CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
That is very common, if there are very few of them, they play poor little misunderstood peace keepers but each time their population increases they start demanding, sharia law, death for apostasy, no access for infidels, refusing to respect human rights, modesty watch wit weapons rapping women for wearing thirsts... this is not middle east, this is London, Paris, Marseilles Manchester, Liverpool, Cardiff, Berlin, Stockholm, Madrid...
Every time their population increase enough to create ghettos they start behaving like animals.
And thats people who believe killing is fine. It never said they will do it though. That is very rough statistic. You can never really tell who will actually carry out a killing dude.
I have a question. Who the hell keeps going to all the arguments supporting the "no" side, and up voting them? Some of their arguments don't even make sense.
Yeah but in most other religions the "extremists" aren't a global movement like the jihad movement is. And in most other religions the extremists don't kill people like the west borrow baptist church for example annoying yes offensive yes hated yes dangerous no.
But the fact is Islam easily lends its self to violence this is an indicator of this. Muhammad was a warrior he sprees Islam through conquest its violent history makes it violent as do many of its teachings.
No offense, but I'm having a difficult time understanding what the hell you just said. Islam does not "lend" itself to violence. Anyone who truly understands the Islamic religion knows that it is not a violent religion. Neither is Christianity, Buddhism, or Judaism. It's the extremists that are violent. Sure, there are more Islamic extremists but they come from a third world country where the government is corrupt, the people are poor, the education isn't too good. Not to mention, they've been in a civil war forever. The enemy of Islam is the Islamic extremists if anybody.
Really because according to Muhammad the enemy of Islam is anyone who isn't Muslim. Being a student of history I find that the behavior of these extremists quite accurately reflect that of Muhammad. If you ask me they are the true Muslims.
Muhammad was a warrior true or false? Muhammad went to war with his own clan because they refused to convert to Islam true or false? Muhammad sprees Islam through conquest true or false? The answers to all those questions is true. So what u got?
True Muslim's base their faith off the Quran. Did Muhammad go to war? Sure, but within the Quran is Muhammad's Rules of War, which state that Muslim's can only defend; not attack. No harm can come to a person, place or property unless it is out of self-defense.
Yes but it also states that criticism is an attack on Islam because it indicates hostility. A certain story comes to mind during Ramadan (when killing is forbidden) a couple of Muhammad's followers attacked a quaresh caravan and looted it Muhammad railed at his men because he did not order the attack and said they sinned because they killed during Ramadan as thus he refused to par tack in the riches until Allah (God) said to him that it is okay that his men killed the quaresh because denying Allah (God) and Islam is a greater offense. Yes so peaceful.
Why don't you admit your wrong for once, the majority of Muslims are peaceful the same way as the majority of Christians are peaceful but both groups have spawned extremists, the IRA were a worldwide catholic terrorist organisation does that make all catholics terrorists? Of course not, so All Quaieda being an Islamic terrorist organisation does not make all Muslims terrorists. Also when we look at the history of these groups they were both armed and funded significantly by America without Americas help neither group would have become as powerful as they did so if we're pointing fingers should we not start with the good old USA who funded terrorism for years. Are all Americans terrorists because a few people in the USA thought funding terrorism was a good idea?
The IRA is specific to Ireland so its not even close to the same thing besides the IRA is fighting to free Northern Ireland from Britten unlike the Islamic terrorists who just want to kill non Muslims because they follow the religion of hatred and genocide following in the blood strewn foot steps of there false prophet.
Bullshit the IRA have fooled a lot of people into believing they are battling against the oppression of Britain but they are a catholic terrorist organisation, northern Ireland had been left to govern itself but the northern Ireland government could not cope with the sectarian violence and requested aid from the mainland, if the catholics and protestants could have resisted buthchering each other northern Ireland would have been allowed to continue to govern itself. Also please could you explain how bombing schools is fighting to free e a country from oppression because that's what the IRA did with the funds readily supplied by Catholics in the USA or do Protestant children only count as collateral damage?
All religions can spawn extremists so before you start pointing the finger at Islam have a look at some of the atrocities committed by your own religion, how would you feel if I started spouting hate filled rants about all Catholics being extremist baby killing terrorists because of the actions of the IRA because that's what the IRA were and don't try and kid yourself that their terrorism was confined to Northern Ireland, they committed atrocities everywhere that wasn't funding them.
Islam has done far more damage than any other religion they are by far the worst and most violent. The Catholic Church runs Charity's all over the world Islam runs terrorist cells all over the world. Hmmmm you know what I think I slams more violent than Catholicism. Don't even make me compare the teachings of Jesus to the teachings of Muhammad. Back down or I will embarrass you.
How will you embarress me, comparing out of context quotes from the Quran with out of context quotes from the Bible won't do it because to me that does not define a group of people, the actions of the majority is what to me defines a group of people which is what you fail to grasp and is what I have been trying to explain but sadly you seem to be unable to grasp this but I will try again.
There are terrorists connected with the Islamic faith but this does not make all Muslims terrorists, the same way that there being terrorists connected with the Catholic church does not make all Catholics terrorists, that is my point of view.
To look at it from your point of view there are terrorists connected to Islam this must make all Muslims terrorists. I will defend Catholic terrorists because they only come from one country and the majority of us are OK.
Which view makes more sense and which view is a little hypocritical?
Back down now before you embaress yourself anymore.
No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying Islam was founded by a violent man, who spred it through violence and now garners a global following of violent extremists ITS FUCKING VIOLENT
Islam might have a violent history but so does Christianity and if Islam is such a violent religion they are doing well to get to the point they have where the majority are not violent, Christianity on the other hand is the older religion based on peace and love and its only just getting its religious extremists under control.
When are you going to get your head around the fact that Islamic extremists are the minority but people like you spreading xenophobic hatred is likely to push more to the extreme. Its not religion that is violent its mankind.
You're only embarassing yourself. You argue like a little kid. Why are you telling him to "back down", when you are debating on a fucking debate site? Even if what you are saying IS correct; nobody would believe you because you sound like an idiot.
Hmmmm you know what I think I slams more violent than Catholicism.
What the fuck does that even mean? Learn how to put together an intelligent argument before you start threatening to embarass people.
I ment to say islam's more violent but safari's spell check is retarded. And I'm only giving him a chance to bow out gracefully before I utterly defeat him its only courteous.
Last time you blamed your spelling on dysgraphia; now it's spell check.... hmmm?
I want to see this finale argument of yours. If it's anything like your previous arguments, then you shouldn't even bother. That would be a waste of time for all of us.
No seriously it is I saw the little word bubble pop up under the word as I typed it then replace it once I was done but I didn't read it so its partially my fault in that regard. But not entirely
Lets look at the teaching of the Quran being that it is the holy book of Islam I would say that's the best way to judge ther religion. Well for starters it seems Muhammad didn't like women very much he was directly involved in the murder of women IBN SHAQ 819,995, committed domestic violence against his wife Iesha (age 9) Sahih Muslim book 004 number 2127, said that women constituted a majority of hell Sahih Muslim book 36 number 6597, and there was even a day when women were stoned to death as per his individual orders Muslim 17:4206
Muhammad felt it was his holy duty to kill non Muslims Muslim 1:33 and murdered anyone who criticized him Bukhari 56:369
Muhammad taught his followers to kill, convert, of subjugate all Christians and Jews Qur'an 9:29, Muhammad instructed his followers to kill apostates Qur'an 4:89, the Qur'an teaches punishment over compassion 24:2. So while in Christianity its the "dangerous" extremists that are using the bible out of context it would seem in Islam its the dangerous extremists who are sticking most closely to the actual teachings of Muhammad while the peaceful majority of "Muslims" are mearly doing his teachings lip service. So there what do you think about that? Also check out the video bellow
So you have one religion that you say is based on violence where the majority are peaceful but has an extremist minority compared to a religion that is older but is based on peace and love that has a peaceful majority and also has and always has had an extremist minority, so Islam has come further in a shorter time than Christianity has. I always judge a religion and the people involved on their actions and based on actions Muslims are no better or worse than other religious groups, that is what I have been saying all along and is what you seem to have trouble comprehending.
The crusades were the last acts of violence carried out solely in the name of god by the Catholic faith jihads still occurs to this day we got our shit together a long time ago. Now there were also the Salem witch trials but those were Protestants so go talk to them about that.
Protestants are Christians same as Catholics are they not? So they are still meant to follow the same basic rules so I'm gonna include them and as you are well aware the IRA were a Catholic terrorist organisation who only recently stopped their campaign of terror although they do still have active cells.
Yes Protestants are Christian but I can't Speak for them I'm Catholic. And the IRA (I don't know how many times I have to say this) were fighting because they wanted you Brits out of their country ware as the Protestant orange volunteers wanted you to stay because they didn't want to live in a country with a Catholic majority. It was a Revolt against British rule exactly what we did back in 1776
OK again I will give you another history lesson Northern Ireland governed itself but could not cope with the sectarian violence so asked for help from the mainland, British forces were only in Northern Ireland because the violence between Catholics and Protestants at the request of the goverment of Northern Ireland, no sectarian violence no British forces on Irish soil. If the IRA only used army targets you may have some semblance of an argument but please could you tell me what part in the subjugation of Ireland did schoolchildren and housewives play? The IRA used to bomb schools and shopping centres, that's terrorism not freedom fighting.
The more shocking the act the more attention it gets. My guess is they were trying to show the British that their presence was indirectly harmful and they should leave. Not a tactic I condone but then again I didn't live in the British occupied Northern Ireland but I've heard story's about it. And the orange volunteers started the trouble that brought the Brits back because they didn't want to live in a country with a Catholic majority.
Maybe Muslim extremists are trying to point out that Britain and America's continued interference in the middle east is harmful why do you condemn them and not Catholic extremists?
I condemn the actions of the IRA still I see their cause of freedom as a noble goal. The Muslim extremeists want to bring the whole world under sharea law as they themselves have said.
Stop showing off your ignorance, saying all Muslim Extremists are fihting to implement Sharia law worldwide is stupid some Muslim Extremists have said they are only fighting to free the Middle East of Western influence, surely this is a noble cause?
You also say that the IRA's cause is a noble one, so if a native american extremist group popped up bombing and shooting up schools and malls across America then you'd have no problem with me supporting them in that noble cause of freeing their lands from invaders, what about the Palestinian extremist (after all they are Muslims) fighting to free his land from invaders is that cause noble?
Your opinions would mean little to me in either of those cases. And many Muslim extremist groups (AlQuida for one) have stated that pushing America out of the Middle East is only the start they want to spread sharia law all over the world. If thi wasn't true then what are the Muslim extremist groups not located in the Middle East fighting for?
Stop trying to dodge the question, native american extremist blowing up schools and malls, noble cause yes or no? Palestinian extremist, noble cause or not after all their trying to rid their land of invaders.
Your use of the word many shows you yourself don't believe all Muslim extremists are fighting to implement worldwide sharia law and all big terrorist groups have cells worldwide, buying weapons and selling drugs as well as collecting funds from misguided fools who think their some kind of hero.
First of all we aren't invaders we've been here a long time I and many others were born here so we are just as native so no "native" American extremist would not be justified neither would Palistinein extremists because Israel is the ancient homeland of the Jews they have a divine right to it as proclamed by God himself.
Well northern Ireland has been part of Britain for roughly 300 years so if a native American extremist is not justified in trying to regain his land then nor are the IRA. So if a native american was told he could build a house and live in your back garden as it was his divine right as ordained by his Gods you'd be good with that? Because that's what has happened to the Palestinians.
The "extended" land of Israel is an outcome of a war that they didn't started, yet won. Is this pretty much the main reason for size of most of European/Asian countries?
Before world war 1 Palestine was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire at the end of World War 1 this land was mandated to Britain who gave it to the Jews so they could restart Israel, which up to that point had not existed for 2000 years.
I think your referring to the Arab-Israeli conflict which was the Palestinians trying to reclaim their land given to the Jews by the British, according to Warrior this would have been a noble cause on the part of the Palestinians.
Palestinian point is that they were there before Jews which isn't true... they've lost war that they started. I think that they should be happy that they still exists.
The point I'm trying to make to Warrior that he fails to grasp is that the IRA's cause is not noble, I was giving him comparrisions to a native American terrorist or a Palestinian as their argument is the same as the IRA's they are battling for the freedom of their country if the IRA's cause is noble so are the others and vice versa.
Most people would not use the term noble cause for any terrorist group as it is impossible to find anything noble in the murder of innocent people but he uses it to describe one terrorist organisaton whilst condemning another which is hypocritical, I have a theory which I'm sure he will say is wrong, so I'm going to see if he will hang himself with his own arguments.
I've only had a quick look as I'm on the bus so research is limited but I'm sure the evidence for the 2000 year old Israel is biblical, so is the promise from God which is what the modern Israel is based on. I thought you thought the bible was stupid bronze age myths for creatards so I'm surprised to see you basing an argument on this. Before the modern Israel was created the land was part of Palestine making it Palestinian before it was Jewish unless you go by biblical evidence and gods promise.
This land is ours by right of conquest. The Brits gave Northern Ireland its freedom then took it back I would be pissed too. And it's not the same situation between the Jews and Muslims and us and the "Natives" I would be fine with a "Native" livening next door to me but the whole back yard analogy is a little exaggerated.
Northern Ireland is British by right of conquest, Britain allowed them self rule but they lost control and asked for British troops to intervene that's hardly giving them freedom then taking it back, and the IRA were given many chances over the years to lay down their arms and discuss the peace process but always responded with more violence.
It doesn't matter that the government asked the British for help. If my government asked another country to come in and impose martial law so as to regain order I would still fight to kick them the hell out.
But Northern Ireland is still British by right of conquest so if as you believe that the IRA murdering innocent people is a noble cause then you cannot argue that a native american extremist fighting to regain his land isn't a noble cause.
Out of interest if the Protestants were the ones saying they were murdering people to free Ireland and the Catholics wanted to remain British would your view be the same? I'm guessing not.
Martial law hasn't been used in Northern Ireland since the early 1900's Northern Ireland's attempt at ruling itself and request for a British Peace Keeping force was after this, and like I said if the IRA truly wanted freedom for Ireland they were offered peaceful solutions many times but they refused.
I would not view "Native American" extremists fig jining to kick me out of my own country as noble because I have just as much right to be here as they do this is my home as much as it is theirs. An I support any one fighting against oppression (before you say anything "native Americans" are not oppressed) no matter what their religion. Martial law hasn't been used in Northern Ireland since the early 1990s Northern Ireland's attempt at at ruling its self and request for a british peace keeping force was after thisMay I ask what this "Peace keeping force consists of.
A peace keeping force consists of soldiers sent to help a country keep the peace, thought that was obvious. Americas been sending them all over the place uninvited for years.
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that throughout the history of the troubles the IRA were offered the chance to resolve things peacefully but rejected that idea?
Also if you have the right to live in America because a bunch of people won it by right of conquest, then the British have the right to run Northern Ireland for the same reason.
An ha so it was martial law thanks for specifying. And yes the British have the right to rule Northern Ireland but the people of Northern Ireland have a right to rebel if they feel oppressed.
So do the native Americans (who are as oppressed as the Northern Irish), the people of the middle east (who America has under martial law) and the Palestinians who feel oppressed by the Israelis but you don't support them but support the IRA who you believe to be "defenders of the faith trying to free Northern Ireland". No matter how you try and convince people your arguments betray you because your Catholic you think Catholic extremists are OK.
Those other people certainly can rebel but that doesn't mean I would support there causes as well. PS the "Natives" aren't oppressed they receive more government assistance than any other segment of our population.
Well as I said the "Native Americans" aren't really oppressed they don't even have to live on the reservations anymore but many chose to stay (because I guess they like them now) and as for the palistineins Israel is an ally of the US so I stand by them.
They actually do speak by the majority. They are those who leads demonstration against west. They are those who's becoming Imams. They are those who has weapons. Those who rules in Islamic countries.
Says who? I don't know if you are Christian, but lets pretend a Christian extremist group starts commiting terrorist acts. Next thing you know, they start growing. Before you know it they start taking over our government and waging war on other countries. Countries that don't particularly know much about Christianity. They claim that they are attacking these countries because they are not Christian. Considering that these terrorists refer to their extremist religion as "Christianity" and not "Extreme Christianity" or "Radical Christianity", non christians are going to stereotype Christians as being violent terrorists. This is what has happened to Islam. The terrorists refer to their religion as just Islam, not radical Islam. The Western World is mostly Christian or Catholic, so the majority of us have never bothered to study Islam. If we only read articles and see videos of Islamic terrorists and not peaceful Muslims, well it makes sense that we'd view the religion as violent.
There is a huge difference between radical Christians and Muslims . Radical Christians carry stuff with " god hates fags" on it, thy are creationists, semi literate morons.
Radical Muslims actively suppress all human rights no matter on country they have immigrate in. They kill apostates and unbelievers and/or people who speaks against them, they are completely incapable to run actual country.
It's very easy to check which religion is more psycho.
Draw Mohamad and post it around your town. It will most likely make it into the news.
Following "protests/rage" of peaceful Muslims will kill somewhere between 100-300 another Muslims.
After that draw Jesus fucking with donkey... how much people do you think will die for it?
I think you missed my point when I was talking about radical Christians. I know how they currently are. I was trying to be hypothetical. Obviously there is a big difference between radical Muslims and radical Christians. I haven't been defending radical Muslims though... so why are you explaining to me how bad they are?
You have to realize that they are no positives on Islam, nothing that is not already present in secular societies or religions that are here already. So there is nothing that would outweigh the hate towards democracy, human rights, equality or pretty much anything non-Islamic....
It's like copping your leg off without any reason.
Look man, I've tried repeatedly to explain to you that who you are describing are Muslim extremists, but you keep responding with the same argument. You told me you are a History student, and I told you I was a RELIGION student. While your class teaches history and probably briefly touches on religion, my class was dedicated to the study of the World's religions. This was a college course by the way, not some high school class. If you have an argument that doesn't sound like it's coming from a closed minded redneck, then I'll keep debating with you, but if you're going to continue with this same argument over and over again, then I'm not going to bother responding.
I don't do history, I do Natural Sciences mainly Physics :) I'm in the UK but from Czech Rep. I live usually in cheap areas, mainly with immigrants from Middle East because it's cheapest and for a reason :D Nobody wan'ts to live around them. Freaky people, outside they are smiling but they hate you, they celebrate every single dead soldier. I saw them beating chicks for talking to me, they are animals.
Dammit! I'm sorry dude. I keep getting you confused with Warrior. He told me he is a History student. Anyways, I can understand you thinking Middle Eastern's are weird. To be honest, I'm kind of with you on that boat, but being weird and being violent are two different things. You saw a middle eastern beat a woman, well I saw a white man beat a woman. One guy does not speak for an entire race or group. There are peaceful Muslims out there.
I live between them from September 2008. In Liverpool, London, Cardiff. I've had about 40+ "house mates". All of them freaks, not just redneck from Middle East also University students from relatively rich families. Outside the house they pretend a lot so it must be confusing for you. They see human right,equality, freedom of speech as a weakness, Jewish propaganda. You have no clue what are you trying to defend.
Do you know for sure that they were muslims and not radical muslims? Maybe they weren't even religious. Just because they are from the middle east, doesn't mean they are muslim.
....yeah they were hitting floor by their heads 5x a day and every evening were watching videos were masked guys with AK where screaming something weird followed by Allahu agbar ...
Sounds like radical Muslims to me. . . no, not really. Radicals wouldn't live in same place with infidel (me). These are the average, better educated ones age 18-30.
Did you really have to bold my response? It was only one sentence. Anyways, there is really no point in continuing this debate. Everything I've told you has gone in one ear and out the other, so to speak. It's time to move on.
Sorry you had to live with a bunch of crazy muslims who watched terrorist videos all day.
Not sure. I think this is the first time I've ever debated you. Seemed like you were kind of stuck on repeat, to be honest. A good debate makes each debater think. You seemed like you didn't want to listen and your opinion was right, no matter what.
I just gave you real life inside to their community... It would be very interesting experience for historians studying early medieval cultures...
If you think about Islams origins... It was designed as a warlord's tool. It never meant to be peaceful. Mohammad just made up religion from already existing religions around him and put him self in the front. The he start fighting everyone. He managed to start about 24 wars.
Pretty much same situation is now in Africa with guy called Joseph Kony a warlord who made his own religion based on Christianity and Islam and uses it to hold his army...
I understand where you are coming from. I'm not friends with any Muslims. I had a school teacher who was Muslim, that's about it. What I know about Islam is from what I studied in college. In my opinion, all religions were likely designed as tools.
What I know about Islam is from what I studied in college what you have learned was politically correct PR and that usually does not reflects reality. It's like reading review of a movie from director of that movie.
Religions are very different each from other... their origins do a lot...
For example:
Islam was founded by psychopathic mass murder/warlord, to help him control more people.
Christianity suppose to follow teaching of homeless hippie carpenter who thought that he is god.
War in Islam is only to be waged in cases of the enemy oppressing it's people. When we take prisoners of war, we are supposed to feed them before we feed ourselves and take care of them almost like a guest. Torture is forbidden under any circumstances. Killing is forbidden unless it's an accident or as act of justice such as executing a murderer. Saving one person is as if saving the world and killing one person outside the limits is kill killing the world. When we wage war we are not permitted to destroy religious structures. Even so much as damaging the enemies plants is forbidden unless for some reason we absolutely need to. Harming anyone who isn't fighting against you is forbidden, which includes children and non-fighting women and even soldiers that have surrendered. Rape is forbidden. Fighting the enemy after they have repented or surrendered is forbidden. Pointing a weapon at another Muslim, even in jest, if forbidden. The Quran states that fighting is prescribed even though we hate it. We are encouraged to give charity without anyone else knowing if possible.
Islam is all about peace, fighting only when necessary. Do not equate the hypocrities you see on the news with true Islam.
This again? Come on we get it it's pretty vicious for a religion. I'm on this side though because I don't see it as any more hateful than any other famous religion.
Undoubtedly, islam is the teligion of peace. I think that every religion are good and god created human and called them you should keep peace. The problem here is that people (i.e non-muslims) tend to look and perceive Islam from this point of veiw that of killing and death sentence, from the media or they just look for information to enhance thier percepctive . What I am trying to say that Islam can't merely be understood like this. God tells us in the Quran that we shall not kill ourselves, that life is sacred, and that we shall not aggress. If an enemy aggresses and fights us, we can defend ourselves but we have no excuse to fight them if they decide to refrain. Also, we must not kill another believer; so before we strike we have to be absolutely sure. All of this put together means that suicide bombing, hijackings, and terrorism are non-Islamic.
Hold on, let me tell that to the Christians in Islamic nations where it is the law that, if you say "Allah is not god" you get hanged. Or maybe to my friend whose father was killed by Muslims because he was a pastor. How about passages that tell Muslims to kill unbelievers? ya thats real peace alright!
1. The number of muslims is about 1.6 billion. If 1 terrorist could kill 10 people and what can do 1.6 billion terrorists? This example proves that they are not terrorists!!!
2. Why is bombing civilians and their children not a terrorism?
3. Why is oil more expensive then human's life?
4. Why did eurpeans plunder Africa, India, Syria and other countries? Why are europeans not terrorists?
I have provided sources, where are your? In addition to that, these stats were based on the total number of documented terrorists worldwide. You seem to be referring to just the muslim population. In which case, your statement is pretty irrelevant to mine.
If Islam were a peaceful religion, you'd think there would be at least 1 peaceful Islamic nation. You know, one where you arn't killed when your uncle rapes you or when your a pastor or when you refuse to take part is jihad.
I can send you reports of churches being burned down by Muslims in Indonesia, it's actually ranked as one of the most hostile nations for Christians to live.
Damn. You made a good point. It still sounds like muslim extremists though. Any muslim who truly understands his religion and follows the Qur'an accordingly, would not do such a thing. At least he should not. The Qur'an forbids harm to a person or property unless it is an act of self defense.
Read the Quran, the WHOLE Quran, and you will see the extremists are the true Muslims.
Also, know a tree by its fruit, these are not just a few incidents here and there or one point in history,this is their history and this is most Muslims today. I have heard ex-Muslims say that any Muslim not engaged in violence against un-believers are not consistent. According to the Quran, I should be decapitated.
Surah 2:256: There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore. whoever disbelieves in Shaitan and believes in Allah, he has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing. Surah 60:8: Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not waged war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice. 9: Allah only forbids you respecting those who have made war with you on account of you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are unjust.
What most people do not know is there is no Islamic nation currently. An Islamic nation is one what follows the political structure set down by Prophet Muhammad (SAW). that was abolished in 1924. So the current actions of Muslim majority governments is not indicative of Islam.
The Quran permits slavery. Having sex with them is permitted. During the prophet's conquer he raided caravans and families. He kills the parents of a jewish girl then proceed to rape her and force her to convert to Islam.
Really? A teenager and a middle aged man she knows nothing of. Moving on. Wife beating is permitted. Penalty for apostasy is death
Children aged 10 are legally ready for marriage and sex. The child's opportunity for further education is diminished.
Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee
Qur'an (23:5-6) - "..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess..."
Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."
There are more. Safiya was one of his teenage wives. A jewish captor of which their parents were murdered by him. Aisha was also one of his wives. She was 10 when they consummate. In Islam, young girls aged 10 are allowed to marry. The wife is to be a prisoner at home and can only leave the house if given the permission. A wife's sole duty is to serve the husband, children and household. I know you renounced Christianity but don't do it to your intelligence.
Any religiob that has a concept of a holy war such as a jihad is not peaceful, nor is one that had such a disdain for non-believerd they say that they deserve an eternity in hell. It is neither peaceful or tolerant especially with its out dated hatred for homosexuality.
Well actually, I heard that the 'kuran' of the islamic religion actually encourages war and violance against non-islamics. still, i should say that i am not that familiar with 'kuran'
However, if one's gonna label a religion violent for something in their holy text, I'm not sure if Christianity is free of accusations. Then again, not an expert..
Surah 2:256: There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore. whoever disbelieves in Shaitan and believes in Allah, he has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing. Surah 60:8: Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not waged war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice. 9: Allah only forbids you respecting those who have made war with you on account of you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are unjust.
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
So what? That proves nothing about Islam, child. Many religions claim to be the only way. You cannot honestly believe that Islam is the only religion to claim that it is the only way.
You are sincerely stupid. Surah 2:256 There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.
Here Taghut means idol worships and the worship of many gods. That means all polytheistic religion. While insisting their ways are right and just. Idols are medium in which we channel our thoughts to divine forces. The object alone is useless. There are no tolerance in Islam. Surah 60:8 is the response of the prophet to a daughter who refuses to allow her mother to enter the house since she is a disbeliever. Notice the prophet does not forbid her from 'respecting' but ask that her mother be judged accordingly.
Justice is seen in the eye of Islam not of humanity. That last verse suggest muslims to not befriend those who fought against their religion and drive them out of their homes. They did not mention to not do THAT to others. The Prophet drove non-believers out of their home countless upon countless of times. No one drove people out of their houses but THEM!
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah...nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
no because recently lee rigby was brutally killed but the person that committed this attack was once a Christian and then converted and now he is committing acts of terror also chowlduhury is a hate preacher who convinces Muslims to claim benefits and get as much as they can out of the British government.