Is Islam Violent?

Chuckmorse.com ^ | Oct. 11, 2001 | Chuck Morse

[wwjdn]

just a bunch of nutty bastards using religion to kill as many people as possible - that is the history of this planet - more people have been killed because of religion than anything else - religions teach love and tolerance - but the exact opposite has always happened - the nuts get in there and hide behind relgion and slaughter at will.

Sorry, but your ignorance is showing through. Prove your point that religion has killed more than anything else. Here's a hint look at China first, they have killed millions to stop religion.

[aruanan]

There was a time in the history of Christianity when radical Christian extremists invaded the newly created Muslim world and tried to forcibly convert them or kill them - and get lots of booty at the same time. They were called the Crusades

A moderate amount of education would help to remedy the serious deficits of both knowledge and understanding shown in the quote above. Here are some questions to guide your study:

1. "Newly created Muslim world" What does "newly created" mean? What nations and people were in the territory that stretched from India to Spain? What were the means by which the "Muslim world" was "newly created"? What was the response of the Muslims to those who decided they didn't want to become part of the "newly created Muslim world?
2. Had Europe by the time of the Crusades been invited to become part of the "newly created Muslim world"? Had Europe resisted? What was Europe's response to the Muslim "invitation"? How did this response relate to the Crusades?
3. How did the Crusades compare to the previous centuries of Muslim "new world creating" in terms of nations invaded, peoples subjugated, conversions forced, languages destroyed, religions persecuted?

Just to help you along: The Crusades were a response to the Muslim attack on Europe. They weren't successful in turning back the clock on what Islam had already done to North Africa (Spain had to wait until the 1400's to be entirely freed), the entire Middle East, Afghanistan, and India, but they did mark Europe's determination not to let the invasion proceed any farther. Of course, under the Turks, Islam did take more of Europe and managed to hold onto a shrinking portion until the late 1800s.

[nightdriver]

"...Islam advocates war, or Jihad, as a means of conquering the non-Islamic world."

"Under this sign, (a sword) conquer" has been their motto for the last 1300 years, so why should it be any different now?

The New York State Supreme Court ruled in about 1892 that Islam was not to be included in the freedom-of-religion clauses found in public documents, but that followers of "imposters" such as Mohammett (their spelling) were to be "harrassed." Since this has never been vacated or changed, it remains the law of the land.

[JimRed]

Could anybody please compare and contrast "Comparing and Contrasting"?

Compare = how are they alike?

Contrast = how do they differ?

Any questions?

[timestax]

bttt

[Restorer]

How about those fanatic Buddhist madmen taking control of an impoverished country?

Sri Lanka? Myanmar (Burma)?

At least in part, the leaders of these countries base their appeal to the masses on protecting the Buddhist religion against the non-Buddhist minirities.

[Restorer]

Thanks for posting the interesting statistics.

Two more possible variables for you: Time and Percentage. One would expect a larger number of killings by an oppressive regime with more time to do the killing, as well as with one that had a larger population of candidates.

The Nazi Reich lasted only 12 years. The vast majority of its killing of innocents took place only from 1942. At its peak, the regime controlled populations somewhere around 500 million. (I'm a little vague on this number.) They thus killed about 3% of the population under their control (using your second table) in less than three years.

The USSR lasted over 70 years, but again, most of its killing took place in limited periods. Population affected, about 200 million. Percentage killed: about 10%.

Mao had somewhere around 700 million to work with. Percentage killed: around 2%.

By these criteria, the probable 20th century champs are the Khmer Rouge, who controlled Cambodia for about three years and in this period managed to kill 2 - 2.5 million of the 7 million available. A percentage of 25-35%. Very impressive.

And an irrefutable argument against those who claim that Nazi technology and efficiency was necessary to kill all those people in the death camps. Most of the Khmer Rouge victims were killed with farm implements or clubs.

[timestax]

bttt

[Bobby777]

dang I was gonna say "Does a bear go poo-poo in the woods?" and ya dang well beat me to it ... great handle BTW ...

[timestax]

bump

[timestax]

bttt

[timestax]

bump for the newbies to see, oh, and the veteran FReepers too!

[timestax]

bttt

[timestax]

bump for the newbies..Thanks!!

[timestax]

bump

[timestax]

bump

[timestax]

bttt

[timestax]

bttt

[rpage3]

The answer is "yes" and here's part of the reason why:
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.

We have to be careful about pulling single references from "scriptures" though and as such I started reading, post 9/11, the Koran. I must confess that I thought it scary and wondered what it was in this book that converted folks like Cat Stevens. Here is the problem, as I see it, that Moslems must confront, they believe that the Koran is the word of Allah through his prophet Mohammed and therefore that it CANNOT BE false/misleading in other words, it is their divine truth. But clearly the verse quoted above cannot possibly have the same meaning today as it did when the book was written, so, there's a problem here! Either Allah intends for them to be killing and maiming in his name or the prophet got it worng somehow - guess which one the fanatical folks believe? I suspect that the reason so-called moderate Moslems do not vehemently speak out against their fanatical brothers is because they are afraid of the consequences which are (1) that they, the moderates, are not true-believers (because they'd reject the most outrageous parts of the Koran) and (2) that in rejecting certain parts of the holy book, they'd have no absolutes on which to base their religion and therefore their entire faith will crumble.

I would love to see some Moslem scholars debate their own scriptures and I think that it is imperative that they do so. Their continued denial of contradictions in the Koran (as there are in the Bible) is a clear and present danger to the rest of the world.

[timestax]

bttt