Originally posted by xmotex
Arguing that Islam is somehow "inherently" violent is in essence a call for genocide, or at the very least forced conversion, all protestations of innocence aside.
Not really, as I have stated many times already a large group of Muslim clerics should be setting forth an example by proclaiming the old ways are not to be used anymore. There can be changes in Islamic faith so as to no
Originally posted by xmotex
One can look through Judaic and Christian religious history and texts and cherry pick enough examples to "prove" (especially to those already inclined to believe it) that these faiths also call for violence against "unbelievers" - because they do... this is one thing all the monotheistic faiths have in common.
If you can find a passage where Jesus Christ is said to have taken up a sword and went around raiding caravans, killing people, taken slave women from the raided caravans and beheading people who already had surrendered please post it.
That is the difference, supposedly Jesus came to give an example of how mankind should act, he didn't take up a sword and went raiding caravans, or beheading people. If Mohammed would have been more moderate I am certain there wouldn't be so many Islamic extremists in the world today.
Originally posted by xmotex
As far as "enemies" go - personally I see religious extremists of all sorts in general as "enemies" - as well as other types of fanatic. I don't really give a damn if a political terrorist is Islamic or Maoist... the dead are still just as dead whatever banner they were killed in the name of.
in that we agree, yes, calling for the death of a whole people because of their race, ethnicity, gender or whatever is wrong.


