A Dissenting View: Islam Is a More Violent Religion than the Two Other Major Religions


Source: The Spectator, January 17, by Douglas Murray, British writer, journalist and commentator and author of Neoconservatism: Why We Need It (2005) and Bloody Sunday: Truths, Lies and the Saville Inquiry (2011)

This is an edited version of Douglas Murray’s article.

In France, Britain, Germany, America and nearly every other country in the world it remains government policy to say that any and all attacks carried out in the name of Mohammed have “nothing to do with Islam.” It was said by George W. Bush after 9/11, Tony Blair after 7/7 and Tony Abbott after the Sydney attack last month. It is what David Cameron said after two British extremists cut off the head of Drummer Lee Rigby in London, when “Jihadi John” cut off the head of aid worker Alan Henning in the “Islamic State” and when Islamic extremists attacked a Kenyan mall, separated the Muslims from the Christians and shot the latter in the head. And, of course, it is what President François Hollande said after the massacre of journalists and Jews in Paris last week….

Islam is not a peaceful religion. No religion is, but Islam is especially not. It is certainly not, as some ill-informed people say, solely a religion of war. There are many peaceful verses in the Quran which – luckily for us – most Muslims live by. But it is by no means only a religion of peace.

I say this not because I hate Islam, nor do I have any special animus against Muslims, but simply because this is the verifiable truth based on the texts. Until we accept that we will never defeat the violence, we risk encouraging whole populations to take against all of Islam and abandon all those Muslims who are trying desperately to modernise, reform and de-literalise their faith. And – most importantly – we will give up our own traditions of free speech and historical inquiry and allow one religion to have an unbelievable advantage in the free marketplace of ideas.

It is not surprising that politicians have tried to avoid this debate by spinning a lie. The world would be an infinitely safer place if the historical Mohammed had behaved more like Buddha or Jesus. But he did not and an increasing number of people – Muslim and non-Muslim – have been able to learn this for themselves in recent years. But the light of modern critical inquiry which has begun to fall on Islam is a process which is already proving incredibly painful….

Contra the political leaders, the Charlie Hebdo murderers were not lunatics without motive, but highly motivated extremists intent on enforcing Islamic blasphemy laws in 21st-century Europe. If you do not know the ideology – perverted or plausible though it may be – you can neither understand nor prevent such attacks. Nor, without knowing some Islamic history, could you understand why – whether in Mumbai or Paris – the Islamists always target the Jews….

There may be some positive things to be said about Mohammed, but [in a BBC panel discussion] I mentioned just one occasion when Mohammed didn’t welcome a critic. Asma bint Marwan was a female poetess who mocked the “Prophet” and who, as a result, Mohammed had killed. It is in the texts. It is not a problem for me. But I can understand why it is a problem for decent Muslims. The moment I said this, my Muslim colleague went berserk. How dare I say this? I replied that it was in the Hadith and had a respectable chain of transmission (an important debate). He said it was a fabrication which he would not allow to stand. The upshot was that he refused to continue unless all mention of this was wiped from the recording. The BBC team agreed and I was left trying to find another way to express the same point. The broadcast had this “offensive” fact left out.

I cannot imagine another religious discussion where this would happen, but it is perfectly normal when discussing Islam. On that occasion I chose one case, but I could have chosen many others, such as the hundreds of Jews Mohammed beheaded with his own hand. Again, that’s in the mainstream Islamic sources. I haven’t made it up. It used to be a problem for Muslims to rationalise, but now there are people trying to imitate such behaviour in our societies it has become a problem for all of us, and I don’t see why people in the free world should have to lie about what we read in historical texts.

We may all share a wish that these traditions were not there but they are and they look set to have serious consequences for us all. We might all agree that the history of Christianity has hardly been un-bloody. But is it not worth asking whether the history of Christianity would have been more bloody or less bloody if, instead of telling his followers to “turn the other cheek,” Jesus had called (even once) for his disciples to “slay” non-believers and chop off their heads?

This is a problem with Islam – one that Muslims are going to have to work through. They could do so by a process which forces them to take their foundational texts less literally, or by an intellectually acceptable process of cherry-picking verses. Or prominent clerics could unite to declare the extremists non-Muslim. But there isn’t much hope of this happening. Last month, al-Azhar University in Cairo declared that although Isis members are terrorists they cannot be described as heretics.

We have spent 15 years pretending things about Islam, a complex religion with competing interpretations. It is true that most Muslims live their lives peacefully. But a sizeable portion (around 15 per cent and more in most surveys) follow a far more radical version. The remainder are sitting on a religion which is, in many of its current forms, a deeply unstable component. That has always been a problem for reformist Muslims. But the results of ongoing mass immigration to the West at the same time as a worldwide return to Islamic literalism means that this is now a problem for all of us. To stand even a chance of dealing with it, we are going to have to wake up to it and acknowledge it.


5 responses to “A Dissenting View: Islam Is a More Violent Religion than the Two Other Major Religions

  1. It seems to me absurd to argue that Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity. The Old Testament is full of violence and the New Testament is hardly free of it. Think of Jesus driving the money changers out of the Temple. Think of jealous Jehovah constantly smiting the enemies of the Jews and now and then turning perfectly nice people into stone. More to the point, the actual history of Christianity is at least as bloody as that of Islam. The Crusades, the Reconquest of Spain, the Wars of Religion, the violent subjection of whole continents to European hegemony are hardly evidence of Christian mildness. The good thing about Islam is that, like Christianity, it CAN be a religion of peace, even if it isn’t only one. Surely we don’t want to stress the negative elements. By doing so, Murray is, despite his disavowals, aligning himself with the bigots.

  2. Tim, with respect “aligning himself with the bigots” is a conclusion too far. Jesus drove the money changers from the temple. Perhaps the take away narrative is that he blew his stack – but that’s a far cry from a narrative of Jesus decapitating anyone, fighting a war with anyone or having someone killed.

    That Christendom was invoked to commit genocide in no way undermines Murray’s points about the “literalizing” of religious texts and their efficacy at justifying intolerance (assuming Murray’s selective examples are accurately described.)

    His points focus on the “literalizing” of Islamic religious texts and the chill on any critical discussion or irreverent depiction of them. The story (if accurate) about the BBC not allowing his discussion of a Hadith regarding Asma bint Marwan isn’t evidence of his aligning himself with bigots. I’d submit that the BBC’s failure to allow the discussion may have actually served the bigots you accuse Murray of aligning himself with >>- “See – the BBC/MSM doesn’t even want you to know about this, so just be glad you can watch our Youtube screeds.”


  3. princearthur10

    There is much in the Old Testament that I find unpalatable. It is Jesus’s message in the NewTestament that I adhere to.

  4. In the context of the foregoing, there seems to be a compelling case to be made in support of agnosticism, both as a ‘solution’ and a curse.

  5. I can see very little meeting of minds here. It is invalid to use 16th century colonisation of countries, or indeed the Old Testament as evidence of Christian violence.
    Christians follow Christian learning from the New Testament chronicling the life of Jesus Christ. That’s why they are called Christians.
    And in the past 500 years Christians have evolved and the societies in which the live have prospered.
    I don’t know whether Islam can make the same transition, but to do so brave Muslims must stand up to the extremists and Muslim leaders must abhor violence.
    I see little sign of that at present.