Why are muslims so violent?

[ralphinal]

Exactly!

Ralph, why are we there??

Like everything, there are multiple levels to this.

First, there is a group of people within the US that held that the First Gulf War was a failure because we did not remove Sadam. This group beleives that a stable democaracy in the Middle East, surrounded by non-democracies, would lead to the spread of democaracy and a safer, better world. They proposed the idea to Clinton, and he totally shot it down.

When Bush was elected, the group found themselves in power again. They pushed for an attack on Iraq, and it was approved to occure as soon as a reason could be found. Then, we were hit with 9/11. There were surface ties between the terrorists and Sadam, or it seemed as such. Further, Sadam was playing the UN against himself to trick his neighbors into thinking that he had weapons of mass distruction. We bit in, hook, line and sinker.

Now, armed with bad intellegence and a poorly thought out agenda, we tried to get UN support. Germany and France, along with Russia, had illeagle deals with the Iraqii government, vetoed everything. Instead of exposing the deals and embarrassing our allies, we decided to go it alone.

Now, somewhere, we must account for the money. This war was never about oil. Period. Everyone needs to see that. What it was about was the only company in the United States, and the world, big enough to supply the US military with food and supplies (non-weapons) and managing the rebuilding of Iraq. That one company was Haliburton, Cheney’s bunch. DO not think that his stocks have not gone up from it.

Now, where is Islam in this? It is an after-thought. Something that happens to be there and is being made into a bigger issue than it is. UNless you buy into the line of thought that says traditional Islam cannot and will not be able to function within a democracy…

 

[dzheremi]

Man, I really don’t like Irshad Manji. That is an interesting debate, though. Thanks for posting it, Nicolas.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Man, I really don’t like Irshad Manji. That is an interesting debate, though. Thanks for posting it, Nicolas.

You and me both, man. LOL

But Dalia Mogahed wins this debate hands down.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Like democracy?

Precisely!!!

 

[franklinf]

One word response:

Iraq.

Iraq is political, not religious. Furthermore, you are completely ignoring my what I wrote. The Constitution doesn’t contain those type of things, while the Koran does. Muslims are violent because it is part of their religion - as evidenced by their actions throughout history and the writings of their “holy” books. Your one word answer has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

So how about you address what I actually wrote. How is Islam NOT a religion of violence when the Koran repeatedly contains references to waging war on unbelievers until they follow Allah, that warriors are honored above all, and calls for the execution and mutilation of the “unbeliever.”

 

[R_not]

Man, I really don’t like Irshad Manji. That is an interesting debate, though. Thanks for posting it, Nicolas.

Irshad was what we should hope more muslims become and those ‘moderates’ - well, they are indeed the silent ones and with silence comes acceptance of the violent acts that the violent ones do. They empower the violent ones with their silence.

Unfortunately, too many get irritated with the messenger rather than the message. Dalia is just one more ‘muslim woman’, planten, and ‘sister amy’ - who are just in deception mode as to what islam is all about.

I took many notes on this video and Dalia has used the familiar excuses that we have heard so often while Irshad directly addresses the problems in islam.

 

[ralphinal]

Sister Amy,
Do you have any issue with my Iraq assesment.

 

[rikkk1958]

I have a very simply question, if someone could bear with me long enough to answer it…

Are Americans violent?

Could I ask legitimately, “Why are Americans so violent?” or declare that “America is a nation of violence.”

Or would you argue that Americans are only trying to defend themselves and make safe their way of life?

Do Muslims not have that right as well, to defend themselves against aggression, and to make safe their way of life? At least?

Some food for thought:
mujahideenryder.net/2008/12/17/i-wish-that-shoe-hit-bush-americans-please-watch-this-video/

(Warning: it contains some very bad language.)

Americans are not making another Quran. Americans never said they saw an angel. Americans defend themselves, but never made their defense as the words of God. Americans are not making any religion.

We are talking about the words of Allah as claimed by Muhammed that it was revealed to him. The God in the Old testaments was not the God that Muhammed wanted to proclaim. He was reciting what he heard but it seemed he did not understand. Obvious.

If his defense for the Arab land was meant to be political then he should not have revealed them as the words of God. He was fighting even the people of the Book. The same people he wanted to be respected in the beginning, but then slaughter in the end. What a hypocrite!

 

[R_not]

America is also made up of many different peoples from all over this globe and many different religions. No one is killed because they are muslim.

We have had slavery, and we stopped slavery almost a century and a half ago. slavery is still being practiced by muslims.

We have had inequality between the sexes in islam, and also people of different color and we stopped that in the last century. It is still an issue in islam.

America is less than 500 years old and we have grown into a nation where people from all over the world come to in order to experience freedom (economic, religious, speech, etc) like no other country has - not even Europe.

islam is over 1400 years old and they still have inequality between the sexes, there is no toleration for other religions, the treatment of non-muslims, women and slaves ranks the lowest on this earth and muslims just whitewash, or ignore these abuses while telling us how peaceful or good islam is.

Due to islam they are trying to bring back segregation and too many think it is ok because they are being told it is due to modesty when in fact it is because muslims deceive and it is due to non-muslims being dirty and even their own women being dirty.

 

[ralphinal]

I missed Amy’s post about America being violent.

Yes, we do have a violent past. However, the vast majority of that violence can be traced to one of three things. Either we or our allies had been attacked (World War I and II), we saw a direct threat to our security (Veitnam), or it was during the time of national formation (Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War).

However, at no point in time has American Law said that non-Americans should be killed. Nor has it said that once you take up arms against us, we will never associate with you again. Further, no where in our code of laws does it say that a treaty or cease fire should only be honored until we are strong enough to strike back or to win.

 

[R_not]

I made a mistake in my post.

The sentence should have read:
We have had inequality between the sexes in the USA, and also people of different color and we stopped that in the last century. It is still an issue in islam.

 

[R_not]

This could keep on going - I keep thinking of more things.

We have had many of our civilian citizens attacked by muslims in the 20th century either on our own homeland or abroad and we did not send in the military. We did in fact help muslims slaughter more Christians in the Bosnia/Kosovo situation. I did not agree with that because we #1. did not understand the situation, #2. still don’t understand the situation especially at our government’s level. If we did we would have sent in help to the non-muslims.

Instead, repeatedly we have heard the whining and the wailing of the muslims over the true victims over and over again. Well, some of us have wised up to that fact and know now how that game is played in islam.

muslims don’t think that anyone should get sick of muslims continually killing and torturing their victims and are not supposed to retaliate when there is no indication that the muslims will stop. So very few know about the temporary truce - to tell the enemy (any non-muslim) anything and to strike back when rearmed/regrouped. So the muslims have twisted the words of aggressor, oppressor, and innocent to only mean however to make their own seem to be the innocent. To ‘muddy the waters of the truth’ as we have even read on these threads.

Sorry, but in my book the ‘muslims have cried wolf once too often’ and we need to wake up.

My suggestion is to LISTEN. Listen to what the muslims say and write. Because they mean what they say.

Omar Bakri Muhammad, Former leader Al-Muhajiroun
‘Jihad is a foreign policy to expand the islamic authority all over the world.’

Abu Jahya al-Libi, Al Qaeda leader
‘According to our belief, the whole world must be under the rule of islam without exception, even a single grain of soil.’

Yousef Khattab, supporter
-‘islam will dominate, this is what it will be.’
-‘We want to see sharia here and it will be. The flag of , “there is no god other than allah, muhammed is the messenger of god”, will be (god willing) on the White House, if thats where we choose it to be. It just takes time, the American people are waking up now.’
-‘There is no compulsion in islam, that means, we cannot force it on you, but we will force islamic (sharia), god willing.’

Abu Mujahid, spokesperson islamic Thinkers Society (ITS)
‘allah does say that the whole world will eventually be under his rule. The rule will come down to where everyone obeys the laws of god (sharia), as simple as that.’

Dr. Zakir Naik
‘In some islamic countries, eg: saudi arabia, etc propogation of other religions is prohibited. Even construction of any place of worship is also prohibited. in koran 3:85, it is mentioned that allah will never accept any religion other than islam therefore knowing that islam is the only true religion we do not allow propogation of any other religion.’

and these are only a few statements - there are many more.

 

[Booklover]

Saying I don’t have an answer implies there exists some question. I never saw a question, only statements. I don’t even know if I have an answer or not because I don’t even know the question.

But maybe you’re all-knowing and I didn’t get the memo.

But then again, you’ll probably just say I’m hedging again. That’s why it’s so useless try to engage in discussion with you.

I asked you a straightforward question. You never replied. You’re doing what Muslims do when questioned point blank. You’re refusing to give an answer.

I’ll ask you again:

Do you know the correct Islamic interpretations of those verses or not? Do they promote violence against others or not?

I’m not the one who’s hard to engage in discussion. How can one really discuss anything with people who deny what’s in their own scriptures? People who make statements totally devoid of any reality or logic. Might as well debate with a robot or zombie. You claim that Muhammad was the best man who ever lived. Your own scriptures show a completely different personality than the one you proclaim. The evil things he did or had done are right there in the Quran and hadiths. How can you ignore them?

Vickie

 

[Sister_Amy]

Iraq is political, not religious. Furthermore, you are completely ignoring my what I wrote. The Constitution doesn’t contain those type of things, while the Koran does. Muslims are violent because it is part of their religion - as evidenced by their actions throughout history and the writings of their “holy” books. Your one word answer has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

So how about you address what I actually wrote. How is Islam NOT a religion of violence when the Koran repeatedly contains references to waging war on unbelievers until they follow Allah, that warriors are honored above all, and calls for the execution and mutilation of the “unbeliever.”

Did you not read my response? Let me try again. This “Iraq” comment wasn’t directed at you but at someone else in particular and their question… wasn’t it?

So let me try something else for you. There’s a verse in the Qur’an, it says “Woe to those who pray.” Seriously, that’s the whole verse. What do you think that means? People shouldn’t pray? Praying is bad? Of course not!

You have to read the verse right after it, which reads “Who are heedless of their prayer.” So those two verses together read “Woe to those who pray, who are heedless of their prayer.”

(This is in Surah Ma’oon, btw, ch. 107 v. 4-5 if you wish to look it up.)

My point is that you must read things in context. Islam is a complete way of life–not just a personal worship regiment, it comprehensively includes a system of governance and international law. Yes, international law! Religion is not just spiritual. When the US goes to war, are there not religious people in its army? Is that violence to be ignored because it is political? To be sure, it makes up a certain part of their belief. So when you see a verse in the Qur’an which talks about fighting–yes, it talks about fighting. You must also look at the conditions which permit or necessitate fighting, and you must look at the restrictions on those who fight.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Sister Amy,
Do you have any issue with my Iraq assesment.

No I don’t really have an issue with your Iraq assessment. My question was to some extent rhetorical, and your answers (because the complete answer is definitely multi-faceted) don’t need to be debated.

What I was thinking at the time was rather the claim given by American government (in particular the Bush White House) as to why the USA needed to invade Iraq in the first place. We know it to be a sham (WMDs) however the principle was sold to the American public by painting the invasion as a means of self-defense. The war in Afghanistan is painted as retaliation.

But Afghanistan itself did not attack the USA, nor the Afghani women and children who are the victims of attacks there. And Iraq did not attack the USA. But in order to “promote freedom” and for “national security” the USA has been responsible for incredible amounts of violence in these two countries. Leaving Afghanistan aside, and just looking at Iraq, there are human rights violations and there are other violations of international law–that’s not “anti-war propaganda,” it’s true.

Does it make Americans violent?

I don’t think it does, personally. Let me say that upfront, I don’t think it does. What it shows though is that Americans see violence (by which I mean war in general, and not war crimes) as an acceptable solution to the problem of their defense. They see violence as an acceptable form of retaliation in Afghanistan.

Are they violent?

So I think it is pretty audacious for anyone to claim that Muslims are violent when they look at things much the same way. When they see themselves attacked, shouldn’t they have the right to respond? When they are oppressed, shouldn’t they be able to revolt? And yet people claim that Muslims are violent…

I certainly don’t support the individual sneak attacks and terrorism, not from Muslims or anyone.

What I think we need to see is that Muslims are people, and they respond to situations much like other people.

The only difference on this point between Americans and Muslims is not so much religious. Americans would (and do) respond the same way Muslims would, only while Muslims have military response justified as part of their complete religion/way of life, Americans don’t accept it as part of their spiritual lives, only part of their secular lives.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I missed Amy’s post about America being violent.

Yes, we do have a violent past. However, the vast majority of that violence can be traced to one of three things. Either we or our allies had been attacked (World War I and II), we saw a direct threat to our security (Veitnam), or it was during the time of national formation (Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War).

However, at no point in time has American Law said that non-Americans should be killed. Nor has it said that once you take up arms against us, we will never associate with you again. Further, no where in our code of laws does it say that a treaty or cease fire should only be honored until we are strong enough to strike back or to win.

Was this directed at me?

 

[ralphinal]

Was this directed at me?

Yes and no. You asked a question, and I answered it. SOme of it was directed at those who say that the US is not and has never been violent. The truth is that we are a country with a violent past, some localized and some not. The intentions of our founders was not to be inherntly violent.

The charge being made by some is that Islam does contain somewhat of an inherently violent nature. Now, how much of this is correct is up to debate. You, and most Muslims, hold that these verses are taken out of context or do not really say what they seem to say. However, it cannot be denied that they are in there and that some Muslims DO see them as calls to arms against those who are not like them, Muslim or not.

To me, a more serious question is if there is any way for Islam to be the true religion of peace that you and so many others desire it to be without me having to give up any of my religious or civil rights.

 

[ralphinal]

No I don’t really have an issue with your Iraq assessment. My question was to some extent rhetorical, and your answers (because the complete answer is definitely multi-faceted) don’t need to be debated.

What I was thinking at the time was rather the claim given by American government (in particular the Bush White House) as to why the USA needed to invade Iraq in the first place. We know it to be a sham (WMDs) however the principle was sold to the American public by painting the invasion as a means of self-defense. The war in Afghanistan is painted as retaliation.

Part of that is true. However, do not discount the fact that Sadam had wanted everyone to think that he had the WMDs. Also, do not forget that we sold him the stuff in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

But Afghanistan itself did not attack the USA, nor the Afghani women and children who are the victims of attacks there. And Iraq did not attack the USA. But in order to “promote freedom” and for “national security” the USA has been responsible for incredible amounts of violence in these two countries. Leaving Afghanistan aside, and just looking at Iraq, there are human rights violations and there are other violations of international law–that’s not “anti-war propaganda,” it’s true.

Yes, there have been violations in Iraq. They have been dealt with in one way or another. What you say about the Afgan populace is also true. Do not forget, however, that had the Taliban turned ben Ladin over for trial, no war would be waged. THe innocent have had to pay for the sins of the guilty. It is tragic, and I pray for them.

Does it make Americans violent?

I don’t think it does, personally. Let me say that upfront, I don’t think it does. What it shows though is that Americans see violence (by which I mean war in general, and not war crimes) as an acceptable solution to the problem of their defense. They see violence as an acceptable form of retaliation in Afghanistan.

Are they violent?

Fair enough

So I think it is pretty audacious for anyone to claim that Muslims are violent when they look at things much the same way. When they see themselves attacked, shouldn’t they have the right to respond? When they are oppressed, shouldn’t they be able to revolt? And yet people claim that Muslims are violent…

Why revolt against us? WHy not revolt against the corrupt governments? Why not revolt against the terror organizations that kill the innocent instead of blaiming us for thier corruption of Islam?

I certainly don’t support the individual sneak attacks and terrorism, not from Muslims or anyone.

I would never accuse you of that.

What I think we need to see is that Muslims are people, and they respond to situations much like other people.

The only difference on this point between Americans and Muslims is not so much religious. Americans would (and do) respond the same way Muslims would, only while Muslims have military response justified as part of their complete religion/way of life, Americans don’t accept it as part of their spiritual lives, only part of their secular lives.

Ok.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Yes and no. You asked a question, and I answered it. SOme of it was directed at those who say that the US is not and has never been violent. The truth is that we are a country with a violent past, some localized and some not. The intentions of our founders was not to be inherntly violent.

The charge being made by some is that Islam does contain somewhat of an inherently violent nature. Now, how much of this is correct is up to debate. You, and most Muslims, hold that these verses are taken out of context or do not really say what they seem to say. However, it cannot be denied that they are in there and that some Muslims DO see them as calls to arms against those who are not like them, Muslim or not.

To me, a more serious question is if there is any way for Islam to be the true religion of peace that you and so many others desire it to be without me having to give up any of my religious or civil rights.

Do I really say that Islam is a religion of peace?

 

[ralphinal]

Do I really say that Islam is a religion of peace?

I would say that you hold that it is a faith that does not allow for the killing of innocents and that it allows for freedom of religion. I would say that you hold that when it does allow for violence, it does so on a very limited scale and under certain cicumstances. As such, you would see it as a peaceful religion with jihad understood more as the innner struggle against sin.

Is that off?