety of religions are associated with child marriage in countries throughout the world.

Girls living in poor households are almost twice as likely to marry before 18 than girls in higher income households.

More than half of the girls in Bangladesh, Mali, Mozambique and Niger are married before age 18. In these same countries, more than 75 percent of people live on less than $2 a day.

Based off that last quote, I honestly think that addressing economic inequalities in these nations would do a world more good than just focusing on whether a religion is to blame. It wouldn't solve the problem completely, but I think it would go a long way in cutting down on the number of child marriages that occur each year. Yes, its important to also address religious aspects - but I think the economics involved may play a more prominent role most of the time.

[latraviata]

What is your definition of Islamic countries? Countries that follow Sharia law, countries with a Muslim majority, or just countries with a sizeable Muslim population?

And child brides are not rampant in all "Islamic countries." It is very uncommon in Turkey, Bosnia, Algeria, Albania, Singapore, Qatar, and the UAE.

Africa has a higher incidence of child marriage than the Middle East, and it occurs amongst Christians in Pakistan, Kenya, and Ethiopia, as well as Hindus in India. It is also common in Latin America. I would say, much like female circumcision, the practice is much more cultural than religious. And might have a thing or two to do with poverty...

"they live in the dark ages." Who are "they"? All 1.6 billion Muslims?

And there are also serious doubts as to whether Jesus existed. What's your point?

My definition is a country with a predominant muslim population. Although it might be uncommon i the above mentioned countries, it still exists in rural areas.

All 1,6 billion Muslims, yes pretty much, even here in Europe in their closed sharia communities.

I have serious doubts about Jesus too.

I don't think there is a clear distinction between culture and religion, cultures are defined by their religion. Even when child marriage occurs among some christians and hindus, does that make it less important or is that a justification? It is more the scale of it and it still exists.

[PregnantPornStar]

Are we really trying to justify Muhammed raping a nine year old? WTF. Forget the rest of his wives...

Why is everyone so quick to excuse the bad things in Islam?

And to note, since it is likely that Muhammed is a myth...that means someone made up the story about him rapinghis 9 year old wife and then people are trying to justify a made up rape. :shock:

[Terrie]

I don't think anyone here has denied that Muslims are capable of great evil. It's just that we don't think it has anything to do with being Muslim and everything to do with being human. It's not unique.

[Cleopatra7]

I agree with you (especially about the FLDS.) However, I still find it unfair to judge someone from a very different time period using modern beliefs. Additionally, as far as I know (and I could be wrong), Muhammad himself never ordered anyone to take child brides. I guess I just don't understand why people target Muhammad specifically for acting in a way normal for his time when he had no way of knowing how societies and cultures would evolve... And the vast majority of comments I see condemning child marriages in Islam are quick to blame Muhammad and not the people responsible for the marriages (like the parents.)

Islam differs from Christianity in the sense that Muhammad for the most part wasn't telling his followers "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not" in the way Jesus does in the gospels. Rather, his entire life is supposed to be a model for how Muslims should act, whether they live in 7th century Arabia or 21st century London (at least, according to Salafists). To them, he's the most perfect human being who ever lived, which was why he was chosen to be the final prophet. Salafi Muslims think that everything Muhammad did should be emulated, from the way he wore his clothes to the way he ate food to how he conducted his domestic life. This is different than Christianity, which teaches that Jesus was fully divine and fully human, but that no ordinary human can ever try to measure up to his example. While the Catholic church holds up the Holy Family as being the model for the Christian family (which is odd, since the members of that family were supposed to be an elderly celibate man, a perfectly virginal woman born without original sin, and a demi-god, but whatever), they don't expect modern Catholics to dress exactly like Jesus, Mary, or Joseph or to live like 1st century Roman Palestinian Jews in mud houses. Tell Salafi Muslims that Muhammad was wrong to have sex with a nine year old would make no sense to them, because they believe that Muhammad never did anything wrong.

And I would say that marrying and having sex with a nine year old girl definitely does harm to her, regardless of what her culture has to say about it. Girls of that age are not physically or emotionally ready to have sex, and for good reason. To put it bluntly, having sexual intercourse with a nine year old will cause severe internal damage, if not kill her. The afore mentioned Margaret Beaufort almost died from giving birth when she was twelve or thirteen, and the resulting internal damage was such that she could never have another baby. This is also why there was so much concern about that ten year old girl who recently gave birth in Central America, because her body wasn't developed enough to carry, much less deliver, a baby. Since the average age of menarche has been getting gradually lower since the Industrial Revolution, I would even question whether most girls, especially those living as peasants, in pre-modern societies would be sexually mature at nine.

[browncoatslytherin]

just to insert here...while the "average" age of menarche has been decreasing as of late, there has always been variables on either side. and if something like precocious puberty or something along those lines comes into play, then all bets are off.

not trying to say a 9 year old would be mature enough, physically and mentally, to have sex. however, looking at the old standards of sexual maturity (menarche), she would have been considered a woman through and through.

again, not trying to sound like i am "justifying" it, just saying that with their limited knowledge on the subject it must have seemed very logical at the time. nowadays, obviously we know better.

[Monkeebrainz]

Here is a table I found that lists the countries with the most instances of child marriages in modern times:

This website points out that the highest percentage of child marriages are in parts of Africa, but the vast number of people in Southern Asia make that the place that has the most overall child marriages. And from the same website:

Based off that last quote, I honestly think that addressing economic inequalities in these nations would do a world more good than just focusing on whether a religion is to blame. It wouldn't solve the problem completely, but I think it would go a long way in cutting down on the number of child marriages that occur each year. Yes, its important to also address religious aspects - but I think the economics involved may play a more prominent role most of the time.

The economic mode of production has everything to do with when people marry and how many kids they have.

[Clementine]

Culture and economy absolutely are important factors to why 125 million children are married off every year.

However, Islam is used as a justification to keep child marriages in some muslim countries. "If Muhammed did it, how can anybody say that is wrong" is their logic.

Same with taking sex slaves. Muhammed and his followers took female sex slaves after his battles, so that is ok too. Millions of non-muslim women were sold to islamic countries for centuries and yet that is a slave trade we hear very little about today. IS capturing and selling sex slaves today is justified according to them because that's what Muhammed did.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I guess the point I wanted to make (between classes and with lots of distractions) was this: violent people are violent people. Some claim Christianity as justification, some claim Islam, some claim atheism or their own deity. People who want to harm others will, and they'll use whatever justification they can fit with those intentions. And if someone has a psychological disorder that lends toward violent fanaticism or obsessive devotion...Whatever religious beliefs nourish those inclinations, especially if psychiatric care is maligned, will exacerbate those issues.

I just want to be careful here. Sometimes, someone who is mentally ill may engage in violent actions and religious obsessions, but it is ableist to assume that any violent action that we can't really understand is due to mental illness. I'm not saying that you are doing this, but I do hear a lot of knee-jerk "that person must be crazy" when there is no evidence of actual mental illness.

Are you claiming that a tendency to be violent is solely innate, and that society has NO effect on violence? If that was the case, rates of violence would be the same across countries, cultures, socio-economic groups, etc., and wouldn't change over time.