Why are so many Muslims violent?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike5575
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Most followers of Islam are not violent. (It’s just that special .5% that gives the rest a bad reputation)
Who said you that Most of followers of Islam are not violent?Ya may be most of them are not terrorist but trust me most of them are supporter of violence and islamic terrorism.I think you met few muslims who are not bad.But you do not know the reality pal!Go to a Muslim country and live there as a muslim.Then you will realize the reality.For the first time here I am reading such a post that claims most of Muslims are not violent.But here we have lots of good moderate Muslim fellows and even they do not claim that most of Muslims’ are not violent!They( Muslim fellow of CAF) just claim that Islam didn’t teach violence,but now most of Muslim do not follow the real Islam so they became violent or the supporter of extremist groups!

Anyway, AJtheMan,i am sure that you never met lots of Muslims,or met some Muslims who are either good or who show fake love to non Muslims for the sake of politeness.I only can say,My all friends and relatives are like that.Since i didn’t meet all Muslims so i just can give you the references of my own peoples.Don’t be confused with my message.Here most of people knows that I am a former muslims and hidden christian .So I can easily refer the people of my area.I met thousand of muslims personally.You know it is natural in a Muslim country.And they all know me as Muslim so never hesitate to show their hatred to others in front of me.All of them show their fake love in front of non Muslims,but in reality they hate non muslims from their heart.I hope sam_777 has this same experience like me,because he is also a former Muslim and a hidden Christian from Saudi Arabia.

Anyway buddy peace be with you.
 
R.A. or (RA) = short for Radiallhu Anhu, in English “May allah be pleased with him”.

This phrase is commonly added after mentioning one of the companions of mohamad.

It’s same with the pbuh = peace be upon him
Thanks. I knew what pbuh was but I had not seen r.a.
 
Islam is violent because inherently all religion can be violent; and it always depends on its status and position in the world or its surrounding society. When Catholics were under Muslim rule in Spain, they lashed out violently. The wars between Catholics and Protestants became very violent. There were Jewish (Zionist) terrorist groups before the formation of Israel.

Religion is fine when it gets its way. When it doesn’t (and it perceives itself as threatened, whether reasonably or not) it’s inherently violent. This is what history tells us. The idea that religion (particularly Abrahamic faiths) have ever truly been about peace and love is the biggest fallacy going.
 
“I wonder why we haven’t stopped Muslim immigration. Instead we let in what we don’t understand and refuse to most of the time. The ones who are new converts I would not give a pass to since they have a chance to do research into Islam.”

I understand where you are coming from there; trouble is, under U.S. law, all religions have to be treated equally, and any restriction imposed upon Muslims purely because of their religious beliefs (NOT their actions or illegal activities) could easily be turned against Catholics.

What if Catholics were forbidden to emigrate to the U.S. on the grounds that their religious faith threatened the rights of abortion providers, women seeking abortions, homosexual couples seeking to marry, divorced people seeking remarriage, women wanting to become priests, etc.? All it would take would be for one or more self-proclaimed Catholics to be involved in an abortion clinic shooting or some kind of violence at a gay marriage protest, and there you go. I don’t expect this to happen, but you never know, and I wouldn’t want to set that kind of a precedent.

I do believe in reasonable immigration restrictions and I have no problem with keeping people out who have been involved with jihadist organizations or movements. However, to issue a blanket prohibition against ANY Muslim entering the U.S., purely on the grounds that Islam is an inherently violent or dangerous religion, would be opening up a huge can of worms that could come back to bite us someday.
And this is where the problem lies since Islam is just as much politics as it is religion. And Christians have been chosing ignorance about Islam for way too long with what I call the ‘martyrdom syndrome’ as their backup.

If people would read the docs I have provided about The Muslim Brotherhood in the USA by Merley they would see this. Their goals were laid out in that doc and in every country that Islam is the dominant religion, so are their politics and Sharia laws. And that bears ill for any non-muslim.

It starts out peaceful then ends up in persecution, terror and death.

And we do not hold any Muslim nation accountable for their behavior. Instead we dump money into countries such as Pakistan and the Gaza. We continue to think the Saudis are our allies when they clearly are not.

The USA just recently sided against free speech in Egypt so they can continue squashing anyone talking about Islam. Islam should be talked about and talked about often. Mohammed should be shown for what he was and so should anyone who thinks he is a perfect man.

REcently a girl, RIfka, left Islam and has been trying to tell us that her life is in danger. Our courts don’t even understand Islam and sharia laws. Her parents even lied to the courts about their finances why would anyone think they wouldn’t lie about anything else? And the mosques that Rifka has told us about have questionable speakers and other things going on there. And if you look at some other areas of the world you see that the Jihadists are coming from the mosques and after Friday there is an upswing of violence.

The one good thing that is coming out of this is the courts are stalling and hopefully it will be long enough for her to reach the age of 18. She has about 9-10 months before that happens.

Geert Wilders has pointed out in Europe what is happening when the Muslilm population grows, Brigitte Gabriel pointed it out about Lebanon, we see it in the UK, and in Africa.

I found a website that has a link to a book that takes a page and gives us a visual on what happens as the Muslim population grows - peacefully and then it turns.

Islam’s growth depends on the population to be ignorant. It depends on playing off of other’s idea of what religion is supposed to be. And it uses people to its own end and deceives them. And it knows full well about Christians and their martyrdom syndrome.

‘First comes Saturday, Then comes Sunday’ is a DVD that Brigitte put out. I don’t know if it is available to everyone, but it certainly shows clearly the intent. First the Jews then the Christians.
 
Islam is violent because inherently all religion can be violent; and it always depends on its status and position in the world or its surrounding society. When Catholics were under Muslim rule in Spain, they lashed out violently. The wars between Catholics and Protestants became very violent. There were Jewish (Zionist) terrorist groups before the formation of Israel.

Religion is fine when it gets its way. When it doesn’t (and it perceives itself as threatened, whether reasonably or not) it’s inherently violent. This is what history tells us. The idea that religion (particularly Abrahamic faiths) have ever truly been about peace and love is the biggest fallacy going.
Who were the ‘Jewish Zionist groups’? When did they do their violence? And if you are talking about them defending their lands from daily Muslim attacks then do not include that information because that is just propaganda from the Muslims to try to label the Jews as violent, meany zionists and make zionist a dirty word as they do Jew in their Koran.
 
Who were the ‘Jewish Zionist groups’? When did they do their violence? And if you are talking about them defending their lands from daily Muslim attacks then do not include that information because that is just propaganda from the Muslims to try to label the Jews as violent, meany zionists and make zionist a dirty word as they do Jew in their Koran.
I’m talking about prior to the formation of Israel.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence

Yes the Jews were violent, but this isn’t Muslim propaganda (this is history). I’m not Muslim (or a left wing idiot who feels sorry for people who strap bombs to their chests, walk in an Israeli shopping mall & kill innocent civilians).

Zionist was a dirty word, back when they were a small collection of terrorist groups who themselves killed innocent civilians. Now they’ve won legitimacy for themselves. Just more in a long series of religious stupidity and insanity.
 
Well, it’s certainly your right to believe that Islam is a violent religion. It’s just that it has no basis
That is total BS.
because the war verses were spoken by muhammad after he fought back against the Pagan Meccans, who were attacking his people. If you look into context and actually read the verses as they are instead of taking Osama Bin Laden’s interpetation, you will see what I’m talking about.
I have quoted, in this thread and elsewhere, verses surrounding the problematic verses (such as 9:5), and there is little to be made of the context. “Fight them wherever you find them” might have only applied to the pagans who Muhammad was fighting against, but then how is that an excuse for other verses with wider implications?

(3:151) Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!

Notice how this verse says that they will terrorize unbelievers BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY BELIEVE, not because they have fought Muhammad. There is nothing in surrounding verses that would establish such a context, as it says that they will soon begin to terrorize the unbelievers, so obviously it was written to exhort Muslims to fight, not when they were already in battle. In fact, in the very next verse, Muslims are chided for “flinching” when they were about to annihilate their enemies.

(3:152) Allah did indeed fulfil His promise to you when ye with His permission Were about to annihilate your enemy,-until ye flinched and fell to disputing about the order, and disobeyed it after He brought you in sight (of the booty) which ye covet. Among you are some that hanker after this world and some that desire the Hereafter. Then did He divert you from your foes in order to test you but He forgave you: For Allah is full of grace to those who believe.
Not to mention that most of the war verses also speak about forgiving your enemy after the battle is over. Too bad that westerners subscribe to Osama Bin Laden’s ideology of offensive war instead of taking the interpretation that Islam has had for thousands of years.
What the hell are you talking about? I must’ve forgot when Osama Bin Ladin wrote this verse of the Qur’an himself:

(9:29) Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Remind me again: Who came first - Qutb or Osama Bin Ladin?
 
there would be no Qutb ,Wahabbis , Alqaeda in the Islamic world if the Ottoman empire was still in power. They defeated the Wahabbis in the 19th century but because the empire collapsed in WW1, the Wahabbis gained control of the region.
I’m not saying they were perfect and didn’t commit atrocities , but it’s similar to the situation in Iraq under Sadam Husaain and after him.
 
Well, it’s certainly your right to believe that Islam is a violent religion. It’s just that it has no basis because the war verses were spoken by muhammad after he fought back against the Pagan Meccans, who were attacking his people. If you look into context and actually read the verses as they are instead of taking Osama Bin Laden’s interpetation, you will see what I’m talking about.

Not to mention that most of the war verses also speak about forgiving your enemy after the battle is over. Too bad that westerners subscribe to Osama Bin Laden’s ideology of offensive war instead of taking the interpretation that Islam has had for thousands of years.
Again it’s not that Islam is anymore inherently violent than other Abrahamic faiths. It’s just that right now there’s no moderating force in much of the Islamic world to mitigate religious stupidity – and its natural propensity for theocracy and lunacy. When Christianity was unchecked in the western world we saw the same sort of insanity (and any distinctions were only due to differing logistic circumstances, not more or less absurdity). Second temple Palestinian Jews stoned adulterers and homosexuals to death (and imposed a dark theocracy much like today’s Taliban). The moral of the story is … religion is always stupid.
 
there would be no Qutb ,Wahabbis , Alqaeda in the Islamic world if the Ottoman empire was still in power. They defeated the Wahabbis in the 19th century but because the empire collapsed in WW1, the Wahabbis gained control of the region.
I’m not saying they were perfect and didn’t commit atrocities , but it’s similar to the situation in Iraq under Sadam Husaain and after him.
Yes of course that’s the answer, let’s have another empire and rid the world of rational thinking and freedom :confused:
 
there would be no Qutb ,Wahabbis , Alqaeda in the Islamic world if the Ottoman empire was still in power. They defeated the Wahabbis in the 19th century but because the empire collapsed in WW1, the Wahabbis gained control of the region.
I’m not saying they were perfect and didn’t commit atrocities , but it’s similar to the situation in Iraq under Sadam Husaain and after him.
This is quite true. As has been written elsewhere, the only time there has been peace with the arabs is when someone sits on them. The Osmanli had become decadent and the Turks were very fortunate to have someone as enlightened as Mustafa Kemal Attaturk to lead the Osmanli into exile instead of some nut job like we see in the arab countries.
 
Yes of course that’s the answer, let’s have another empire and rid the world of rational thinking and freedom :confused:
Mmmm, well you remember people talking about the advance of science in the Muslim world and the peace that existed in the Balkans (especially in Sarajevo)? That was the work of the Turks.
 
Mmmm, well you remember people talking about the advance of science in the Muslim world and the peace that existed in the Balkans (especially in Sarajevo)? That was the work of the Turks.
The Ottoman Empire was hardly a period of world peace. Moreover, the “Islamic Golden Ages” occurred between the 7th and 13th centuries (the middle ages) – this was their period of scientific and philosophical achievement, while the Ottoman Empire began after this period (it’s commonly though to have started in the early 14th century, but the height of its power was during the 16th & 17th centuries).
 
Muslims are violent because islam teaches violence and hatred to others.Btw,it is not my personal opinion,but it is the direct order of Koran,but now Muslims are trying to conceal it by explaining the orders in their own way.
That’s what I’ve been thinking. I’ve been wondering if Muslims are just in denial of their relgion. I wonder if they have just outgrown their relgion. You have to wonder when Islam used to be a dominant culture. What happened to them? It seems to me that they where unable to adapt with modernity and human rights so they eventually got left in the dust by the Western World.

I had asked my brother this question who is a Catholic Priest as I do all questions reguarding religion. The answer he gave me was that Islam is not a violent religion, but it has a greater tendancy to be violent given its strict interpretation as a straight dictation from god.
(Genesis 16:11-12):
"The angel of the LORD also said to her: "You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard of your misery. He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."QUOTE]

Wow! That’s so prophetic it’s almost kinda creepy.
 
The present day muslim religious leaders have spoiled the whole show. Even though, this misguidance and bad activity of the Muslims was working for the last few hundred years and before that they were active in attacking other countries (making loot maar, i.e. plundering the wealth of others, as attacks on India etc), the Muslim clergy did not stop their rulers in those bad deeds.

Then they had the territory and the kings and princes. There was no one to control or guide the rulers. It happens like that in other countries too. The kings do many bad things. But then there should be some one to help the people. A good example of such great people is that of those knights who pressed the king of England against his divine rights.

Similar could be a good role of Voltaire in France, even though that ended in massacre and the French could not bring about a peaceful revolution. It was a bloody revolution in France. But not so in Britian or USA. There was a civil War in USA but that was also for some good cause. The British and the Americans kept on working for some good principles.

There was no such movement in the Muslims. They did not learn any lesson due to their haughtiness and ignorance. The result was, there was no development, no progress in political, material, physical or spiritual matters. Educationally also they were far behind.
Consider the major progress made in many discoveries in Mathematics and Physics in Europe, there was no such thing in the Muslim countries.

Only if the Muslims had some good friendly contacts with the western countries, they would have benefitted. By not understanding the peaceful nature of their own religion, they became the worst creature on earth.
  1. Killing any one who did not believe in islam (was actually taught to people) was one of the worst teaching.
  2. Killing the apostates was another, quite against the real teachings of Islam.
  3. Killing the adulterers by stoning was another proof of the ignorance of the Muslim leaders. (Mullas). They are still not retracting their steps in these bad ideas.
  4. Dividing into many sects was a clear proof of disbelief.
  5. Calling every other sect as Kafir was the practice in undivided India in 19th and 20th centuries.
  6. Even upto recent times, lessons of Jihad was being given in religious schools to the young students. This was an easy way for some leaders to get cheap popularity. But it was like inciting poor people to violence in the name of God.
  7. Such muslim religious leaders got united for the worst things and did no good. They became political leaders of the Muslims.
  8. The simple answer to problem of their violence is that they were no longer any Muslims. They were Muslims in the name sake only.
  9. As a true Muslim, they should not have attacked innocent people. WE see some so-called violent Muslims. The reason is that they have lost all touch with the good wordly things, the material as well as the spiritual.
  10. They will keep on suffering all the more if they do not repent. The repentence should also be real and permanent. There is a strugle going on in some Muslim countries between the Die hard Mullas (The bigots) and the moderate Muslims. So far there is no final result of the effort of the moderates. But it is sure that there will be a downfall of the ignorant Mullas. They have done enough cruelty in the name of God (Allah).
 
That is total BS.

I have quoted, in this thread and elsewhere, verses surrounding the problematic verses (such as 9:5), and there is little to be made of the context. “Fight them wherever you find them” might have only applied to the pagans who Muhammad was fighting against, but then how is that an excuse for other verses with wider implications?

(3:151) Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!

Notice how this verse says that they will terrorize unbelievers BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY BELIEVE, not because they have fought Muhammad. There is nothing in surrounding verses that would establish such a context, as it says that they will soon begin to terrorize the unbelievers, so obviously it was written to exhort Muslims to fight, not when they were already in battle. In fact, in the very next verse, Muslims are chided for “flinching” when they were about to annihilate their enemies.
Muhammad said that because the Pagans were torturing Muslims for what they believed. So, yes, it supports violence in the sense that if you are Muslim, you can kill any Pagan from Mecca if that Pagan begins attacking your Muslim brothers. (Paganism no longer exists in Mecca)
What the hell are you talking about? I must’ve forgot when Osama Bin Ladin wrote this verse of the Qur’an himself:

(9:29) Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Remind me again: Who came first - Qutb or Osama Bin Ladin?
Osama is a follower of Qutbism. Or, at least, Osama Bin Laden’s ideology was heavily influenced by Qutbism.

See, with that verse you post, a normal Muslim would understand the context in which it was spoke. But because you seem to prefer the Qutbist (violent) interpretation, you think that all Muslims believe as the Qutbists.

Once you understand that the Qutbists (and their disciples) are the only ones who interpret these verses as supporting offensive Jihad, then you will realize that Qutbism is merely a heretical off-shoot from mainstream Islam that most normal Muslims see as excessively violent and theologically absurd.
 
  1. Killing any one who did not believe in islam (was actually taught to people) was one of the worst teaching.
  2. Killing the apostates was another, quite against the real teachings of Islam.
  3. Killing the adulterers by stoning was another proof of the ignorance of the Muslim leaders. (Mullas). They are still not retracting their steps in these bad ideas.
  4. Dividing into many sects was a clear proof of disbelief.
  5. Calling every other sect as Kafir was the practice in undivided India in 19th and 20th centuries.
  6. Even upto recent times, lessons of Jihad was being given in religious schools to the young students. This was an easy way for some leaders to get cheap popularity. But it was like inciting poor people to violence in the name of God.
  7. Such muslim religious leaders got united for the worst things and did no good. They became political leaders of the Muslims.
  8. The simple answer to problem of their violence is that they were no longer any Muslims. They were Muslims in the name sake only.
  9. As a true Muslim, they should not have attacked innocent people. WE see some so-called violent Muslims. The reason is that they have lost all touch with the good wordly things, the material as well as the spiritual.
  10. They will keep on suffering all the more if they do not repent. The repentence should also be real and permanent. There is a strugle going on in some Muslim countries between the Die hard Mullas (The bigots) and the moderate Muslims. So far there is no final result of the effort of the moderates. But it is sure that there will be a downfall of the ignorant Mullas. They have done enough cruelty in the name of God (Allah).
Planten, I don’t presume to understand your religion like you do but…are you sure you are not a better law unto yourself than that taught by your religion? That you are not projecting a higher law onto your religion that perhaps does not originate there but nevertheless is the law in your heart?
 
Muhammad said that because the Pagans were torturing Muslims for what they believed. So, yes, it supports violence in the sense that if you are Muslim, you can kill any Pagan from Mecca if that Pagan begins attacking your Muslim brothers. (Paganism no longer exists in Mecca)
What Qur’an are you reading? The verse reads “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah”, not anything about how it is revenge for pagans attacking Muslims.
See, with that verse you post, a normal Muslim would understand the context in which it was spoke. But because you seem to prefer the Qutbist (violent) interpretation, you think that all Muslims believe as the Qutbists.
What context could there be that would excuse extorting the “People of the Book” that the Qur’an and Muslims claim to respect so much? We’ll never see eye to eye on this one, AJ, and it has NOTHING to do with Qutbism. All traditional schools of Islamic jurisprudence affirm the correctness of the Jizya religious tax imposed on the non-Muslim minorities in Muslim-controlled areas. It is absolutely NOT an aberration of so-called “peaceful” Islam, unless you are willing to say that the Qur’an is somehow a perversion of itself…? 🤷
Once you understand that the Qutbists (and their disciples) are the only ones who interpret these verses as supporting offensive Jihad, then you will realize that Qutbism is merely a heretical off-shoot from mainstream Islam that most normal Muslims see as excessively violent and theologically absurd.
And once YOU realize that the Qur’an says what it says and your or my interpretation of it as non-Muslims don’t matter at all, you’ll see that your position is what is absurd. The Qur’an is the ultimate authority for Muslims, Qutbist or not. You can either be honest about what it says or continue to believe as you do that verses that say “we’ll terrorize the non-believers because they don’t follow our religion” somehow really mean something completely different.
 
your title is a generalization. “Muslims are violent” or “American women are whores” …generalizations :rolleyes:
This may seem like an unfair question but when it comes acts of violence, Muslims are the ones that will feel justified by their relgion. Christians and everyone else it seems, when they do evil deeds, it has more do do with flaws in humanity in general. The fundamental difference between the Bible and the Koran is that while the Bible is a compulation of several books written across 1500 years by several different authors, Islam is believed to be written all at once, one time, by Allah, handed down from Gabriel. This would make the bible more open to interpretation, yet christians don’t go around bombing schools and flying planes into buildings. Does this have to do with Christians following the New, but not Old Testament since the New Testament makes the old one obsolete?

Anyways I talked to a Muslim friend of mine and he told me you can’t take little parts of the Koran to understand it but you have to read it entirely. When I ask him about all the violence committed by Muslims, he tells me they aren’t true Muslims. They don’t understand its true beauty and wisdom. Something doesn’t add up.

Could someone please give me a no bs scholary answer?
 
your title is a generalization. “Muslims are violent” or “American women are whores” …generalizations :rolleyes:
Notice how I said so many Muslims rather than just Muslims. I worded my question in such a way to avoid any generalization. I am more than aware that not all Muslims are violent people. Saying that “Some American Women are whores” is not a generalzation, but to say “American women are whores” is a generalization because you are addressing that group as a whole. Get it? Got it? Good!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top