Discussion Between Steve Sailer's Istanbul Correspondent and Lawrence Auster

I think that the recent "discussion" (for lack of a better term) Steve Sailer's Istanbul correspondent and Lawrence Auster about Islam and violence boils down to one basic question:

Does Islamic ideology cause Islamic violence, or is it the nature of the people who subscribe to Islamic ideology that creates the violence as well as causing them to subscribe to Islamic ideology? In other words, does Islam create jihad, or are Arabs and other Middle Eastern Islamic groups naturally more prone to jihad, which is why they have adopted Islam (or, if you prefer, why they adopt a form of Islam that emphasizes jihad).

Or put another way, is the problem Islam or is the problem the people who happen to be Muslims? So if we were somehow to force the followers of Islam to renounce Islam, would they become more peaceable, or would they simply find some other creed to use as an outlet for their violent tendencies?

Auster writes: "As long as Muslims remain Muslims, even if they are not personally devout and followers of Jihad, they remain always liable to return to a genuine version of the faith, and then they will be supporters of jihad violence." Yes, but the way I see it, Sailer was questioning whether or not a lot of the people who are Muslims are people who would remain always liable to turn to some sort of violent philosophy even if they did not remain Muslims.

That is all for now.