Islam is not a religion of peace

It is, in fact, a religion of violence, murder, and deception. How else do you explain the thousands upon thousands of its strongest adherents who are dedicated to the killing innocent civilians in soft targets like the London Bridge, shopping centers, peaceful streets, and various celebrations?

No other religion in the world have such adherents. No other religion sponsors terrorism. Even Muslim governments like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization sponsor terrorist organizations, along with many wealthy sheiks.

Madrasas, Arabic for educational institutions, teach violence against the infidel. Many teach the handling of weapons and suicide vests to toddlers and the children are taught violence against the unbeliever. Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Imam and other highly influential persons in Islam are permitted to lie to the infidel, meaning Christians, Jews, and any other faith not named Islam. Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, but not to the infidel. That is why imams can appear on national television and tell us "Islam is a religion of peace."

Quran (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means 'deceit'. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same.

Kabir Helminski writes, "Though we may not be able to influence those who are hell-bent on hatred, an explanation is owed to all reasonable people who are interested in the truth of the matter and are not looking to create enemies. The vast majority of Muslims deserve to be seen as allies in a common quest for social justice and human dignity — assuming, of course, that we as Americans have the same goals in mind."

Muslims have a strange way of showing this "common quest." Islamic terrorism has been around for decades, and there is no discernible lessening of terrorism. If anything, the 21st Century has seen a sharp uptick in Islamic violence from 9/11, Nice, Paris, Brussels, to the London Bridge. Thousands upon thousands of Islamic followers in ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Abu Sayyaf, Al Shabaab, and a hundred or so more terrorist organizations are terrifying innocent men, women, and children on five continents.

Helminski continued, "A careful and unbiased study of these and other verses, in their proper context, will reveal that the exhortations to fight “idolaters” and “unbelievers” are specific in nature and are not general injunctions for the murder of all those who refuse to accept Islam as their way of life."

First, that is not what the verses say. Second, Helminski is overlooking the horrendous violence occurring in the world today in the name of Islam.

And third, thousands upon thousands of Islamic followers think they are living in the Middle Ages.

 

many truly horrific crimes have been committed in the name of Jesus

 

Yes, Christians are flying planes into buildings all over the world while shouting, "Jesus Rules!".

Christians are the most docile people on the planet.

 

Yes, that is true, in the Middle Ages. The crusades and Christians paid a heavy price for that. That was a long time ago.

 

Well, I wouldn't go that far. However, generally speaking, if Christians have to resort to violence, they have a reason for doing so. .

 

Sandy, we have gone round and round on various topics and disagreed on things. But I gotta say, this time you get no argument from me.

 

Once upon a time, a mentally deranged individual named Shoko Asahara, formed a religion called Aum Shinrikyo. Spurred on by their "religious" beliefs and practices, members began conducting terrorist attacks. The rest of the world rightly did not put stock in their words or professed beliefs, as they were in direct conflict with their heinous acts. Aum Shinrikyo was declared not a "religion" but a terrorist organization. Adherents were tracked down and incarcerated, many condemned to death row. In one united breath they were snuffed out as a viable threat. Islam is much older; however, I don't see much difference between them and Aum Shinrikyo in deed. When the world finally has felt enough anguish of innocent bloodshed from their hand, Islam itself should be considered a terrorist organization, with adherents treated exactly as members of Aum Shinrikyo; not because of their "words" or professed "religion," but as a result of their deeds.

 

One doesn't wonder at all why you would attempt to besmirch Christians on a topic which has nothing to do with Christians.

 

"But but but, the crusades!!!!"

Hate to break it to you, but Jews ain't saints either.

But continue to cuck on.

 

This is a long post that calls for a long reply, so bear with me here.

First off I would like to start by saying that I agree that Islam is not a religion of peace, I don't believe any religion to be a religion of peace when given the authority over a nation. When you give religion the authority to govern a nation, and to command a standing army, it is only a matter of time before violence ensues. There were no holy wars in the name of Christianity until that religion was given the authority of a nation and an army to call its own. To simply blame the religion for the conflicts that Christianity went through is an oversimplification of what was going on, whether it is the crusades, the Northern Ireland conflict, or the many conflicts that occurred in between

I believe the same thing to be true with Islam. In fact, as recent as the 1990s the rate in which terrorist attacks occurred was higher in Britain than in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, or Libya.

http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?search=united+kingdom&sa.x=55&sa.y=20&sa=Search
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?search=iraq&sa.x=17&sa.y=17&sa=Search
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?search=syria&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=Search
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?search=yemen&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=Search
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?search=libya&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=Search

So what has changed since then, did the religious doctrines go through a shift to incite higher terrorist activity from one religion over the other? No, the doctrines remained exactly the same, the reason for the shift in terrorist activity has more to do with the political climate. The British resolved their dispute through the Good Friday agreement, while a series of events unfolded across the middle east that lead too four civil wars almost simultaneously. Simplifying the issue to their mere religious doctrines fails to explain the recent shifts in terrorist activity. Religion is definitely a part of the problem, but the issue is far more complex than being driven by the religious doctrine alone

I should also note that there is an important detail that is being overlooked in the Quranic verses you have presented. Verse 3:56 is actually the latter half of a quotation that begins in verse 3:55

In full the two verses read:

[Mention] when god said, "O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you [in submission to god alone] superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ.
And as for those who disbelieved, I will punish them with a severe punishment in this world and the Hereafter, and they will have no helpers."

The verse which you are demonstrating as being exclusively Islamic is actually a reference to the doctrines of Christianity, saying that when the second coming of Jesus occurs (just like Christians, Muslims believe that Jesus will have a second coming and defeat the anti-Christ), judgement will be held against those who disbelieve by god. Punishment of the unbelievers by god is a part of every Abrahamic religion. The key emphasis in these verses is that it is god who punishes the unbelievers, not man. I must also stress the rational flaw in using extremist groups like ISIS as an ambassador to entire Islamic world, and that is there are around 1 and a half BILLION Muslims worldwide, and somewhere around 30,000 ISIS fighters worldwide. Another thing that is important to note is the vast majority of the victims of these terrorist groups are themselves Muslim. Contrary to what many people assume, the vast majority of those killed by Islamic extremist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda are not western Christians, but middle eastern Muslims. You could argue that ISIS is a bigger enemy to Islam than it is to Christianity.

and finally, the message of the prophet Muhammad was not to persecute other faiths, in fact the constitution of Medina which was assembled by Muhammad promises religious freedom to the people of Medina, which included Christians, Jews, Muslims, and idol worshipers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina

The verse in the Quran which says to "kill the idolaters" is from chapter 9, which is in reference specifically to the tribes of Mecca who broke their peace treaty with the people of Medina. Again, Islam is not a religion of peace, it permits Muslims to fight against those who attack them, however the Quran also restricts Muslims from fighting with those who do not fight them.

 

The Imperial Roman Catholic Church did.

And you're overlooking the tremendous violence perpetrated by the Imperial Roman Catholic Church.

In one single solitary day, Christians murdered 43,000 Cathars.

The military commander asked the local bishop what should be done with the Catholics inside the city. The bishop replied: "Kill them all. God will know his own."

And then 43,000 men, women and children were brutally murdered...for believing differently.

The we have the Battle of Grunward.

605 years ago it was the last war/battle in which knights --in armor -- fought.

Poland rose to the status of "Empire" in the 15th Century.

The Kingdoms of Poland and Lithuania joined forces to defeat the Christians.....the Teutonic Knights and the Holy Roman Empire, who attempted to conquer Poland and Lithuania in order to convert them to Christianity, even though their leaders had already became Christians.

The leaders of Poland and Lithuania were forcibly converting their people to Christianity under penalty of death....it just wasn't happening fast enough for some people,... you know how it is.

Thousands upon thousands of Muslims live in clan-based or tribal-based societies.

We can look to Afghanistan and focus on the Pushtan language group. In the west there are 11 separate tribes. In the South there are 7 tribal groups. In the Gilzhai-Bitani Region there are 16 tribes. In the hills there are 28 different tribes and clans. Eastern Afghanistan is home to 19 tribes.

You must understand that in Europe, both Eastern and Western, there was tremendous pressure for the dozens and dozens of tribes to coalesce into nation-States over a short period of time, due large to invasions from the East by various tribal groups like the Huns, the Mongols, and the many varieties of Slavs, not to mention the many different Turkic groups.

No such pressure ever existed in Central Asia or the Middle East never coalesced into nation-States.

It wasn't that long ago, just over 200 years ago, that Napoleon destroyed the Papal Armies, the Holy Roman Empire and reduced the Papacy to practically nothing.

 

But you're wrong - Islam is a religion of peace. The goal is that all infidels rest in peace.

As for the Crusades and so on, here's a video that can shed some light on the subject.

 

Take an entry level poli sci course and one of the first things you learn is that secular/Christian (specifically Protestant) nations are the most free and liberal nations on the Earth. In the middle are the Catholic nations (ie Latin America) and at the very very very very bottom of the list are Islamic countries.....ALL 54 OF THEM....and authoritarians regimes.

There is simply no comparison between Christianity and Islam today. That is why bigoted, sexist homophobes on this forum that constantly defend Islam constantly have to reach back several hundred years to the Crusades to find examples. We aren't living in the 12th century, its 2017 now and only one religion still acts like its the Dark Ages and that is Islam.

 

I agree, Islam is one of the most brutal totalitarian ideologies.

 

Bigot on, we all know you will.

 

"God" is the most destructive force man has ever created.

Whether it be the crusades or modern terrorism it is all the same, just 1 more reason to separate and kill others.

 

I'm going to take issue with this, because I think it is the typical leftist attempt at false equivalences motivated by an agenda.

Christianity is still the "official authority" in England. The Anglican Church remains the seat of power there, as it has always been. Much has been written about The Crusades - much of it revisionist, again agenda-driven - but the overarching purpose of the Crusades was to push out the Muslim Horde which had overrun Christian regions under control of the Crown.

Beyond that, without delving into those details, there is no equivalent violence in Christianity as there is Islam.

There is no equivalence. Christianity is obviously a religion of peace, and it's demonstrated itself to be. Islam has not.

If you want to squawk about any of that, I'll offer one more definitive refutation of your claim (that no religion is peaceful when given dominion over a country).

Buddhism doesn't demonstrate your assertion either. How does Tibet fit your claim?

 

Thank you, Seth.

 

Yes, and again that was during the Middle Ages. The point being, the rest of the world left the Middle Ages long ago, but not Islam. They are still fighting the crusades and the Christians who invaded their land.

Many still adhere to stoning. Stoning is called rajm in Islamic literature, and is a practice found in the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Iraq, Qatar, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, northern Nigeria, Aceh Province of Indonesia, Afghanistan, and tribal parts of Pakistan

You have me confused. This thread is about Islam. What does this have to do with Islam? Perhaps you were trying to prove that 200 years ago Christianity sponsored terrorism. I beg to differ. There is a difference between terrorism and aggression. Napoleon was building his empire. Calling his army terrorists is a bit too much.

But, like I said, you have me confused. Perhaps that is not what you were trying to say.

 

"A religion of peace" is an oxymoron

 

Christians prefer to kill with cruise missiles and MOABs.

 

Islam is 500 years behind christianity. Since Islamic societies are tribal and clan-based in nature are 500 years behind Europe and the West.

The christian equivalent of the Caliphate, which is the Papacy, was destroyed by Napoleon, which accelerated the separation of Christianity & State.

Pope Leo condemns Americans to eternal hell for electing their presidents instead of consulting with the popes on who should rule America. Read Humanus Genus, a Papal Bull issued by Pope Leo.

"The principles of social science follow. Here naturalists teach that men have all the same rights and are perfectly equal in condition; that every man is naturally independent; that no one has a right to command others; that it is tyranny to keep men subject to any other authority than that which emanates from themselves. Hence the people are sovereign; those who rule have no authority but by the commission and concession of the people; so that they can be deposed, willing or unwilling according to the wishes of the people. The origin of all rights and civil duties is in the people or the State, which is ruled according to the new principles of liberty. The State must be godless; no reason why one religion ought to be preferred to another; all to be held in the same esteem."

As a State decouples from Religion, the number of people who believe in god or who attend church on a regular basis decreases. That's been the case ever since school prayer was rejected by the Supreme Court. Once a Religion loses government backing, if falls by the wayside eventually. We've seen that happen time and time again in the Ancient World, we see it happening in the Modern Era.

The point being there was no Muslim Napoleon to force the decoupling of Islam from governments in Muslim-majority States.

Unless and until you see Islam decoupled from the Islamic States, things will continue as they are.

 

Perhaps you are right. You seem to know a smidgen about Islam.

However, my point is the various verses in the Quran that emphasize violence against all non-believers are used by thousands upon thousands of Islamic extremists. If what you say is true -- they are taken out of context -- that hardly matters.

What you say and what I say in the OP are not mutually exclusive. They both can be true. The fact remains Muslim governments sponsor Islamic terrorist organizations, so do wealthy sheiks, and many madrasas preach Islamic extremism. While the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and declare theirs is a religion of peace, they do little to rein in those who misinterpret Islam. That makes them as guilty as the terrorists themselves.

Why do I emphasize that point? Western armies will never destroy Islamic extremism. Americans who think that will happen are living a pipe dream. We can take land away from them. We can destroy a lot of their weapons. We can kill them, but for everyone we kill there is another to take his place. We can do all that, but we can't destroy them.

When will Islamic extremism be destroyed. When Islamic governments and the vast majority of Muslims who think theirs is a religion of peace decide to destroy Islamic extremism. Western armies fighting terrorist organizations should withdraw because we know from decades of sad history that such armies cannot do the job for them, meaning Muslims. They must do it for themselves.

Makes sense, too. Islamic extremism kills more Muslims than any other ethnicity.

 

The Crusades doesn't even come in the top 5 deadliest holy wars, the 10 deadliest holy wars are


10. Second War of Kappel, which was fought between Catholics and Protestants
9. The Lebanese Civil War, which was fought between Sunnis and Shia
8. The Crusades, which was fought between Christians and Muslims
7. The Second Sundanese Civil War, which was fought between Muslims and Christians
6. The First Sundanese Civil War, which was also fought between Christians and Muslims.
5. The German Peasants War, which was fought between Catholics and Protestants
4. The Nigerian Civil War, which was fought between Christians and Muslims
3. The French Wars of Religion, which was fought between Catholics and Protestants
2. The 30 Years' War, which was fought between Catholics and Protestants
1. The Eighty Years' War, which was fought between Catholics and Protestants


So to be perfectly clear, out of the 10 deadliest holy wars in history, 9 involve Christian forces, and 4 involve Muslim forces. However, under the current state of the world it is Islam that is in a far more violent state than Christianity. This demonstrates a change in political climate, and NOT in religious doctrines. If you pay attention to what I said in my post, I said that no religion is a religion of peace when given the authority over a nation. This post was not a statement against religions so much as it was a statement against governments... and that's part of the reason why Christianity is a more peaceful religion now days than Islam, the Christian world gave up on their theocracies a long time ago, with a few exceptions.

Britain is not a theocracy, however their official church is Protestant. This lead to turmoil in the Northern Ireland territory, which involved several decades of terrorist attacks in Britain and Ireland. I have an uncle who was nearly killed while visiting Britain in the 1970s by an IRA car bomb. Attacks like these continued clear up into the 1990s, when the conflict was finally resolved through the Good Friday agreement.

and yes, the same thing is true in Buddhism, for example, in Myanmar terrorist activities are particularly common from nationalist Buddhist groups such as the 969 organisation, recently there was an attack where 28 children (thirteen of whom were younger than 5) were hacked to pieces by said nationalist groups. Time Magazine actually did a report on Buddhist terrorists a few years back.




Now I have to stress again that this is not normal behavior from Buddhists, this is in fact the acts committed by Buddhist nationalist terrorists. It is a circumstance that is created from a political climate, religion is a part of it, but it is far more complex to be merely penned to the religion alone. All religious conflicts in history have been conflicts for territory. This an outcome that is created when nations and their borders are defined by a particular faith. Take the government out of the equation and these religions are mostly peaceful.

Look, my dad is a pastor, I am not trying to demonize him and his faith, nor am I trying to demonize the people who hear him preach. I am speaking critically of how government and politics corrupt religions. I believe that governments have in the past radicalized Christianity, just as governments have radicalized Islam today. Again, Christian majority countries have for the most part created a separation between their religion and their governments, which in turn has helped maintain peace within Christianity. That's the difference between Christianity today, and Christianity in the medieval times.

Today ISIS has been able to inspire more attacks than prior Islamic terrorist groups because they have been able to gain control of territories in countries like Iraq, Syria, and Libya. So they basically have what they are claiming as their own country, which has inspired loyalists to commit attacks across the world against any country who is fighting against ISIS maintaining control of these territories. In their minds they are fighting a holy war for ISIS's national sovereignty.. and I must stress that there is no Muslim majority country in the world that recognizes ISIS as a sovereign nation, which in turn is why the vast majority of the victims of ISIS are themselves Muslim. While we're fighting ISIS from the sky, they are fighting ISIS on the ground.

 

Exactly. Great post!
Yes, people here seem to think that Jesus is not as terrible as Mohammad - you and I both agree that he certainly is.