It's not me who is accepting that point of view. It's a French Muslim Philosopher. You can have a look at the link. Read please before making a criticism. I asked for a minded open discussion not for insults

Antonio

If anyone links Islam or Muslims to terrorism, then my advice to him/her is to broaden his/her vision beyond the "tool" and to search for the "real" mastermind of global terrorism. One cannot blame a "knife" for killing someone; the "person" ,who used this deadly weapon, is to blame & punish. Few questions may help: Who has an interest in destablizing Europe? Who works hard on preventing a meaningful United Europe ? Who targeted Arabic & Muslim countries with invasions & internal troubles? Who established these terrorist gangs & financed them? Who has done lot of work to defame Islam & to portray a negative image of it by huge media machines and by exploiting some philosophical "oriental" mercenaries ? ... 

Dear Dr. Russo,

My comments/opinions will not be directed toward, specific to, nor restricted to Islam, but intended to encompass ALL religions which are predicated upon, and outgrowths from, The BOOK.

Only a fool will read this BOOK (not to mention knowing NOTHING further of subsequent human history like the Crusades or hundreds of other religious wars) and try then to deny that it is a history based upon the most abject human violence and savagery predicated upon religion ... the history of the wars between, and the avarice and selfishness of, petty kings who seek to dominate their neighbors and force them to worship their God (or gods) and pay tribute to them to support the building of temples for their worship (or fighting to prevent being enslaved and having to do so), and to support their privileged noble-priesthood classes. A great history Book of violence all carried-out in the cause of religion. All religions (and their multitudinous sects ... Lest we forget, the most savage and violent murderers mankind has witnessed to-date were a Christian sect, the Nazis, who ended-up being responsible for the violent deaths more of their own faith than those of any other faith who they sought to annihilate) that have descended from the BOOK have repeated this savage history, time-and-again, seeking to force its narrow interpretation of how to worship God upon its neighbors, by any means necessary ... by peaceful means like trade, proselytization and gentle coercion, if possible (more cost-effective), but most-often having to resort to armed-force, inquisition, mass-murder, genocide, terror, and torture (because neighbors do not often easily give-up their long-held religious beliefs).

So, yes ... most definitely, YES, any rational and thinking and HONEST person must answer your question in no other way than YES, there is a definite and undeniable link between religion and violence.

My greatest respects for your courage in asking the question (but you probably should not have focused it so narrowly on Islam ... but I understand why you probably did, as that is what is presently the big topic in front of the international news).

Regards,

Bob

Even in biblical times there was much violence and when one reads any religious manuscript I have no doubt that nations rose up against nation. However when Jesus came to earth he came as the Prince of peace he talked about swords being made into pruning hooks and people practicing war no more. If everty religion took time to look at the other and look at the similarities instead of focusing on their differences then perhaps we would now experience peace. Tolerance and rights of individuals also need to be respected and if some one chooses to leave one faith and join another then that is a personal choice. If we claim to be followers of Christ or Christians the we should be setting g an example to others and developing the fruits of the spirit love joy peace longsuffering gentleness meekness goodness and temperance if we are not displaying these core values then we are not living as Christ intended. We should live in love and charity with our neighbours and follow his commandments. However we are not doing this but are rather following our own agendas we are living according to this world and disobeying the many commandments he set us in order to enjoy a good life. We are human and therefore weak we are easily tempted to go astray just as sheep we follow others . We do not live in love and charity Sith our neighbours either locally nationally or internationally and as long as we are fine we are blinded to those who are in need. Christianity is blamed for all the wars but the powers of darkness never stand accused of wrong doing or evil death or destruction or causing men or human kind to sin for we are all sinners. No one blames greed or lust or love of money or material wealth for the world's woes we need to look at the bigger picture.

Dear Mohamed El Naschie,

first of all many thanks for your new answer. There is absolutely No problem. I just wanted to start a discussion on the topic. I did the same with a paper of mine on Martin  Luther(1483-1546) and the Secular Authority, i.d. the obedience to the will of God as revealed in Scripture (in Italian: Martin Lutero e gli stolti governanti).  Now I am reading Josef Van Ess, Der Eine und das Andere: Beobachtungen an islamischen häresiographischen Texten, 2 voll. De Gruyter, Berlin/New York 2011.

Thank you again and best wishes

Antonio

One comment if you don't mind Dr. Antonio,

As far as I've notice while living in Europe and Canada that most of the people, just like you, searched for the 'internet' essays to learn about Islam. To me, this is a mistake. If you would like to conduct a study to answer your questions, it is better to return the sources, not to whatever others have said about sources.

For example, I used to live in Palestine where most of people around were Muslims. Over  a period 16 years, I've heard hundreds of people talking about how Bible (new and old testaments) are distorted by some Clerics. Really, that one story of Christianity that had caught for a while. It never occurred to me to read directly from the Bible itself, until 2004. After reading, I recognized the similarities and differences, I recognized how danger that one story was.

Here, I invite you to read directly from Quran, not to read about Quran.

Dear Alaa

as I just wrote in my answer to Mohamed at the moment I am re-reading  the books of Van Ess (he was my Professor in Tubingen and he is Not Internet or a social Network). I do not need internet to be informed about Islam. I have learned some languages (and a little Arabic: I had a teacher from Syria and some good friends of mine are from Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, etc.). I wanted to start a discussion. That's all. 

I'm sorry if my message was not clear enough, Dr. Antonio.

What I meant when I said - to return to the sources, not to whatever else- is to return to the origin, which is the Quran, not whatever else. 

Other people, books, professors, even Muslims are not the source. People interpret the same text in completely different ways.

Your questions are really interesting, and if you would like to conduct a research study, I would be glad to know how all religions are related to violence.

Dear Alaa

many thanks for your new answer.

I already wrote something about Christianity and Violence as well as on the Idea of Violence in Italian Society and Culture (Giovanni Gentile, Benedetto Croce, Ugo Spirito, etc.). Now I am doing a research about Religions and Violence (I have started before the terrorist attacks of November 13, 2015) and the Idea of Solidarity in Central Europe (Max Scheler, Maurice Blondel, etc.). Islam is a part of this research project. 

I am glad to see that you are interested to know the results

All the best

Antonio

Some of the leaders "who voiced outrage, pledged to help France , and claimed to stand shoulder to shoulder with France" are politicians at the end of the day. Politicians are well-known as actors & politics is full, to the brim, with lies.

I expected a much better response from France than what is done now. Some brave free intellectuals in the highly respected France, who has a rich culture, are asked to say the truth today (and not after many years).  

To my mind, terror has no religion and by labeling a terrorist as 'Islamist' or a 'Jihadist,' we are doing injustice not only to Islam, but to religion perse. Just as a criminal is a criminal, irrespective of his religion or faith, similarly, a terrorist is a terrorist, irrespective of his personal faith - by law he/she is a criminal.

Through the ages, humans have tended to be most sensitive to what they consider to be matters of opinion, rather than matters of fact. Such matters of opinion include politics, religions [note the plural], scientific hypotheses, and racial characteristics. The less certain a person is about his/her opinions, the more likely he/she is to feel that these opinions must be defended -- violently if necessary. This factor in what we Christians would call "fallen humanity" is not unique to any particular political or religious grouping. In recent years, certain sects of more than one religion have participated in acts of violence that do not square with the religious beliefs they claim to espouse. In the USA, we're seeing verbal violence among those who would label the opposing political party as "the problem".

Yes, internationally there are certain sects that have been particularly egregious lately, and also certain sects that were particularly egregious in the Middle Ages, but there's no need to stop there: as far back as you can go in human history, this ugly tendency has reared its head. Jesus told us clearly that the only way to peace is to love neighbors, enemies, everybody. As a Christian, I find this sometimes challenging but always necessary!

You can watch a documentary I made about this subject, the subtitles are in Spanish, but the documentary is in Arabic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtFUsGwJ8fg

Let me know if you have any question about it. The title "Al-Hamama" means the pigeon, 'cause it symbols the peace.

Many thanks Zouhair.

I am going to watch the documentary

Best

Antonio

No comment

Nigel Farage speech after Islamic attacks in Paris

A Member of the European Parliament

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH9fvLiGTXI&feature=youtu.be

Using Islam as a power-ideology is a major cause for the violence. Ideology implies certain economic and political orientations related particularly to power, as represented in religious movements/organizations or individuals who manipulate religion for political domination. For instance, Islamist movements that apply the ideology of political Islam are not essentially strict religious groups concerned with issues of doctrine, beliefs and faith, but political organizations manipulating Islam as an ideological force to gain power over others or to resist power imposed on them, leading to violence.

Many thanks for your answer El-Sayed El-Aswad

Best

Antonio

it is time to recognize that once religion is linked to nationalism, violence is inevitable.  This is true of all three monotheistic religions. It is nationalism that spawns violencenot the other way round. 

Many thanks for your answer Ian James Bickerton

Antonio

While nationalism may be a contributing factor in the contemporary era, ideological fervor associated with fundamentalism--the desire to enforce the letter of what is perceived to be God's law has given all three monotheistic religions a very bloody history. The Crusades, the excesses of the Catholic Church, the Salem Witch Trials, the 30 year's War, the conquest of Palestine by the Jews which involved total destruction of cities, God's presumed command to King Saul  to annihilate the Amalekites, the internecine struggles between Shi'a and Sunni all involve attempts to follow what those involved saw as God's will, which curiously often coincided with a desire to exert power and influence over a group or groups.   ISIS is simply the latest embodiment of a radical faction to enforce its version of Islam to use a phrase often associated with religious wars, has a philosophy of "kill  all opponents/aostates and let Allah sort them out."

There is no doubt that the application of certain alleged extreme commands contained in the  scriptures of the three monotheistic religions have lead to extraordinary atrocities over the centuries, as James Taulbee notes,  But in the modern era, the nation state has enabled nationalist ideologues to drew upon resources far beyond that of previous generations of fundamentalists, and conduct wars of undreamed of violence and destruction. The leaders of nation states have drawn upon existing religious sensibilities to justify their violent and expansionist ambitions. 

Within the past two years, Hindu attacks on Christian churches in India have shown the fallacy of limiting the commission of atrocities to followers of the three monotheistic religions. Clear analysis of the problem of violence does not lead to the pointing of fingers exclusively at any religious, political, or other group; as Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us!"

Hello Antonio, 

In my opinion, it is the interpretations of religious text that can lead to acts of violence. The interpretation can be fueled by ignorance, politics, etc. This discourse has taken place in Islamic history, with numerous references to Prophetic traditions (Hadith) warning against extremist interpretations that lead to violence. The 10th century Islamic scholar, Abu Bakr Al-Ajurry, discusses the extremists in a chapter of his "Al-Shari'ah". In a similar fashion, Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn Al-Qayyim have both mentioned that the extremists take verses out of context and apply them in ways that are detrimental to society. Interestingly enough, numerous scholars of Islamic theology spoke against extremist interpretations in their seminal writings of Islamic creed. There are numerous other variables that lead to violence, such as politics, economic stability, nationalism/tribalism to name a few. 

Well ...if you think about Islam , its been there for more than 1400 years, the monsters you are referring to are a 20th century creation .. there must be something wrong with the 20th century context ...why blame religions which are there for centuries .

Well ...if you think about Islam , its been there for more than 1400 years, the monsters you are referring to are a 20th century creation .. there must be something wrong with the 20th century context ...why blame religions which are there for centuries .

look for NIaz Shah publications -The Use of Force under Islamic

Law- will help with the islamic part.

There are external (colonial and global) and internal (ideological and local) factors behind violence. Globally, Islamophobia and related stereotypes of Muslims in both Western scholarship and media are an offensive and unacceptable affront to human values. The extreme stereotype asserts that all Muslims are terrorists, although it is said that terrorists are the minority of Muslims.  Locally, over the past five decades, political Islam, influenced by many fundamentalist ideologies, has challenged Muslim nations leading to violence.

In terms of specifical analysis on violence and religions concerning Muslims and Christians, I take into account Fred Halliday´s contributions. In general terms, violence in a fundamentalist context is an instrument towards achieving power in different societies. It is not a role and of course each case has its historical complexity, but a lot of things can be explained in such logic.

I have found Karen Armstrong's article on the topic (attached) helpful in understanding the historical context of religious violence. It certainly is not, nor has ever been, the exclusive preserve of Islam. I believe that violence in the name of religion is, at least in part, a product of the modern Western tendency to separate the spiritual from the political aspects of human experience and aspirations.

Thanks, Jennifer! Karen has once again provided deeply needed perspective. Her account of the rise of Islam in A History of God is also instructive, despite my personal dissatisfaction with the book's title and focus that I have previously discussed in print. I would phrase the problem  more as a failure to distinguish between politically- and religiously-inspired violence, rather than a tendency to separate the spiritual from the physical. Certainly, using violence as a supposed means of promoting one's religion is an example of being "conformed to the world", contrary to Paul's admonition in Romans 12:2. An added example of the confusion between religious and political conflict includes Northern Ireland in the 1970's.

I agree that failing to distinguish between politically- and religiously-inspired violence is a problem, although I question the bases on which such a distinction might be made. It seems to me that all the systems affecting our lived experience—political, religious, economic, societal, and even natural (such as, for example, major weather events)—must necessarily play into the rise of violence in any given situation. When any event causes human suffering, it's inevitably going to provoke responses at all of these levels, simply because our experience is, to invoke the currently fashionable term, intersectional. This observation leads me back to my original observation: that the post-Enlightenment tendency to separate people's religious experience and commitments from their political experience and commitments, if not The Problem, at least a significant source of tension leading to conflict.

Well-stated, Jennifer! A large plate of razzberries to Rene Descartes, despite his good intentions.

I think this post will serve your question Sir.

However, I truly believe that neither the Quran nor the Bible is violent, it's just the mentality of some people that make them violent.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/someone-compared-the-quran-and-the-bible-to-see-which-was-more-violent-2016-2?utm_content=bufferde706&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer?r=US&IR=T