Why are muslims so violent?

[Sister_Amy]

They sound like good Christians.

Why would you make that assumption?

 

[eichenb2]

Why would you make that assumption?

It was just a joke. Btw, I know that I can difficult at times (at least my wife says so ). I did not mean to offend you in anyway. If I did, please forgive me, as that is not my intention. It may surprise you to know that I am not even Christian (yet). I am in, kind of, a religious limbo (pun intended). It have studied religions (Islam included) and think that a conversion to Catholicism may still happen. Islam is something that I have significant experience with (no details ) and I do not think it is “right guidance”. It is a free country, however, and you have a right to be Muslim. I just want you to know that I do not intend to offend you personally. It is Islamic doctrine that I have a problem with.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Oh, I wasn’t offended.

But thanks for being considerate.

I doubt you’ll find me disputing your right to choose your own faith. I just know mine has blossomed beautifully since I have embraced Islam.

 

[eichenb2]

Very interesting! Allow to clarify for the record that I am NOT condeming a “Just War” and am no a passivist. I am, specifically intending to critique Muslim’s use (past & present) of violence (physical jihad) to propogate Islam. Please mind that I am not saying they are forcing conversions. They have (Muhammad himself) carried out military conquests with the express purpose of extending the “Dar-ul-Islam”. Most muslims will rhetorically tap dance around some of the more disturbing details. It is not personal, it is doctrinal.

 

[inJESUS]

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.

am afraid there are 2 problems with your reply.

first, am not demonizing, these are Islamic sources.

Second, it isn’t about people but about ideology.

 

[inJESUS]

Less than 1% of the Qur’an talks about jihad!!

This 1% made the Caliphs commit massacres.

and there is nothing called offensive war to spread Christianity in the Just War.

It is in Islam. Your sheikh seems to be giving you what you want to hear, maybe you need to ask him about these Islamic sources:

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.”

 

[inJESUS]

Actually, just today I was giving someone a link to my sheikh’s Friday sermons. He has a two-part one on jihad, which I suggest you read. Part1. Part2.

Jihad is not to be used to spread Islam, you will read in these articles.

maybe you can tell us what was on the Caliphs’ mind exactly when they conquered other lands that were not in war with them.

I quote from your link:

This kind of Jihad is against anyone who stands as an obstacle in the way of Da’wah . The obstacle can be from someone or a government who prevents Muslims from delivering the message of Islam, or it could be the one who prevents people from choosing Islam, or the one who persecutes any one who chooses Islam. These are the **ONLY **reasons that Islam allows one to use force.

This is obviously NOT backed up by Islamic history of conquests, known as Jihad. And it is ironic that Jihad must be applied against one who persecutes any one who chooses Islam, but no Jihad is asked for stopping muslims from killing those who reject Islam since there is “no compulsion in religion”.

The above quote is ironically an example of Jihad based on spreading Islam through violence though the article tries to present it as defensive violence. In other words, no one is allowed to stop the spread of Islam, otherwise death , so killing is because Islam must be spread whether you like it (submit) or not (get killed). So if a country’ law does not permit polygamy or death penalty, Muslims have the right to fight this land in order to impliment the Islamic laws the country was not based on in the first place and this is one of the reasons non-Muslims speak against Islam in the first place, so either as Muslims want or Jihad. And you wonder why Muslims are not welcomed in many societies or are “feared”, because of these threats of violence to what Muslims consider “obstacles to Islam”.

"And fight them until there is no more fitnah and the religion will be for Allah alone…”

Better not go to other lands and claim “fitna” because these lands are not founded on Islamic sharia and don’t want it. but as my quotes say, islam if for anyone whether they like it (convert) or not ( humiliation or death).

 

[Sister_Amy]

Am I to believe that you know more about Islam, and are more qualified to interpret its sources than my sheikh? I don’t think so.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Very interesting! Allow to clarify for the record that I am NOT condeming a “Just War” and am no a passivist. I am, specifically intending to critique Muslim’s use (past & present) of violence (physical jihad) to propogate Islam. Please mind that I am not saying they are forcing conversions. They have (Muhammad himself) carried out military conquests with the express purpose of extending the “Dar-ul-Islam”. Most muslims will rhetorically tap dance around some of the more disturbing details. It is not personal, it is doctrinal.

Let’s suppose there’s a country, let’s call it XYZ, that says people cannot follow a certain religion, let’s call it MNO. It starts to persecute anybody who follows that religion.

Do you think that it would be fair and just (or contrarily oppressive, evil, or neither) for another country to go to war with XYZ until it relents and stops persecuting people for choosing to follow religion MNO or any other religion?

Theoretical question.

 

[Valke2]

Less than 1% of the Quran may deal with Jihad. But today several hundred million dollars are invested in spreading the idea of jihad against the west,.

 

[Detales]

I haven’t read all 27 pages of posts, but scanned a sampling. I have not seen a simple, but I feel accurate, observation stated anywhere on here. It is this: Goodness and religion exist in independent dimensions and only seem to intersect.

It is possible that people use a particular religion to acheive “goodness,” but that is a quality found everywhere in every time and in every culture. It is immediately recognizable by those in its proximity as easily as its opposit. But put a thousand good people in a stadium and remove any identifying signs or rituals, and I defy you to tell their religion. Or do the same with a thousand evil people. They are all the way they are despite what they ascribe it to, not because of it.

This is why Lenny Bruce was able to say that “Every day people are straying away from the church and going back to God.” It is also why so many are looking for the roots of such religions as Christianity, (christianism) Islam and Judaism and coming up with some remarkably practical answers.

Horrors and miracles have been listed and ascribed to every faith. The faith is not the cause of any of that. It is the spiritual maturity or immaturity of the practitioner that transcends the form of their faith or not that is the area that might be looked to. That quest goes beyond simple adherence to any creed.

 

[cathopologist]

Let’s suppose there’s a country, let’s call it XYZ, that says people cannot follow a certain religion, let’s call it MNO. It starts to persecute anybody who follows that religion.

Do you think that it would be fair and just (or contrarily oppressive, evil, or neither) for another country to go to war with XYZ until it relents and stops persecuting people for choosing to follow religion MNO or any other religion?

Theoretical question.

If XYZ was one of the countries in Europe or anywhere else in the West, you can bet the Muslims would be jumping for Jihad of Da’wah and then move on to the Jihad of the Munafiqin/Kufr (physical struggle). It has happened before although for trivial reasons such as the banning of the hijab and cartoon depictions of Mohammad. I don’t know of any European or non-European secular country that disallows its people from practicing a religion. Do you?

 

[inJESUS]

Am I to believe that you know more about Islam, and are more qualified to interpret its sources than my sheikh? I don’t think so.

no but i am qualified to cite the sources that contradict what your sheikh is saying.

 

[inJESUS]

Let’s suppose there’s a country, let’s call it XYZ, that says people cannot follow a certain religion, let’s call it MNO. It starts to persecute anybody who follows that religion.

Do you think that it would be fair and just (or contrarily oppressive, evil, or neither) for another country to go to war with XYZ until it relents and stops persecuting people for choosing to follow religion MNO or any other religion?

Theoretical question.

You forget that Islam is not an individualistic belief . Islam claims to be deen and dunya, that is religion and state. So to answer your question, people must be free to believe in whatever they want (individualistic belief) but Muslims are not free to launch wars on countries that did not, do not and don’t want to adhere to Islamic ideologies and teachings (state). You are free to go to these countries and worship whatver you want, but you are not free to spit in the dish you are being served. If you want to spit in it and get angry looks that oppose what you did, do not call it “fitna” because it is you who brought fitna to this country by going there and asking for things the country does not believe in or doesn’t allow nor intends to. In a nutshell, yes Muslims are free to choose personal convictions but are not free to establish their ideologies of state in countries based on different laws and then accuse these countries of fitna and so fighting them.

 

[inJESUS]

Am I to believe that you know more about Islam, and are more qualified to interpret its sources than my sheikh? I don’t think so.

here is a response to “Jihad is not used to spread Islam” claim, from an Islamic site:

Describing the Futuhat as defensive is an apologetic attempt which does not stand up to serious argument. Did the people of Andalusia or Transoxiana cross the Muslims’ borders in order to conquer them? Did securing the borders necessitate the Muslims’ penetrating deeply into three continents, Asia, Europe and Africa, where dangerous events and decisive battles took place far from the Arabian Peninsula, such as the battle of Tours at Poitiers in the south of France, the conquest of Crete and southern Italy, the battle of Tiraz on the Talas river in Transoxiana, and finally the siege of Vienna?

The true explanation of the Futuhat is that they applied their religious duty which is Jihad, and which the Prophet (P) described as the pinnacle of Islam.

So again, your sheikh, with all due respect, must reconsider history before telling you that Islamic Jihad is only defensive.

Conquering other lands, killing their people and taking their money in the name of spreading Islam in order to:

fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere.” (Al-Anfal 8:39)

better not attack and kill and then play the victims by accusing others of “tumult” .

 

[Charlotte2008]

Muslims are like poisonous snakes - they react with violence when threatened. Muslims are leaving Islam in droves for Christianity and that it why they feel threatened at the moment and probably also the reason Islamists are now on this board - desperately trying to convert people. They all have the same arguments whatever board they are on. Perhaps they all bought the same study notes.

 

[rikkk1958]

I have been following the post of Sister Amy and in all sincerity and honesty I find her very honest in her responses. I have asked her before “How would she believe Quran compared to the Holy Bible?” She responded by saying, “It is because of the beauty there is in the Quran?”

At that point I re-read the Quran and it just doesn’t tell me any beautiful thing in it. I find it to be short and the borrowed stories from the Holy Bible are rampant and fragmented. And when I see verses about the “unbelievers” it struck me and no matter how you interpret them, it just does not fit to be the words of God as claimed by Muhammed.

You will see and read of course about God and His compassion, kindness, and mercifulness, but how can this surpassed the loving nature of God in the Holy Bible?" This is why I asked myself, “how Sister Amy, with her wit and intelligence, would say Quran is better than the Holy Bibe?”

 

[Charlotte2008]

I don’t know why they think a book (Quran) is the word of God when it needs at least 5 other books to back it up. Bible = 1 book = Word of God.

Why Quran is not from God:

Muhammad produced no miracles and when pressed he claimed that his miracle is the Quran. Yet a cursory look at the Quran reveals that this book is full of errors. Quran is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical errors and ethical fallacies. It is badly compiled and it contradicts itself. There is nothing intelligent in this book let alone miraculous. Muhammad challenged people to produce a “Surah like it” or find an error therein, yet Muslims would kill anyone who dares to criticize it. In such a climate of hypocrisy and violence truth is the first casualty.

It jumps around the whole time and then threatens you with hell for not believing it. How is that the word of God?

Please Sister Amy investigate this further. It is all lies. Study the Bible yourself instead of listening to the lies of Naik etc.

 

[Valke2]

Muslims are like poisonous snakes - they react with violence when threatened. Muslims are leaving Islam in droves for Christianity and that it why they feel threatened at the moment and probably also the reason Islamists are now on this board - desperately trying to convert people. They all have the same arguments whatever board they are on. Perhaps they all bought the same study notes.

I know that in this time of chairty and love and peace you already regret this post. I congratulate you in advance for your decision to apologize.

 

[Charlotte2008]

I know that in this time of chairty and love and peace you already regret this post. I congratulate you in advance for your decision to apologize.

No, sorry, after escaping from a 3 year relationship with a Muslim man I will not apologise to anyone for my statement whether it is Christmas or not. Perhaps you should meet some “true Muslims” and see what they are really like instead of blindly believing they are “peaceful” people! Why do you think Islamists are now on this board? To discuss or to convert you? Hmmm it is the latter. Please realise this.

I came across this a few days ago worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33898 - it is in full swing!