Why is ISIS so brutal? Doesn’t religion teach one to do good things?

The problem with Islam, or Catholicism or other religions which the faithful do not like to believe or know, is that their so-called holy books are shock full of violence. Incest, genocide, slavery... right there in black and white.

Why is ISIS so brutal? Doesn’t religion teach one to do good things?

Ultimately, what ISIS is doing is taking the most violent or "radical" verses in the qu'ran and using them as they see fit. See, the root fallacy is not that ISIS is violent but that they are taking scripture that has been there already for 1400+ years  -- which assuming an actual god had come up with it, then those verses would not be there in first place.

They hide under the pretense of a "wrong interpretation" or the old but goodie "that is not what "my" version of *insert religion here* really means."

Believers can all BS themselves into saying well, they are taking the verses  out of context! Or those one, two, or three  Well, as far as the consensus, the qu'ran has 109 verses which call believers to violence in one way or another. So the out of context theory *may* work for 1, or 2, heck even 3 verses but for over 100+ ?

Let's not kid ourselves, ISIS has a political agenda, sure, but if there is one thing history has taught us is that religious people (especially the least educated) can be incredibly gullible and people will take advantage of that if they can (American Evangelists, anyone?) so it is no surprise that they would take all the radical verses calling for violence in the qu'ran which again, a smart god would not have included them in the first place and are using them to their advantage.

When the question like, Why this religions? Doesn't religion teach one to do good things. We need to dig deep into this.

Yes, it does. But it also teaches one e.g. to kill all infidels or to stone adulterers. Not only the Qu'ran does that but also the Bible and pretty much all other holy books. There are peaceful parts and violent parts. What is predominant is always a matter of interpretation. Reformistic muslims concentrate on the peaceful parts, ISIS concentrates on the violent parts. The problem is that there is no way to say which interpretation is right because there is no inherent rule set to evaluate the interpretations.

This creates a problem when the followers of a peaceful interpretation insist that their religion is (entirely) peaceful, because that simply is not true. Their INTERPRETATION is peaceful, yes, but they don't see that there could be other interpretations that - from a purely logical point of view - are equally viable but also inherently violent. To say that e.g. Islam is a peaceful religion simply lets you look like an idiot when you start having a look on ISIS, Al Quaida, the Taliban or Boko Haram.


Story by