Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Islam Violent?
Chuckmorse.com ^ | Oct. 11, 2001 | Chuck Morse

Posted on 10/11/2001 10:52:36 AM PDT by Chuckmorse

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-205 next last
To: candyman34
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.

181 posted on 12/24/2001 7:21:08 AM PST by wwjdn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb; Chuckmorse
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.
182 posted on 12/24/2001 7:34:57 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Chuckmorse
"...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.

183 posted on 12/24/2001 8:01:16 AM PST by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: APBaer
Could anybody please compare and contrast "Comparing and Contrasting"?

Compare = how are they alike?

Contrast = how do they differ?

Any questions?

184 posted on 12/24/2001 8:15:05 AM PST by JimRed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
bttt
185 posted on 12/24/2001 8:09:06 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SFConservative
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.

186 posted on 12/25/2001 9:40:40 AM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Walkin Man
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.

187 posted on 12/25/2001 10:07:11 AM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: William Wallace
bttt
188 posted on 12/26/2001 4:05:54 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sheik yerbouty
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 ...
189 posted on 12/26/2001 4:14:29 PM PST by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: lds23
bump
190 posted on 12/29/2001 12:13:31 AM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
bttt
191 posted on 12/29/2001 8:12:00 AM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: timestax
bump for the newbies to see, oh, and the veteran FReepers too!
192 posted on 01/02/2002 8:16:50 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: x
bttt
193 posted on 01/02/2002 9:11:24 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
bump for the newbies..Thanks!!
194 posted on 01/02/2002 9:12:03 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: chicagolady
bump
195 posted on 01/03/2002 10:33:35 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
bump
196 posted on 01/06/2002 12:28:33 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lgjhn
bttt
197 posted on 01/06/2002 12:48:41 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: timestax
bttt
198 posted on 01/06/2002 8:27:25 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: All
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.
199 posted on 01/06/2002 8:33:53 PM PST by rpage3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: father_elijah
bttt
200 posted on 01/07/2002 4:07:43 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-205 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson