I attended the Emergency Event at the London School of Economics which was publicised by Perry earlier this week entitled “Freedom of Speech: Who cares what Muslims think”. There was a very small but vocal contingent of Samizdata supporters, agreeing with Claire Fox’s defence of the freedom of speech. The excellent chairman of the debate between Claire Fox and Sajjid Khan was fair and impartial.
Many of the Muslims who commented during the debate stated their pain at the publication of the cartoons. It was clear that, despite the long period in time from the initial publication of the cartoons to the demonstrations, Muslims argued that this was a trespass upon the sacred. It was hard to gauge whether this reaction stemmed from belief or obligation, as the orthodox approach to the cartoons had now been established.
Whilst Claire Fox located recent infringements and restrictions on free speech in the developments of left-wing politics from the 1970s, especially political correction and speech codes, Sajjid Khan said that there was a sphere of the sacred surrounding Mohammed. No person should ridicule, publish or draw Mohammed. In the first instance, non-Muslims should practice self-censorship in this regard, but the preferred tool for policing the sacred sphere was the law. He stated that respect for Islam would join other shared goals such as social justice and taking my money to care for the poor. Khan criticised Blair but he was quite clear that he did not want to change the system itself, only those who pulled the levers, so that respect for Islam would become a legitimate objective of a democratic society.
Claire Fox argued that it was possible to hold a dialogue between Muslims and those whose default position supported liberty. This was not true in the debate. Our values are incommensurable as many Muslims clearly support using the law, if changed, to coerce my freedom of expression. The law would be used to prevent me from freely expressing myself on the subject of Mohammed, if I chose to do so, and rights of trespass on the sacred space would surely be decided by Muslims themselves, not by me.
It is a depressing conclusion, since I had hoped that there could be common ground here on shared notions of liberty. That will not stop me trying, since this is one of the most important issues that we face. What matters is how individuals, whether Muslim or non-Muslim act, not those who would speak for or bind us all into simplified collectives called Islam or the West.
UPDATE
Adloyada argues that Sajjid Khan is, in fact, a member of Hizb ut Tahrir and presents compelling evidence.
Sajjad Khan, a prominent member of Hizb who runs classes on the group’s ideology and has delivered speeches at the group’s congresses, said: ‘Most of our members are graduates who work and pay taxes. Very few of them are unemployed or rely on state benefits.’ A finance and IT specialist, he said he had worked for a number of large companies, including Tesco.
Khan certainly did not declare this affiliation.
You expected to find “common ground on shared notions of liberty” with persons who are pledged to a creed that commands them to convert or subjugate you by force? Philip, Philip, Philip!
There is no notion of liberty in Islam. Islam means submission to Allah. Therefore all discussions are simply, in the Dark Ages Islamic mind, about how the infidel (advanced, enlightened Westerners) are to behave in their presence.
They have absolutely no intention of assimilating in the West. They are determined to force the West to assimilate with them.
Before anyone cites Arabs in the US as an excellent example of assimilation, most of the successful US Arabs are Christian. The trouble-makers and all their councils of mosques and mosques of councils and associations of mosques and CAIR, are Islamic.
It’s time to face the long-known fact: all Islam is aggressive. It is a warlike, conquering sect.
What Francis said. Should be obvious by this point that dialogue with these zombies is impossible.
One of the reasons my university leftist phase lasted all of about six months is that I noticed they’re so very consistently wrong. “Hate speech laws will never be used to infringe freedom of speech in any meaningful sense”. Uh huh. Riiiight.
Does this, from the Brussels Journal via Dhimmiwatch.org, remind you of recent events in London perchance?
: Last Saturday’s riots in Antwerp, when Moroccan “youths” went on the rampage in Antwerp’s historical center, destroying cars and beating up reporters, has led to frustration among police officers because the authorities prevented them from stopping the violence. Officers complained in today’s papers that they had been given orders to watch passively while young, rowdy Muslims were allowed to take revenge over… drawings published more than four months ago in a Danish newspaper.
“We had to watch how they were ripping off car mirrors. We wanted to stop this vandalism but were ordered to withdraw,” an anonymous policeman says in today’s Flemish daily De Standaard. “An ambulance was told to switch off its siren because that might provoke the Moroccans.” Another anonymous officer told the press: “There you are watching this, while citizens can see that you are powerless.” According to an anonymous police chief the authorities decided, that “it was better to have a few cars vandalized than risk open war in the streets.”:
Better learn the steps to the Dhimmi Shuffle or take back your own countries, folks.
I am afraid there is no common ground, it appears, even with the “moderates”. Verity is right: they have no notion of liberty, of a sphere of private thought and conscience out of bonds of their Supreme Being.
No compromise is possible with these people, and however politely one wants to make that point, that point must be made over and over until they either agree, or if necessary, go and live in a place more suited to their views (preferably some very distant planet).
I made it along to the event as well and even made a short speech that then got rather comprehensively attacked by Sajjad Khan before others intervened with further questions.
I recommend going to these events because they put human faces (and often very reasonable voices) on some of the extreme views that we hear. After the debate, I spoke for an hour with a religious muslim and we, despite our polarised views, got on. So many (perhaps even most) Muslims in this county are not beyond polite and rational argument by any means.
I did feel there was a form of compromise peaking through towards the end, that these sort of views should not be legislated but rather self-censored. Since everyone for the most part agreed that the cartoons were crap anyway, the view at that point on what people should do wasn’t too far different. Don’t insult Islam, but don’t ban insults of Islam.
The elephant in the room remains that the offence was a fabrication. But we can see today that heart-felt reactions to images and events can be simulated via contextual media coverage. At which point the truth and falsity of the offence becomes hazy. It is hard to doubt that their pain was real, even if it was created directly by the cartoons but by some requirement to feel pain.
When I first read of the coming ‘Islamicisation’ of Europe*, I thought it was a joke. Sadly, learning more about the subject and putting it together with group and identity theory of conflict, I had to dismiss that notion.
After a trip to Northern Ireland to study peace resolution theory, I’m failing to find a good reason to support our government’s immigration stance.
* There seems to be a lot of stuff on this. The most depressing I’ve read is at:
Freeworld Academy (link)
Since Islam it total, and everything is tied to Mohammed, then criticism of any Islamic act, law, Iman is insulting Mohammed. Under this reality, it is best to shut up about everything. Naturally political speach is not exempt.
There is no solution to this save one party bowing to another, and done by force. So far the Islamist are winning, and winning with little resistance.
All totalitarian states depend on self-censorship,this is a device used by the PC crowd with great success.Later there willl be legislation on the grounds that it is common practice and therefore there should be no reason why this should not be codified by law.
One small point the Gestapo relied on self-censorship.
nic says: “So many (perhaps even most) Muslims in this county are not beyond polite and rational argument by any means.”
Well, it depends how you define “rational argument”. They are taught the practice of taqqiya from childhood. Their job is to persuade you in a rational, civilised, friendly, understanding manner, that Islam is a religion of peace and you would find inner peace by converting and submitting to the will of Allah.
They will nod politely while you make your points, and appear to agree with you and then will say, “But …”. They are there to prosyletise. They are not interested in internalising any points you make. They simply bear them in mind so when it’s their turn to talk, they can persuade you away from them, by deceit if necessary. Deceit is permissible in the cause of converting the infidel. They can tell, with their hand on their Koran, any lies at all in the cause of getting a convert for Allah. This is called taqqiya.
The other half of this double act is kitman. This is where they tell the truth, but lie by omission. As in, for example, “Of course we want the entire world to benefit from the peace and comfort of submitting to Allah.” What is omitted: “And if you don’t submit, it is nothing for us to kill you because as a non-Mulim, you are also a non-human”.
That is why the LSE event and any other event like it is a waste of oxygen. We are accustomed to open-minded, inquiring debate in the West. There is no such mind set in Islam. They didn’t come to the meeting to learn and discuss. They came to whitewash their horrific religion and persuade you of its merits. (Which is yet one more demonstration of their primitive ignorance, because while posing as rational and civilised, they propose draconian curbs on what people in a free society can say about their religion – by extension, wanting official recognition that their religion is above other religions.)
As long as there’s an internet, the shutting up free speech will be impossible. The cartoons are all over the web. As for the MSM, the more they behave like dhimmis, the more people will realise it, and the more irrelevant they will become.
Still, it’s gonna be a long, hard struggle. Too many people refuse to believe the evidence of their senses that these barbarians are interested in destroying us. Others do believe it, but in their blackened little hearts they secretly wish for them to succeed, and help the barbarians out whenever they can.
Can you see a Britain – and more to the point, a Europe – 20 years from now, with Muslims a demographic majority, with shari’a being forced down its throat? Pubs closed down, and vinyards uprooted, because the Qur’an forbids alcohol. The L’Oevre burned to the ground because the extremists have taken the ban on iconography to ridiculous extremes. Woman – muslim or dhimmi – forced to go about in hajibs and chadors, or be raped by religious cops.
Do you think your kids will enjoy that? Of course not. They’d be pissed. And probably violent. They will hate you for rolling over so easily, but they will hate the muslims even more. They’d return to their roots, rejecting secularism and probably throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They’d be idealistic and extremist and violent, and as ugly as all of that would be, they would make the muslim hold on Europe tenuous at best.
I have a partly half baked theory about all this.
There is a conspiracy.
Well that is my theory.
Actually I don’t think yer average muslim cared a hoot about the cartoons until he was instructed to do so. I’m not sure by whom or exactly why but it seems pretty obvious the very slow reactions leading to the recent demonstrations etc. have been orchestrated.
Personally I believe this religion is being hijacked by those who are finding it useful to do so. Just as Oxfam, Christian Aid and the Anglican Church have been hijacked by those who find them useful to forward their own agenda.
The conspiracy is to render the world Dar-es-Salaam.
Agree with you about Oxfam, etc, though.
Certainly their cause is being forwarded and their actions facilitated by the same people behind Christian Aid, etc, but they would be doing this anyway.
If their “pain was real”, why did it take four months before they manifested it? The cartoons were published in September. They didn’t fly into their screaming and threatening tantrums until February. Hello?
Their pain is no more real than the pain of a two-year-old who flings himself on the floor of the supermarket and kicks and screams at the top of his lungs. Their rage is infantile. We expect adults to be able to control themselves. If they can’t, they should be told to leave.
“Willst Du nicht mein Bruder sein, schlag ich Dir den Schädel ein.”
The waffle goes endlessly on. There is, most unfortunately, no compromise. These people want to kill us & have said as much many times. When, oh when is this going to sink in?
WAKE UP!
It’s a pity that UKIP is so badly marketed and sold, with not enough money to compete with their other parties with competing agendas.
This sounds like “Practice self censorship or else”
It is a depressing conclusion, since I had hoped that there could be common ground here on shared notions of liberty. That will not stop me trying, since this is one of the most important issues that we face. What matters is how individuals, whether Muslim or non-Muslim act, not those who would speak for or bind us all into simplified collectives called Islam or the West.
Depressing it may be. However, it is Muslims and Islam that won’t compromise. The West has made many compromises in order to accomodate this “religion”. Other immigrants of all religions have assimilated, or at least, in the case of Hassidic Jews, do not infringe on the liberty of those who are of a different religion.
So many Muslims are demonstrating about these cartoons. Where were the Muslims demonstrating about July 7, with placards saying “not in my name”?
Hmm,
He wants to change the system, without actually changing the system, so that the system would respect his figurehead? As the cartoon said… ‘you stop bombing our buildings, our trains, our subways and our buses and we’ll stop drawing pictures of your 7th century idol – is that a fair trade?’
Yes… But has Toongate caused non-Muslim Europe – and most notably and importantly, indigenous Europe – to turn a corner? I believe it probably has. The mask of Islamic reason has slipped – even the most limpid cultural relativists that I know are shaking their heads, particularly when appraised of the full background and the lobbying of the Danish imam.
So disproportionate and violent has been the response to this ridiculous farrago that the vital middle ground held by well-meaning but poorly informed members of the public has, I think, shifted. I hope I’m right – if I am, it is a timely development.
Sorry, I have no respect for Islam, or Communism , or Fascism . All three and their proponents are cordially invited to kiss my ass and drop dead. It this hurts their feelings – tough shit. Go back where the hell you came from. I cannot believe the nerve of these shitheads, nor the spinelessness of people and governments who grovel before them. Appeasement is a ticket to Dachau.
There is some Islamo-loonie in Pakistan offering a large reward for the murder of “the cartoonist”. Obviously, this Islamonut doesn’t even know there are 12 cartoons. He’s never seen any of them. But he knows what he likes.
He doesn’t know that the Danish imam surfed the internet until he found two much more offensive cartoons of Mo than those vapid efforts in the Jyllands-Posten and another one of someone with a pig face which he assumed was also supposed to be Mohammad, and he slipped them in to the original portfolio to present at one of their ends Islamic conventions and meetings and councils and commissions and Allah-knows-what to inflame his fellow imams and whatever four months later – claiming they were all from the Jyllens-Posten.
Hmmmm …. Does that seem a little … dishonest? A dishonest Muslim? Oh, surely not! Anyway, the photo of the man wearing a pig mask wasn’t Mo but was a contestant in an ancient French traditional contest of pig squealing. No, I don’t know either, but it’s been going on for centuries and has nothing to do with Islam.
So we see stupidity teamed up with cupidity and malice and what do we get? Seething!
Verity, FYI, the Danish imam did not find the pig-faced Mohammed cartoon. He photoshopped a picture of a Frenchman who won some sort of prize at a pork dealers annual festival for the best something or other who was wearing a false piggy nose and ears.
I do not share the pessimism about Europe becoming Eurabia. The fact is that the majority of people are not dumb or blind. They see that the Islamic immigrants are responsible for a large percentage of the crime and they are not ‘doing the work that the natives refuse to do’. Au contraire they are living on welfare like the native layabouts who refuse to do the work that needs to be done.
Furthermore, why does Europe need immigrants when the unemployment figures are close to or in double digits?
These are all touchy feely sentiments without substance and the average taxed to the nth degree native man in the street is well aware of it. and as soon as enough built up resentment comes boiling to the surface to rid Europe of this idiocy the pretense that Islamics are an asset instead of a liability will continue. But its shelf life is fast running out and it will only take a few more incidents like the put up cartoon demos to bring that about..
Millie Woods – The pig photo was a father and son who won a pig squealing competition in France, whatever that may be. They wore false pig snouts and ears. You are right; the imam photoshopped it to add the word Mohammad at the bottom of it.
I’m not sure I share your insouciance, although obviously, I hope you are correct. As most of these people are passengers on the system besides being destructive habitual malcontents, troublemakers and careeer criminals, we need a programme of reverse immigration to rid Britain and Europe of this vile plague of Islamics.
I would suggest that as Muslims don’t recognise nationality – all belonging to the Nation of Islam – and do not recognise the supremacy of national laws and national heads of state – there should be no problem sending them back to the Nation of Islam, to which they owe such noisy allegiance.
Try reading “Overcrowded Britain” by Ashley Mote, or even the MigrationWatch website (link here. Britain has a vast number of illegal immigrants, far more than legal immigrants. 90% of immigrants who get turned away stay in the country, fighting expensive battles on legal aid or just being allowed to “slip away” because of crowded immigration centres.
New ICM Poll (Link)
Sharia Law, practised in large parts of the Middle East, specifies stonings and amputations as routine punishments.
Religious police are responsible for bringing suspects before special courts.
Sharia should be introduced in “predominantly Muslim” areas of Britain, according to 40% of the Muslims polled.
However, almost the same number, 41%, opposed the move.
Well just fkin great!
When are people doing to understand, more freedom of immigration means ‘less’ freedom for British people. That is the contradition I have yet to see ‘libertarians’ sufficiently explain.
The problem is people don’t seem to understand the extent of what is happening, and wont until the first public stoning takes place.
I don’t think I ever advocated automatic blind-eye-acceptance to whomever entered a country, at least not since cottoning on to Objectivism. What I have held, and still do, is the rightness of letting in unlimited numbers of immigrants, so long as each and every one could speak the official language of the natives and accepted the validity of individual rights and the freedoms identified thereby. I’m also of the opinion that citizenship must be earned, by both locally-born natives and immigrants alike, by further demonstrating a fuller understanding and acceptance of the same. You might find this interesting.
Where is the contradiction here, Dave? Then again, I am not libertarian so your comment doesn’t apply to me.
JJM
JJm – You’re nuts.
JJM you basically said let unlimited amount of immigrants in as long as they behave (ie have the same culture) like ‘natives’.
Aside from the problem of over population which affects the South-East I would agree.
But that isn’t the libertarian view. Libertarians do not insist immigrants change culture at all, its none of the governments business as far as they are concerned.
I agree the government has no right to dictate language or culture, but the government does have the right and I would say duty to stop large amounts of immigrants settling in this country whos way of life is not compatible with Western liberal democracy.
Check this out for example: Reporter stoned for not wearing head-scarf.(Link)
Nic writes of being at this event, their pain was very real.
This is a happy compomise?
As a lifelong atheist (yup – even a one-time student of the “world’s most famous atheist” Antony Flew from reading UNiversity), I protest! The cartoons were crap? What about the turbaned Mohammed with a bomb about to go off in his head?
THIS one depicts precisely how most American’s view Islam – the “Religion of Peace,” made up of hypocrites either practicing, endorsing, or else powerless to marginalize those conducting the murder of apostates, beheading the innocent, or terrorizing thousands and millions of people!* THIS MUST CEASE, or as Voltaire says, we must crush the infamous thing!
There is no place in my world for an Islam of violent Jihadism.
An American history professor, James Lindsey, in explaining why his showed these cartoons to his class on Islamic history, said just over a week ago: “‘My job is not to bring people together….My job is to teach history. History is not pleasant in many cases, and I made it very clear in class that this is America and you all have the right to offend but you do not have the right to not be offended.'”
See here
I suspect Lindsay and I share the past influence of another history professor on our thinking – Joseph Altholz – a British historian who taught at the University of Minnesota. Altholz said, regarding his duty as an educator: “If you have not been offended, then you have not been educated.”
Thus, politeness has no place when it comes to learning the truths about humanity, our past, and or debating our future. I utterly reject this mamby pamby, kum-bay-yah, ‘I feel your pain’ non-sense regarding any religion.
Offensiveness is inherent to any religious belief to me – and I will be loud and clear about Islam’s Hellishness as much or more than any other!
__________________
*Editor of Jyllands-posten profers a more creative interpretation of this same cartoon in the Washington Post piece “Why I Published Those Cartoons”
Find here
Verity: in what respect?
Dave:
I didn’t say same culture, I just said respect for individual rights (and ability to speak the local language). Since when does respect for individual rights automatically count as membership in the same one single culture? A political system – namely “Western liberal democracy” – is not the be-all and end-all of culture! I would disagree with you, going so far as to say that there are quite a few different cultures even among good rights-respecting Samizdatistas here. Similar heritage yes, but can you really say today that we share just one culture just because we all respect individual rights?
Nor am I insisting that people change: people either already do, or do not, respect rights. If you do, welcome friend! If you don’t, stay out!
That ‘over-population’ issue for me is closest to the ‘libertarian’ position as you put it: that issue basically boils down to fears of new people driving down wages and driving up costs of goodies. I have no respect for longer-time residents getting snotty because newcomers are willing to accept lower wages or higher priced goods or more densely-crowded footpaths or whatnot. There is no right of anyone to claim ownership of someone else’s trade in work or consumer goods or property. Similarly, the government has no business taking any significant interest in population distribution other than for electoral boundary redrawing (and as datum for military defense planning etc), and absolutely NO business investigating old-timers’ and newcomers’ comparative preferences. Of course, this issue is only secondarily about immigration and can and does arise without reference to it.
(I’d read about that reporter before. I re-iterate that there will be no Islamic Reformation, only either total regression to medieval barbarism or major move to MINOism as a prelude to full-on secularism – and the barbarians wont go down without a fight).
JJM
Sajjad Khan had an A4 sheet available there. In it, he said that the very fact that European governments were willing to negotiate and apologize over the Danish cartoon issue was evidence that European resolve for freedom of speech was wilting. Of course, he is wrong – freedom of speech has never been so powerfully defended in the past in public so far as I know. But it still goes to show that he personally perceives the willingness to compromise and to censor as a weakness, a vulnerability that we do not really believe in our own values. Which on his absolutist view of ideology, makes perfect sense.
So he is really giving some free advice to us all to actually stand up fully for our own values, then at least we will understand where we stand. As it is, Muslims like him will push further on that weakness until eventually gays cannot by gay in public for fear of causing offence, and Muslims can preach for death to infidels without sanction. I couldn’t find the exact text online, but it has a similar argument to this one:
http://www.newcivilisation.com/index.php/main/newciv/current_issue/autumn_05/full_article/63/P0/3
JJM: depends what you mean by culture, some people like to talk about the differences between Welsh, English, Scottish, Irish culture but personally I would say they are mostly the same, I know some nationalists wouldn’t like that, but come on. When I said cultural differences I was talking about major differences not the finer points.
You know things like should women be allowed to walk the streets without being forced to cover from head to toe, should someone be wiped for selling alcohol?, etc, etc.
When I mentioned ‘over-population’ it has nothing to do with protecting wages or driving up costs….
It has to do with things like the ‘drought’ in the South-East which isn’t really a drought but a lack of water brought on by so much water being pumped out to supply houses.
There is a limit to how densely populated an area can sensibly be for a lot of practical reasons.
I see not only has that jeweller in Pakistan offered a one million dollar bounty on the head of “the cartoonist”, PLUS a car, but now an equally civilised Muslim – a former minister in Uttar Pradesh has worked himself up into such a snit (Peeves Be Upon Him) that he has offered £6m for the head of any of these poor cartoonists. I didn’t know the bribery action in Uttar Pradesh was that lucrative.
These threats are being issued openly and published in the papers. Any action by the authorities under their oh-so-civilised shariah law handed down personally by Mo?
Excellent point. I haven’t heard of any arrests. More importantly, neither have I heard of any western governments calling for them. It must be illegal (even in Pakistan!) to post bounty for someone’s capture and/or murder.
Gee. Wonder what’s going on here? Hmmmm….
You wonder whats going on?
Pakistani is run by a nuclear equiped dictatorship. Western governments are shit scared that the pro-Western Musharraf will one day be replaced by an Islamist who would promptly sell all the nuke tech to every Islamic state in the world. Which would probably end up in some kind of nuclear incident.
You wont see any Western governments rocking the boat regarding pakistan no matter what happens, short of all out war.
“short of all out war”.
Then war it must be.
We must defend our civilisation once again, as we have done before, against these ignorant, primitive, superstitious, aggressive peoples.
Here’s Mark Steyn, as adroit as ever. The cakes of the prophet
Good stuff!
Ha!
Western governments are shit scared that the pro-Western Musharraf will one day be replaced by an Islamist who would promptly sell all the nuke tech to every Islamic state in the world.
Well isn’t part of the problem the West’s previous encouragement the glorious Islamist regime of Zia ul-Haq and turning a blind eye to his nuclear ambitions?
Guy Herbert writes: Well isn’t part of the problem the West’s previous encouragement the glorious Islamist regime of Zia ul-Haq and turning a blind eye to his nuclear ambitions?
So? That Western governments behaved stupidly shouldn’t surprise anyone, but that doesn’t the clear and present danger.
Did anyone notice on Sky’s coverage of the rally that they just let ordinary marchers speak. While a couple were just complaining about the cartoons; while completely missing the point of the concept of free speech; at least one went on about how the US & the UK goverment put the Danish cartoonists up to it.
I thought the Sky reporter’s way of reporting was very good. Let em’ condemn themselves with their own words (& posters)
.
AID – That’s what I find so horrifying. The ignorance. Most of these people will be third generation and they simply don’t understand the freedom of the press. (It must be said, the British press doesn’t seem to understand it, either.) They talk about how hurt and offended they are, and when someone counters that by saying “no one has a legal right not to be offended”, they say, “Yes, but pictures of the prophet are forbidden!” They have no idea of the structure of the country they’re living in. All they understand is their koran. Tha’ts it. The sum total of human knowledge was dictated to an illiterate epilectic paedophile, who had to repeat it to a scribe, 1400 years ago. You’d have thought Allah would have been smart enough to skip Mohammad and just talk to the scribe direct.
Anyway, the Danish government didn’t stop the paper from publishing the cartoons, therefore we’re going to torch Danish embassies. Third generation and they have no understanding of the structure of the enlightened Western societies they were born into.
Someone who holds that the words of the Koran and the sayings of the Prophet of the Muslims and the rulings of the judges of the early centuries (before Islamic law was fixed) are all the direct will of God has no “common ground of liberty” with you.
If it was held that the above was an imperfect effort (because human beings are imperfect) to try and find what God wanted (which is how most Christians and Jews view their scriptures) things would be different.
There are Muslim scholars who hold that such things as the Koran are the words of men trying to understand the will of God (not the words of God given to the Prohet of the Muslims and, later, written down by his command), but they are a small minority.
Many Christians have killed people for their beliefs over the centuries – however at no time have most of these Christians ever held that most of the Bible is the direct words of God.
There is a big theological difference between (for example) Christianity and Islam.