Why are so many Muslims violent?

[Booklover]

To say there is no correlation between the 9/11 suicide bombers, the suicide bombers of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Jihadists, and of history is to not know the teachings of Mohammed. And we must not forget all the celebrations done by Muslims worldwide after 9/11. Celebrations on the same order of a wedding are done when a family member is a suicide bomber. They do not call them suicide bombers they call them shahid, or shaheed - martyrs. The family usually gets money from zakat of others, and they are usually happy because they are fairly certain they will be saved too since the martyr gets to name many people with him that get to go to heaven.

It is usually ‘damage contol’ when we are told there is no correlation. About 5 days after 9/11 there were many churches in the USA that were contacted by Imams and clerics to do ‘damage control’. This tells me that there was a knowledge by many Muslims that this was going to take place. Not necessarily all Muslims, but many in positions of power within the power structure of such organizations as the Muslim Brotherhood that exists within the USA.

#1. All Muslims must wage Jihad

(I would take time to read the articles, or if you don’t want to read someone’s interpretation of the Koran and Hadith then you are going to have to do the reading for yourself. It doesn’t do one any good to have an opinion on this unless they do some reading)

#2. Jihad in the texts of Islam is 98% violence against the unbelievers.

#3. The surest way to attain salvation is to die in battle against the unbelievers. Sometimes Mohammed said that it would elevate the person in heaven if they died while doing battle against the unbeliever.

If you want to just stick to the Koran, then here are some verses from the Koran:

There are many many more verses from all their texts. It gets tiring to cut/paste all of them as it does to read them. The violence comes from their own teachings.

Vickie

 

[staffsgt7]

If a Catholic reading would make this more real to you then here is an article from a Catholic source: Tolerating intolerance is not a Virture.

In the Gaza it has been known that children have blown themselves up to be martyrs. There are many youtube videos on these children. This is the first story that I have read of children in Pakistan doing the same thing. The weblink I have provided also provide links to show us that children in other countries are also standing by waiting to be martyrs.

I don’t know how anyone can say Islam doesn’t teach this when it glares at one from their own texts.

 

[staffsgt7]

Vickie

Have you noticed that the Muslims have disappeared?

 

[sedonaman]

…
Here is an article from the Atheist Conservate about terrorism in Islam. …

Good article but disappointing in that the author offered no politically do-able solution. It is the some one suggested by Lawrence Auster: “…Whatever the specific proposal may be, the basic civilizationist idea is to speak the truth about Islam, to confront Islam, and to contain Islam. It is to initiate a net out-migration of Muslims from the West and to isolate the Muslim world in its historic lands. It is to restore the Realm of Islam to the powerless and quiescent condition in which it resided during the early modern period. We of the West, along with other non-Muslim peoples, cannot be safe co-existing in this world with Islam, unless Islam has no ability and opportunity to affect us.” “The Search for Moderate Islam”, January 28, 2005.

You might also be interested in “Al Qaeda’s Fantasy Ideology” by Lee Harris. It is somewhat long, but he does offer some insight into the mind of terrorists.

 

[Booklover]

If a Catholic reading would make this more real to you then here is an article from a Catholic source: Tolerating intolerance is not a Virture.

In the Gaza it has been known that children have blown themselves up to be martyrs. There are many youtube videos on these children. This is the first story that I have read of children in Pakistan doing the same thing. The weblink I have provided also provide links to show us that children in other countries are also standing by waiting to be martyrs.

I don’t know how anyone can say Islam doesn’t teach this when it glares at one from their own texts.

I saw this article by Nonie Darwish on the TROP site. Ex-Muslims keep warning us and so many keep believing the takiyya used by Muslims. “stuffed animal” calls children to “slaughter Jews”. It’s disgusting! How can any sane person believe that Islam is a religion of “peace”!

Vickie

 

[elwill]

If you want to just stick to the Koran, then here are some verses from the Koran:

There are many many more verses from all their texts. It gets tiring to cut/paste all of them as it does to read them. The violence comes from their own teachings.

as long as you are talking about their (muslims) own teaching , then what about quoting these teaching from islamic sources into this discussion

you quoted some verses which refere to violence , but yet you didnt quote the islamic teaching for these verses

 

[cthulhubryan]

You might also be interested in “Al Qaeda’s Fantasy Ideology” by Lee Harris. It is somewhat long, but he does offer some insight into the mind of terrorists.

Thank you. Very interesting read.

 

[staffsgt7]

Good article but disappointing in that the author offered no politically do-able solution. It is the some one suggested by Lawrence Auster: “…Whatever the specific proposal may be, the basic civilizationist idea is to speak the truth about Islam, to confront Islam, and to contain Islam. It is to initiate a net out-migration of Muslims from the West and to isolate the Muslim world in its historic lands. It is to restore the Realm of Islam to the powerless and quiescent condition in which it resided during the early modern period. We of the West, along with other non-Muslim peoples, cannot be safe co-existing in this world with Islam, unless Islam has no ability and opportunity to affect us.” “The Search for Moderate Islam”, January 28, 2005.

You might also be interested in “Al Qaeda’s Fantasy Ideology” by Lee Harris. It is somewhat long, but he does offer some insight into the mind of terrorists.

I am going to respond to your article and then read what you have posted because I have to go in a bit.

I am disappointed in a lot of people because not very many are offering doable solutions. I find that Act! for America and SIOA are a few organizations that do offer solutions. SIOA just confronted the Prayer in at Washington DC, but I have seen little else come from them other than articles. I am new to that organization and am hoping for some more and have even posed questions as to what else they are planning with no answer yet. Act! caught a guy selling Jihadist newspapers on video.

ACT! has Action alerts for people to be alerted to things that they can write and call to their politicians about. They get people together to train them on how to teach our population about Islam and how to do other things too.

With our current administration coddling terrorists, I don’t think there will be any changes in the short term. Several states politicians also have been coddling terrorists. California is one that I read about politicians who had dinner to break Ramadan’s fast and they sat down with many terrorists as did the politicians in DC. I am sure some other states had the same problem.

We have a tool and the Muslims know about it too and that is voting. They have gained grown in many countries through voting and they have gotten a political party which is the Democrat Party. This political party has been catering to Communists and other riff raff as we have seen over the years. Getting a political party was one of their goals that they outright told us in the 1960s documents our government obtained that the Muslim Brotherhood told us that they were out to get. It does not read easy, but this document does only it is longer.

I don’t think it will be an easy thing to do what you are suggesting. Keep in mind their propaganda machine is better ‘oiled’ and the Muslims are experienced victims. I do believe that there would be a lot of violence in everyone’s nation if this was done. Islam only acknowledges power and they are all too willing to use terror and fighting. They aim for unarmed civilians too. And it is not just isolated cases since Mohammed did that very thing too, as I think you know but I just stated it because some on this thread do not realize what Islam is capable of doing in order to win.

 

[sedonaman]

…
Tolerating intolerance is not a Virtue.
…

Amen, baby!

…

As the older Western understandings on which Liberalism was originally grounded were tossed onto the ash heap by our increasingly secular society, Liberalism emerged as an autonomous force, detached from any cultural or moral framework that could contain its demands. Under this new dispensation, liberal values such as equality and non-discrimination were no longer judged according to a comprehensive standard of the good that included both universalist and particularist elements; rather, the liberal values were now seen as simply identical with the good, and anyone advocating them as a good person.
…

Thus politically correct America wages hysterical crusades against ethnic slurs or sexual comments by private individuals, while shrugging its shoulders at gross criminality and possible treason by the President – if he is seen as a sufficiently “tolerant” and “inclusive” person. Thus the modern liberal regime bans the merest breath of the Christian religion in public schools, while subsidizing student clubs devoted to witchcraft. Thus the mainstream media routinely attack the “oppressive” and “racist” police, while ignoring the criminality of the criminals whom the police are “oppressing.” These inversions of decency and sanity are not the work of anarchists. They are the logical consequence of the central credo of modern Liberalism: that all intolerance and discrimination must be eliminated. In a society dedicated to that proposition, the good itself must ultimately be seen as evil, because the good discriminates against evil, while evil must be blessed with victim status, because it is excluded by the good.
…

Unlike today’s cultural Leninism that defines men’s moral worth as the inverse of their perceived degree of power or of their attachment to established ways of life, traditional morality judges the intrinsic moral qualities of men’s actions, and so is capable of seeing and stopping real evil when it appears. By contrast, … a people that defines the good as tolerance must inevitably end up tolerating evil, even the evil of terrorist killers. Indeed, such a people must ultimately lose the authority to enforce any standards at all, since standards can be enforced only by a society’s dominant culture, and a dominant culture, as a dominant culture, is by definition “unequal” and “exclusive” and thus illegitimate.

“Liberalism: the Real Cause of Today’s Anti-Semitism” [Emphasis added]

 

[jakasaki]

Good article but disappointing in that the author offered no politically do-able solution. It is the some one suggested by Lawrence Auster: “…Whatever the specific proposal may be, the basic civilizationist idea is to speak the truth about Islam, to confront Islam, and to contain Islam. It is to initiate a net out-migration of Muslims from the West and to isolate the Muslim world in its historic lands. It is to restore the Realm of Islam to the powerless and quiescent condition in which it resided during the early modern period. We of the West, along with other non-Muslim peoples, cannot be safe co-existing in this world with Islam, unless Islam has no ability and opportunity to affect us.” “The Search for Moderate Islam”, January 28, 2005.

You might also be interested in “Al Qaeda’s Fantasy Ideology” by Lee Harris. It is somewhat long, but he does offer some insight into the mind of terrorists.

From your article above - Very true!

The same thing is happening today — and that is our true enemy.

**The poison of the radical Islamic fantasy ideology is being spread all over the Muslim world through schools and through the media, through mosques and through the demagoguery of the Arab street. **

**In fact, there is no better way to grasp the full horror of the poison than to listen as a Palestinian mother offers her four-year-old son up to be yet another victim of this ghastly fantasy. **

 

[camerong]

To say there is no correlation between the 9/11 suicide bombers, the suicide bombers of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Jihadists, and of history is to not know the teachings of Mohammed. And we must not forget all the celebrations done by Muslims worldwide after 9/11. Celebrations on the same order of a wedding are done when a family member is a suicide bomber. They do not call them suicide bombers they call them shahid, or shaheed - martyrs. The family usually gets money from zakat of others, and they are usually happy because they are fairly certain they will be saved too since the martyr gets to name many people with him that get to go to heaven.

You may not have intended it, but your first sentence is not argument but accuses me of not knowing the teaching of Mohammed. I try to refrain from personal attacks and ask that everyone else does as well. Moving on…,

And the Christian who shot the abortion doctor probably prayed to Christ before doing it. That means nothing. You gave no evidence of a causation between Islam and modern terrorists, just some correlation. And I can give correlations between abhorrent behavior by people of most religions, or people of no religion at all. Simply saying that a terrorist’s family celebrates and receives praise under the structure of Islam says nothing about Islam. The response is, well, they’re not following Islam. And if you don’t like that answer, what can you say when atheists yell at Christians for shooting abortion doctors?

It is usually ‘damage contol’ when we are told there is no correlation. About 5 days after 9/11 there were many churches in the USA that were contacted by Imams and clerics to do ‘damage control’. This tells me that there was a knowledge by many Muslims that this was going to take place. Not necessarily all Muslims, but many in positions of power within the power structure of such organizations as the Muslim Brotherhood that exists within the USA.

I am not seeking particularly to defend Islam–I plainly think it is a false religion–I merely wish to clear up false statements about the religion which weaken the credibility of Catholicism, and reinforce needless and harmful animosity towards a religion which is like all the others–some good, some bad, but most notably UNTRUE.

(I would take time to read the articles, or if you don’t want to read someone’s interpretation of the Koran and Hadith then you are going to have to do the reading for yourself. It doesn’t do one any good to have an opinion on this unless they do some reading)

You assertions are quoted from an anti-Islam website, and are thus not terribly credible. And, I have read read the Qur’an, much literature on Islam (by believers and non-believers), and a number of Hadiths. I studied Islam for several years, and Arabic, and I disagree strongly that Jihad has anything to do with killing people. Jihad is a holy struggle that is primarily or wholly internal. To say it jihad means killing people is like looking at my signature and assuming I wish to kill people.

#3. The surest way to attain salvation is to die in battle against the unbelievers. Sometimes Mohammed said that it would elevate the person in heaven if they died while doing battle against the unbeliever.

You insert “holy fighting” to mean jihad, and this is untrue, as I noted above. Do some Muslims interpret jihad to mean holy war literally? Undoubtedly. Some Christians interpret the Bible to mean they have to kill abortion doctors, or hold signs saying “God Hates Fags.” Do we blame the Bible for them misunderstanding it?

Otherwise, the surahs you quoted only say that a person benefits from fighting for the Cause of God. No where does it say the cause of God is to kill disbelievers–there is no way one could have that interpretation and still see “the people of the Book” as a protected, albeit subjugated, class.

 

[sedonaman]

…
I am not seeking particularly to defend Islam–I plainly think it is a false religion–I merely wish to clear up false statements about the religion which weaken the credibility of Catholicism, and reinforce needless and harmful animosity towards a religion which is like all the others–some good, some bad, but most notably UNTRUE.
…

Well, now you are contradicting yourself here. First you say Islam is a “false religion” [which I happen to agree with], then, in the same sentence, you twice referred to it as a religion. So, which is it? A religion or not?

 

[dzheremi]

What Muhammad did in Mecca and Medina was absolutely not terrorism.

It may or may not have been terrorism, but it is not what I’m talking about in the first place. The post that you have quoted says the following:

me:

I see it as an unbroken line running as an undercurrent (and sometimes, I suppose, “overcurrent”, if that’s a word) throughout Islamic history starting (arguably) with the “futahat” (which were OFFENSIVE WARS to spread Islam) that began after the death of Muhammad to today.

(emphasis added)

Again, I do not see a link between Islamic violence throughout history and modern terrorists from Islamic fundamentalists

Really?

Honestly, I don’t know what to say to that if it is the position you hold. You are certainly free to hold it, but I think you are deeply in error and at least a fair bit of denial.

I see Staffsgt7 has already quoted the passage from Sahih Bukhari that I was going to quote that states that Muhammad himself said that he essentially practiced terrorism as you yourself defined it earlier in your reply to me. Thanks, Sgt.!

In light of words from the man himself (or so we can assume, as Sahih Bukhari is accepted by mainstream Sunni Islam), I don’t see how you can still argue that there is no connection between terrorism and Islam, but I won’t belabor the point.

Most cultures and rulers were cruel and violent over the years. Certainly this can be said of most European nations. Can I say that Timothy McVeigh was just carrying on the violence of the Crusades?

You certainly can. Can I reply that this is absolutely a non-sequitur? What does a separatist militia nutcase blowing up a building have to do with the Crusade that was called to repell Muslims from the Holy Land, where Christian pilgrims were being tortured, robbed, and murdered?

Even if I grant that Muslims have been exceedingly violent and oppressive over the years towards non-Muslims (and Muslims who do not share their interpretation), they were not violent for any of the same reasons as Muslim terrorists.

Really? How do you substantiate this claim? Also, what is the difference between a Muslim who is violent and oppressive and a Muslim terrorist who uses violence and oppression to get his or her way? The ultimate aim, right?

So what is the ultimate aim of the violent and oppressive Muslims who are somehow not terrorists? How does it differ from the ultimate aim of the violent and oppressive Muslims who are terrorists? I think you are trying to make a distinction that, if it is there, is not really worth making in light of the seriousness of the subject matter.

No Muslims are killing because they are trying to conquer others and impose their religion on them.

Please, before you make any more such statements, read any number of reports on the plight of Assyrians in Iraq. Then, see the film “Facing Extinction: Assyrian Christians in Iraq”. I own it. I will send you a copy for free if that’s what it takes. The stories you will hear there and (hopefully) read in reports by human rights organizations and compaigners such as Rosie Malek-Yonan and Rep. Anna Eshoo will show you what a lie you have unwittingly told right here. Muslims ARE killing Christians because they are Christians. That is why they are attempting to collect the Jizya tax again, to either extort money or force Christians to convert to Islam. This happens in the context of a warzone, of course, but to ignore the very real religious dimensions of the terrorists’ aims just because they also want to rid their country of a foreign occupation is downright foolish. I have friends from Iraq. They tell me that the purely Iraqi nationalist/non-religious resistence was overtaken a long time ago by foreign fighters who are trying to reshape Iraq RELIGIOUSLY. These foreign jihadists are fighting to impose their religion not only on the native Christians, but also on other Muslims who might be of a different sect or more tolerant. Iraq is in fact under TWO simultaneous foreign occupations.

But I do not see them killing to spread Islam to non-Muslims.

Again, I will send you a copy of the Assyrian film, which features interviews with survivors of Islamic terrorism in Iraq. One of them talks about how the terrorists came into his neighborhood and killed his elderly father and then called crowds to “come look how (they) killed the nasara”. This is not about religion? This man and the thousands of others like him are just making it all up to make Islam look bad?

Muslim terrorists deserve all of the blame given to them, and more. But I do not see a link between Islam as a religion and terrorism. Or, if it is, it is a relatively small factor.

What can I say? As the cliche goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. If you want to still believe that Islam is not a factor (or is only a relatively small factor) in ISLAMIC TERRORISM, then I can’t stop you.

There are over a billion Muslims in the world, and at most, a few hundred people who commit terrorist acts each year. That is a mighty feat of inductive logic to draw conclusions about the religion of a billion from its worst .0000001 percent (or so).

You misunderstand my position. I am not drawing any conclusion based on numbers, I am drawing one based on ideologies. Numbers don’t mean a thing. There can never be too few terrorists. What matters is why they are doing what they are doing, and I agree that it is not PURELY religious, but I don’t agree that it is therefore not religious, full-stop.

 

[dzheremi]

You might say that Muslims are to blame for the lack of outrage over things like 9/11. First, there was more outrage than you might think.

I don’t know why you are bringing this up, as I never said anything like that. Please respond to what I do say, not what I might (but didn’t, and in this case wouldn’t) say. I have friends from many places in the world, including the Middle East, and none of them were anything but sad and angry about 9/11. That includes the Muslims I know. Other Muslims might have been happy about it, but then so were plenty of jerks. Heck, there were demonstrations of solidarity with the American people in Tehran while some hippie types in the USA were blathering on about it being an “inside job”. Talk about screwed-up priorities (and wasted good will). But I digress…

Secondly, most Muslim societies are not in a position to express outrage as we are; Muslims occupy the very poorest countries in the world, with the worst education, and the greatest amount of government control over speech.

This could also be said about most countries in mainly Catholic Latin America, but you don’t see nearly as much religious terrorism there. Go figure. Also, since when are education or wealth needed to express outrage? That seems backwards.

Third, many Muslims see the plight of the Palestinians as suffering terror at the hands of the Israelis, so when other Muslims commit terrorist acts in response (as Palestine was undoubtedly the main motivating factor for 9/11), it may not seem so outrageous or terrible. Are they blameworthy to think this? Absolutely. But not violent monsters–more like, tired and cynical.

I do not see the Palestinian situation as an excuse for any terrorist acts, ever. None of my Palestnian friends do, either. We all want a free Palestine, but you don’t see us blowing up a bus. Read a little bit on the tax resistors of Beit Sahour during the first intifada to see how Palestinians can and do resist nonviolently. Not coincidentally, Beit Sahour is 80% Christian.

Again, there are lots of problems with Islam, but one of the least clear problems is that it spawns terrorism.

Again, I don’t know what to say to this. It is not clear to you, but it is increasingly clear to me and many others.

This is neat. If I get some time, I would like to learn the Rosary in Russian, so that over the years I can keep a little vocabulary in my mind, at least!

Радуйся, Мария, благодатная! Господь с Тобою
Благословенна Ты среди женщин, и благословен
плод чрева Твоего, Иисус. Святая Мария, Матерь
божия, молись о нас, грешных, ныне и в час смерти
нашей. Аминь.

(According to this site, anyway. I never learned the rosary in Russian because I don’t like this translation, and the Orthodox version is different and better. I only ever pray the Jesus prayer in Russian, anyway.)

 

[AJTheMan]

Why do I have a feeling that you are a muslim pretending to be a buddhist?

I do not know why you have this feeling. I am trying to stop the untruths that I see but people will believe what makes them happy. I just hate to see regular Muslims get caught up in something so ignorant.

 

[camerong]

Well, now you are contradicting yourself here. First you say Islam is a “false religion” [which I happen to agree with], then, in the same sentence, you twice referred to it as a religion. So, which is it? A religion or not?

When one refers to something as a false religion, it is not in the way one says a “false door” that is not really a door. A false religion merely means a religion that does not reflect the truth of the universe. The word religion means a system of belief (or something of the like), but it does not mean a system of beliefs that are all true.

 

[bosnian_muslim]

I do not know why you have this feeling. I am trying to stop the untruths that I see but people will believe what makes them happy. I just hate to see regular Muslims get caught up in something so ignorant.

may Allah bless you buddhist friend

 

[camerong]

Honestly, I don’t know what to say to that if it is the position you hold. You are certainly free to hold it, but I think you are deeply in error and at least a fair bit of denial.

I see Staffsgt7 has already quoted the passage from Sahih Bukhari that I was going to quote that states that Muhammad himself said that he essentially practiced terrorism as you yourself defined it earlier in your reply to me. Thanks, Sgt.!

In light of words from the man himself (or so we can assume, as Sahih Bukhari is accepted by mainstream Sunni Islam), I don’t see how you can still argue that there is no connection between terrorism and Islam, but I won’t belabor the point.

Really? How do you substantiate this claim? Also, what is the difference between a Muslim who is violent and oppressive and a Muslim terrorist who uses violence and oppression to get his or her way? The ultimate aim, right?

So what is the ultimate aim of the violent and oppressive Muslims who are somehow not terrorists? How does it differ from the ultimate aim of the violent and oppressive Muslims who are terrorists? I think you are trying to make a distinction that, if it is there, is not really worth making in light of the seriousness of the subject matter.

I don’t have much else to say on this topic. I see your view point is well-founded, but I nevertheless think it mistaken. I would consider myself a neutral observer–I do not dislike or hate Islam, as many Christians, Jews and atheists do, nor do I think Islam has any spiritual truth–and having studied it, I have not found anything in the Qur’an or the hadith relied upon by mainstream Muslims which can be reasonably interpreted as spurring on violence and terrorism. My conclusion, and one that is shared by the vast majority of disinterested (non-Muslim) scholars who study Islam, is that there is no smoking gun in Islam where we can point and say “that’s why they did 9/11” or “that’s why they have suicide bombers.” Do not think scholars cannot be trusted because they are so relativist as to think no religion could be bad; most religious studies professors are stringent atheists and would have no problem discussing and publicizing any aspects of Islam which seek violence against innocents. I think if Muslims use Islam as an excuse for violence, they poorly interpret their own scriptures. And nothing said here has changed that opinion. I have read the Qur’an, and find on the whole that it instills a strong respect for innocent life. When it is entirely unclear to me–and many others whose opinion I respect–that Islam spurs on violence, and there are clearly many other factors contributing to the violence of modern Muslims, and I don’t see a convincing reason to pin their crimes on the religion.

Further, and perhaps this is a better direction to turn the discussion, I see throughout history that we have erred far too much on the side of suspicion and hatred towards ideologies different than our own. It is true that we are in a time of disgusting moral relativism–but this is not what I advocate. We should swiftly punish and loudly decry any and all crimes. But when we claim Islam is a religion of violence, we drive reasonably Muslims from us. They, who naturally disagree, think less of our judgment and intellect. The message of Christ is powerful enough that we have no need to tear down other religions, but need only build our own up. When Muslims see the wonder of Christ’s true Church, their religion will pale by comparison, even in their own view of it. But we will not get there perpetuating suspicion and distrust.

 

[staffsgt7]

I don’t have much else to say on this topic. I see your view point is well-founded, but I nevertheless think it mistaken. I would consider myself a neutral observer–I do not dislike or hate Islam, as many Christians, Jews and atheists do, nor do I think Islam has any spiritual truth–and having studied it, I have not found anything in the Qur’an or the hadith relied upon by mainstream Muslims which can be reasonably interpreted as spurring on violence and terrorism. My conclusion, and one that is shared by the vast majority of disinterested (non-Muslim) scholars who study Islam, is that there is no smoking gun in Islam where we can point and say “that’s why they did 9/11” or “that’s why they have suicide bombers.” Do not think scholars cannot be trusted because they are so relativist as to think no religion could be bad; most religious studies professors are stringent atheists and would have no problem discussing and publicizing any aspects of Islam which seek violence against innocents. I think if Muslims use Islam as an excuse for violence, they poorly interpret their own scriptures. And nothing said here has changed that opinion. I have read the Qur’an, and find on the whole that it instills a strong respect for innocent life. When it is entirely unclear to me–and many others whose opinion I respect–that Islam spurs on violence, and there are clearly many other factors contributing to the violence of modern Muslims, and I don’t see a convincing reason to pin their crimes on the religion.

Further, and perhaps this is a better direction to turn the discussion, I see throughout history that we have erred far too much on the side of suspicion and hatred towards ideologies different than our own. It is true that we are in a time of disgusting moral relativism–but this is not what I advocate. We should swiftly punish and loudly decry any and all crimes. But when we claim Islam is a religion of violence, we drive reasonably Muslims from us. They, who naturally disagree, think less of our judgment and intellect. The message of Christ is powerful enough that we have no need to tear down other religions, but need only build our own up. When Muslims see the wonder of Christ’s true Church, their religion will pale by comparison, even in their own view of it. But we will not get there perpetuating suspicion and distrust.

This statement of yours is why I come to the conclusion that you have not read any Islamic texts. I don’t know how you can even hint at the Koran and other texts of Islam as not having any orders to continue the violence that Mohammed started in Medina.

I am sorry if you get upset over that but there is a disconnect between what you are saying and what the Islamic texts say. In fact it sounds very Islamic, or Muslim, what you are saying. I have heard Muslim deny the violence on different websites that I posted before coming to this website. I just figured they are just trying to deceive me, and sometimes it is their word usage. They define words differently than we do so as to appear more moral and less violent and also wrap holiness in it all.

When you find that over 90% of Jihad is to do violence against the unbeliever - did you just skim over those passages? In fact, I read an article where it was as high as 98%, but I cannot find the article right now.

This same Catholic website talks about endless Jihad and admits its founder and its texts are full of passages ordering Muslims to violence here.

Can the historic connection between Islam and violence be broken?

Some would argue that it can. After all, our own forebears in Christendom were more violent than we are. Europe was riven by conflict between petty kingdoms for centuries, but eventually a society developed from it that is stable and not at constant war with either itself or its neighbors. Perhaps Muslim society could be led or forced down the same path.

Perhaps. But the proposition is not quick, easy, or certain.

and it goes on,

In contrast, Islam’s founder was a warlord who rose from nowhere and who by his death was the undisputed master of Arabia Peninsula. The holy book he produced is filled with commands to use violence in the service of its religion and nation. This potential for violence is similar to that possessed by Judaism except it is immensely augmented by the fact that Islam views itself, like Christianity, as a universal religion meant for all peoples in all countries. It also makes no distinction between church and state and is thus a political as well as religious ideology.

As a result, Islam has been willing to employ violence on a massive scale, as illustrated by the first century of its existence, when the Islamic Empire exploded outward and conquered much of the known world.

The attitude of Islam toward using violence against non-Muslims is clear. Regarding pagans, the Quran says, “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful” (Surah 9:5). This amounts to giving pagans a convert-or-die choice.

**Regarding violence against Jews and Christians, the Quran says, “Fight against those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the last day, who do not forbid what God and his messenger have forbidden, and who do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued” (Surah 9:29). In other words, violence is to be used against Jews and Christians unless they are willing to pay a special tax and live in subjection to Muslims as second-class citizens. For them the choice is convert, die, or live in subjection. ** …

 

[elwill]

This statement of yours is why I come to the conclusion that you have not read any Islamic texts. I don’t know how you can even hint at the Koran and other texts of Islam as not having any orders to continue the violence that Mohammed started in Medina.

well , to me being one of arab muslims , i have to say that my conclusion is that it’s you who havn’t read islamic texts , not camerong

with all my respect , you have to distinguish between “islamic texts” and "texts about islam " .

may be you read much about islam , but unfortunately not the islamic ones

I am sorry if you get upset over that but there is a disconnect between what you are saying and what the Islamic texts say. In fact it sounds very Islamic, or Muslim, what you are saying. I have heard Muslim deny the violence on different websites that I posted before coming to this website. I just figured they are just trying to deceive me, and sometimes it is their word usage. They define words differently than we do so as to appear more moral and less violent and also wrap holiness in it all.

do you mean that all islaimc sites and all islamic teaching and all the muslims who write about their religion in the internet , not actually write what they believe , rather they write the opposite of their beliefs so that no one can know their real beliefs

When you find that over 90% of Jihad is to do violence against the unbeliever - did you just skim over those passages? In fact, I read an article where it was as high as 98%, but I cannot find the article right now.

it depends on your defination for jihad , if jihad means to you the terrorism be performed by muslims agianst innocents , so it will be 100% of jihad is to do violence agianst unbelievers not 90 % as you suggested