PDA

View Full Version : Why the violence?



Bornagain
11-07-2012, 02:37 PM
One of the reasons I joined this forum is because a friend asked me to ask Muslims why there is so much violence surrounding the Islamic faith. I promised I would and here it is.

(Since I've posted this in another thread this morning, it has been suggested there that I post it elsewhere. This forum seemed most appropriate for moving the question)
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Annelise
11-07-2012, 03:07 PM
There's a thread with the same topic under Introduce Yourself... I can't link to it 'cause I'm a new member but you can find it by clicking on Bornagain's posts :)

I'm going to think about your question and maybe try to post something there, because I know that there is violence coming from Islam, Judaism, and Christianity... and that some of it comes from people who don't understand their religion, and some of it comes from people who do understand the implications of their faiths regarding holiness and contexts of violence. I've also met people in all three religions who have a strong love for God and for others that really stirs my heart to see, and it is absolutely not separate from that understanding they have of holiness. It's a really hard question.

But yep, it would be really meaningful to me if people could answer it in the thread that I just mentioned :)
Reply

Annelise
11-07-2012, 03:10 PM
That post by me (above) was moved by moderators from another thread to this one, so only read the middle paragraph in context of this question :)
Reply

Signor
11-07-2012, 03:16 PM
Greetings

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...terrorism.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...terrorism.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...on-terror.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ead-sword.html

I hope this helps
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Muhammad
11-07-2012, 03:25 PM
The following article sheds some light on this:

Originally Posted by Al_Imaan
What does Islam say about terrorism?

Unfortunately more and more often, Islam has been associated with terrorism and violence due to the actions of a few extreme individuals who’ve taken it upon themselves to do the most heinous crimes in the name of Islam.

Tragic events such as the attack on the twin towers in New York, the bombings of Bali, Madrid and London are assumed to be justified by Islam in the minds of some people. This idea has been fueled further by many media channels which defame Islam by portraying these bombers as ‘Islamists’ or ‘Jihadists’, as though they were sanctioned by Islam, or had any legitimate spokemenship on behalf of Muslims. The actions of a few fanatical individuals who happen to have Muslim names or ascribe themselves to the Muslim faith should not be a yardstick by which Islam is judged. For the same reason, that one would not do justice to Christianity if it where perceived as sanctioning the genocide of the Native Americans, the atrocities of world war II or the bombings of the IRA.

To understand Islam’s stance on terrorism, one must refer to its original sources, the Quran and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him,which are explicit in their prohibition of any form of injustice including that of wanton violence which seeks to instill fear, injury or death to civilians.

The Quran turns our attention to the high value of human life, whether it is Muslim or Non-Muslim and makes it absolutely forbidden to take an innocent life unjustly. The gravity of such a crime is equated, in the Quran, with the killing of all humanity.

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.” ( 5:32 )

Not only is human life sacred in Islam but the property, wealth, family and dignity of all individuals in society are to be respected and protected. Those who transgress these rights and sow fasad (corruption) as the Quran describes it, incur the wrath of Allah.

"…and seek not corruption in the earth; lo! Allah loveth not corrupters " (28:77)

Likewise in another verse

“The blame is only against those who oppress men and wrong-doing and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice: for such there will be a penalty grievous” (42:42)

Islam goes further than just prohibiting oppression and safeguarding rights, it commands its faithful to deal kindly and compassionately to all those who seek to live in peace and harmony

"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for your faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: For Allah loves those who are just" (60:8)

In times of war and conflict, where enmity can obstruct an individual’s judgement to act morally, Islam commands that justice be upheld even towards one’s enemies.

"O ye who believe! stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do" (5:8)

Centuries before the Geneva Convention was drawn up, Muslims were bound by a code of conduct which the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, set. He forbade the killing of women, children and elderly in war. In an authentic narration the Prophet (pbuh) warned that he who kills anyone who has a covenant of peace with the Muslims will not smell the scent of Paradise. In fact, he taught that justice is not only to humans but must be shown to animals and all living things. In a narration the Prophet (pbuh) informed us about how a lady was sent to hell because of a cat she had locked up until it starved and died. If such is the sanctity which Islam places on the soul of an animal, how much more grave is the killing of hundreds of innocent humans?!

Abu Bakr the first Calipha of the Muslims reflected these prophetic teachings when he advised his general Yazid, who was confronting Roman armies,

"I advise you ten things, Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly."

The message of the Quran is clear as we have seen, that the sanctity of any human life is to be respected and any violation in that regard is paramount to the worst crime. Mercy is at the heart of the Islamic call, “We sent thee (O Muhammad) not save as a mercy for the peoples” (21:107); a totally different message to what the terrorists are sadly imparting to humanity.


http://discover.islamway.com/article...e_id=47&lang=1

You may also wish to read:
The Prophet Muhammad: a mercy for all creation
The Profound Teachings of Prophet Muhammad
Muhammad(s): A mercy to mankind
The True Love & Mercy of the Prophet (Pbuh) for Mankind
Reply

جوري
11-07-2012, 04:34 PM
I find the question fallacious - let me ping pong back at ya and ask you why all the drones against women and children? Why the illegal occupations and looting overseas?
Reply

Independent
11-07-2012, 04:42 PM
Originally Posted by Muhammad
The following article sheds some light on this:
I’m always glad to read that Muslims see Islam is a religion of peace. With regard to the terrorism which has been associated with Islam – do the majority of Muslims see these groups as:

  1. Not Muslims no matter if they believe that they are
  2. Muslims, but a tiny minority
  3. Someone else masquerading as Muslims
  4. Another option I haven’t thought of
Reply

Eric H
11-07-2012, 05:24 PM
Greetings and peace be with you Bornagain; welcome to the forum;

Christian history in Northern Ireland is not good, why did mainly Christian Countries invade Iraq?

Beyond a doubt we are all created by the same God, and I believe we have a duty to care for all God’s creation, and that means caring for each other despite all our differences. Maybe we need to ask how can we build bridges between our faiths, how can we seek justice for all people despite our differences.

Over the years I have been on this forum, I would say that they are against violence here. If we are all religions of peace then I believe we should work towards these aims together.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric
Reply

Junon
11-07-2012, 05:50 PM
Salaam

Originally Posted by Bornagain
One of the reasons I joined this forum is because a friend asked me to ask Muslims why there is so much violence surrounding the Islamic faith. I promised I would and here it is.

(Since I've posted this in another thread this morning, it has been suggested there that I post it elsewhere. This forum seemed most appropriate for moving the question)
Well depends what you mean. For example what do you mean by ‘Islam’ is the cause of violence. Usually it causes are multifaceted; you can’t just reduce it to a single cause.

One reason why the violence occurs is that it is a response to being attacked. For example the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s quite naturally people will try and defend themselves. Muslims seek (or should) peace but we are not pacifists

Finally you must remember that western nations led by the USA can be extraordinarily violent (the destruction they can wreak is of the scale!) to those who oppose their interests. History is littered with examples.

If you want a place to start investigating the complexities of various conflicts in the Muslim world I’d recommend this book.

cover 1 -

However I don't deny that the Muslim world has serious systematic problems like vicious sectarianism, bad governance etc that can lead to serious problems.
Reply

Mustafa2012
11-07-2012, 05:52 PM
Yes there are some Muslims who are committing violence because of wrong ideas that have no basis in Islam. We do not support their actions.

However there are some forms of "violence" like self defense which are not considered violence but a right that all countries have and is written in their constitutions. If for e.g. one country invades another country illegally like in Iraq, and the country that is being invaded defends themselves, that is not considered violence but a human right.

But with all due respect to the original question and everyone who has replied...

To understand how much violence Muslims are committing it is best to look at the violence that people of other faiths are also committing so that it is all in the right context and perspective.

I think the question itself is not a fair one because it implies that only people of the Muslim faith are committing violence when this is clearly not the case.

Let's take the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for e.g.

The whole Iraq war was based on a fabrication of evidence which many top government officials have admitted but no one has been charged with genocide on account of it. A top scientist and government member mysteriously died as soon as the investigation started. Co-incidence or what? How many hundreds of thousands of people have died in Iraq because a small group of people from mainly Christian government/s decided to invade Iraq based on a fabricated lie which there is plenty of evidence that proves it was a lie. Bush even said that it was a Crusade. He was the owner/director of a company that provides medical supplies to the soldiers. He was personally profiting from the war as were many other top officials. Then there's Halliburton. That is a conflict of interest which should never have been allowed.

Then look at Afghanistan. They claimed the war was against the Taliban but that's a big filthy lie. They couldn't care less about the Taliban. That's not their concern. What they are interested in is the oil and the mineral resources. This has been publicly admitted to in the media. Thousands of innocent people have been killed there. So what about all the violence in Afghanistan that has been perpetrated by mainly Christian majority countries?

Now let's look at the Zionists, Jewish Extremists. How can a country which is illegally occupying Palestine and has commited mass genocide over the years have the guts to ask Iran to stop developing nuclear energy when they (Israel) have the largest stockpile of nuclear arms in the whole middle East region. How can any country order another country to stop developing nuclear energy when they themselves have got nuclear arms and facilities? What gives them that right apart from a superiority complex?

RE: 9/11. Why are some people so quick to accept that Muslims were involved in that. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary suggesting that it was frame up by Zionists who used their resources at high levels and manipulated people. This evidence is publicly available.

Re: 7/7: There is evidence to suggest foul play. On the day of the attacks there was some simulation activities being carried out a by a private company on what would happen if a real attack took place on the underground. While those role-plays were going on the real attacks happened. I watched an interview on TV given the director of that company. Now what are the chances of that happening? I think it's all a bit too convenient.

Re: Syria. President Assad is not considered a Muslim. He is a follower of a faith called Ba'ath which is some deviant religion and does not follow the majority sunni Muslim belief.
The people who are being oppressed by him are doing whatever they can to survive. He has been given free reign by the whole world to do as he pleases. No one is intervening to help the Muslims under his rule. Why is that? Where are the so called just and civilised nations now?

Why are we so apologetic when there are people who are much more violent than us? The only thing they are good at is covering up their evil and violence and focusing their Zionist owned media at our minority of extremists.

Before being so apologetic be sure to look at and address the violence and crimes of people of other faiths as well. Make sure you balance your judgements so that Muslims are not judged out of context of the atrocities that people of other faiths are committing.

None of what I've said has got anything to do with conspiracy theories. It is all documented facts available for anyone to see.

I think some of us (especially Muslims) need to stop living in a fantasy world and wake up to the reality. A good place to start would be to read up from different independent sources on who is really behind major events in the world. You will not get the truth from mainstream media because they are all owned by Zionists who will only give you a distorted inaccurate version of things. Mainstream media will only tell you what they want you to hear.
Reply

~Zaria~
11-07-2012, 07:48 PM
All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t

Posted on 20 January 2010 by Danios




terrorism has no religion430x323custom 1 -



CNN recently published an article entitled Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated; according to a study released by Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “the terrorist threat posed by radicalized Muslim-Americans has been exaggerated.”


Yet, Americans continue to live in mortal fear of radical Islam, a fear propagated and inflamed by right wing Islamophobes. If one follows the cable news networks, it seems as if all terrorists are Muslims. It has even become axiomatic in some circles to chant: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.” Muslims and their “leftist dhimmi allies” respond feebly, mentioning Waco as the one counter example, unwittingly affirming the belief that “nearly all terrorists are Muslims.”


But perception is not reality. The data simply does not support such a hasty conclusion. On the FBI’s official website, there exists a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 all the way to 2005. That list can be accessed here (scroll down all the way to the bottom).




piechart21024x1024 1 -







Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database


According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%). These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.


Yet notice the disparity in media coverage between the two. It would indeed be very interesting to construct a corresponding pie chart that depicted the level of media coverage of each group. The reason that Muslim apologists and their “leftist dhimmi allies” cannot recall another non-Islamic act of terrorism other than Waco is due to the fact that the media gives menial (if any) coverage to such events. If a terrorist attack does not fit the “Islam is the perennial and existential threat of our times” narrative, it is simply not paid much attention to, which in a circuitous manner reinforces and “proves” the preconceived narrative. It is to such an extent that the average American cannot remember any Jewish or Latino terrorist; why should he when he has never even heard of the Jewish Defense League or the Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros? Surely what he does not know does not exist!


The Islamophobes claim that Islam is intrinsically a terrorist religion. The proof? Well, just about every terrorist attack is Islamic, they retort. Unfortunately for them, that’s not quite true. More like six percent. Using their defunct logic, these right wingers ought now to conclude that nearly all acts of terrorism are committed by Latinos (or Jews). Let them dare say it…they couldn’t; it would be political and social suicide to say such a thing. Most Americans would shut down such talk as bigoted; yet, similar statements continue to be said of Islam, without any repercussions.


The Islamophobes live in a fantasy world where everyone is supposedly too “politically correct” to criticize Islam and Muslims. Yet, the reality is the exact opposite: you can get away with saying anything against the crescent. Can you imagine the reaction if I said that Latinos should be profiled because after all they are the ones who commit the most terrorism in the country? (For the record: I don’t believe in such profiling, because I am–unlike the right wing nutters–a believer in American ideals.)


The moral of the story is that Americans ought to calm down when it comes to Islamic terrorism. Right wingers always live in mortal fear–or rather, they try to make you feel that way. In fact, Pamela Geller (the queen of internet Islamophobia) literally said her mission was to “scare the bejeezus outta ya.” Don’t be fooled, and don’t be a wuss. You don’t live in constant fear of radicalized Latinos (unless you’re Lou Dobbs), even though they commit seven times more acts of terrorism than Muslims in America. Why then are you wetting yourself over Islamic radicals? In the words of Cenk Uygur: you’re at a ten when you need to be at a four. Nobody is saying that Islamic terrorism is not a matter of concern, but it’s grossly exaggerated.


Source
Reply

~Zaria~
11-07-2012, 07:55 PM
The book: Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People by Dr Jack Shaheen also provides insight into how the media is used, to consistently create negative stereotypes of arabs/ muslims - as being sub-human/ terrorists/ 'extremists', etc.
Reply

Mustafa2012
11-07-2012, 08:17 PM
Originally Posted by ~Zaria~




terrorism has no religion430x323custom 1 -




CNN recently published an article entitled Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated; according to a study released by Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “the terrorist threat posed by radicalized Muslim-Americans has been exaggerated.”


Yet, Americans continue to live in mortal fear of radical Islam, a fear propagated and inflamed by right wing Islamophobes. If one follows the cable news networks, it seems as if all terrorists are Muslims. It has even become axiomatic in some circles to chant: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.” Muslims and their “leftist dhimmi allies” respond feebly, mentioning Waco as the one counter example, unwittingly affirming the belief that “nearly all terrorists are Muslims.”


But perception is not reality. The data simply does not support such a hasty conclusion. On the FBI’s official website, there exists a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 all the way to 2005. That list can be accessed here (scroll down all the way to the bottom).




piechart21024x1024 1 -





Source
:jz:

That's an excellent piece of research. This thread should be made a sticky.

This is exactly what I was referring to. You cannot argue with fact based research.

When you look at the violence being caused by all religious/ethnic groups as a whole then only can you really understand how violent each individual group is.
Reply

Independent
11-07-2012, 08:21 PM
Plenty here about Christian terrorism but very little about Muslims. Would it be accurate to say therefore, that the majority of Muslims don’t believe there is any Islamic terrorism worth talking about?

Can anyone tell which of the most significant terrorist events which were claimed by Muslims are acknowledged by Muslims as actually being Islamic? Or are there none?
Reply

Mustafa2012
11-07-2012, 08:25 PM
Originally Posted by Independent
I’m always glad to read that Muslims see Islam is a religion of peace. With regard to the terrorism which has been associated with Islam – do the majority of Muslims see these groups as:
  1. Not Muslims no matter if they believe that they are
  2. Muslims, but a tiny minority
  3. Someone else masquerading as Muslims
  4. Another option I haven’t thought of
No. 2 and definitely No. 3 in many cases.

Reason for No. 3 is to frame Muslims and make the world see them as evil when that is not the case according the study results shown above.
Reply

Mustafa2012
11-07-2012, 08:51 PM
Originally Posted by Independent
Plenty here about Christian terrorism but very little about Muslims. Would it be accurate to say therefore, that the majority of Muslims don’t believe there is any Islamic terrorism worth talking about?

Can anyone tell which of the most significant terrorist events which were claimed by Muslims are acknowledged by Muslims as actually being Islamic? Or are there none?
Maybe you missed it but I stated on the very first line in my earlier post that, yes there are some extremist Muslims that are carrying out attacks from time to time and we do not agree with them . Then I went on to explain those attacks in proportion to the other "so called" major Muslim attacks.

All of the major attacks referred to in my earlier post that are attributed to Muslims are questionable due to contradictory evidence that has come to light since. 9/11 was never claimed by muslims. 7/7 was, but as I mentioned there were some simulation role-plays being carried out on the day by a private British company which is too much of a co-incidence. There's also another story of a major newspaper reporter who identified some discrepancies with the train timings that day and when he took his story to the papers, none of them would publish it and one even offered him money to keep quiet.

Note: the questions are not just coming from Muslims but from respected non Muslim independent sources.

Everything has been addressed in the right perspective. Have another look at the graph above.

Bear in mind most of the violence caused by extremist Muslims are carried out in retaliation for the state sponsored terrorism carried out abroad (not that I'm condoning it). Based on this one could argue that if there was no 9/11, no Iraq, no Afghanistan, the no. of attacks by Muslims would have been much less because they would not have been given a reason to do what they did.
Reply

M.I.A.
11-07-2012, 09:53 PM
Originally Posted by Bornagain
One of the reasons I joined this forum is because a friend asked me to ask Muslims why there is so much violence surrounding the Islamic faith. I promised I would and here it is.

(Since I've posted this in another thread this morning, it has been suggested there that I post it elsewhere. This forum seemed most appropriate for moving the question)

well firstly id like to ask you and your friend if you have experienced islamic violence within your own communities and if so in which context?

secondly id like to say that most of islam constantly asks for caliphate and sharia,
without the people needed to implement those things there is islamic violence.

and most islamic violence is there because it is the easiest answer to dispute, there are only winners and losers in war.

but if the winners are any better qualified to lead is a matter of how you would want society to be educated.


its a lot more complicated, i can understand that.

but i guess the most generalised answer is that islamic violence exists because it has the opportunity to exist in environments where there is no governmental protection....

its a circular argument, although ironically a disputable answer.
Reply

Abz2000
11-07-2012, 09:54 PM
Lol, u should b asking urself: y does the media deceive us with a warped presentation of the facts on the ground.
It's also telling that the countries who's media bleat it out the most are the ones guilty of some of the worst human rights abuses in recent history.
Here's the latest update of the highest spenders on "violence" from SIPRI:

b09e38f10131487a6380ba9e868c5144 1 -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...9e868c5144.png

Military expenditure by country map2 1 -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...untry_map2.png

Rank Country Spending ($ Bn.)[3] % of GDP World share (%) Spending ($ Bn. PPP)[4]

— World total 1,735 2.5 100 1562.3

1 United States 711.0 4.7 41 711

2 China 143.0 2.0 8.2 228
3 Russia 71.9 3.9 4.1 93.7
4 United Kingdom 62.7 2.6 3.6 57.5
5 France 62.5 2.3 3.6 50.1
6 Japan 59.3 1.0 3.4 44.7
7 Saudi Arabia 48.2 8.7 2.8 58.8
8 India 46.8 2.5 2.7 112
9 Germany 46.7 1.3 2.7 40.4
10 Brazil 35.4 1.5 2.0 33.8
11 Italy 34.5 1.6 2.0 28.5
12 South Korea 30.8 2.7 1.8 42.1
13 Australia 26.7 1.8 1.5 16.6
14 Canada 24.7 1.4 1.4 19.9
15 Turkey 17.9 2.3 1.0 25.2
^ SIPRI estimate
^ The figures for Saudi Arabia include expenditure for public order and safety and might be slight overestimates.
(Saudi Arabia is also a key U.S ally - thought I'd mention it before ur face lit up).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ures#section_1

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) is an independent international institute dedicated to research into conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament. Established in 1966, SIPRI provides data, analysis and recommendations, based on open source, to policymakers, researchers, media and the interested public.


The "peace loving" American government spends more money on violence and destruction than the next 13 highest spending countries put together, and most of them are it's allies, so please don't be too dismayed if I don't become defensive and apologize for Muslims who stand up to their enemies and to God's enemies, I have much love and respect for them - save the few dupes who unwittingly get recruited indirectly by the FBI to serve their twisted propaganda purposes, and even then, I feel sorry for the few dupes too rather than hate them.

Bye bye
Reply

sister herb
11-07-2012, 10:09 PM
I could also ask why here is so much Christian terrorism or Jewish terrorism. Or atheist terrorism as well.

About Jewish terrorism I read every single day. Here is link about Jewish terrorism by its every acts is reported weekly from 2009:

http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/in...=84&Itemid=219

As some atheists say "without religions here wouldn´t be any wars and violence" then please explain me Stalin and violence of other communist leaders for example.

:heated:
Reply

Abz2000
11-07-2012, 10:15 PM
Stalin? Y go so far back? What about bush, Blair, obama, sarkozy and Cameron?
It is a documented fact that atheism has been the cause of the worst violence in the last century, and although the above mentioned mass murderers claim to be Christian, it is a well known fact that their ideals are the antithesis of it and so are their laws.
Reply

sister herb
11-07-2012, 10:19 PM
I went back to Stalin as example of atheist terrorism. Those you mentioned even think themselves as to be Christians. Stalin didn´t.
Reply

Aprender
11-07-2012, 10:27 PM
I think we should all just be nice and respectful toward one another :)
Reply

PurpleCup
11-08-2012, 12:00 AM
I think the Press would like you to think that but anyone can write a press release and sway to the way of their thinking without having much knowledge into Islam.

Recently the Protests with each country are NOT considered violence since it is primarily a means to withdrawl a ruler/dictator. And that'sperfectly within their rights as nations to protest.

Islamic countries where there is a predominance of Muslims have the lowest crime rates, where as USA has some of the highest crimes rates. While we may know of some of that crime we do not have a full scope of it until we really begin to read our local Newspapers to see the local crimes.
And further probing can show you how much we are lucky to not be involved in crime to the point it is all around us like flies.

There is saying in English as well as Arabic, "Do not throw stones when your house is made of glass."

America may like for you to believe Islam is a barabaric religion but facts are that just isn't the truth. If you think the panacea to crime is freightening then look to your own culture. Just give you a small example take a look at how many sexual offenders live in your neighborhood. That in itself is jaw dropping shock ten fold.

Did you know a female can walk at night in most Middle Eastern Countries and never have anyone bother her? Did you know you can leave cash on your dash board in Saudi Arabia and leave your door unlocked and never have your money stolen?

Don't believe the Press, go there and see for yourself. Press is not trustworthy entity and every one knows that already.

Originally Posted by Bornagain
One of the reasons I joined this forum is because a friend asked me to ask Muslims why there is so much violence surrounding the Islamic faith. I promised I would and here it is.

(Since I've posted this in another thread this morning, it has been suggested there that I post it elsewhere. This forum seemed most appropriate for moving the question)
Reply

ardianto
11-08-2012, 12:23 AM
There is no religion that teaches violence, but there are people who use religion as justification for violence. People like these are not only Muslims, but believers of other religions too. Why Islam look full of violence? it's because image that built by anti-Islam medias.
Reply

جوري
11-08-2012, 12:33 AM
Originally Posted by Independent
Plenty here about Christian terrorism but very little about Muslims. Would it be accurate to say therefore, that the majority of Muslims don’t believe there is any Islamic terrorism worth talking about?

Can anyone tell which of the most significant terrorist events which were claimed by Muslims are acknowledged by Muslims as actually being Islamic? Or are there none?
I have more but unfortunately no net service for the laundry list- but what's your point? The OP has already professed the negative image she has from her media we're attempting to level those beliefs for her with a dosage of reality!
Btw you've to pm me about being a shill I'd like to moonlight on the side- a lot of debt and not much money in medicine I am afraid if I'd only known of these well paying net gigs I wouldn't have wasted all those nights with my nose in the books!
Reply

Independent
11-08-2012, 09:26 AM
Supposing we lay aside for a moment whether or not this violence is worse than other groups, or whether it actually took place, and just focus on the image. I think there are other reasons behind the ‘Muslim equals violence’ image which never get talked about, but which make a major contribution to the association:

1.Muslim terrorism is international and (uniquely) is at war with all the other main religions. So all other countries are aware of it and many of them have direct personal experience of this terrorism.
2. Despite being very widespread geographically, many different Islamic groups claim to be fighting a single cause (eg they claim allegiance to Al Qaeda). So it links together to a single grand image.
3. This cause has been persistent over a very long time. So the image has time to build.
4. Muslim terrorism is explicitly characterised by those who carry it out as being in the name of religion (which is not the case for many other groups eg IRA, ETA, Bader Meinhoff). So the violence becomes tagged with 'Islamic terrorism'.
5. There are many acts of terrorism, but the most spectacular have mostly been Islamic. The sight of those planes hitting the Twin Towers in the brilliant morning sunshine is simply unforgettable.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-08-2012, 09:42 AM
Originally Posted by Independent
I’m always glad to read that Muslims see Islam is a religion of peace. With regard to the terrorism which has been associated with Islam – do the majority of Muslims see these groups as:

  1. Not Muslims no matter if they believe that they are
  2. Muslims, but a tiny minority
  3. Someone else masquerading as Muslims
  4. Another option I haven’t thought of
Because you live in Ireland, i suppose my questions to you are apt. With regard to terrorism which has been associated with Ireland and Irish, do the majority of Irish see these groups as:


  1. Not Irish no matter if they believe that they are
  2. Irish, but a tiny minority
  3. Someone else masquerading as Irish
  4. Another option I haven’t thought of
Reply

Independent
11-08-2012, 09:56 AM
Originally Posted by Ramadhan
Because you live in Ireland, i suppose my questions to you are apt. With regard to terrorism which has been associated with Ireland and Irish, do the majority of Irish see these groups as:

Not Irish no matter if they believe that they are
Irish, but a tiny minority
Someone else masquerading as Irish
Another option I haven’t thought of
This question is off topic and also not phrased correctly so it's impossible to answer meaningfully. The first thing you have know is the difference in terminology between the 'island of Ireland' (including the Republic and Northern Island, which is part of the UK) and 'Irish'. Being Irish can refer to both of these identities which is partly why your question is not comprehensible.

All the terrorist groups/armies were Irish (in the sense that they were born on the island of Ireland) and no one disputes it. The difference was between IRA nationalists (mostly Catholic) and Unionist terrorists (mostly Protestant) who wanted to remain part of the UK.

Also, you seem not to be aware that this war is largely over and many of the former terrorist leaders are now in government, working towards a peaceful reconciliation of all the communities.
Reply

جوري
11-08-2012, 01:32 PM
List incomplete)
Ancient Pagans

As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.
Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]
Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]
Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..."
In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]
The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
[DO19-25]
Mission

Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]
Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]
Battle of Belgrad 1456: 80,000 Turks slaughtered. [DO235]
15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Victims unknown. [DO30]
16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused "greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".
Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [SH99, 225]
Crusades (1095-1291)

First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]
Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands. [WW23]
9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then turkish), thousands respectively. [WW25-27]
Until Jan 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown) [WW30]
after 6/3/98 Antiochia (then turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women & children) killed. [WW32-35]
Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60]
Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]
Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (jewish, muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]
(In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude")
The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished." [TG79]
Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]
Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ". [WW45]
Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]
Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akkon 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone). [WW224] Note: All figures according to contemporary (Christian) chroniclers.
Heretics

Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]
Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]
Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians. [DO29]
The Albigensians (cathars = Christians allegedly that have all rarely sucked) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (greatest single pre-nazi mass murderer) in 1209. Bezirs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbours and friends) 20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. [WW181]
subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were exterminated. [WW183]
After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake 1324. [WW183]
Estimated one million victims (cathar heresy alone), [WW183]
Other heresies: Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).
Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada alone allegedly responsible for 10,220 burnings. [DO28]
John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]
University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna. [DO59]
Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori (Rome) on 2/17/1600.
Witches

from the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several thousand.
in the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or hanged. [WV]
incomplete list of documented cases:
The Burning of Witches - A Chronicle of the Burning Times
Religious Wars

15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]
1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action). [DO31]
1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. Thousands were actually slain. [DO31]
1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]
17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ... to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and crows'." [SH191]
17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers." [SH191]
17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]
Jews

Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown.
In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. [DA450]
17. Council of Toledo 694: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]
The Bishop of Limoges (France) in 1010 had the cities' Jews, who would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]
First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered 1096, maybe 12.000 total. Places: Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons), Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]
Second Crusade: 1147. Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully, Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]
Third Crusade: English Jewish communities sacked 1189/90. [DO40]
Fulda/Germany 1235: 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]
1257, 1267: Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]
1290 in Bohemian (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]
1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. [DO41]
1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two thousand) burned. [DO41]
1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]
1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]
1391 Seville's Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made easy by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all jews above the age of ten had been forced to wear.
1492: In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than 150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way: 6/30/1492. [MM470-476]
1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain. [DO43]
(I feel sick ...) this goes on and on, century after century, right into the kilns of Auschwitz.
Native Peoples

Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means to propagate Christianity.
Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who, he said, "ought to be good servants ... [and] would easily be made Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no religion." [SH200]
While Columbus described the Indians as "idolators" and "slaves, as many as [the Crown] shall order," his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian nobleman, referred to the natives as "beasts" because "they eat when they are hungry," and made love "openly whenever they feel like it." [SH204-205]
On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the declarations that are required" - the requerimiento - to claim the ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding), the requerimiento continued:
I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him." [SH66]
Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England ... to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome of the Ante-Christ." [SH235]
In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of "the marvelous goodness and providence of God" to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as "for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess." [SH109,238]
On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [SH204]
The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and spanish raids.
As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous." [SH69]
The indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell." [SH70]
What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
"The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive." [SH72]
Or, on another occasion:
"The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts...Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs." [SH83]
The "island's population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out." Eventually all the island's natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus "the Caribbean's millions of native people [were] thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century". [SH72-73] "In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated." [SH75]
"And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitln [Mexico city] was next." [SH75]
Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).
"When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead." [SH95]
Of course no different were the founders of what today is the US of Amerikkka.
Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in comparison to European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than conquer land. In the words of some of the pilgrim fathers: "Their Warres are farre less bloudy...", so that there usually was "no great slawter of nether side". Indeed, "they might fight seven yeares and not kill seven men." What is more, the Indians usually spared women and children. [SH111]
In the spring of 1612 some English colonists found life among the (generally friendly and generous) natives attractive enough to leave Jamestown - "being idell ... did runne away unto the Indyans," - to live among them (that probably solved a sex problem).
"Governor Thomas Dale had them hunted down and executed: 'Some he apointed (sic) to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheles, others to be staked and some shott to deathe'." [SH105] Of course these elegant measures were restricted for fellow englishmen: "This was the treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those who had no choice in the matter, because they were the native people of Virginia" methods were different: "when an Indian was accused by an Englishman of stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English response was to attack the natives in force, burning the entire community" down. [SH105]
On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the "Peqout War". The killers were New England Puritan Christians, refugees from persecution in their own home country England.
When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian chief's pledge they attacked.
Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after, because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-time foes of the Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots and burned their villages.
The puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote: "And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished ... God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies": men, women, children. [SH113-114]
So "the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance". [SH111].
Because of his readers' assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow:
"Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them..." (Deut 20)
Mason's comrade Underhill recalled how "great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers" yet reassured his readers that "sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents". [SH114]
Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour children from their mothers breasts, in the colonists' own words: "blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them." (This was inspired by spanish methods of the time)
In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was near. [SH107-119]
The surviving handful of Indians "were parceled out to live in servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for 'a share' of the captives, specifically 'a young woman or girle and a boy if you thinke good'." [SH115]
Other tribes were to follow the same path.
Comment the Christian exterminators: "God's Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty!"
"Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!" [TA]
Like today, lying was OK to Christians then. "Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians 'grow secure uppon (sic) the treatie', advised the Council of State in Virginia, 'we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cutt downe theire Corne'." [SH106]
In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless Indian men, women and children. [SH107]
In a single massacre in "King Philip's War" of 1675 and 1676 some "600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a 'barbeque'." [SH115]
To summarize: Before the arrival of the English, the western Abenaki people in New Hampshire and Vermont had numbered 12,000. Less than half a century later about 250 remained alive - a destruction rate of 98%. The Pocumtuck people had numbered more than 18,000, fifty years later they were down to 920 - 95% destroyed. The Quiripi-Unquachog people had numbered about 30,000, fifty years later they were down to 1500 - 95% destroyed. The Massachusetts people had numbered at least 44,000, fifty years later barely 6000 were alive - 81% destroyed. [SH118] These are only a few examples of the multitude of tribes living before Christian colonists set their foot on the New World. All this was before the smallpox epidemics of 1677 and 1678 had occurred. And the carnage was not over then.
All the above was only the beginning of the European colonization, it was before the frontier age actually had begun.
A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.
In many countries, such as Brazil, and Guatemala, this continues even today.
More Glorious events in US history

Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, in "1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do bears'." [SH241]
Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church ("I long to be wading in gore") had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white flag: 400-500 killed.
From an eye-witness account: "There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed ..." [SH131]
More gory details.
By the 1860s, "in Hawai'i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands' native population by 90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary said, somewhat equivalent to 'the amputation of diseased members of the body'." [SH244]
20th Century Church Atrocities

Catholic extermination camps
Surpisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveli, a practising Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!

In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar - orthodox-Christian serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdient der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]
Catholic terror in Vietnam
In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters - the Viet Minh - had finally defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all (most non-buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican's spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of Christ", a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]

Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman Catholicism.

The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read:
"Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."
Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of buddhist protesters and monks were imprisoned in "detention camps." Out of protest dozens of buddhist teachers - male and female - and monks poured gasoline over themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned themselves: in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded - mostly in street riots - 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention camps. [MW76-89].

To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of American GI's lost their life....
Rwanda Massacres
In 1994 in the small african country of Rwanda in just a few months several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.
For quite some time I heard only rumours about Catholic clergy actively involved in the 1994 Rwanda massacres. Odd denials of involvement were printed in Catholic church journals, before even anybody had openly accused members of the church.
Then, 10/10/96, in the newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany - a station not at all critical to Christianity - the following was stated:
"Anglican as well as Catholic priests and nuns are suspect of having actively participated in murders. Especially the conduct of a certain Catholic priest has been occupying the public mind in Rwanda's capital Kigali for months. He was minister of the church of the Holy Family and allegedly murdered Tutsis in the most brutal manner. He is reported to have accompanied marauding Hutu militia with a gun in his cowl. In fact there has been a bloody slaughter of Tutsis seeking shelter in his parish. Even two years after the massacres many Catholics refuse to set foot on the threshold of their church, because to them the participation of a certain part of the clergy in the slaughter is well established. There is almost no church in Rwanda that has not seen refugees - women, children, old - being brutally butchered facing the crucifix.

According to eyewitnesses clergymen gave away hiding Tutsis and turned them over to the machetes of the Hutu militia.
In connection with these events again and again two Benedictine nuns are mentioned, both of whom have fled into a Belgian monastery in the meantime to avoid prosecution. According to survivors one of them called the Hutu killers and led them to several thousand people who had sought shelter in her monastery. By force the doomed were driven out of the churchyard and were murdered in the presence of the nun right in front of the gate. The other one is also reported to have directly cooperated with the murderers of the Hutu militia. In her case again witnesses report that she watched the slaughtering of people in cold blood and without showing response. She is even accused of having procured some petrol used by the killers to set on fire and burn their victims alive..." [S2]
As can be seen from these events, to Christianity the Dark Ages never come to an end....
References:

[DA] K.Deschner, Abermals krhte der Hahn, Stuttgart 1962. [DO] K.Deschner, Opus Diaboli, Reinbek 1987. [EC] P.W.Edbury, Crusade and Settlement, Cardiff Univ. Press 1985. [EJ] S.Eidelberg, The Jews and the Crusaders, Madison 1977. [LI] H.C.Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, New York 1961. [MM] M.Margolis, A.Marx, A History of the Jewish People. [MV] A.Manhattan, The Vatican's Holocaust, Springfield 1986.
See also V.Dedijer, The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, Buffalo NY, 1992. [NC] J.T.Noonan, Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, Cambridge/Mass., 1992. [S2] Newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany, 10/10/96, 12:00. [SH] D.Stannard, American Holocaust, Oxford University Press 1992. [SP] German news magazine Der Spiegel, no.49, 12/2/1996. [TA] A True Account of the Most Considerable Occurrences that have Hapned in the Warre Between the English and the Indians in New England, London 1676. [TG] F.Turner, Beyond Geography, New York 1980. [WW] H.Wollschlger: Die bewaffneten Wallfahrten gen Jerusalem, Zrich 1973.
(This is in german and what is worse, it is out of print. But it is the best I ever read about crusades and includes a full list of original medieval Christian chroniclers' writings). [WV] Estimates on the number of executed witches:
N.Cohn, Europe's Inner Demons: An Enquiry Inspired by the Great Witch Hunt, Frogmore 1976, 253.
R.H.Robbins, The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, New York 1959, 180.
J.B.Russell, Witchcraft in the Middle Ages, Ithaca/NY 1972, 39.
H.Zwetsloot, Friedrich Spee und die Hexenprozesse, Trier 1954, 56
Reply

جوري
11-08-2012, 01:39 PM
As an addendum to the above laundry list which is incomplete 'independent' the 'whole world' isn't the west but certainly many regions are Zionist driven - the only way the cockroaches can sustain their illegal occupation is to perfect the media game and control the economy per their protocols in fact! So it's a no wonder there's a story on the news every night!
Now even if I am to accept that cave men downed your towers with plastic knives and invincible passports the action didn't happen in isolation and unprovoked right before your towers were downed that shiny sunny day the U.S had bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan destroying it and killing civilians or is the violence you commit not count as provocation?
Now go back to the shill almanac and see how you can better phrase your grievances as it seems you'll be owned time and again!

Best
Reply

Independent
11-08-2012, 02:03 PM
Originally Posted by شَادِنُ
aundry list
This is an answer to a different question: 'Christians - why the violence?' Perfectly legitimate question, but not the one at the top of this thread.
Reply

جوري
11-08-2012, 02:06 PM
It's all connected try not to be so linear - people don't form coups, riot, or are violent for no reason!
I've listed for you in the very last post at least one very legitimate reason --- and if I am to accept your official account completely unchallenged!


Best,
Reply

Muhammad
11-08-2012, 02:06 PM
Greetings Independent,

If I might use your words above, this question is not phrased correctly so it's impossible to answer meaningfully:

Originally Posted by Independent
Plenty here about Christian terrorism but very little about Muslims. Would it be accurate to say therefore, that the majority of Muslims don’t believe there is any Islamic terrorism worth talking about?

Can anyone tell which of the most significant terrorist events which were claimed by Muslims are acknowledged by Muslims as actually being Islamic? Or are there none?
Terrorism can never be 'Islamic', because it contradicts the teachings of Islam. So while there may be terrorist events claimed by Muslims, that does not make them 'Islamic' i.e. an action endorsed by Islam.

Now the 'reasons' you have presented for the negative portrayal of Muslims are largely subjective and depends on what a person wants to see:

Supposing we lay aside for a moment whether or not this violence is worse than other groups, or whether it actually took place, and just focus on the image. I think there are other reasons behind the ‘Muslim equals violence’ image which never get talked about, but which make a major contribution to the association:

1.Muslim terrorism is international and (uniquely) is at war with all the other main religions. So all other countries are aware of it and many of them have direct personal experience of this terrorism.
Could it be that Islam is uniquely being attacked by all the other main religions? What about the international occupation lead by western countries?

2. Despite being very widespread geographically, many different Islamic groups claim to be fighting a single cause (eg they claim allegiance to Al Qaeda). So it links together to a single grand image.
Yet countless numbers are accused of it without evidence to prove it.

4. Muslim terrorism is explicitly characterised by those who carry it out as being in the name of religion (which is not the case for many other groups eg IRA, ETA, Bader Meinhoff). So the violence becomes tagged with 'Islamic terrorism'.
Often it is the media who bring religion into it.

5. There are many acts of terrorism, but the most spectacular have mostly been Islamic. The sight of those planes hitting the Twin Towers in the brilliant morning sunshine is simply unforgettable.
This is the weakest on your list and a very ridiculous claim. It also says a lot about the spectacles through which you are looking at this. The twin towers was a tragedy which Muslims across the world have condemned as being a heinous crime. How many more Muslims, and in far more brutal methods, have been massacred since then, about whom the media have remained silent?
Reply

Independent
11-08-2012, 03:03 PM
Thanks for your response Muhammad. Please note that in the post you are quoting from i am trying to understand the origin of the 'Islam equals violence' image. That doesn't mean I think it is necessarily fair or correct. However, for the reasons described above i think it's not at all surprising that many people have made that association. From the point of view of the information available to them, it's hard to think anything else. (Which also means that new information might lead people to a different viewpoint.)

Originally Posted by Muhammad
Terrorism can never be 'Islamic', because it contradicts the teachings of Islam.
Although many Muslims share your view that Islam is fundamentally peaceful (which is great) it's a big world and some do not. Some of them in fact pursue their objectives through violence and they seem to believe that it is endorsed/permitted by Islam. You might say they're not really Muslims, but they say they are. What is a Western viewer supposed to make of this? Of course, they will assume that they are indeed Muslims. Is it realistic to expect them to think anything else?

Originally Posted by Muhammad
Could it be that Islam is uniquely being attacked by all the other main religions?
Yes, it could, this is an argument you could make. Like I say, I'm talking specifically about the origin of the image in the west, not the conflicts themselves.


Originally Posted by Muhammad
What about the international occupation lead by western countries?
I think many westerners understand this is an issue and they don't always support their government's action in various Muslim countries. But a bomb placed on the London Underground in retaliation kills indiscriminately - Muslim sympathisers or antagonists alike, and of course other Muslims. Naturally, people deduce from this that they are all targets, no matter what they think.

Originally Posted by Muhammad
Yet countless numbers are accused of it without evidence to prove it.
Am I misunderstanding or is this a 9/11 conspiracy reference? I'm not sure where you personally stand on the issue. Obviously, anyone who thinks the Zionists did it, also believes there is no case at all for Muslims to answer. In which case we might as well not bother with this debate.



Originally Posted by Muhammad
Often it is the media who bring religion into it.
Maybe so...but again the most famous events from a western viewpoint (and I'm talking specifically about the western perspective) do seem to have explicit Islamic claims and links. Apart from the generic Zionist conspiracy theories, I haven't seen much argument against this point of view - do you have any other rebuttals?

Originally Posted by Muhammad
The twin towers was a tragedy which Muslims across the world have condemned as being a heinous crime
Yes - but do they actually accept that it was committed by Muslims? The conspiracy theorists don't. How many Muslim leaders share this view?


Originally Posted by Muhammad
How many more Muslims, and in far more brutal methods, have been massacred since then, about whom the media have remained silent?
If you're talking about state-level actions (invasions etc) then of course this a legitimate matter for debate. But again, it's an issue in itself. It might explain Muslim terrorist motivations, but it doesn't help understand the reasons behind the negative image of Islam in the west. In this thread, I'm not trying to analyse why Muslims may or may not have committed acts of violence. I'm trying to explain why the west sees it that way.
Reply

Independent
11-08-2012, 04:09 PM
Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
CNN recently published an article entitled Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated; according to a study released by Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “the terrorist threat posed by radicalized Muslim-Americans has been exaggerated.”
Zaria, thank you for your post and I'm sorry i haven't replied earlier. I love studies like this that turn convention on its head by looking at evidence from another point of view.

For me the study would be more valuable if it took in two other aspects. Firstly, it only seems to cover mainland US, and leaves out attacks on US assets around the world. And for that matter, why limit things to the US only? Attacks on London etc also contribute to attitudes in the US.

Secondly, there is no attempt to understand the different scale or impact of individual attacks (unless it is in the study but I have missed it). As I say elsewhere, the media can only focus on a few things at once and certain attacks have far more reasonance than others (whether or not that's justified).

But nonetheless it's a valuable study.
Reply

جوري
11-08-2012, 04:48 PM
^^ given your own ill chosen 'study' on teenage pregnancies and the Wellfare system in England using a debunked piece from 1994 I doubt very much you know how to judge, sort or read a study or even understand the concept of relative risk/ confounders/ power of the study, confidence interval etc.
Reply

Eric H
11-08-2012, 06:25 PM
Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

it only seems to cover mainland US, and leaves out attacks on US assets around the world. And for that matter, why limit things to the US only? Attacks on London etc also contribute to attitudes in the US.
I am amazed that you can only see injustice that is done against the USA and possibly Britain. Unless you can see injustice that is done against all the innocent Iraqi and Afghanistan people, you will never understand the meaning of the word JUSTICE.

You are either a part of the solution to world justice, or you are a part of the problem, there is no middle road. World justice is not the same as justice only for Americans.

There is one God, the creator of all that is seen and unseen, we are all created by the ‘One God’ we sin against God when we cause harm to his creation.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth.

Eric
Reply

Eric H
11-08-2012, 06:43 PM
Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

This is an answer to a different question: 'Christians - why the violence?' Perfectly legitimate question, but not the one at the top of this thread.
Although many Muslims share your view that Islam is fundamentally peaceful

What is a Western viewer supposed to make of this?
You are asking meaningless questions, at some point we shall all have to stand before God, how are we going to justify our own stance on injustice? God is not an Iraqi or an American. How are George Bush and Tony Blair going to justify their stance on war against Iraq and Afghanistan before God?

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric
Reply

~Zaria~
11-08-2012, 06:57 PM
Greetings,

There are many acts of terrorism, but the most spectacular have mostly been Islamic.
There are many acts of deception, but the most spectacular have mostly been those by Zionists.

The sight of those planes hitting the Twin Towers in the brilliant morning sunshine is simply unforgettable.
The sight of brain-washed masses falling for all that the media feeds them, without making any effort towards independant research and verification is simply sad.


All is not what it seems....

While we should be wary of unfounded conspiracy theories, we should also be able to separate truth from falsehood.

And so, when the passport, letters and bandana of the 'muslim terrorist' is remarkably recovered:



flight93 crash items -







- from THIS blaze:


wtc 9 11 -








.....and we accept it, without any reservations.......then surely the problem lies with us.

And not, with the poor Afghans who subsequently found their country blown to bits.



Signs for those who can recognise the signs.


You may find the following link interesting:

http://www.911missinglinks.com/synopsis/
Reply

Aprender
11-08-2012, 07:09 PM
Originally Posted by Independent
For me the study would be more valuable if it took in two other aspects.
Problem #1. Research is costly. For what it's worth I think the study does a great job showing average Americans (North, Central, South) that terrorism isn't a new phenomenon invented by Muslims in this century. People have a way of not caring about things unless they're directly affected by them. I'm certain you can understand that. Most people in South & Central America are more concerned about being drawn out of their homes by the guerrilla warfare caused by the drug trade than they are worried about those non-pork eating Muslims. Proximity comes into play here.

Originally Posted by Independent
Firstly, it only seems to cover mainland US, and leaves out attacks on US assets around the world. And for that matter, why limit things to the US only?
MBdd3 1 -
And maybe soon Puerto Rico.

Originally Posted by Independent
I'm trying to explain why the west sees it that way.
I'm not sure you'll be able to because the way you're looking at this is already impaired. Cause and effect. These perceptions are all connected but I'm not so sure you understand that and if you do I can't tell if you're able to put all the pieces together in a way that's more panoramic. Not only is a basic understanding of Islamic history and governance required to grasp the situation but so is psychology, sociology (cultural), and economics. I think the problem you're having also rests in your lack of understanding of U.S. foreign policy. You'd have to go back at least to U.S. foreign policy in the 20th century and even then you need to understand the relationship between the media and the government during war time then and how that affects the masses as a whole, and then compare that relationship to what it has evolved to now. This isn't the first time this has happened. And Muslims aren't the first group that has had this type of negative stereotype in "The West"...

The sight of those planes hitting the Twin Towers in the brilliant morning sunshine is simply unforgettable.
Indeed you're right about this. I was a child when that happened and I remember being very afraid. The image is hard to get out. But let me ask you this. Do you think that people would have such a hateful image of Muslims as the awful, barbaric aggressor, if the media didn't have the cameras there, with pseudo intellects analyzing the issue, telling them what to think and believe about the situation on that day? Without modern technology, only people in New York would have really seen the full extent of what happened that day. And within a few generations, they would be gone with only stories to tell. And think back the Vietnam War. News organizations back then were able to go on the ground and literally show what's happening in the battles with all the bodies and bloodshed. And Americans got sick of it. Who is to say that seeing those images of other human beings, children, being blown to bits wouldn't change American perspectives of Muslims as the "terrorist aggressor"? I think it would if those image were shown, but they're not. Unless you think those of us living here in the West are desensitized to it?

I believe most Americans wouldn't approve of it at all and it would change their attitudes toward Muslims as this evil other. Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare. At the end of the day, people really want to just be left alone to pursue a peaceful life without U.S. foreign policy getting in the way dictating what type of governance they should live under and how. Every sovereign nation should be able to pursue that and live the way they want to and I don't think it's right to expect Muslims to somehow not be human and not have emotions and just sit back and allow women to be raped, families to be torn apart and generations to be lost just because they're afraid of being seen as a "terrorist" for fighting back (even though some methods of fighting back aren't always the right choice) during a time of war.
Reply

sister herb
11-08-2012, 07:19 PM
Media loves to tell about "islamic" terrorism but is quiet about terrorism about others or doesn´t call it as terrorism. Here are what kind of terrorism acts zionists have made today for example:

- Israeli forces wound 4, arrest 2 in Silwan (Occupied Jerusalem)
- Israeli troops attack Hares villagers, raze two of their homes (Salfit/the West Bank)
- IOF soldiers raid southern Gaza
- Doctor arrested from his clinic in Jerusalem
. Al-Khalil: Eight villages threatened with demolition (= Hebron)

I bet you never see these acts of terrorism against civilians from your media.

Why all this violence against unarmed civilians?
Reply

Muhammad
11-08-2012, 08:18 PM
Greetings Independent,

Originally Posted by Independent
However, for the reasons described above i think it's not at all surprising that many people have made that association. From the point of view of the information available to them, it's hard to think anything else. (Which also means that new information might lead people to a different viewpoint.)
Perhaps you are right, as propaganda and biased information plays a large role. On the other hand, we are living in an age where information has become much easier to access as a result of the internet, so independent inquiry is not as difficult.

Although many Muslims share your view that Islam is fundamentally peaceful (which is great) it's a big world and some do not. Some of them in fact pursue their objectives through violence and they seem to believe that it is endorsed/permitted by Islam.
But it still does not mean there is such a thing as 'Islamic terrorism', because that implies Islam teaches terrorism. It is individual Muslims who commit terrorism, not Islam. It is the driver who should be blamed and not the car.

You might say they're not really Muslims,
I did not.

I think many westerners understand this is an issue and they don't always support their government's action in various Muslim countries. But a bomb placed on the London Underground in retaliation kills indiscriminately - Muslim sympathisers or antagonists alike, and of course other Muslims. Naturally, people deduce from this that they are all targets, no matter what they think.
My responses to your statements were not intended to justify terrorist acts. A bomb that kills innocent civilians is wrong, regardless of what their views were. But I am not sure why you mentioned indiscriminate killing, because it is not a crime unique to Muslims.

Am I misunderstanding or is this a 9/11 conspiracy reference? I'm not sure where you personally stand on the issue. Obviously, anyone who thinks the Zionists did it, also believes there is no case at all for Muslims to answer. In which case we might as well not bother with this debate.
You are misunderstanding. Many Muslims are arrested with neither evidence nor claim suggesting they are involved in terrorist activities. Mere actions like shopping for camping items are causes for arrests.

Maybe so...but again the most famous events from a western viewpoint (and I'm talking specifically about the western perspective) do seem to have explicit Islamic claims and links. Apart from the generic Zionist conspiracy theories, I haven't seen much argument against this point of view - do you have any other rebuttals?
Even if we say that the 'most famous events' had Islamic claims, does it justify branding all crimes by Muslims as religiously motivated?

Yes - but do they actually accept that it was committed by Muslims?
They condemn the action regardless of whether those responsible for it were Muslims or non-Muslims.

If you're talking about state-level actions (invasions etc) then of course this a legitimate matter for debate. But again, it's an issue in itself. It might explain Muslim terrorist motivations, but it doesn't help understand the reasons behind the negative image of Islam in the west. In this thread, I'm not trying to analyse why Muslims may or may not have committed acts of violence. I'm trying to explain why the west sees it that way.
I'm not presenting anything as a motivation for terrorism. I'm simply saying that it's incredibly one-sided to think all Muslims are terrorists because of the image of the falling towers, while even worse acts of terrorism towards Muslims seem to go unnoticed. I know you are trying to provide the western perspective, but I am trying to show that such a view is not as easy to accept and that the proposed reasons behind it are not sound.
Reply

Independent
11-08-2012, 08:47 PM
Greetings Eric, we've never directly talked before. There are so many responses here I won't say much now.

Originally Posted by Eric H
World justice is not the same as justice only for Americans.
If you re-read my posts, I hope you will see where I've tried to make it clear that all my comments are about a specific subject only ie the reasons for the negative image of Islam in the west. Not whether it is 'fair', but why it exists. The failings of US foreign policy are many, but this doesn't answer the question.

For the record, I strongly disagree with and condemn a wide range of US foreign policy actions. It is extremely disappointing to me that a country which sees itself as acting in the name of world freedom should get it so wrong, so often. They are not the worst, they are not a great Satan, but because the US is powerful, its failings have far more impact on the world than anyone else's.

However, in my view, there really is little value in me adding to the overwhelming chorus of disapproval which the US already receives in this forum. What can I say that hasn't been said already? If I were writing in a US-friendly forum, it would be different.
Reply

Independent
11-08-2012, 09:10 PM
Originally Posted by sister harb
Media loves to tell about "islamic" terrorism but is quiet about terrorism about others or doesn´t call it as terrorism. Here are what kind of terrorism acts zionists have made today for example:

- Israeli forces wound 4, arrest 2 in Silwan (Occupied Jerusalem)
- Israeli troops attack Hares villagers, raze two of their homes (Salfit/the West Bank)
- IOF soldiers raid southern Gaza
- Doctor arrested from his clinic in Jerusalem
. Al-Khalil: Eight villages threatened with demolition (= Hebron)

I bet you never see these acts of terrorism against civilians from your media.

Why all this violence against unarmed civilians?
I don't think the media is all one-sided here in Ireland. Negative stories about Israel do get aired. There is an instinctive tendency here to identify with underdogs. (Actually, you can see this in the UK too.)

In fact, there is overall a fairly ambiguous attitude to Israel going back decades. In the north some Irish nationalists have specifically identified with the plight of the Palestinians.

I don't think any European country has anything like the same bias towards Israel that would be common in the US.
Reply

Aprender
11-08-2012, 09:14 PM
Originally Posted by Independent
If I were writing in a US-friendly forum, it would be different.
I don't think this forum is not US-friendly. A lot of us here are Americans. Including myself. There's a difference between disagreeing with U.S. foreign policy and not liking the U.S. as a whole. There are plenty of non-Muslims who disagree with U.S. foreign policy but that doesn't mean they're anti- U.S. and I don't believe it applies to this forum either. It's a place to discuss Islam after all and if the U.S. does something wrong, why does it automatically mean we're not "US-friendly" for voicing disapproval with that? That makes no sense.

"The Great Satan" is political rhetoric that people love to write in foreign policy textbooks to create a boogeyman and it seems to me you fell for it. Yes, it was said, and some leaders in Muslim nations have charaterized it as such but you're mistaken if you think all Muslims think of every American that way. There are Muslims living in America too.
Reply

Independent
11-08-2012, 10:05 PM
Originally Posted by Aprender
I don't think this forum is not US-friendly
Gosh, do you really think so? I have read many posts that condemn the US in every possible detail - foreign policy, society, you name it. I know that there are many US citizens here, but that doesn't seem to make any difference. I'm struggling to think of anything I've read that's positive...have I missed all the positive stuff?
Reply

Independent
11-08-2012, 10:16 PM
Originally Posted by Muhammad
But it still does not mean there is such a thing as 'Islamic terrorism', because that implies Islam teaches terrorism. It is individual Muslims who commit terrorism, not Islam. It is the driver who should be blamed and not the car.
I totally agree with the second half of this.

However, I don't see why the phrase 'Islamic terrorism' necessarily implies that Islam teaches terrorism - partly because I can't think of what other phrase the media could reasonably use to describe a terrorist group that says its acting in the name of Islam? Is there another term?
Reply

Junon
11-08-2012, 10:30 PM
Salaam

Originally Posted by Independent
Gosh, do you really think so? I have read many posts that condemn the US in every possible detail - foreign policy, society, you name it. I know that there are many US citizens here, but that doesn't seem to make any difference. I'm struggling to think of anything I've read that's positive...have I missed all the positive stuff?
And whats this got to do with anything? Whatever Americans do in their own country is their own business.

Lets take Japan, how come nobody talks about Japan? Maybe its because they don't have the burning urge to bring 'freedom', 'democracy' 'human rights' 'etc etc etc ad infinitum' to the benighted 3rd world through the barrel of a gun. They got out of this mentality after their defeat in World War 2.

The point is American foreign policy has having a horrendous impact on the Muslim world, naturally were going to focus on it.
Reply

sister herb
11-08-2012, 10:45 PM
The foreign policy of the USA needs enemy. When USSR collapsed they lost old one and took muslims as new enemy. Before communists were bad guys, now muslims replace this place.

After muslims some others will become enemy number one.

^o)

What in some islamic countries have? Oil? Natural gas? Uranium? Some natural resources the USA needs so badly. And takes it by force if needed. Officially the USA of course tells it brings democracy to those countries...
Reply

Muhammad
11-08-2012, 10:58 PM
However, I don't see why the phrase 'Islamic terrorism' necessarily implies that Islam teaches terrorism - partly because I can't think of what other phrase the media could reasonably use to describe a terrorist group that says its acting in the name of Islam? Is there another term?
If a terrorist group claimed they were acting in the name of America, would we have to call it American terrorism?
Reply

Independent
11-08-2012, 11:02 PM
Originally Posted by Muhammad
If a terrorist group claimed they were acting in the name of America, would we have to call it American terrorism?
Yes - why not?
Reply

sister herb
11-08-2012, 11:22 PM
Anders Breivik represents Norweign terrorism. In some of his statement he told he doesn´t support Christianity so he is atheist terrorist.
Reply

جوري
11-08-2012, 11:28 PM
Originally Posted by Independent
Gosh, do you really think so? I have read many posts that condemn the US in every possible detail - foreign policy, society, you name it. I know that there are many US citizens here, but that doesn't seem to make any difference. I'm struggling to think of anything I've read that's positive...have I missed all the positive stuff?
If it's not everybody else then it's you as it goes- I would consider what part I played bringing out the worst in everyone!


Best,
Reply

Muhammad
11-08-2012, 11:45 PM
Originally Posted by Independent
Yes - why not?
Well, if the group does not represent America, why should America be tarnished with their crime, as if all Americans approve?
Reply

Independent
11-08-2012, 11:50 PM
Originally Posted by Muhammad
Well, if the group does not represent America, why should America be tarnished with their crime, as if all Americans approve?
But I don't think it does - unless they all explicitly endorsed it, of course. Are we just disagreeing about terminology?
Reply

Muhammad
11-08-2012, 11:59 PM
Originally Posted by Independent
But I don't think it does - unless they all explicitly endorsed it, of course. Are we just disagreeing about terminology?
Yes, I think so. Going back to the above, I think it's more accurate to say Muslim terrorist than Islamic terrorism. Islam, as a religion, is perfect and just like the good car, should not be blamed. A Muslim, however, can act rightly or wrongly and, like the bad driver, is capable of committing actions that are not endorsed by Islam. This is where my disagreement is stemming from.
Reply

Independent
11-09-2012, 12:02 AM
Originally Posted by Muhammad
Yes, I think so. Going back to the above, I think it's more accurate to say Muslim terrorist than Islamic terrorism. Islam, as a religion, is perfect and just like the good car, should not be blamed. A Muslim, however, can act rightly or wrongly and, like the bad driver, is capable of committing actions that are not endorsed by Islam. This is where my disagreement is stemming from.
I see where you're coming from and I agree with it.
Reply

Eric H
11-09-2012, 01:46 AM
Greetings Eric, we've never directly talked before. There are so many responses here I won't say much now.
Greetings and peace be with you also Independent;

I hope you will see where I've tried to make it clear that all my comments are about a specific subject only ie the reasons for the negative image of Islam in the west.
As an individual we are either a part of that negative image, or we are against it, I don’t think there can be any neutral ground.

However, in my view, there really is little value in me adding to the overwhelming chorus of disapproval which the US already receives in this forum. What can I say that hasn't been said already? If I were writing in a US-friendly forum, it would be different.
Justice is justice, it should not matter what forum we are on.

In the spirit of praying for peace on God's Earth.

Eric
Reply

Logikon
11-12-2012, 02:21 AM
Originally Posted by Muhammad
A Muslim, however, can act rightly or wrongly and........is capable of committing actions that are not endorsed by Islam.
"Not endorsed by Islam". Yet Muslims claim that it is. Who should I believe?

After that movie was released, Australian Muslims rioted and destroyed property. They are 10,000 miles from California! The Australian govt condemned the movie! They were wearing muslim clothes, muslim beards and carried flags with quotes from the Koran.

They carried signs "Behead those who insult Islam".

They forgot the sign "Not endorsed by Islam".
Reply

جوري
11-12-2012, 02:30 AM
Originally Posted by Logikon
They carried signs "Behead those who insult Islam".
Ain't amazing all their signs looked identical? I love nothing more than radicals that get their banners printed at the home depot..Must have been a discount going..
Reply

paulpablo
11-23-2012, 02:47 PM
violence is associated with most religions, christianity and islam are probably the two most well known for violence, the jewish faith aswell mainly within the confines of israel and id say the majority of christian violence at the moment is unreported and remains within africa, for example joseph kony who believes he is doing gods will.
This is why you would mainly hear about muslim terrorism because it effects the west more, for example 911, and the london and bali bombings. maybe christians and muslims will say these arent real muslims or christians but im pretty sure the people doing the violence would disagree, and be able to quote which verse of the bible or quran they are following.
Reply

Bornagain
11-23-2012, 04:44 PM
Originally Posted by paulpablo
violence is associated with most religions, christianity and islam are probably the two most well known for violence, the jewish faith aswell mainly within the confines of israel and id say the majority of christian violence at the moment is unreported and remains within africa, for example joseph kony who believes he is doing gods will.
This is why you would mainly hear about muslim terrorism because it effects the west more, for example 911, and the london and bali bombings. maybe christians and muslims will say these arent real muslims or christians but im pretty sure the people doing the violence would disagree, and be able to quote which verse of the bible or quran they are following.
Originally Posted by paulpablo
violence is associated with most religions, christianity and islam are probably the two most well known for violence, the jewish faith aswell mainly within the confines of israel and id say the majority of christian violence at the moment is unreported and remains within africa, for example joseph kony who believes he is doing gods will.
This is why you would mainly hear about muslim terrorism because it effects the west more, for example 911, and the london and bali bombings. maybe christians and muslims will say these arent real muslims or christians but im pretty sure the people doing the violence would disagree, and be able to quote which verse of the bible or quran they are following.
Please tell me, without resorting to the ancient history of the Crusades, where, when and what kind of violence Christians commit? The Christian faith is based on Jesus and He is the one who spoke these words in Matt 5:44: ""But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you," I don't know who joseph kony is but I will certainly look into his story since you referred to him in such a way as to imply he is both Christian and involved in violence. As far as "Jewish violence", I suppose it would depend which side of the border between Gaza and Israel you are on because certainly there is violence there on both sides. As far as Islamic violence, we need look no futher for examples than today's news.

BTW, speaking of the Crusades, though the media and American movies would lead one to believe all Christians are Catholic that is most definitely NOT the case. Many Catholics are not even Christian since they pray for their needs to be met by Mary and other "saints" when God has spoken that there is but one Mediator between God and man and that is Jesus the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. The Christian bible, which Catholicism also embraces, quotes Jesus very clearly in Matt 23:9 saying "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.", yet Catholicism calls their priests "father" and the Pope the descendent of Peter (thereby making Peter the "father" of all Catholics). That is just two examples of the differences between Christianity and Catholicism.
Reply

Hulk
11-23-2012, 04:53 PM
Reply

Muhammad
11-23-2012, 06:56 PM
Originally Posted by Logikon
"Not endorsed by Islam". Yet Muslims claim that it is. Who should I believe?

After that movie was released, Australian Muslims rioted and destroyed property. They are 10,000 miles from California! The Australian govt condemned the movie! They were wearing muslim clothes, muslim beards and carried flags with quotes from the Koran.

They carried signs "Behead those who insult Islam".

They forgot the sign "Not endorsed by Islam".
If you study Islam yourself rather than rely on what is written on placards, you will know who to believe.


The Prophet Muhammad: a mercy for all creation

Allaah's Messenger icon1 1 - was the kindest of men in the same way as he excelled all others in courage and valour. Being extremely kind-hearted, his eyes brimmed with tears at the slightest sign of inhumanity. A Companion, Shaddaad bin 'Aws icon3 1 - reported the Apostle as saying: "Allaah has commanded you to show kindness to everyone, so if you have to kill, kill in a good manner, and if you slaughter an animal, slaughter it gently. If anyone of you has to slay an animal, he should sharpen the blade first and treat the animal well." Ibn 'Abbaas icon3 1 - relates that a man threw a goat on its side and then started sharpening his knife. When the Prophet icon1 1 - saw him he said: "Do you want to kill it twice? Why did you not sharpen the knife before throwing it on the ground?"


A Mercy for the Believers


The Messenger’s compassion towards the believers was of the utmost degree. The Quran describes his compassion in the following verse, which means: “There has certainly come to you a Messenger from among yourselves. Grievous to him is what you suffer; [he is] concerned over you [i.e., your guidance] and to the believers is kind and merciful.” [Quran: 9:128]

Sa‘d bin ‘Ubaadah icon3 1 - once became ill, so Allaah’s Messenger icon1 1 - visited him in his house. On seeing his faithful Companion in a pitiful state, he was moved to tears. Then, he said: “Allaah does not punish because of tears, nor because of grief, but he punishes because of this."- and he pointed to his tongue. [Al-Bukhaari]


A Mercy Towards his Enemies


The prisoners of war taken captive at the battle of Badr were amongst his bitterest enemies. Nevertheless, he icon1 1 - made sure that they were given the best of treatment. Among them was Suhayl bin 'Amr who was a fiery speaker and was denouncing the Prophet icon1 1 - . 'Umar icon3 1 - one the Prophet’s closest companions, suggested that two of his lower teeth be pulled out so that he might not be so vile in his speeches. The Prophet icon1 1 - replied: “Were I to do this, Allaah would disfigure me on the Day of Judgement, despite the fact that I am His messenger.”

In Makkah, his people inflicted him with every kind of suffering, eventually forcing him to emigrate to Madeenah, and then waged war on him for five years. However, when he conquered Makkah without bloodshed in the twenty-first year of his Prophethood, he asked the Makkan unbelievers who were awaiting his decision about them: “How do you expect me to treat you?” They responded unanimously: "You are a noble one, the son of a noble one." He announced to them his decision:

“You may go free! No reproach this day shall be on you; may God forgive you.”


A Mercy for Women

Prophet Muhammad icon1 1 - was also very kind and affectionate towards women. Women were very badly treated in those times. The Noble Prophet icon1 1 - gave them honour and dignity at par with men in the community. 'Umar icon3 1 - reported: "We did not have much regard for women while we were at Makkah, but they were better treated in Madeenah. Allaah's Messenger established women's rights through his sayings and commandments, which improved their position and status."


A Mercy for Children

Allaah’s Messenger icon1 1 - was particularly compassionate towards children. When he saw a child crying, he sat beside him or her and shared his or her feelings. He felt the pain of a mother for her child more than the mother herself. Once he said: “I stand in prayer and wish to prolong it. However, I hear the cry of a child and cut the prayer short for the anxiety which the mother is feeling.” [Al-Bukhaari]

He would take children in his arms and embrace them. He was once hugging his beloved grandsons, Hasan and Husayn, when Aqrah bin Haabis told him, ‘I have got ten children. So far, I have not kissed any of them.’ Allaah’s Messenger icon1 1 - responded: “The one with no pity for others is not pitied.” [Al-Bukhaari and Muslim]

According to another version, he said: “ What can I do for you if Allaah has removed from you the feeling of compassion?” [At-Tirmithi]


A Mercy for Slaves


The Prophet icon1 1 - strongly enjoined the duty of kind and generous treatment upon slaves, servants and labourers engaged in manual work. Jaabir icon3 1 - related the Apostle of Allaah icon1 1 - as saying: "Feed them with the food which you eat, clothe them with such clothing as you wear, and do not cause trouble to Allaah's creatures." The Apostle icon1 1 - is further stated to have said: "Those whom Allaah has made your dependents are your brothers, servants and helpmates. Anybody whose brother has been made subservient to him ought to feed him with the food he eats and clothe him with the clothes he wears; command him not to do that which he is unable to do and if it becomes necessary to do so then he should help him in doing the job."


A Mercy for Animals

His compassion encompassed not only human beings, but also animals.

The Prophet icon1 1 - forbade his companions to keep the unintelligent creatures hungry or thirsty, to disturb or to overburden them. He commended that kindness and putting them at ease were meritorious acts tending to bring man nearer to Allaah. Abu Hurayrah icon3 1 - reports the Prophet icon1 1 - as saying: "A traveller who was thirsty saw a well in the way. He got inside the well and when he came out he saw a dog licking mud due to thirst. The man realised that the dog was as thirsty as him, so he got into the well again, filled his leather sock with water and carried it out holding it with his teeth. Thus, he quenched the thirst of the dog. Allaah was pleased with this act of kindness and pardoned his sins." The Companions asked: "O Messenger of Allaah, is there recompense in the matter of beasts and wild animals also?" The Prophet icon1 1 - replied: "There is recompense in regard to every creature that has a living heart."

'Abdullaah bin 'Umar icon3 1 - related that the Prophet icon1 1 - said: "A woman was cast away to hell only because she had withheld food and water from her cat and refused to set it free so that the cat might satisfy its hunger by eating worms and insects.”

Once on return from a military campaign, a few Companions took away the chicks of a bird from their nest to stroke them. The mother bird came back and when it could not find its chicks in the nest, it began to fly around screeching. When informed of the matter, Allaah’s Messenger icon1 1 - became angry and ordered the chicks to be put back in the nest. [Abu Daawood]


Conclusion

The love and compassion of Allaah’s Messenger icon1 1 - for all kinds of creatures was not of the kind claimed by today’s ‘humanists’. He was sincere and balanced in his love and compassion. He was more compassionate than any other person. He was a Prophet raised by Allaah, the Creator and Sustainer of all beings, for the guidance and happiness of conscious beings - mankind and jinn - and the harmony of existence. Therefore, he lived not for himself but for others; he is a mercy for all the worlds.

“Indeed, in this [Quran] is notification for a worshipping people. And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds.” [Quran: 21:106-107]
http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/in...cles&id=134199



Originally Posted by Hamza Asadullah
The True Love & Mercy of the Prophet (Pbuh) for Mankind


In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

The love and mercy of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) to the believers is great as the Qur'an testifies when it says:

"(The Prophet) is greatly grieved at your loss and extremely anxious for your good. For the believers he is full of kindness and rahmah (mercy, love)." (9:128)

The Prophet's (Peace be upon him) love was not limited just to the believers for he loved all of Allah’s creations. Allah says in the Qur'an:

"We have not sent you (O Prophet) but as rahmah (Mercy) to all the worlds." (21:107)

Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "The Prophet (Peace be upon him) was asked to curse the disbelievers. He said, "I have not been sent to curse people but as a mercy to all mankind." (Muslim)

The Noble Qur’an speaks of Muhammad (Peace be upon him) as a great favour to the believers:

"Indeed, Allah conferred a great favour on the believers when He sent among them a Messenger (Muhammad (saws)) from among themselves, reciting unto them His Verses (the Qur'an), and purifying them (from sins by their following him), and instructing them (in) the Book (the Qur'an) and Al-Hikmah (the wisdom and the Sunnah of the Prophet (saws) - i.e. his legal ways, statements, actions, etc.), while before that they had been in manifest error."
(Qur'an Al-'Imran: 164)

These verses show that his distinctive quality was that he was a blessing incarnate in word and deed and that he truly was a mercy for mankind and a great favour upon the believers.

How the Prophet (Peace be upon him) Suffered for Mankind

The blessed Prophet's (Peace be upon him) love for mankind is clear from the untold sufferings he endured at the hands of his opponents whom he forgave with such ease after his victory.

When the blessed Prophet (Peace be upon him) started inviting people towards Islam almost all the people of Makkah opposed him even though they had known him for all of his life as a man of exceptional integrity and intelligence and a man who is the most trustworthy and reliable as he was known as “Muhammad the reliable”.

They used to verbally attack him, jeer at him and insult him. Then they started to physically hurt him. They would lay thorns in his way and throw garbage and dust on him. On one occasion he returned with dust still on his head. One of his daughters rose, with tears in her eyes, to wipe it off. The Prophet (Peace be upon him) was more hurt to see tears in his daughter's eyes than the terrible treatment he himself received from his fellow citizens. He comforted her, saying: "My daughter, weep not, for verily the Lord will be your father's helper."

The blessed Prophet (Peace be upon him) was persecuted on many occasions at the hands of his opponents and his companions constantly asked him to curse these people who tried to do the Prophet (Peace be upon him) harm but the blessed Prophet (Peace be upon him) had so much mercy and did not want revenge but just wanted the whole of mankind to accept the truth and come away from the darkness and into the light of Islam! He replied to pressure on him to curse them by saying, “I have not been sent to lay a curse upon men but to be a blessing to them.” Even though our blessed Prophet (Peace be upon him) and his companions continued to get persecuted and treated cruelly and unjustly the Prophet (Peace be upon him) continued to ask Allah to forgive them and he cried so much for them because he wanted the whole of mankind to be on the straight path. (Confirmed in Hadith of Sahih Muslim)

The blessed Prophet (Peace be upon him) out of his love and concern for mankind went to Ta’if which was situated about sixty miles east of Makkah, it was the nearest city of importance. Accompanied only by Zayd (May Allah have mercy on him), the Prophet (Peace be upon him) made a tiring journey through barren rocky defiles. He spent ten days in Ta’if preaching to the tribal chiefs as well as common people. It was a city full of disbelievers and idol worshippers who were very much set in their ways and our beloved Prophet (Peace be upon him) out of concern for them saw this as a great opportunity to try and call as many of them as possible to Islam so that they could be saved from the fire of Hell.

Our beloved Prophet (Peace be upon him) called on the people to forsake their idols and false Gods and called them to the oneness of Allah, but the people were very set in their ways and ignored the Prophet’s (Peace be upon him) calls and did not want to listen to him. The Prophet (Peace be upon him) tried his best but the people just were not listening and were very ignorant indeed.

When the Prophet (Peace be upon him) made his way back a group of youngsters in the area started pelting stones and rocks at our beloved Prophet (Peace be upon him), They continued until nightfall and our beloved Prophet (Peace be upon him) bled profusely until the blood made his feet stick to his shoes. Even though our beloved Prophet bled he and was in pain he continued to say, “O my Lord, guide my people along the true path, as they are ignorant of the truth.” He had so much love for the disbelievers imagine how much love he had for the believers. Zaid(May Allah have mercy on him),tried to shelter and protect the Prophet (Peace be upon him) from the rocks that were thrown and consequantly received wounds to his head which bled profusely.

The whole Arsh of Allah (Throne of Allah) shook because the most beloved to Allah was in pain and constantly crying. Our beloved Prophet (Peace be upon him) wasn’t crying because of the physical pain of the attack but because of the concern he had for the disbelievers.

Allah ordered the angel Jibra’il to go and ask the Prophet (Peace be upon him) what he needed and whatever his beloved asked for do it straight away without hesitation. So the Angel Jibra’il along with the angel of the mountains that surrounded the city came swiftly to the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and asked him what they can do for him.

The angel of the Mountains said to the Prophet (Peace be upon him): "Give me the command and I shall crush the city between the mountains and the people will perish along with the city”. The blessed Prophet said (Peace be upon him) “It is not my duty to take revenge or to destroy the disbelievers but to call them to the right path, maybe their children will accept Islam one day" and he prayed that they did.

The city of Ta’if today has not got a single disbeliever. This is due to the mercy and the love the Prophet (Peace be upon him) had for the disbelievers. He prayed that if the disbelievers would not accept Islam then at least their children would accept Islam and the Prophets (Peace be upon him) prayers were answered. The Prophet (Peace be upon him) could of taken revenge but he was merciful to them and showed concern and love for them even though they showed hatred and enmity towards him.

These and many other things did the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) suffer over a period of many years. He did not have to. Just before he started his mission to invite the disbelievers to Islam he had everything that a man would want: health, a prosperous business, a loving wife, fine children, faithful relatives and friends as well as the trust and respect of his fellow citizens. If he wanted he could have led as comfortable a life as any in Makkah. But he chose the road of suffering and hardship. He did so for the love of the very people who ignorantly persecuted him and for the welfare of the whole of mankind.

The Mercy and Love the Prophet (Pbuh) had for Mankind

Another example of the mercy of our beloved Prophet (Peace be upon him) is in this hadith:

Anas ibn Malik reports: “Allah’s messenger (Peace be upon him) was sitting in the Masjid with some of his companions when a Bedouin urinated inside the mosque. The Prophet’s (Peace be upon him) companions said: ‘What is going on?’ ‘What are you doing?’ The Prophet (Peace be upon him) said to them: ‘Do not interrupt him.’ He called the man and said to him: ‘These masjids are not the place where one can throw any dirt, urine or stools. They are meant for reciting the Qur’an, glorifying Allah and prayer.’ He then called for a bucket of water and he poured it over the urine.” (Bukhari, Muslim).

Our Prophet (Peace be upon him) was the best of character. In this example we had a complete stranger, doing the worst of actions in the best of places which is the house of Allah. Yet, the Prophet (Peace be upon him) due to his mercy, kindness and wisdom was patient, and treated him in the best of ways.

Our beloved Prophets (Peace be upon him) heart was filled with intense love for all of mankind irrespective of caste, creed, or colour. Once he advised his Companions to regard all people as their brothers and sisters. He added, “You are all Adam’s offspring and Adam was born of clay.” He wanted all of his Ummah to regard themselves as “One” body and if one part of the body was in pain then he wanted all of us to feel the pain and to help out our brothers and sisters where ever they maybe.

The blessed Prophet (Peace be upon him) taught us that, “A true believer is the one with whom others feel secure. One who returns love for hatred.” The blessed Prophet (Peace be upon him) wanted us not only to treat people well only if they treat us well but that we be good to those who are not good to us and to not to ever do wrong to those who harm us. He wanted us to show mercy and forgiveness and not to be of those who take revenge.

According to another hadith, the Prophet (Peace be upon him) once said, “By Allah, he is not a believer, by Allah, he is not a believer, by Allah, he is not a believer, with whom his neighbours are not secure.” This Hadith clearly shows how much he loved and cared for all human beings. One of the lessons he taught was that we should live among others like flowers, and not like thorns, without giving trouble to anybody.

The blessed Prophet (Peace be upon him) never beat a servant, or a woman, or anyone else. He did, of course, fight for what was right. Yet, when he had to choose between two alternatives, he would take the easier course, provided it involved no sin. No one was more careful to avoid sin than he was. He never sought revenge on his own behalf for any wrong done to him personally. Only if Allah’s commandments had been broken would he mete out retribution for the sake of Allah. It was such conduct which gained the Prophet (Peace be upon him) universal respect even till this day.

Once the Prophet (Peace be upon him) was seated at some place in Madinah, along with his Companions. During this time a funeral procession passed by. On seeing this, the Prophet (Peace be upon him) stood up. One of his Companions said “this funeral is that of a Jew”. The Prophet replied, “Was he not a human being?”

All these examples show the great love and mercy the blessed Prophet (Peace be upon him) had for mankind...
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
The Prophet pbuh NEVER said that people should be killed for insulting him. On the contrary, he taught his followers forgiveness.

The Prophet said: 'Whoever suffers an injury done to him and forgives (the person responsible), Allah will raise his status to a higher degree and remove one of his sins.' (Sunan At-Tirmidhî)

The Prophet said: 'Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong if they do evil.' (Sunan At-Tirmidhî)

You will not find a single saying of the Prophet pbuh where he says, 'Kill the person who insults me'.

Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
If we actually examine the textual evidence, we find that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh was the most forgiving to those who insulted and abused him and the most gentle of all people.

First, let us note what the Qur'an teaches:

25:63. And the true servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk the earth with humility and when the ignorant address them, they respond with words of peace.

41:34 The good deed and the evil deed cannot be not equal. Return an evil deed with one that is good. Then he between whom and thyself was mutual enmity shall become as though he were an intimate friend.



Next, Shaykh Muhammad Al-Khudayri cites some important ahadith on the attitude of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh:

A Jewish man once greeted the Prophet (peace be upon him) by saying: “Death be upon you.” He used the Arabic word ‘sâm’, meaning ‘death’, in a parody of the Islamic greeting for peace which is the word ‘salâm’.

Though the Prophet (peace be upon him) knew exactly what the man had said, he paid it no heed and gently replied: “And upon you.” He did so without repeating the misused word “sâm” and behaved as if he had not noticed it.

However, A?ishah, who had also heard what the man really said, immediately retorted: “And death be upon you and a curse as well!”

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Take it easy, A?’ishah. Allah loves kindness in everything.” In another narration of the story, it is related that he also said: “Beware of coarseness and indecency.”

A?ishah complained to the Prophet (peace be upon him) saying: “Didn’t you hear what they said?”

The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: “Did you not hear my reply? I responded to their offensive supplication. My supplication will be answered by Allah while their supplication against me will not be answered.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]

Some of the Companions once asked the Prophet (peace be upon him) to pray to Allah to invoke His curse upon the pagans. He replied: “I was not sent to curse people but as a blessing. [Sahîh Muslim]

Also, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “It is not fitting for a sincere lover of truth to invoke curses.” [Sahîh Muslim]

And he said: “A believer should not invoke curses.” [Sunan al-Tirmidhî with authentic line of transmission]
I think I answered this previously as well when I said, The conclusion was that Prophet Muhammad pbuh never allowed anyone to be killed for personal insults - he was the most forgiving to the extent that he forgave one who tried to poison him, and he forgave those who persecuted his followers and drove him out of his home..

Those whom he fought were the ones who strove to harm and destroy the Muslim community:
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...sinations.html
So this notion of a violent man who called for others to be killed simply because they insulted him is in complete conflict with the character of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh.

Having said that, those who agree to live as citizens of an Islamic state have agreed to live in peace with their Muslim neighbors and not to insult or attack the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, for example. There is no doubt that Islam prohibits this and someone who opposes the law in this regard is to be punished.

So there is an important distinction here. On one hand there is the Prophet's personal moral attitude in dealing with those who attacked him, and on the other hand there is the issue of citizens of a state following the laws of the state and agreeing to such prohibitions. The former is an issue of moral character while the latter is an issue of state governance.

Peace.
Reply

جوري
11-23-2012, 07:23 PM
Originally Posted by Bornagain
where, when and what kind of violence Christians commit?
pls. allow me in case you missed it the first time I posted it:

Listed are only events that solely occurred on command of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity. (List incomplete)
Ancient Pagans


  • As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
  • Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
  • Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.
  • Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]
  • Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]
  • Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
    According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..."
  • In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
  • In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]
  • The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
    [DO19-25]

Mission


  • Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]
  • Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]
  • Battle of Belgrad 1456: 80,000 Turks slaughtered. [DO235]
  • 15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Victims unknown. [DO30]
  • 16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused "greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".
    Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [SH99, 225]

Crusades (1095-1291)


  • First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]
  • Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands. [WW23]
  • 9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then turkish), thousands respectively. [WW25-27]
  • Until Jan 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown) [WW30]
  • after 6/3/98 Antiochia (then turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women & children) killed. [WW32-35]
    Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60]
  • Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]
  • Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (jewish, muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]
    (In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude")
  • The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished." [TG79]
  • Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]
  • Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ". [WW45]
  • Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]
  • Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akkon 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone). [WW224] Note: All figures according to contemporary (Christian) chroniclers.

Heretics


  • Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]
  • Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]
  • Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians. [DO29]
    The Albigensians (cathars = Christians allegedly that have all rarely sucked) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
    Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (greatest single pre-nazi mass murderer) in 1209. Bezirs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbours and friends) 20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
  • Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. [WW181]
  • subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were exterminated. [WW183]
  • After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake 1324. [WW183]
  • Estimated one million victims (cathar heresy alone), [WW183]
  • Other heresies: Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).
  • Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada alone allegedly responsible for 10,220 burnings. [DO28]
  • John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]
  • University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna. [DO59]
  • Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori (Rome) on 2/17/1600.

Witches


  • from the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several thousand.
  • in the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or hanged. [WV]
  • incomplete list of documented cases:
    The Burning of Witches - A Chronicle of the Burning Times

Religious Wars


  • 15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]
  • 1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action). [DO31]
  • 1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. Thousands were actually slain. [DO31]
  • 1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]
  • 17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ... to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and crows'." [SH191]
  • 17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers." [SH191]
  • 17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]

Jews


  • Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown.
  • In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. [DA450]
  • 17. Council of Toledo 694: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]
  • The Bishop of Limoges (France) in 1010 had the cities' Jews, who would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]
  • First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered 1096, maybe 12.000 total. Places: Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons), Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]
  • Second Crusade: 1147. Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully, Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]
  • Third Crusade: English Jewish communities sacked 1189/90. [DO40]
  • Fulda/Germany 1235: 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]
  • 1257, 1267: Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]
  • 1290 in Bohemian (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]
  • 1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. [DO41]
  • 1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two thousand) burned. [DO41]
  • 1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]
  • 1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]
  • 1391 Seville's Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made easy by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all jews above the age of ten had been forced to wear.
  • 1492: In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than 150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way: 6/30/1492. [MM470-476]
  • 1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain. [DO43]

(I feel sick ...) this goes on and on, century after century, right into the kilns of Auschwitz.
Native Peoples


  • Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means to propagate Christianity.
  • Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who, he said, "ought to be good servants ... [and] would easily be made Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no religion." [SH200]
    While Columbus described the Indians as "idolators" and "slaves, as many as [the Crown] shall order," his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian nobleman, referred to the natives as "beasts" because "they eat when they are hungry," and made love "openly whenever they feel like it." [SH204-205]
  • On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the declarations that are required" - the requerimiento - to claim the ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding), the requerimiento continued:

I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him." [SH66]
  • Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England ... to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome of the Ante-Christ." [SH235]
  • In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of "the marvelous goodness and providence of God" to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as "for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess." [SH109,238]
  • On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [SH204]
  • The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and spanish raids.
  • As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous." [SH69]
  • The indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell." [SH70]
  • What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
    "The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive." [SH72]
    Or, on another occasion:
    "The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts...Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs." [SH83]
  • The "island's population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out." Eventually all the island's natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus "the Caribbean's millions of native people [were] thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century". [SH72-73] "In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated." [SH75]
  • "And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitln [Mexico city] was next." [SH75]
  • Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).
  • "When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead." [SH95]

Of course no different were the founders of what today is the US of Amerikkka.

  • Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in comparison to European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than conquer land. In the words of some of the pilgrim fathers: "Their Warres are farre less bloudy...", so that there usually was "no great slawter of nether side". Indeed, "they might fight seven yeares and not kill seven men." What is more, the Indians usually spared women and children. [SH111]
  • In the spring of 1612 some English colonists found life among the (generally friendly and generous) natives attractive enough to leave Jamestown - "being idell ... did runne away unto the Indyans," - to live among them (that probably solved a sex problem).
    "Governor Thomas Dale had them hunted down and executed: 'Some he apointed (sic) to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheles, others to be staked and some shott to deathe'." [SH105] Of course these elegant measures were restricted for fellow englishmen: "This was the treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those who had no choice in the matter, because they were the native people of Virginia" methods were different: "when an Indian was accused by an Englishman of stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English response was to attack the natives in force, burning the entire community" down. [SH105]
  • On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the "Peqout War". The killers were New England Puritan Christians, refugees from persecution in their own home country England.
  • When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian chief's pledge they attacked.
    Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after, because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-time foes of the Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots and burned their villages.
    The puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote: "And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished ... God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies": men, women, children. [SH113-114]
  • So "the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance". [SH111].
  • Because of his readers' assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow:
    "Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them..." (Deut 20)
  • Mason's comrade Underhill recalled how "great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers" yet reassured his readers that "sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents". [SH114]
  • Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour children from their mothers breasts, in the colonists' own words: "blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them." (This was inspired by spanish methods of the time)
    In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was near. [SH107-119]
  • The surviving handful of Indians "were parceled out to live in servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for 'a share' of the captives, specifically 'a young woman or girle and a boy if you thinke good'." [SH115]
  • Other tribes were to follow the same path.
  • Comment the Christian exterminators: "God's Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty!"
    "Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!" [TA]
  • Like today, lying was OK to Christians then. "Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians 'grow secure uppon (sic) the treatie', advised the Council of State in Virginia, 'we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cutt downe theire Corne'." [SH106]
  • In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless Indian men, women and children. [SH107]
  • In a single massacre in "King Philip's War" of 1675 and 1676 some "600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a 'barbeque'." [SH115]
  • To summarize: Before the arrival of the English, the western Abenaki people in New Hampshire and Vermont had numbered 12,000. Less than half a century later about 250 remained alive - a destruction rate of 98%. The Pocumtuck people had numbered more than 18,000, fifty years later they were down to 920 - 95% destroyed. The Quiripi-Unquachog people had numbered about 30,000, fifty years later they were down to 1500 - 95% destroyed. The Massachusetts people had numbered at least 44,000, fifty years later barely 6000 were alive - 81% destroyed. [SH118] These are only a few examples of the multitude of tribes living before Christian colonists set their foot on the New World. All this was before the smallpox epidemics of 1677 and 1678 had occurred. And the carnage was not over then.
  • All the above was only the beginning of the European colonization, it was before the frontier age actually had begun.
  • A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.
  • In many countries, such as Brazil, and Guatemala, this continues even today.

More Glorious events in US history


  • Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, in "1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do bears'." [SH241]
  • Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church ("I long to be wading in gore") had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white flag: 400-500 killed.
    From an eye-witness account: "There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed ..." [SH131]
    More gory details.
  • By the 1860s, "in Hawai'i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands' native population by 90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary said, somewhat equivalent to 'the amputation of diseased members of the body'." [SH244]

20th Century Church Atrocities


  • Catholic extermination camps
    Surpisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveli, a practising Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!

    In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar - orthodox-Christian serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdient der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]
  • Catholic terror in Vietnam
    In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters - the Viet Minh - had finally defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all (most non-buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican's spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of Christ", a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]

    Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman Catholicism.

    The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read:

    • "Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."

Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of buddhist protesters and monks were imprisoned in "detention camps." Out of protest dozens of buddhist teachers - male and female - and monks poured gasoline over themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned themselves: in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded - mostly in street riots - 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention camps. [MW76-89].

To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of American GI's lost their life....
  • Rwanda Massacres
    In 1994 in the small african country of Rwanda in just a few months several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.

For quite some time I heard only rumours about Catholic clergy actively involved in the 1994 Rwanda massacres. Odd denials of involvement were printed in Catholic church journals, before even anybody had openly accused members of the church.
Then, 10/10/96, in the newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany - a station not at all critical to Christianity - the following was stated:
"Anglican as well as Catholic priests and nuns are suspect of having actively participated in murders. Especially the conduct of a certain Catholic priest has been occupying the public mind in Rwanda's capital Kigali for months. He was minister of the church of the Holy Family and allegedly murdered Tutsis in the most brutal manner. He is reported to have accompanied marauding Hutu militia with a gun in his cowl. In fact there has been a bloody slaughter of Tutsis seeking shelter in his parish. Even two years after the massacres many Catholics refuse to set foot on the threshold of their church, because to them the participation of a certain part of the clergy in the slaughter is well established. There is almost no church in Rwanda that has not seen refugees - women, children, old - being brutally butchered facing the crucifix.

According to eyewitnesses clergymen gave away hiding Tutsis and turned them over to the machetes of the Hutu militia.
In connection with these events again and again two Benedictine nuns are mentioned, both of whom have fled into a Belgian monastery in the meantime to avoid prosecution. According to survivors one of them called the Hutu killers and led them to several thousand people who had sought shelter in her monastery. By force the doomed were driven out of the churchyard and were murdered in the presence of the nun right in front of the gate. The other one is also reported to have directly cooperated with the murderers of the Hutu militia. In her case again witnesses report that she watched the slaughtering of people in cold blood and without showing response. She is even accused of having procured some petrol used by the killers to set on fire and burn their victims alive..." [S2]
As can be seen from these events, to Christianity the Dark Ages never come to an end....
References:

[DA] K.Deschner, Abermals krhte der Hahn, Stuttgart 1962. [DO] K.Deschner, Opus Diaboli, Reinbek 1987. [EC] P.W.Edbury, Crusade and Settlement, Cardiff Univ. Press 1985. [EJ] S.Eidelberg, The Jews and the Crusaders, Madison 1977. [LI] H.C.Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, New York 1961. [MM] M.Margolis, A.Marx, A History of the Jewish People. [MV] A.Manhattan, The Vatican's Holocaust, Springfield 1986.
See also V.Dedijer, The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, Buffalo NY, 1992. [NC] J.T.Noonan, Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, Cambridge/Mass., 1992. [S2] Newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany, 10/10/96, 12:00. [SH] D.Stannard, American Holocaust, Oxford University Press 1992. [SP] German news magazine Der Spiegel, no.49, 12/2/1996. [TA] A True Account of the Most Considerable Occurrences that have Hapned in the Warre Between the English and the Indians in New England, London 1676. [TG] F.Turner, Beyond Geography, New York 1980. [WW] H.Wollschlger: Die bewaffneten Wallfahrten gen Jerusalem, Zrich 1973.
(This is in german and what is worse, it is out of print. But it is the best I ever read about crusades and includes a full list of original medieval Christian chroniclers' writings). [WV] Estimates on the number of executed witches:

  • N.Cohn, Europe's Inner Demons: An Enquiry Inspired by the Great Witch Hunt, Frogmore 1976, 253.
  • R.H.Robbins, The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, New York 1959, 180.
  • J.B.Russell, Witchcraft in the Middle Ages, Ithaca/NY 1972, 39.
  • H.Zwetsloot, Friedrich Spee und die Hexenprozesse, Trier 1954, 56
Reply

paulpablo
11-23-2012, 10:14 PM
hulk i cant thank you enough for commenting on my post rather than deleting it, seriously.
But im not trying to be an expert im just trying to point out i believe all religions are equally violent, i was about to reply to the man who asked me to point out any christian violence apart from the crusades which would have been easy enough for me but then people typed essays for me about it before i even got the chance.
Reply

Aprender
11-23-2012, 10:18 PM
Members aren't allowed to delete posts. Only moderators have the ability to do that.

The sad part about it all is that you really don't know what you're talking about when you quote verses of the TRANSLATION of Quran. :( I can't take you seriously.
Reply

جوري
11-23-2012, 10:21 PM
Originally Posted by paulpablo
hulk i cant thank you enough for commenting on my post rather than deleting it, seriously.
But im not trying to be an expert im just trying to point out i believe all religions are equally violent, i was about to reply to the man who asked me to point out any christian violence apart from the crusades which would have been easy enough for me but then people typed essays for me about it before i even got the chance.
can you get occasionally violent? If someone assaulted you would you fight back or you'd be all ah I needed that, here's a kidney?
I can't think why anyone would delete your posts unless they broke one or ten forum rules. Perhaps posing oneself as a scholar when one is an impostor is one such rule you've broken?

best,
Reply

جوري
11-23-2012, 10:22 PM
Originally Posted by paulpablo
The copy and paste thing on this NEVER EVER WORKS FOR ME ok this is what my post was meant to look like
That's amusing given all your posts are studded with them!
All one needs to do is grab one of your quotes to see exactly what sort of sites it generates!

you're such a hoot!
Reply

paulpablo
11-23-2012, 10:25 PM
well my argument to begin with against myself being a muslim is that i wouldnt believe gods best attempt to communicate with me is by a 1500 year old book written in a language i dont understand translated by men who i have no reason to trust so im glad you agree with me on that point, it seems that in your eyes the translations are untrustworthy.

But to make my point i dont really have to quote the quran to prove the violence of islam i just need to look at historical evidence, and i dont even have to do that in this post because the thread is about "why does violence surround islam" so the violence is already assumed to be there by the way the question is asked, and i repeat myself when i say i believe all religion is violent and its shown in the history books.
Reply

paulpablo
11-23-2012, 10:27 PM
I take it you mean this sarcastically or something, but i dont get how else i could argue my point about islam other than use quotes from a translated quran online, i dont own a quran and i cant speak arabic.
Reply

جوري
11-23-2012, 10:30 PM
Originally Posted by paulpablo
well my argument to begin with against myself being a muslim is that i wouldnt believe gods best attempt to communicate with me is by a 1500 year old book written in a language i dont understand translated by men who i have no reason to trust so im glad you agree with me on that point, it seems that in your eyes the translations are untrustworthy.
Well what are your beliefs mate? that a sprinkle of sun and water helped a rock which formed ex nihilio sprout wings because darwin wrote it down? :haha: ;D like I said you're a hoot

Originally Posted by paulpablo
But to make my point i dont really have to quote the quran to prove the violence of islam i just need to look at historical evidence, and i dont even have to do that in this post because the thread is about "why does violence surround islam" so the violence is already assumed to be there by the way the question is asked, and i repeat myself when i say i believe all religion is violent and its shown in the history books.
Islam is a noun violent is an adjective, your premise is faulty. Muslims can get violent yes, what's your point?

best,
Reply

Aprender
11-23-2012, 10:31 PM
Originally Posted by paulpablo
i repeat myself when i say i believe all religion is violent and its shown in the history books.
Religions aren't violent. A religion by itself can't do anything. Humans are though.
Reply

Aprender
11-23-2012, 10:33 PM
Originally Posted by paulpablo
i cant speak arabic.
All the more reason why you shouldn't claim to be knowledgeable and come to conclusions based on something you don't understand.
Reply

جوري
11-23-2012, 10:33 PM
Originally Posted by paulpablo
I take it you mean this sarcastically or something, but i dont get how else i could argue my point about islam other than use quotes from a translated quran online, i dont own a quran and i cant speak arabic.
Which begs the question of your scholarship and prestigious know how doesn't it? you don't speak Arabic, and you don't have a copy of the Quran, but you've managed to miraculously populate, cite and opine on various verses? ;D
Reply

marwen
11-23-2012, 10:33 PM
It's really stupid to believe that any ideology or religion that could survive for centuries is based on violence. Violence cannot maintain any civilisation or ideology because power and highness is not permanent and moves from one nation to another. If islam is only based on violence and swords, than it would be more likely perished now, when muslim countries are the weakest in the world.
Reply

paulpablo
11-23-2012, 10:36 PM
I havent managed or claimed to be able to do any of those things, ill repeat again for the 10th time im not a scholar never claimed to be one dont want to be one havent got the time to be one... i took quotes from the quran and said look these are the more violent parts of the quran.
I havent claimed to give knowledge about anything ive barely cited an opinion if i have please argue a point against them rather than use sarcasm as a response.
Reply

جوري
11-23-2012, 10:39 PM
Originally Posted by paulpablo
i took quotes from the quran and said look these are the more violent parts of the quran.
You just told us you haven't got a Quran, so where are you quoting 'violent parts from'? and what sense is it to come and write with assertion when you clearly should have at least some sort of platform or baseline.
You haven't queries, and you haven't scholarship so what exactly do you expect? I mean aside from trolling us which is obvious and I am having fun myself with it because folks like you are a dime a dozen!
Reply

Hulk
11-23-2012, 10:45 PM
Usually I take the time to respond in my own words but I have learned over time that people don't usually want to hear the truth rather they want to see someone agreeing with their statement regardless of whether or not it is based on knowledge or ignorance. Well, regarding the first verse it is actually referring to a specific battle with a group that broke a treaty with the muslims. If muslims were to have taken the verses to mean what you are trying to present it to mean then there would be no non-muslims surviving under a muslim governed land.

On stealing, well in a sharia based society there would be zakat, fard kifaya, etc. Many things involved which contributes to aiding people who are less fortunate, and thus would have no valid reason to steal in the first place. It would also not be a consumerist culture like you see in many places these days.

Well anyway I'll leave these links here for the benefit of anyone who wants to read proper answers.

http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?...ID=612&CATE=10(wife)

http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?...D=1895&CATE=39(stealing)

http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?...D=12581&CATE=1(witchcraft)
Reply

Aprender
11-23-2012, 10:46 PM
Originally Posted by paulpablo
im not a scholar never claimed to be one dont want to be one havent got the time to be one... i took quotes from the quran and said look these are the more violent parts of the quran.
You don't have a Quran. You don't speak Arabic. You're not a scholar. You don't have the time to be a scholar. You don't want to be a scholar. But you want to debate with Muslims about the Quran? A book that you don't have in a language you don't understand.
Reply

paulpablo
11-23-2012, 11:47 PM
ok well i dont know about "proper" answers, heres some examples in the real world of how islam deals with witchcraft for one

i did have a link here for a website in a news report about a woman being beheaded but it wont let me post it in here, basically its the story of a woman being beheaded for witchcraft under sharia in saudi arabia it isnt too hard to find on google and numberous sources show it.
I clicked on YOUR links and got this from your link to a website


The penalty:
The penalty for the one who steals (when the above conditions are met) is that his/her right arm is amputated. If a person steals a second time, his left foot is amputated; if a third time, then he will be imprisoned until he repents, but no further amputation will take place.

I dont see how that is different from the text that i copied and pasted from a quran verse. youre calling me ignorant and typing in such an angry manner yet youre acting like youre trying to back up my claims. I claimed that the quran says amputate the hands of theives, you present me with a link backing up my claim, its quite confusing.

Your third link concerning the beating of wives says that the quran doesnt mean to say beat it means "splash in the face with water" then gives lots of contradictory verses showing how the quran and hadiths also say respect women.
Since you dont respect translations of the quran i wont show you translation after translation that i can find of qurans on the internet that use the word "beat" and not "splash in the face with water" coincidently another person has told me it means "tap with an arab style toothpick" which is even more hilarious and unbelievable.
Id also say some muslims would argue against your translation

"Such an attitude is not uncommon amongst socially-conservative Muslims who are “religious” in a formal sense: for example, a conservative leader of Indian Muslims is said to have given a public statement in 2010 denouncing a new law in India that criminalised domestic violence, thus: “They are taking away our divine right to hit our wives.”

By the way as i said i dont claim to know exactly what the quran means or what muslims should do, i wouldnt have a chance of doing that since your god seems to concentrate mainly on spreading the message in arabic.
But lets just assume your right, the quran is a book that never ever says beat your wife and so on, my point is that for a book written by god and which people claim is so perfect, it seems to have unclear messages to those who read it, hence, some muslims are terrorists, some muslims are friendly moral heroic people, some muslims ban music, some muslims are musicians, some muslims think beating their wife is ok, some dont. And so on and so on and so on.
And sticking to the topic of the thread id say this points to the reason of some of the violence in the islamic world. Shia vs sunni for example.


By the way id just like to add for anyone who wants to accuse me of being a scholar again, i am definitely not one.
Reply

paulpablo
11-23-2012, 11:48 PM
its not a debate about any of that really, im staying on the thread topic. Why is islam surrounded by violence. My answer is because of the quran and the way people understand it can lead to terrorism. Again, not claiming to be a scholar,
Reply

paulpablo
11-23-2012, 11:53 PM
im getting the quran quotes from the internet, i can get several translations by several different people and thats just on one islamic website, theres plenty of others i could pick from. I dont have to have queries, im expressing my opinion on the topic which the thread is about you consider this to be trolling because you dont like what im typing
Reply

جوري
11-23-2012, 11:54 PM
Originally Posted by paulpablo
By the way id just like to add for anyone who wants to accuse me of being a scholar again, i am definitely not one.
We've never accused you of being a scholar, just the opposite!


Originally Posted by paulpablo
quran and the way people understand it can lead to terrorism
This statement is meaningless!
What would lead to your overly simplistic conclusions is none other than the 'PaulPablo' approach to them. Which is really a non-approach.
Everybody has a right to defend themselves against their enemies. I guess you best google definitions too to unravel that spirochete from your two brain cells.

best,
Reply

Hulk
11-23-2012, 11:58 PM
OMG.. "splash water on face". It was talking about the same word being used in an expression used in wudu, it's not saying that the verse means SPLASH WATER ON THE FACE. It's ok man.. You misinterpreted the explanation. Do you see the problem here? You basing a lot of your posts based on ignorance. Please, take a step back and learn first instead of trying to challenge.

I think it was a mistake on my part to expect you to understand the articles on the site as it requires some pre requisite knowledge as well. I really hope you'll consider taking the role of learner instead of "debater". It's better to admit you don't know something than to not know and think you know.
Reply

paulpablo
11-24-2012, 12:04 AM
---- Im not typing anything offensive to any of you so i dont understand why you call me stupid and so on and say im the one with two brain cells, it seems fairly childish.
Im giving you historical accounts, some fairly recent which you can look up yourself concerning islamic violence, and im saying i think some of this stems from the quran, doesnt all islamic teaching stem from the quran?
If im wrong about any of this then id expect a counter argument, not childish insults, its quite laughable.
Hulk i still dont know what youre arguing with me about your links all back up my claims and you havent said much other than that you agree with me, but at the same time as calling me ignorant, im still confused.
Reply

paulpablo
11-24-2012, 12:08 AM
i didnt say people dont have the right to defend themselves, i said the quran verses have been used by terrorists to condone violence, im saying this in relation to the thread, why is islam surrounded by violence more so than other religions.
I even said i dont agree islam is surrounded by any more violence than other religions.
But i think the violence that does stem from it is from certain understandings of the quran which deviate from the pleasent peaceful parts ive seen posted on this thread by muslims.
Reply

جوري
11-24-2012, 12:09 AM
Originally Posted by paulpablo
haha ok ok i thought allah hates aggressors? or did i get that translation wrong again. Im not typing anything offensive to any of you so i dont understand why you call me stupid and so on and say im the one with two brain cells, it seems fairly childish.
Don't forget the spirochete, I think that has much light to shed on your understanding of things.. and to the contrary I am quite enjoying this.. I find playing with trolls as much fun as that beaver game at the fair.. you know the one!


Originally Posted by paulpablo
Im giving you historical accounts, some fairly recent which you can look up yourself concerning islamic violence, and im saying i think some of this stems from the quran, doesnt all islamic teaching stem from the quran?
I don't know which 'Islamic violence' that is? Is it comparable to atheist violence? Of course not, Lenin or Enver or Saloth of Mao can go kill in the millions and then sweep under the carpet.


Originally Posted by paulpablo
If im wrong about any of this then id expect a counter argument, not childish insults, its quite laughable.
You've not presented much to counter. I think you give yourself more credit than you're worth. In other words you're a sophomore troll, you don't deserve more than you get. Don't take people's silence on other forums for defeat, I actually understand what it is stemming from, but like I said, after a hard day I find it relaxing and virtually appealing to toy with trolls.
Reply

Hulk
11-24-2012, 12:17 AM
Maybe you are a little upset that the paint you tried to brush Islam with turned out to be low quality? That's why you turned to "events" isn't it? Since you can't paint the picture you want based on proper knowledge your turn to the actions of others regardless of whether or not that is based on proper knowledge. I thought atheists were supposed to be rational and not accept things based on conjecture?
Reply

Hulk
11-24-2012, 12:28 AM
Originally Posted by paulpablo
Im not atheist so i dont know why you brought that up.
LXcqu 1 -
Reply

جوري
11-24-2012, 12:29 AM
:haha: like I said it is inconsequential but touche Hulk!
Reply

paulpablo
11-24-2012, 12:31 AM
yeh i made that one mistake but you can clearly see my profile says agnostic. so the point is moot like you said
Reply

Aprender
11-24-2012, 12:32 AM
Originally Posted by paulpablo
Im not typing anything offensive to any of you so i dont understand why you call me stupid
I didn't call you stupid and don't worry your lack of understanding doesn't offend me. I'm just trying to establish where you're coming from.

Originally Posted by paulpablo
I even said i dont agree islam is surrounded by any more violence than other religions.
Strange the way you think a religion is capable of committing a violent act towards people. Humans are usually the ones who take matters into their own hands and decide to do that.

Originally Posted by paulpablo
But i think the violence that does stem from it is from certain understandings
Do you understand how that could apply to any ideology? Any thought process in the world? Good and bad people are everywhere. Crazy people too.

Originally Posted by paulpablo
which deviate from the pleasent peaceful parts ive seen posted on this thread by muslims
Key word. Deviate. Now you're getting it.
Reply

جوري
11-24-2012, 12:34 AM
In fact it is a sort of habit with you. You misconstrue, you take out of context, you drop your own renditions, you have an amusing sense of self-aggrandizement, and self- entitlement and importance, God knows why I haven't seen anything profound or new in what you write, nonetheless we go on humoring you because we know how poorly bruised your ego, given that you were just given the boots from another forum!

best,
Reply

paulpablo
11-24-2012, 12:40 AM
i wasnt given the boot i could go there now and post as much as i wanted its under this same name so you might even see me there if you look around.
I cant help it if you arent being realistic, under what other circumstances could a woman be prosecuted for being a witch, then be executed, in this day and age. Other than in a religious environment, namely saudi arabia.
I dont even have anything against muslims ive had several muslim girlfriends and friends.
I just dont like seeing the constant 2d attitude of "hey im open minded to knowledge and understanding but if you dont believe in the 1500 year old book that i do then youre definitely wrong because its the word of god"
My final, and this is honestly my final statement based on the topic of this thread, if you want to know why islam is surrounded by violence just watch the news, and do research on islamic terrorists.
Surely no one can argue with that.
Reply

Aprender
11-24-2012, 12:43 AM
Originally Posted by paulpablo
And also historical events arent conjecture and part of my "painting of islam in a bad way" or however you want to put it is pointing out the fact that most people have no chance of understanding it because it is arabic
So we should always ignore history if it's given to us in a language we don't understand? Just keep the "true" stuff in English and the stuff that "paints Islam in a bad way" is automatically correct without a doubt? That Arabic stuff is meaningless? The other side just doesn't matter? How is that comprehensive?
Reply

جوري
11-24-2012, 12:44 AM
Originally Posted by paulpablo
i wasnt given the boot i could go there now and post as much as i wanted its under this same name so you might even see me there if you look around.
Then pls.. the exit is thata a way>>>>>>>


Originally Posted by paulpablo
I cant help it if you arent being realistic, under what other circumstances could a woman be prosecuted for being a witch, then be executed, in this day and age. Other than in a religious environment, namely saudi arabia.
I think it is a suitable punishment, I wish they'd implement it everywhere, those quacks bleed people of money and do all kinds of bogus crap on them!


Originally Posted by paulpablo
I dont even have anything against muslims ive had several muslim girlfriends and friends.
Again, inconsequential, avoidance of the issue, merely get to the point without false padding!


Originally Posted by paulpablo
I just dont like seeing the constant 2d attitude of "hey im open minded to knowledge and understanding but if you dont believe in the 1500 year old book that i do then youre definitely wrong because its the word of god"
I am open minded because so God tells us in the ancient book, most people here have doctorates, masters, etc. what do you have?
oh google yes!


Originally Posted by paulpablo
My final, and this is honestly my final statement based on the topic of this thread, if you want to know why islam is surrounded by violence just watch the news, and do research on islamic terrorists.
Surely no one can argue with that.
Yes it is indeed on the news? should we be alarmed or what would you like to have us do?
Reply

paulpablo
11-24-2012, 12:44 AM
also id like to add that ive found it difficult to argue with 4 people or whatever at once, so thats why one person would call me stupid, then somone else would post "i havent called you stupid" so thats where the confusion comes from with that
Reply

Aprender
11-24-2012, 12:48 AM
Originally Posted by paulpablo
I just dont like seeing the constant 2d attitude of "hey im open minded to knowledge and understanding but if you dont believe in the 1500 year old book that i do then youre definitely wrong because its the word of god"
None of us asked you to believe in Islam. All we can do is try to help clear up your misunderstandings. There is no compulsion in our religion. You are free to believe in what you want. You do what you do, and we'll do what we do. Goodnight.
Reply

Muhammad
11-24-2012, 12:57 AM
Greetings,

I believe the question of violence has been addressed from the very first page on this thread. It now seems that someone is getting desperate by throwing multiple issues onto the scene, a common tactic by those who want to attack Islam. Please note that we will not entertain any such form of discussion where answers are ignored and even distorted, and certainly not when Islam is being insulted. We are currently in a sacred month for Muslims and have little time to waste with insincere posters.

In response to a few remarks I noticed, it should be noted that there is no country implementing Shariah Law in its entirety. What any Muslim country chooses to do with its citizens is not necessarily an embodiment of the teachings of Islam.

Also note that translations of the Qur'an are not considered the Qur'an itself. Therefore one should be careful of judging the Qur'an based upon a translation. On the issue of the Qur'an being in Arabic:

Originally Posted by Muhammad

Thread closed.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
HeartHijab.com | Hijab Sale | Pound Shop | UK Wholesale Certified Face Masks, Hand Sanitiser & PPE

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!