Why do so many people hate Islam?

[Skeckoa]

In my eyes, simple ignorance.

I would not deny that as being a part of it. Crusades, 1000 years ago. Spanish Inquisition, 300-700 years ago. There are better examples than this. Besides, if you study the religion and take your assumptions based on that, then Christianity also seems to be the religion of peace given the words of the Messiah. So again, sure, many people may have little idea of the beliefs of Muslims, or the variance within the Muslim world. However, if my impression of them was "people willing to kill you to advance Allah", I wouldn't bother reading up on them either. Because primarily Muslim countries are leading the word in human rights at the moment. Besides, as discriminatory as not allowing same-sex marriage is, it does not compare to the violations of rights and common decency that is committed by Muslim governments and people on a much wider, more open scale. I am not going to say that media does not skew our view as to how frequently it happens.

It would be illogical, but even if it is let's say, 10% of Muslims believe X, that still means that 140M Muslims believe X.

That of course ignoring that in many cases, it is not just a "radical minority".

Note: I am, as you seem to be, quite appalled at the hate and horrible treatment that Muslims get. Also, the fear that media tries to stir is also a worldly disservice. I'm for allowing people to wear Hijabs, and for Muslim immigration into other countries. However, the slack they get is not without reason (the USA was flooded with images of Palestinians celebrating the 9/11 attacks). The reasons you put forth just don't work.

[Kelinfort]

So?

Christianity expanded by the sword and rifle frequently.

See, I don't see that at all. The Christian gospel was spread peaceably. Do you realize that the Islamic thieves that stole Israel from the Jews held it for over five hundred years before the Pope and the Byzantines finally stepped in?

Why must we resort to the 'well, Christianity did this as well' argument and dodge the facts that Islam has way more blood on its hands than anyone else.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages ... .htm#other

“Other religions kill, too.”

The Muslim Game:

Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence. Remember Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber? How about Anders Breivik, the Norwegian killer? Why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems?

The Truth:

Because they don’t.

Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man (in fact, he stated explicitly that he was agnostic and that "science" was his religion). At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for Jesus. His motives are very well documented through interviews and research. God is never mentioned.

The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement. They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do - and this is what makes it a very different matter.

Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.

Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S. Eight people died. This is an average of one death every 4.5 years.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.

Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 innocents in a lone rampage on July 22nd, 2011, was originally misidentified as a "Christian fundamentalist" by the police. In fact, the killings were later determined to be politically motivated. He also left behind a detailed 1500 page manifesto in which he stated that he is not religious, does not know if God exists, and prefers a secular state to a theocracy. Needless to say, he does not quote any Bible verses in support of his killing spree, nor did he shout "praise the Lord" as he picked people off.

In the last ten years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and tolerance for a radical clergy that supports the terror.

Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.

That overlooks the conquest of the Americas by the Spanish, Clovis, the Crusades in the Baltic, African wars, forced conversions in Spain, France, Africa...

Shit, you're just gonna pass it off as "peaceful" anyway. The record is much different.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

[Communist Volkstrad]

See, I don't see that at all. The Christian gospel was spread peaceably. Do you realize that the Islamic thieves that stole Israel from the Jews held it for over five hundred years before the Pope and the Byzantines finally stepped in?

Why must we resort to the 'well, Christianity did this as well' argument and dodge the facts that Islam has way more blood on its hands than anyone else.

The contest for most blood on their hands is debatable. Christianity has the Crusades, the Inquisition, and was also spread in the Conquest of Africa and the Americas, just about anywhere that Christian nations ever explored and colonized.

[Sun Wukong]

Yeah, totally peaceful. No one died.

[Senyosu]

So?

Christianity expanded by the sword and rifle frequently.

Those are expansions by the five rightly guided caliphs, including Muhammad.

Now, since Muhammad is in Islamic theology the 'perfect man' or the man to follow the example of, that explains Islamic conduct generally in regards to their expansive history of Jihad against unbelievers.

You can feel free to show the regions that Jesus himself conquered militarily, and if you don't think that would have made a considerable difference, then yeah, so much for your arguments.

The difference is there.

However, considering the Crusades and the Christianization of the Slavs, Baltics, and Hungarians. Well, not as much sword and warfare, but it's similar. Similar, but not the same.

Besides, Arabia at that time was tribal. How did tribes integrate other tribes--oh wait, warfare. Use what you know, was how Islam dominated the region.

[Cyrisnia]

So?

Christianity expanded by the sword and rifle frequently.

See, I don't see that at all. The Christian gospel was spread peaceably. Do you realize that the Islamic thieves that stole Israel from the Jews held it for over five hundred years before the Pope and the Byzantines finally stepped in?

Why must we resort to the 'well, Christianity did this as well' argument and dodge the facts that Islam has way more blood on its hands than anyone else.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages ... .htm#other

“Other religions kill, too.”

The Muslim Game:

Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence. Remember Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber? How about Anders Breivik, the Norwegian killer? Why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems?

The Truth:

Because they don’t.

Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man (in fact, he stated explicitly that he was agnostic and that "science" was his religion). At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for Jesus. His motives are very well documented through interviews and research. God is never mentioned.

The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement. They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do - and this is what makes it a very different matter.

Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.

Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S. Eight people died. This is an average of one death every 4.5 years.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.

Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 innocents in a lone rampage on July 22nd, 2011, was originally misidentified as a "Christian fundamentalist" by the police. In fact, the killings were later determined to be politically motivated. He also left behind a detailed 1500 page manifesto in which he stated that he is not religious, does not know if God exists, and prefers a secular state to a theocracy. Needless to say, he does not quote any Bible verses in support of his killing spree, nor did he shout "praise the Lord" as he picked people off.

In the last ten years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and tolerance for a radical clergy that supports the terror.

Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.

[FutureAmerica]

We don't hate Islam. It is a great religion. We hate the idiots that hijack and hide behind Islam and use it as an anti-West calling to kill all infidels. That's what we hate. The United States, China, Russia, EU and India all have contempt for the muslim radicals that want to create their imaginary caliphate. We know your agenda and we will destroy it so that you can sleep with your virgins in hell.

[Skeckoa]

Formatting errors lead to unneeded post. Move along.

[Harpers Ferry]

For fucks sake are you seriously denying the massacre of the indeginious Americans based on a ficticious scene in a painting?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Yeah, totally peaceful. No one died.

Oh, absolutely. The Taino went extinct, the Incas disappeared... totally. Years of slavery and forced conversions... no, absolutely. It is like A&B says. No death. They sung Kumbaya and frolicked the meadows hand in hand with the Conquistadors.

[Kelinfort]

And then, they were enslaved, killed, and died of smallpox. So fucking peaceful!

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

The Crusades argument by the secular apologetics has been disproved hundreds of times. Once again.

The Crusaders were a small army of about 30,000 - not a massive, ravaging horde of millions upon millions. The Crusaders took the city of Jerusalem back from the Muslims who stole it from the Jews. They waited over five hundred years after the Muslims conquered Israel violently before they finally stepped in.

[Cyrisnia]

For fucks sake are you seriously denying the massacre of the indeginious Americans based on a ficticious scene in a painting?

He's a fundie.
He lives in a realm surrounded by walls.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

The Crusades argument by the secular apologetics has been disproved hundreds of times. Once again.

The Crusaders were a small army of about 30,000 - not a massive, ravaging horde of millions upon millions. The Crusaders took the city of Jerusalem back from the Muslims who stole it from the Jews. They waited over five hundred years after the Muslims conquered Israel violently before they finally stepped in.

Dude, definitely, your sources are bullshit. Study some. You really need to.

[The Seleucids (Ancient)]

So?

Christianity expanded by the sword and rifle frequently.

Those are expansions by the five rightly guided caliphs, including Muhammad.

Now, since Muhammad is in Islamic theology the 'perfect man' or the man to follow the example of, that explains Islamic conduct generally in regards to their expansive history of Jihad against unbelievers.

You can feel free to show the regions that Jesus himself conquered militarily, and if you don't think that would have made a considerable difference, then yeah, so much for your arguments.

This is not entirely correct. Muhammed is not the example of a perfect man nor a perfect Muslim.

[Kelinfort]

The Crusades argument by the secular apologetics has been disproved hundreds of times. Once again.

The Crusaders were a small army of about 30,000 - not a massive, ravaging horde of millions upon millions. The Crusaders took the city of Jerusalem back from the Muslims who stole it from the Jews. They waited over five hundred years after the Muslims conquered Israel violently before they finally stepped in.

Incorrect, Jerusalem was already under the control of Muslim leadership for four hundred years The Seljuks merely prevented pilgrims from entering the city.

[Communist Volkstrad]

The Crusades argument by the secular apologetics has been disproved hundreds of times. Once again.

The Crusaders were a small army of about 30,000 - not a massive, ravaging horde of millions upon millions. The Crusaders took the city of Jerusalem back from the Muslims who stole it from the Jews. They waited over five hundred years after the Muslims conquered Israel violently before they finally stepped in.

The Church was very non-specific regarding their terms. They stated anyone who goes out there gets a clean slate, and any killing done of "heathens" would be accepted. They not only slaughtered Muslims, but Jews as well.

Also, you have not addressed the Inquisition.

[Senyosu]

The Crusades argument by the secular apologetics has been disproved hundreds of times. Once again.

The Crusaders were a small army of about 30,000 - not a massive, ravaging horde of millions upon millions. The Crusaders took the city of Jerusalem back from the Muslims who stole it from the Jews. They waited over five hundred years after the Muslims conquered Israel violently before they finally stepped in.

Sauce. Not the bible. Actual historians.

[Cyrisnia]

The Crusades argument by the secular apologetics has been disproved hundreds of times. Once again.

The Crusaders were a small army of about 30,000 - not a massive, ravaging horde of millions upon millions. The Crusaders took the city of Jerusalem back from the Muslims who stole it from the Jews. They waited over five hundred years after the Muslims conquered Israel violently before they finally stepped in.

Oh my God.
You could not be more goddamn ignorant of basic goddamn history.

[Senyosu]

The Crusades argument by the secular apologetics has been disproved hundreds of times. Once again.

The Crusaders were a small army of about 30,000 - not a massive, ravaging horde of millions upon millions. The Crusaders took the city of Jerusalem back from the Muslims who stole it from the Jews. They waited over five hundred years after the Muslims conquered Israel violently before they finally stepped in.

Incorrect, Jerusalem was already under the control of Muslim leadership. The Seljuks merely prevented pilgrims from entering the city.

The Turks were not seen as good people by those living in Jerusalem as well, I believe.

[Sun Wukong]

The Crusades argument by the secular apologetics has been disproved hundreds of times. Once again.

The Crusaders were a small army of about 30,000 - not a massive, ravaging horde of millions upon millions. The Crusaders took the city of Jerusalem back from the Muslims who stole it from the Jews. They waited over five hundred years after the Muslims conquered Israel violently before they finally stepped in.

The Arabs weren't millions of millions in your example either. They were a small force that happened to be fighting against two exhausted empires. They stole Palestine from the Byzantine Romans. And the Peasant's Crusade number over 40,000 by itself. That was before the formal Crusaders showed up.

[Harpers Ferry]

The Crusades argument by the secular apologetics has been disproved hundreds of times. Once again.

The Crusaders were a small army of about 30,000 - not a massive, ravaging horde of millions upon millions. The Crusaders took the city of Jerusalem back from the Muslims who stole it from the Jews. They waited over five hundred years after the Muslims conquered Israel violently before they finally stepped in.

There were way more than 30000 crusaders in the number of crusades. Second, the Romans took it from the Jews, then the Byzantines inherited it, THEN the Muslim states took control.

The crusaders also massacred all the Jews and muslims in the city when they took it.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

Those are expansions by the five rightly guided caliphs, including Muhammad.

Now, since Muhammad is in Islamic theology the 'perfect man' or the man to follow the example of, that explains Islamic conduct generally in regards to their expansive history of Jihad against unbelievers.

You can feel free to show the regions that Jesus himself conquered militarily, and if you don't think that would have made a considerable difference, then yeah, so much for your arguments.

This is not entirely correct. Muhammed is not the example of a perfect man nor a perfect Muslim.

Not perfect? That's far-fetched. He wasn't 'imperfect'. He was far worse. He was plain malicious. He had a 9-year old wife (and many other wives due to his polygamy), he conquered the entire Arabian peninsula (not as a 'peaceful' prophet would do), and his successors (caliphs) conquered the rest of Northern Africa, Israel, and attempted to conquer Europe as well, by the way of Spain. They nearly succeeded in taking Austria at one point as well, in addition to Rome.

[SuperFruitland]

So?

Christianity expanded by the sword and rifle frequently.

See, I don't see that at all. The Christian gospel was spread peaceably. Do you realize that the Islamic thieves that stole Israel from the Jews held it for over five hundred years before the Pope and the Byzantines finally stepped in?

Why must we resort to the 'well, Christianity did this as well' argument and dodge the facts that Islam has way more blood on its hands than anyone else.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages ... .htm#other

-giant snip about how Islam is ebul-

Do we really have to mention the Crusades/the Spanish Inquisition/every other mass killing that Christians committed against Protestants (subset of the SAME RELIGION) Muslims, and others?

Muslims are the modern killers, if you want to put it that way.

Christians have been the killers throughout most of history.