Does Islam espouse violence?

Originally posted by iqonx

funny thing is when christians like IRA and KKK kill, murder,loot,rampage, terrorize they are only representatives of themselves but when a muslim does something for he/she is a representative for every muslim on earth even muslims that are not even there sect of islam. muslims have been donouncing these extremists and there protests on the news in briton and even encouraged the police to lock these people up but for some reason in america people arnt concerned witht the other half of the story and only the half that suits there agenda.

I agree.
People who blindly attack Islam usually have double standards and triple standards. They usually put Muslims under a microscope while ignoring the mascaras that have been done by Israel and USA in the Middle East. Such people have symptoms like :
- Selective memory
- Lack of logical Judgment
- Infinite Bias.

When a Muslim extremist kill someone the whole world blame Islam even though Muslims deny such acts and even though Muslims are also Victims to terrorism (Bombings in Egypt, Saudi Arabia , Amman , Lebanon, Iraq…..) , while when Bush kills 2 million Iraqis because god told him to, Christianity is not blamed at all.

When an Arabic terrorist kill someone, they blame 1 billion Muslims for that , even before they make sure if that terrorist was a Muslim in the first place. While when Israelis kill innocent Palestinian children, they are excused for being defending themselves. After 2000 (in the second Instead) Israel killed thousands of innocent civilians 70% of them were children. The mighty Israel is defending herself from children !!
Furthermore the terrorism of Israel is directly justified by their religion; they wanted to keep all of Jerusalem for themselves to build their Temple even though they have to give the Palestinian the eastern part of the city according to Oslo agreement. The eastern Jerusalem contains Al-Aqsa mosque, the Israelis want to demolish Al-Aqsa to build their temple. Also the existence of Israel is justified from Religious Believes from the Torah and the Bible !!!!!!!!!!!!
Most of the civilized Christian countries (including USA , UK ) justify the Israeli terrorism , where those justifications came from pure religious believes. So, Do Christianity and Judaism justify killing thousands of people, just to get their Messiah? .. Isn’t it unbelievable that many Christians only support Israel and don’t mind about blood baths in Palestine, only for their Messiah to arrive? … Oh I forgot.... they have to check their Triple standards before they answer such question.


[edit on 6-2-2006 by Deep_Blue]

[edit on 6-2-2006 by Deep_Blue]

See my original post here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[mod edit for spamming- please don't copy and paste the same text into different threads]

[edit on 7-2-2006 by dbates]

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I also throw the BS flag. The Crusades were a defensive response to the Islamic persecution of not only the Holy Lands, but also the encroachment into Europe.
The destruction of Churches, the slaughter of non-Muslims, it is clear what drove the Crusades.

That's partially true, but also BS Thomas Crowne.

I live in Finland. My country hasn't had anything to do with muslims, they did not destroy churches, they did not slaughter non-Muslims, because they were never here.
But when the Crusaders came, the Finnish people had two choices, convert to being a Christian or have your head cut off.

The Crusaders were religious fanatics, just like the Muhajadin and other self-proclaimed Holy Warriors are today. And there's really not much of a difference between them either, many of them were and are backed by wealthy powerhungry people, to do their dirty work.

I'm not saying religion is bad, but these 'true-believers' are prone to manipulation via their religious beliefs because of their narrow-mindedness, be it Christians or Muslims ... especially when people high up in the "religious hierarchy," such as Imams, Bishops, Popes or whoever advocate certain things, like the killing of non-believers.

Personally I'm a bit against organized religions (and ideologies) that claim to know the truth, who say that only they are right and everbody else is wrong. I'm more for individual beliefs.

[edit on 7/2/2006 by SwearBear]

fear allah
Stop with the already! Damn, if your point has merit you shouldn't have to cram it down peoples' throats! Everywhere I click your freakin' spiel pops out at me!

benevolent tyrant, how many do you desire?

“ Say: O followers of the Book! come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah; but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims.” (Surah Aal-e-Imran; 3:64)

I can show, thousands of quotes from the Qu'ran and thousands of quotes by Imams as well as tens of Muslim groups, problem is it doesn't make news.

It is much easier to show a murderer than a man condemming terrorism and that is why you do not see it. Try groupes like MAT [Muslim's Against Terrorism] and hundreds of others...you are a smart guy, so do not expect the media to tell you the truth.

I think that this quote provides a good insight to what the 'religion of peace' is all about.

At a protest on Monday outside European Union offices in Gaza, dozens of Palestinian students chanted: "Down with Denmark. Down with Norway. With our blood and with our souls, we will sacrifice for our Prophet."

The quote can be found here:

www.alertnet.org...

The more they do stupid [insert favorite word], the more I agrre with the cartoons which were published.

Originally posted by fear allah

See my original post here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[mod edit for spamming- please don't copy and paste the same text into different threads]

[edit on 7-2-2006 by dbates]

fear allah

You have a mind of a fanatic.
To which Islamic group you belong to ?

The problem with fanatics like you , is that they think that they know about Islam better than others or that they are superior Muslims or something special, while in fact they are spiteful ignorant people that can not see above their feet.

I agree with people who say that: fanatics from all religions are worse than each other.

BTW Iam Muslim so don't dare on teaching me my religion that I know better than you.



[edit on 7-2-2006 by Deep_Blue]

Originally posted by Deep_Blue
fear allah

You have a mind of a fanatic.
To which Islamic group you belong to ?

The problem with fanatics like you , is that they think that they know about Islam better than others or that they are superior Muslims or something special, while in fact they are spiteful ignorant people that can not see above their feet.

Maybe he's a MI5 or CIA disinformation agent
He always refers to his orginal message, doesn't look like he can write anything new.

Deep_Blue, et al, go to that message and go to my post on it. He's not a Muslim, the terms he uses are actually in correct - he praises Mohammed with the term used for Allah. He was baiting.

The essence of my question, "Does Islam espouse violence?", can probably be applied to many religions (pick one). Although many religions (I can't really think of one that does not) speak of peace, it has been, regrettably, too easy to find periods in history when a faith, sect, religion, etc. has resorted to violence in the name of peace. This contradiction in logic, in reason, is ultimately what I am trying to confront and understand.

At times, I liken Islam as an evolving culture, philosophy and religion. Islam is currently at a point where it has recognized its position in the world. It has recognized it's strength and is now seeking validation in the world. In a sense, I see it as the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages and the turmoil that found Europe deeply divided by nationality (a trait that still exists, it would seem) and faith and fidelity to a Crown or bloodline. The Church ultimately unified and helped to consolidate Europe into the Union of States that it is today. This is the position or point in time that Islam is evolving through today. However, because Islam is not a centralized religion, that is Islam is a "peer to peer" religion as opposed to Catholicism which is based with a "Central Server".

Vast regions of the Muslim world is uneducated. I point to Afghanistan where illiteracy is rampant. Torn by an historical time line of warfare and strife, Afghanistan is a country where the veil of time and progress has never been raised. This is a land of War Lords and tribal chiefs and clans. This is a land where blood feuds and honor mean lives are lost "to save face". Women are chattel and the only hope the people find in their bleak lives is the promise of paradise that Islam can offer. But the Islamic teachings that thses people often receive are often different. Like the people, often the Mullahs in these regions are essentially illiterate. They teach the Quran from rote memory and interpret the Quran to the people without benefit of "genuine guidance from Allah or some sort of centralized religious structure which would unify all the conflicting tenets or opinions that various Mullahs of various groups, sects or aspects of Islam. Christianity has gone through this period and Islam is, it would seem, to be going through this period of unification now.

But that brings me back to the essential question of whether Islam espouses violence? I have not fully developed an opinion on this. I read a statement like this and I try to accept it;

Originally posted by fear allah
I protested in London outside the Denmark embassy!
You people are trying to say why protest against some cartoons making fun of Prophet Muhammad (swt), it’s not a big deal.

Islam is religion of peace
First of all our prophet (swt) is the most important person to us from every human in this world even our parents, brothers and sisters and all the relatives.
When someone makes fun of our prophet (swt) than it totally outrages us because he is so important to us that we are ready to die for him, that’s how much we respect and love him. Our blood boils when someone tries to make fun out of our prophet (swt)

benevolent tyrant says;

I understand that Islam is a religion of peace. This is the statement that I keep hearing. However, there is an obvious contradiction here. I have to ask the readers whether you really see one. I feel that there are those who actually are unable to "see" any contradiction between saying that Islam is a religion of peace yet, would resort to violence to prove it.

According to Islam (and I certainly don't promote myself to be in any way, remotely fluent in Islamic teachings but I am genuinely interested and I really want to learn) Jesus Christ was a prophet -- a revered prophet in Islam. Mohamed, of course, is the "last prophet", bringing us, in essence, the "final word or final truth (I'm sorry if I'm getting this wrong, I'm trying to paraphrase what I have learned into plain English). But does the "final word" that Mohamed bring us somehow supersede the truths that the previous prophets brought us? Does the message of peace and forgiveness that Jesus brought to the world, which is also accepted by the Islamic faith as being of Allah, somehow become void? Is not forgiveness a tenet of Islam?

It would appear that today's Muslims are not being taught or educated and inculcated with the important aspects of Islamic life that would include forgiveness, patience, love, understanding and the great tolerance for which Islam is noted. How could such blatant contradiction between the teachings of peace and the validation of mindless violence be condoned amongst the people of Islam?

[edit on 2/8/2006 by benevolent tyrant]

[edit on 2/8/2006 by benevolent tyrant]

Answering Islam - MUHAMMAD'S EARLY TERRORIST ACTS



After moving to Medina, Muhammad began to have conflict with the Jews and pagans in the area. I'll focus on several incidents, not necessarily in chronological order, that illustrate Muhammad as a terrorist.



The first terrorist incident involves Muhammad's command to his followers to "kill any Jew who comes under your power".



From Guillaume, op cit, page 369:



"The apostle said, "Kill any Jew who falls into your power." Thereupon Muhayyisa b. Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, 'You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?' Muhayyisa answered, 'Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.'"

visit the link for the full article

More evil from the "prophet" himself..................Islam is pure evil..........!



[Added source and trimmed quote]

[edit on 8-2-2006 by dbates]

Answer me this... If I wrote a book and said it was a message from God, and then asked you too read it and believe it would you? I very much doubt it. you would say I was mad.

But how about I asked you too read it and then say if you don't believe in it I'll chop your head off? hmmm different concept now isn't it

Sound familiar?

Thanks

[edit on 8-2-2006 by DodgeG1]

benevolent tyrant, if you read the thread you would see many people have pointed out the mistakes that Fear Allah makes - even by using the name "Allah". He/She/It is no Muslim and while people focus on the troll and the hate, it spreads you are helping to cause more harm.

thermopolis, you might desire to do some of your own research.

Mohammed was invited to, Yathrib[Medina] - in 622 - the hadith states there were two pagan tribes (the Aus and Khazraj) as well as three Jewish tribes (Banu Qainuka'a, Banu Nadhir and Banu Qurayza). They [Mohammed] was invited to Medina because of the fact he was being persecuted by the Meccans. In 627, the army of Mecca attacked Medina under the command of Abu Sufyan.

The attack on Mecca, following that [not directly an attack], was in response to this. There is no written records from the time that paint a different picture, ignorant people just assume the Army of Mecca means a Muslim Army when in fact it means [in this period] the Banu Abd Shams clan of the Quraish tribe.

You also might desire to link sources.

Originally posted by Odium
thermopolis, you might desire to do some of your own research.

Mohammed was invited to, Yathrib[Medina] - in 622 - the hadith states there were two pagan tribes (the Aus and Khazraj) as well as three Jewish tribes (Banu Qainuka'a, Banu Nadhir and Banu Qurayza). They [Mohammed] was invited to Medina because of the fact he was being persecuted by the Meccans. In 627, the army of Mecca attacked Medina under the command of Abu Sufyan.

The attack on Mecca, following that [not directly an attack], was in response to this. There is no written records from the time that paint a different picture, ignorant people just assume the Army of Mecca means a Muslim Army when in fact it means [in this period] the Banu Abd Shams clan of the Quraish tribe.

You also might desire to link sources.

Nice try at dis-info, but I have researched "Mo" to some significant degree. Nice revisionist attempt...............but the BS flag is out and hanging around your neck.

Really?

I suggest you post some evidence that backs up your point, instead of swearing at me show proof where they attacked first? The fact is, the only document that writes about that date is from the Qu'Ran. I've yet to see one written by anyone in that region on that topic.

Please, proove me wrong.

Oh by the way: revisionist

Source
Among historians, revisionism has traditionally been used in a completely neutral sense to describe the work or ideas of a historian who has revised a previously accepted view of a particular topic. As historical research techniques change many fields of research go through periods of controversy as younger historians seek to revise established knowledges.

en.wikipedia.org...

I am not going to claim the actions of the Caliphs were right however they are not the founders of Islam - Mohammed was.