Why are muslims so violent?

[ralphinal]

Where are they?

I mean that the reason the radicals seem so large in number is because they act. The rest do not. Some agree but are cowards. Some don’t care one way or another. Some disagree but are scared. Some disagree but not enough to take a stand.

 

[Reuben_J]

I mean that the reason the radicals seem so large in number is because they act. The rest do not. Some agree but are cowards. Some don’t care one way or another. Some disagree but are scared. Some disagree but not enough to take a stand.

Maybe because the ‘moderates’ have not enough conviction that the ‘radicals’ are wrong. Maybe they think the ‘radicals’ are right theologically but they (the moderates) do not have the gut to agree with their methods seeing they are too cruel and violent.

People like Sister Amy (the moderates), and we love them, are converts and are not raised up as traditional Muslims. They see Islam with tainted Christian eyes and Judeo-Christian value which no doubt still has a bearing with them, if not at least unconsciously.

If the ‘moderates’ are the majority, their number is staggering, Muslims pride themselves with their big number notwithstanding. Can we imagine how much they can do if really they disagree with the ‘radicals’?

 

[R_not]

Maybe because the ‘moderates’ have not enough conviction that the ‘radicals’ are wrong. Maybe they think the ‘radicals’ are right theologically but they (the moderates) do not have the gut to agree with their methods seeing they are too cruel and violent.

People like Sister Amy (the moderates), and we love them, are converts and are not raised up as traditional Muslims. They see Islam with tainted Christian eyes and Judeo-Christian value which no doubt still has a bearing with them, if not at least unconsciously.

If the ‘moderates’ are the majority, their number is staggering, Muslims pride themselves with their big number notwithstanding. Can we imagine how much they can do if really they disagree with the ‘radicals’?

They don’t disagree with the radicals that is why they don’t like to respond to our questions as to “why don’t you do something about them?”. mohammed told them if they do not want to fight they are to support the violent ones with money (muslim charities), and moral support.

Why do you think the ‘moderates’ celebrate when one of theirs blows themself up killing non-muslims? It is a community celebration. Just as 9/11 was a community celebration of which they denied or said the “the Jews were the ones who did the celebrating”. that is just deflection and blaming others to confuse the issue so as to make themselves appear ‘moderate’.

Walid Shoebat Shoebat’s experiences with what he was taught in islam..
Select the program that says, Talking It Over, PART 1 December 13, 2008.

They do not call themselves ‘moderate’, or ‘radical’ - our own left thought those terms up. It was the only way, in their little brain cell, that they could explain why so many appear as if they do nothing, or what I call ‘put on the facade of peace’.

The teachings are the same for the ‘moderate’ ones as it is for the ones who kill in allah’s name. In fact, there are only 5 translations allowed, at least in the sunni sect. And that has not changed.

Who let Obaid out series - allah is watching me (tells how many so called scholars there are in islam - only 5 that are approved - the rest cannot rewrite or rethink the koran) Go in this video about 10:52 minutes/seconds and you will see what the approved translations are.

 

[Reuben_J]

They don’t disagree with the radicals that is why they don’t like to respond to our questions as to “why don’t you do something about them?”. mohammed told them if they do not want to fight they are to support the violent ones with money (muslim charities), and moral support.

Why do you think the ‘moderates’ celebrate when one of theirs blows themself up killing non-muslims? It is a community celebration. Just as 9/11 was a community celebration of which they denied or said the “the Jews were the ones who did the celebrating”. that is just deflection and blaming others to confuse the issue so as to make themselves appear ‘moderate’.

Exactly R_not. That’s why it is so hard to defend the moderates who say they are against the ‘radicals’. And I agree there are no moderates or radicals in Islam. If anything, the moderates are just bad and not fervent Muslims unlike the radicals, who could follow the Quran and the example of Mohammad to the letter.

Similarly to Christianity. Radical Christians are ones who are fervent and willing to radically take a radical course to follow Jesus and the teachings of the Bible and the Church.

 

[cathopologist]

There is no such thing as a ‘Moderate’ Muslim, just as there is no such thing as a ‘Moderate’ Catholic or ‘Moderate’ Christian - If the respective religion is to be practised in its orthodox form.

 

[Valke2]

There is no such thing as a ‘Moderate’ Muslim, just as there is no such thing as a ‘Moderate’ Catholic or ‘Moderate’ Christian - If the respective religion is to be practised in its orthodox form.

sez who? Orthodox = traditional. I don’t see why one should be required to practice their religion like it’s founders did. Nothing else in life works that way.

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

What about Irshad Manji who wrote The Trouble With Islam? Perhaps one of the reasons why moderate muslims do not speak out as much is because radical clerics issue death sentences in the form of fatwas like Salman Rushdie.

and what about this from CAIR

Greetings and Salam to all

The following is an extract from a recent article by brother Ibrahim Hooper

Love for Jesus Can Bring Christians, Muslims Together

By Ibrahim Hooper (CAIR)

Ibrahim Hooper is National Communications Director for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
It is well known, particularly in this holiday season, that Christians follow the teachings of Jesus. What is less well understood is that Muslims also love and revere Jesus as one of God’s greatest messengers to mankind.

Other verses in the Quran, regarded by Muslims as the direct word of God, state that Jesus was strengthened with the “Holy Spirit” (2:87) and is a "sign for the whole world.” (21:91) His virgin birth was confirmed when Mary is quoted as asking: “How can I have a son when no man has ever touched me?” (3:47)

The Quran shows Jesus speaking from the cradle and, with God’s permission, curing lepers and the blind. (5:110) God also states in the Quran: “We gave (Jesus) the Gospel (Injeel) and put compassion and mercy into the hearts of his followers.” (57:27)

As forces of hate in this country and worldwide try to pull Muslims and Christians apart, we are in desperate need of a unifying force that can bridge the widening gap of interfaith misunderstanding and mistrust. That force could be the message of love, peace and forgiveness taught by Jesus and accepted by followers of both faiths. …

The Prophet Muhammad himself sought to erase any distinctions between the message he taught and that taught by Jesus, who he called God’s “spirit and word.” Prophet Muhammad said: “Both in this world and in the Hereafter, I am the nearest of all people to Jesus, the son of Mary. The prophets are paternal brothers; their mothers are different, but their religion is one.” …

America’s Muslim community stands ready to honor that legacy by building bridges of interfaith understanding and challenging those who would divide our nation along religious or ethnic lines.

We have more in common than we think.

 

[R_not]

What about Irshad Manji who wrote The Trouble With Islam? Perhaps one of the reasons why moderate muslims do not speak out as much is because radical clerics issue death sentences in the form of fatwas like Salman Rushdie.

and what about this from CAIR

Greetings and Salam to all

The following is an extract from a recent article by brother Ibrahim Hooper

Love for Jesus Can Bring Christians, Muslims Together

By Ibrahim Hooper (CAIR)

*I cut out the article for brevity’s sake
*

#1. There is NOTHING ‘brotherly’ about Ibrahim Hooper!

and #2 - read the rest of his ‘brotherly’ love - or er I mean, jihad.

CAIR is under investigation and is a front group for Hamas. Take note in the article of the stealth jihad they are helping to do which has the same end for non-muslims - if we don’t die or convert, we are subjugated. I have posted several articles that CAIR is the muslim brotherhoods tool, along with the MSA in our schools, in this stealth jihad.

And here we have a call for ‘interfaith exchange’ by CAIR which means they want everyone to accept their hogwash that islam is peaceful.

CAIR, with proven ties to Islamic terrorism which includes having Islamic terrorists on staff at different periods in its short turbulent history, is the last group that should be calling for “exchanges”, let alone “Inter-religious” exchanges.

 How can any group that practices Islamic supremacy presume to lecture anyone on the merits of peaceful religious exchange?

 Consider:

 - The Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) recently had a $156 million dollar judgment upheld against it for the murder of an American citizen by Hamas terrorists.  Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad, CAIR founders, were top officers of the IAP.

 - The Lashkar-e-Taiba, an Islamist terrorist group, reportedly trained the Mumbai terrorists for their recent attacks.  It is recalled that Ismail Royer, the incarcerated communications officer for CAIR, is currently serving time on terrorism charges; one of the terrorist acts he admitted to was providing assistance to America-based recruits of the Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist organization.

 There are many other examples of CAIR staffers and members supporting Islamic terrorism through fundraising, propagandizing, or aidding and abetting terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hamas.

Here is another article on CAIR and its associate the Holy Land foundation. (a muslim charity and for some reason - the poor just keep getting poorer, or just stay poor, in islam unless we take care of them. Go figure! )

 

[cathopologist]

sez who? Orthodox = traditional. I don’t see why one should be required to practice their religion like it’s founders did. Nothing else in life works that way.

Says millions of adherents. FYI, Orthodox - Original, not ‘traditional’. When a religion deviates from its original form, it becomes a revised religion - and loses its authenticity.

 

[Valke2]

Says millions of adherents. FYI, Orthodox - Original, not ‘traditional’. When a religion deviates from its original form, it becomes a revised religion - and loses its authenticity.

ALL religions have deviated from their original form. That is why a more accurate defintion of orthdox i “traditional” rather than original.

 

[cathopologist]

ALL religions have deviated from their original form. That is why a more accurate defintion of orthdox i “traditional” rather than original.

I disgree. Even the Jewish faith strives to keep the essence of its religion in its most unalterable, original form - Orthodox Judaism. Despite the many Kabbalistic modernist forms that exist today. A ‘traditional’ religion looks and sounds good on the surface, but without its original, orthodox form, its as good as being part of a modernist movement.

 

[Valke2]

I disgree. Even the Jewish faith strives to keep the essence of its religion in its most unalterable, original form - Orthodox Judaism. Despite the many Kabbalistic modernist forms that exist today. A ‘traditional’ religion looks and sounds good on the surface, but without its original, orthodox form, its as good as being part of a modernist movement.

If you think that Orthodox Judaism is unalterable, I gotta bridge to sell you. The difference between striving to keep your original form and actually keeping your original form is a pretty big difference. I can tell you, for example, that as long as 1900 years ago and even longer than that, Judaism was evolving and disputes over practice were heatedly debated.

ORTHODOX: Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.
answers.com/topic/orthodox

 

[cathopologist]

Orthodox Judaism is characterized by belief that the Torah and its laws are Divine, were transmitted by God to Moses, are eternal, and are unalterable; belief that there is also an oral law in Judaism, which contains the authoritative interpretation of the written Torah’s legal sections, and is also Divine by virtue of having been transmitted by God to Moses along with the Written Law, as embodied in the Talmud, Midrash, and innumerable related texts, all intrinsically and inherently entwined with the written law of the Torah; belief that God has made an exclusive, unbreakable covenant with the Children of Israel to be governed by the Torah;

*Quote from *http://www.answers.com/orthodox%20judaism

We can do this all day.

Of course there are religions that deviate from the original, but as i have mentioned, once a religion deviates from its original form, it becomes another religion - another branch, another sect, another denomination.

 

[Valke2]

We can do this all day.

Of course there are religions that deviate from the original, but as i have mentioned, once a religion deviates from its original form, it becomes another religion - another branch, another sect, another denomination.

Please trust me when I say that I know what orthodox judaism is. The fact is that orthodox judaism of 2008 is very different from orthodox judaism of 1500

 

[cathopologist]

Please trust me when I say that I know what orthodox judaism is. The fact is that orthodox judaism of 2008 is very different from orthodox judaism of 1500

I would love to, believe me, but adherents of Orthodox Judaism do not see themselves as such. Likewise, its not fair to assume there is no orthodox religion left on the planet. Sure, people want to change with the times, and with it, they change theological beliefs to better suit the secularist mentality - but it truly kills its essence and the founders of the respective faiths must be turning in their graves.

 

[Valke2]

I would love to, believe me, but adherents of Orthodox Judaism do not see themselves as such. Likewise, its not fair to assume there is no orthodox religion left on the planet. Sure, people want to change with the times, and with it, they change theological beliefs to better suit the secularist mentality - but it truly kills its essence and the founders of the respective faiths must be turning in their graves.

I am not explaining myself well. Orthodox Judaism itself has a tradition of evolving withing the structure of the Torah and Talmud. It has never, as far as written history has shown, spoken with a unified voice on individual aspects of the religion. While, for example, Orthodox Jews would agree that Moses received the Torah at Sinai, there is much discussion within the orthodox religion as to how much was received at Sinai and how much was received afterward. One school will argue that Moses received everything, word for word, when he went up the mountain, and another school will argue that Hashem gave him Torah in the Tent of Meeting afterwards.

There is within the religion differences on the importance of sacrifices, on the issue of miracles, on whether or not every word of Torah contains meaning or if some of it is simply repeated or stated for stylistic purposes.

If you study Talmud you quickly learn that the rabbis had and have many different opinions on how to follow the Torah. And that customs and laws in Judaism and specifically in Orthodox Judaism, change over time.

Finally, the founder of our faith has no grave.

This is required because our Torah is not simply a list of instructions. It is a springborad for our faith, not a ridged set of do s and don’ts
In short, an essential element in orthodox judaism has traditionally been the ability to adapt and evolve within the confines of the religion.

 

[cathopologist]

In short, an essential element in orthodox judaism has traditionally been the ability to adapt and evolve within the confines of the religion.

Every orthodox religion strives to speak with a unified voice. Orthodox religions define dogma and doctrines through councils so as to better understand and reconcile its original teachings. Its sole purpose in doing this is so that nobody deviates from its original form. Some laws and customs of the past were not meant to be bound indefinitely as God did not intend them to be. Laws and customs are not bound to orthodoxy - Tradition (not tradition) is.

Finally, the founder of our faith has no grave.

I know that. I was speaking metaphorically and does not include YHWH, Ahura Mazda, Allah or Brahma or the other names for the Supreme Being from various religions.

This said, i think i will leave this debate as i realize we’ve been hijacking the thread already. So perhaps we can impart knowing we agree to disagree.

 

[chosen_people]

The claim that Moslems as such are violent is an unacceptable and illogical generalization.

What is true is that certain fundamentalist Islamic movements support and justify violence to achieve their aims ( I speak from personal knowledge having sat in judgment of people accused of belonging to such groups and hearing them expound on their views).

The thread having gone from Moslems to Orthodox Jewry, I would point out that the definition of a Jew as “orthodox” is relatively new. Certainly there were streams of Judaism such as the Hassidic movement, Niturei Karta, Mitnagdim. However, all these streams as well as mainline Judaism would be considered Orthodox from a modern perspective. Western Jews until the age of enlightenment at the beginning of the 19th Century and Napoleon lived in an autonomous state, were not citizens and were prevented by Church and civil law from integrating into the general community. A Jew’s real leader would have been the local Rabbi, he found and sought justice in Jewish courts under Jewish law, was forced to live in ghettos or restricted to particular areas and worked only with other Jews in jobs that Jews were allowed to hold.

This changed when Jews were allowed to become citizens of the countries where they lived ,began to slowly obtain civil rights and to become more integrated into general society. At this point the authority of the local Rabbi was weakened, Jews were able to turn to local courts under the general laws of the countries. The Reform movement, the Conservative movement, Reconstructionism all came about as different groups of Jews sought to adopt their religious practice to the changing position of the Jew in general society. At this point and only at this point can we talk about orthodox Judaism which now needs to be differentiated from the other movements in Judaism. From a time point of view we are talking about the middle of the 19th century and onward.

 

[eichenb2]

I think the proclivity to violence in Islam can be attributed to the numerous verses of the Qur’an that command/encourage Muslims to physical Jihad (even offensive Jihad). For those Muslims who say that most Muslims are peaceful, I think that is in spite of Islam or due to cowardice. The reason that this mentality is stange to Christians is that Christ said “My Kingdom is NOT of this world”. So, when Christians are violent, they do so IN SPITE of Christianity.

 

[joe_clark]

Why Muslims won’t be violent if Muhammad and his successors were?

Shafi’i’s in his book, “The Ordinances of the Qur’an” (part 2, p. 50),

“The apostle of God killed and captured (many) of the people of the Book until some of them embraced Islam, and he imposed the poll-tax on some others.”

From idolaters and those who associate other gods with God, the poll-tax is not to be accepted. Either they believe in Islam or be killed, but the people of the Book can pay the poll-tax with **submission and humiliation **whether they are Arabs or non-Arabs" (pp. 52,53).

The Book of the Islamic State" by Taqiy al-Din al-Nabahan says,

"He (Muhammad) subdued the tribe of Quraysh as a body, along with other similar groups until Islam prevailed all over the Arabian peninsula. Then the Islamic state started to knock at the doors of other states to spread Islam. Whenever it found that the nature of the existing system in these states was a barrier which prevented the spread of the mission, they saw it as inevitable that the system be removed. So holy war continued as a means of spreading Islam. Thus by holy war, countries and regions were conquered. By holy war, kingdoms and states were removed and Islam ruled the nations and peoples.

"The glorious Qur’an has revealed to Muslims the reasons for fighting and the ordinance of holy war and it declares that it is to carry the message of Islam to the entire world. There are several verses which command the Muslims to fight for the cause of Islam. Therefore, carrying the Islamic mission is the basis on which the Islamic state was established, the Islamic army was founded, and holy war was ordained. All the conquests were achieved accordingly. Fulfilling the Islamic mission will restore the Islamic state to the Muslims."

The Islamic system is a universal system, thus it was natural that it would spread, and natural that countries would be conquered. Here the apostle is receiving from Muslims the pledge of ’aqaba the Second, making a pact with him to fight all people. Those Muslims were the core of the army of the Islamic state whose military task was to carry the Islamic mission. The apostle of God had designed the plan of conquest before his death, then after him, his successors undertook the responsibility of implementing this plan when they started conquering the countries. Later, the Islamic conquests followed successively on this basis. People’s resistance or rejection does not matter because the Islamic system is for all people in all countries."

the book, “The Rightly Guided Caliphs,” by Dr. Abu Zayd says on pages 131 and 132,

“Abu ’Ubayda marched towards Damascus and besieged it for seventy nights. He cut off all supplies while its inhabitants were pleading for help and assistance. Then Khalid attacked the city and massacred thousands of people. (They were forced) to ask for a peace treaty. Abu ’Ubayda turned over the rule of Damascus to Yazid and ordered him to invade the neighboring (cities). He attacked Sidon, Beirut, and others.”

And some are wondering where the violence of Islam comes from? it simply comes from the very founder and his successors.

Demonizing other people you don’t know or maybe have never met, is not the way we were taught. The title can easily be made to: Re: Why are Christians so violent? or Re: Why are Catholics so violent? The pot and the kettle my good loving people.