Islam: A violent religion?

[Newtypingland]

Islam has far more adherents willing to use violence, however.

I wouldn't technically call them "adherents" in that case...

Irrelevant, that's what they are.

[Mosasauria]

That is universal among mankind. Humans tend to use violence quite a bit when things get rough(Or at leats from their point of view).

True enough, but less so in the Modern era in regards to Christianity. Islam has far more adherents willing to use violence, however.

So now you're going on to say Christianity is less violent than Islam? How about compare them both to people of other faiths or philosophies.

[Jahada]

I wouldn't technically call them "adherents" in that case...

Irrelevant, that's what they are.

Well, yes, for practical purposes, they are adherents. But if you dig down, you realize they just like to stick themselves with a label without actually following the religion.

[Newtypingland]

True enough, but less so in the Modern era in regards to Christianity. Islam has far more adherents willing to use violence, however.

So now you're going on to say Christianity is less violent than Islam? How about compare them both to people of other faiths or philosophies.

*sigh*

I never implied that Islam is more violent than Chrisitianity. I merely made a point that Islam has far more adherents willing to use violence than Christianity does. These are not the same things.

And what would comparing them to other religions accomplish?

[Salandriagado]

No more than say, Christianity. Or any of the Abrahamic religions for that matter, they all worship the same war god anyway.

[Rastynhaven]

Islam is just as violent as Christianity and Judaism. Baha'ism and Buddhism are perhaps the only religions that hasn't caused terrorism, though I may be wrong.

[Newtypingland]

Irrelevant, that's what they are.

Well, yes, for practical purposes, they are adherents. But if you dig down, you realize they just like to stick themselves with a label without actually following the religion.

No, that's a cop-out people use. They are fully adherents to Islam, even if they express themselves in a way you disagree with.

[Rastynhaven]

No more than say, Christianity. Or any of the Abrahamic religions for that matter, they all worship the same war god anyway.

Not so sure about Baha'ism... but since It's still the same god, I guess they are all violent.

[Mosasauria]

So now you're going on to say Christianity is less violent than Islam? How about compare them both to people of other faiths or philosophies.

*sigh*

I never implied that Islam is more violent than Chrisitianity. I merely made a point that Islam has far more adherents willing to use violence than Christianity does. These are not the same things.

And what would comparing them to other religions accomplish?

Please read this.

[Newtypingland]

*sigh*

I never implied that Islam is more violent than Chrisitianity. I merely made a point that Islam has far more adherents willing to use violence than Christianity does. These are not the same things.

And what would comparing them to other religions accomplish?

Please read this.

Honestly? No.

I don't feel like wasting time reading...that.

If you could summarize it and explain it's relevance to my post, I'd appreciate it.

Otherwise, I guess that's the end of this interaction.

[Seperate Vermont]

All strong ideological or philosophical stances can breed violence- it is a human characteristic of individuals pooled into such philosophical viewpoints and oftentimes collectively termed as such.

Saying Islam is inherently violent is a poor association.

[Jahada]

Well, yes, for practical purposes, they are adherents. But if you dig down, you realize they just like to stick themselves with a label without actually following the religion.

No, that's a cop-out people use. They are fully adherents to Islam, even if they express themselves in a way you disagree with.

Islam is not like Christianity, in that simply believing in the doctrine does not make you a follower. I can show you this by some simple logic.

A) Premise 1: "Muslim" means "one who submits to God"
Premise 2: God gives us laws that we must obey.
Conclusion: Therefore, all Muslims submit to God's laws.

B) Premise 1: In Islam, God's laws forbid the killing of peaceful non-Muslims.
Premise 2: All Muslims submit to God's laws.
Conclusion: Therefore, no Muslim kills a peaceful non-Muslim.

As you can see, it is completely logical to say that anyone who kills an innocent person is not a Muslim.

[Greater Rhodes]

Is Islam violent?

No more than Judaism or Christianity I believe. The religion itself is not inherently violent, but people can misinterpret its texts and doctrine as being violent, just as people can misinterpret the Bible, the Tanakh, or any other holy books.

[Mosasauria]

Please read this.

Honestly? No.

I don't feel like wasting time reading...that.

If you could summarize it and explain it's relevance to my post, I'd appreciate it.

Otherwise, I guess that's the end of this interaction.

Here's what I really wanted you to see. It breaks down by groups the amount of terroristic acts performed.

[Newtypingland]

No, that's a cop-out people use. They are fully adherents to Islam, even if they express themselves in a way you disagree with.

Islam is not like Christianity, in that simply believing in the doctrine does not make you a follower. I can show you this by some simple logic.

A) Premise 1: "Muslim" means "one who submits to God"
Premise 2: God gives us laws that we must obey.
Conclusion: Therefore, all Muslims submit to God's laws.

B) Premise 1: In Islam, God's laws forbid the killing of peaceful non-Muslims.
Premise 2: All Muslims submit to God's laws.
Conclusion: Therefore, no Muslim kills a peaceful non-Muslim.

As you can see, it is completely logical to say that anyone who kills an innocent person is not a Muslim.

Your premise doesn't mean much to me, as it isn't some set-in-stone law.

To be frank, you don't get to decide who is and isn't a Muslim due to your interpretation of the Koran. Just about anyone who reads that book as a blueprint for how they should live (even if they're interpretation is different then yours) and comes to accept the various practices and myths of that religion is a muslim.

[Newtypingland]

Honestly? No.

I don't feel like wasting time reading...that.

If you could summarize it and explain it's relevance to my post, I'd appreciate it.

Otherwise, I guess that's the end of this interaction.

Here's what I really wanted you to see. It breaks down by groups the amount of terroristic acts performed.

In the US, in the period of 2002-2005, I believe.

I'm sure if you compared world-wide the amount of terrorist acts committed by Christians and Muslims, there would be more Muslims than Christians commiting acts of Terrorism. Particularly in the Middle East itself.

[Mosasauria]

Here's what I really wanted you to see. It breaks down by groups the amount of terroristic acts performed.

In the US, in the period of 2002-2005, I believe.

I'm sure if you compared world-wide the amount of terrorist acts committed by Christians and Muslims, there would be more Muslims than Christians commiting acts of Terrorism. Particularly in the Middle East itself.

Yes, but do the acts of a few mark the acts of many?

[Newtypingland]

In the US, in the period of 2002-2005, I believe.

I'm sure if you compared world-wide the amount of terrorist acts committed by Christians and Muslims, there would be more Muslims than Christians commiting acts of Terrorism. Particularly in the Middle East itself.

Yes, but do the acts of a few mark the acts of many?

*sigh* Can you point out when I said they did?

I merely made what I believed to be a factual statement (Islam has more adherents who express themselves through violence then Christianity does) but I made no claim that this was due to something within Islamic teachings or communities.

[Miasto Lodz]

For example, people attacking Islam often quote parts of the Quran that say something along the lines of "kill the nonbelievers". If they bothered doing any objective research, they'd find out the Muslims were being persecuted and eventually exiled by their pagan counterparts. But you'd have to look long and hard to find that information in the Quran. (It actually is in there, but only in a handful of verses.)

Name one religious movement which have not been persecuted in the early stage.

[Primorum Libertorum]

Your standard seems to be "All followers of an ideology must be actively murdering people in order to call that ideology violent", and that a conveniently unrealistic demand.

How is it unrealistic? I don't call any ideology violent because it is not my place to do so.

Because no ideology meets that criteria. So there was never a violent ideology in the history of mankind we know of? Not even those who commanded or even committed gruesome atrocities and incredible genocides?

Two kind of terms are completely meaningless. Those which include nothing and those which include everything. They contain no information at all. But that's okay. Just say "Islam is not violent to me because I don't call any ideology violent". That's fine. If you stay consistent with it.

[Sierra Lobo]

Aren't the five books of Moses (Torah) part of the Koran?

No. The Torah is seen as an inspired, but corrupted text in Islam, just like the Injeel (gospels).

Corrupted? Did the Quran say it was corrupted. If you have read it, where is it found?

[Sierra Lobo]

Oh god! What is with this hate on Islam????? Cut it out

What is with the hate on christianity?

[Sierra Lobo]

No, that's a cop-out people use. They are fully adherents to Islam, even if they express themselves in a way you disagree with.

Islam is not like Christianity, in that simply believing in the doctrine does not make you a follower. I can show you this by some simple logic.

A) Premise 1: "Muslim" means "one who submits to God"
Premise 2: God gives us laws that we must obey.
Conclusion: Therefore, all Muslims submit to God's laws.

B) Premise 1: In Islam, God's laws forbid the killing of peaceful non-Muslims.
Premise 2: All Muslims submit to God's laws.
Conclusion: Therefore, no Muslim kills a peaceful non-Muslim.


As you can see, it is completely logical to say that anyone who kills an innocent person is not a Muslim.

Let us look into a Sura:

Sura3 3:64: “Verily Allah has cursed the Unbelievers (whom he defined as Christians in the 5th surah “Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends.) and has prepared for them a Blazing Fire to dwell in forever. No protector will they find, nor savior. That Day their faces will be turned upside down in the Fire. They will say: ‘Woe to us! We should have obeyed Allah and obeyed the Messenger!’ ‘Our Lord! Give them double torment and curse them with a very great Curse!’”

So why is this always misquoted or put out of context by a sizable numbers of mullahs?

[EnragedMaldivians]

what that objective truth is, is a matter of dispute

The truth can be found in many places. Muhammad's life is historically documented.

You are left with insisting that your interpretation of Islam is true, and others are un-Islamic. A Saudi Scholar could likewise claim that his understanding of theology is more rigorous than yours. I might not like them but they are not idiots.

I'm not saying there isn't room for interpretation in some areas. There are some parts of Islam I don't understand completely. But violence against innocent people is clearly not allowed, and anyone who knows Islam and its history will know this. It's not my interpretation. It's fact. There's no room for interpretation there. So if someone uses Islam to justify baseless violence, then they are an idiot.

Does this extend to homosexuals and unmarried persons who consent to have sexual relations? Violence is not limited to geo-political aggression and terrorism.

Being a homosexual isn't a reason to be punished. In Islam, one can only be punished for acting engaging in an act of homosexuality.

As for fornication, I happen to agree that it is wrong and should be punishable.

because homosexuality is a bad thing and should be punished.

See above.

Yes. It's historically documented, but there is also a socially constructed element imposed the facts surrounding his life. He was a man who said that God spoke to him through an angel, that is a fact. That he was telling the truth, is an interpretation of that fact for instance.


As for your position on homosexuality, it's an unnecessary nuance. If a person is homosexual, he will likely engage in acts of homosexuality, which, if consensual brings no harm on anyone else.

Whether society holds marriage sacrosant is irrelevant; some societies might hold racial purity to be sacrosant. Shariah law punishes people it has no business punishing.

It is not as benign as issue as, well "we have our morals you have yours." It's a matter of life and death for some people. Just because you can contrast yourself against the unhelpful caricature that right wingers have painted of Muslims and present your views as reasonably liberal, does not make shariah law in any way a reasonable system of government.

If you are an example of what a good Muslim is; then surely you understand the prevalance of Islamphophobia. The "immorality" of fornication is a subjective religious view, and punishing it with lashing, or death, is a disgusting imposition of religious abslolutism on people who may not necessarily share your views. That is not the same as say, punishing a person for theft or murder, because such acts actual bring tangible harm on a third party.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

No.