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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Islam encourages violence
Islam claims to be the religion of peace. But is it? Most if not all terrorists in the world are muslims, which obviously says something.
“The Last Hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews. The Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: ‘Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him;’ but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.” (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Fitan wa Ashrat as-Sa'ah, Book 41, 6985)
“So that Jews will hide behind trees and the tree will say “Muslim! The servant of Allah! Come, look there is a Jew behind me, he hid here, behind me, come and punish him”. Only the tree Gharqad will not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.” (Kitab al-Fitan, hadith. 2239)
These two quotes from the koran support violence against jews for example. Yet the word 'islam' means peace. So what's going on here?
Yes it dose the Quran is over flowing withe verses just like the ones you have listed and let's not forget the Muslims launched an invasion of Europe long before the crusades ever took plaice and the crusades themselves where a response to a Muslim invasion of Christian lands. And that violence continues to this day for proof simply look at the Middle East.
If so please do name them all in alphabetical order:
Also the crusades/jihad was not against Christianity but for territorial reasons, Al-Andulus modern day Spain accepted the Muslim army with open arms on their arrival, the crusades help unite the christian world AND it was also the thing that forced people to trade and gave birth to the Renascence. Everything that happens does so for a reasons, I do not attempt to look into God's mind: I simply trust and keep faith.
were it not for the birth of islam jews might have gone extinct and the christian world would have required something else to push it out of the dark ages and back on it's feet. You really should search the net for my arguments, and try to get an overall view. I can understand your feelings and slight xenophobia but you must remember that you being and intelligent thinking being can and ought to put yourself in other people's shoes (how would you a Muslim feel about what you think?) I am not a great historrian and I haven't learnt the bible, quran and torah page for page, i'm not even a monk priest, Rabbi nor mullah but I do know the basic facts about humanity.
Oh right I knew it was something like that thanks. Oh and uh sorry I know you don't like the hate on Muslims I'm just saying it has an undeniably violent history and certain verses are sketchy that's all I know their are good peaceful Muslims out there as well.
I just think the violent nature of the language used in the Quran conveys an aggressive message to the listener thus leading to a disproportionately large amount of violent extremism in Islam when compared to other religions. This is all observation and inference of course.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Right, so does Christianity. Just remembered. Please do not over generalize. Just think about what us "god fearing people" have done to the muslim world, ever sine the 11th century.
Because of the cultural and religious indoctrination, muslims will have these tendencies to think narrowminded and as a consequence make grave misconceptions about reality, they are often resourceless and live by adhering to primitive ideologies, which makes up a primitive society, so the impulses to commit violence is far higher than in comparison to the westernized societies.
Islam was founded by psychopathic mass murderer who begun more than 20 wars. He just made mix of all religions he knew an put himself in the from of it. Islam is just a war tool...
If you look on any system based on it, it is always horrible place to live in.
christianity is more complicated here. they've had the spanish inquisition and the crusades. who knows how many people died because of christians. muslims spread through conquest and forced conversion, most of the time. also violent means. I dont believe there is any case in jewish history of violence or war other than for self defense.
"muslims spread through conquest and forced conversion, most of the time"
"Most of the time" is incorrect. Islam spread by trade "most of the time" and by conquest only "some" of the time. I'm not sure how big or small the "some" is; but it's less than trade; trade being the major means of Islam being spread.
And "forced conversions" doesn't seem to hold true either as there's no actual credible historical evidence of this.
Um you guys conquered all of Israel after fleeing Egypt remember that from the old testament which I believe is basically just the Torah. I'm not judging your people or anything but you guys did you share that's all I'm saying.
True as that is violence is not encouraged as much in the Torah or the bible as it is in the Quran. Though ill admit the violence is there in both cases.
by count tell how many times the Quran promotes people to commit murder or kill people whichever you prefer, then compare it to other books. PROVE YOUR STATEMENTS
oh and how exactly should i do that? read the whole quoran and activly count all the verses sorry pal im still in scool i have shit to do. how ever i do know that the quoran is conciderably more violent than the torah or bible and it makes sence too muhammad was an extremlly violent indevidual.
To be muslim means to live peacfully, do not judge muslims by seeing its one bad side. We are people and we all do mistakes; there is no ideal man! You do wrong things too.First, look at yourself in the mirror, look through your own history. Do not follow the hearsays. Not Islam and not Christianity or Jews encourages violence: there are only groups of people who do these things by hiding behind the religion. If you do not believe me, come to muslim countries and see who we are in the real case!
Muslims are people who are indoctrinated by a fascist ideology. The holy book the quran can be interpreted by a whole array of different disciplines. There are some basic methods of interpreting information that when you are to be real, honest and clear, can be only interpreted litterally. Some verses in the quran clearly states to commit violence against infidels and apostasies, stoning for adultery, cutting of limbs for crimes, suppressing of women these are actual absolute truths and laws, which are promulgated by those who adhere to the sharia law. Because of the cultural and religious indoctrination, muslims will have these tendencies to think narrowminded and as a consequence make grave misconceptions about reality, they are often resourceless and live by adhering to primitive ideologies, which makes up a primitive society, so the impulses to commit violence is far more probable and higher to occur than in comparison to the westernized societies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxjBjRnhUqA
I don't think you know what the word "fascist" means.
Sam Harris is just a racist little cunt and a hypocrite. The guy makes a fortune selling books claiming to be an atheist; but he believes in the Hindu gods. And some people are gullible enough to believe him.
Your study counts every small act of arson and vandalism as terrorism. The vast number of the incidents on that list were arson and vandalism... not exactly the kind of terrorism we're talking about. If the 9/11 terrorists had decided to spray-paint "AMERICA SUX!!" on the twin towers instead of blowing them up with planes full of living human beings, we probably wouldn't remember them as the 9/11 terrorists and would in fact probably not remember them at all. Because minor acts of arson shouldn't be counted as terrorism, like your study does in order to water down the percentage of Muslim terrorists.
On a similar note, it's worth finding out what each group is doing, too. Your evidence, for example, counts the Animal Liberation Front as a terrorist group when really the organization has never harmed a living being, only destroyed and defaced a negligible amount of property. If you count every time a hippie tags the side of a building as equal to a religious fanatic making and using an explosive to kill dozens of people, then yeah, Muslims make up a very small percentage of terrorists. If you use the term "terrorism" how most people think of and use it, you'll find Muslims account for a much larger portion of the terrorist totals.
The study counts arson and vandalism as terrorism because they fit the legally and internationally used definition of terrorism. I think you're making the logical fallacy of seeking a customized definition to suite your argument, a form of cherrypicking.
There is no universal or objective definition of terrorism. Different countries and organizations and dictionaries define it differently. (I mean, if you go to the wiki page on terrorism, half the page is dedicated to talking about how the international community can't decide on a definition of terrorism) That's why instead of throwing up a definition of terrorism that doesn't include arson (trivially easy to find, btw) I simply said I don't think that's the kind of terrorism we're talking about. In fact I know it's not because the debate title says "Islam encourages violence," not "Islam encourages arson." The topic for debate here is does the religion of Islam influence it's followers to behave violently; you listed a bunch of other cases of other groups not acting violently to support your point that Muslims aren't terrorists. But the kind of terrorism we are talking about here is violent terrorism; it was stated in the debate title, followed up by posting violent verses in the debate description, and the debate creator talked about Muslim violence in his post. So for you to include non-violent cases in a discussion about Islam encouraging violence is misleading at best and devious at worst.
Also you're study didn't include every little act of arson or vandalism, only major ones or ones perpetrated by major groups. So clearly their "legally and internationally used definition of terrorism (that doesn't exist)" really isn't all that important to them.
Also it should be noted that (according to your study) Muslim terrorism is about 150 times more lethal than other terrorism. If you add up the casualties of all the other (non-Muslim) terrorist attacks it comes out to like 20. If you add up the same for the Muslim terrorists, it comes out to over 3000. So if you really want to include arson and vandalism as terrorism, sure, Muslims account for about 6% of terrorism; they also account for 98+% of all deaths due to terrorism. That tiny 6% is clearly the most violent, destructive, homicidal, and radical of all the groups included in the study if 6% killed more people than the 94% combined and then multiplied by 150. So even if you water down the percent of Muslims terrorist by including trivial crimes, you can still conclude Muslim terrorism is by far the most lethal and violent form of terrorism.
Actually going back over it I see I missed some of the non-Muslim terrorism casualties. So you can think of the overall number as larger and the percentage as lower. However, even given what forgot, Muslims still commit the vast majority of successfully violent terrorism, especially if you believe they only account for 6% of terrorists.
I already read that. Why would I find it interesting? Because it supports my point and not yours?
You: The study counts arson and vandalism as terrorism because they fit the legally and internationally used definition of terrorism.
Me: There is no universal or objective definition of terrorism. Different countries and organizations and dictionaries define it differently.
Wiki: There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term "terrorism".[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of "terrorism". Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed upon, legally binding definition of this crime.
Also, way to ignore the bulk of my post and focus in on and only address one minor part of it. If you can say a dispute with a link is "addressing" my point.
I ignored the bulk of your post because it was superfluousness. The only important point in your argument worth of any attention is that there isn't one singular unified definition.
What the various definitions in the link point to is that "terrorism" isn't just about people being killed. Therefore, you're doing a bit of special pleading when you're wanting a very limited definition to be used just to suit your own predetermined beliefs. That's NOT how critical thinking works.
Now, even if you were to give in to your special pleading, it would only like slightly less worse for your argument because the Tamil Tigers and various other communist groups around the world have committed even more acts of terrorism using such tactics as suicide bombing. Islam is only going to top the statistics if you focus your data on the past 10 years.
I ignored the bulk of your post because it was superfluousness. The only important point in your argument worth of any attention is that there isn't one singular unified definition.
Yeah... luckily for me I'm not you, but because I'm not you I'm not privy to all the reasons you decided my various points were so unnecessary and excessive as to be not even worth your time. So lacking that information it just kinda seems like you have a massive ego. Just sayin' when you scoff at arguments you can't even be bothered to (or are unable to) counter you come across like kind of a prick.
Anywho, I'm glad to see you revised your original position.
What the various definitions in the link point to is that "terrorism" isn't just about people being killed.
Did you read your own link? I was hardly a tenth of the way down the page and I started seeing stuff like "There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Most define terrorism as "the use or threat of serious violence" to advance some kind of "cause"," "the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents," and ""[T]he term 'international terrorism' means activities that . . . involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State." And in pretty much every other definition that included other aspects of terrorism (like vandalism), violence was the primary part of the definition and stuff like vandalism was secondary. Therefore special pleading my ass; as I said it's trivially easy to find a definition of terrorism that focuses exclusively on violence and there is no universally binding definition of terrorism. Personally I don't think some punk teenager spray-painting government property should be considered terrorism; you clearly do. There are definitions (in use) that suit both our "predetermined beliefs."
But definitions aside, like I said before this debate is clearly addressing violence, not minor crap like arson. It was stated in the title, the debate description, and in almost all subsequent posts. In the debate description the creator made a side comment about terrorism; you attempted to use a subjective definition of terrorism that includes non-violent acts to counter his comment. I think this was rather deviously misleading on your part because (even if your predetermined beliefs have led you to define terrorism differently) it's quite clear the creator (and most of the people on this debate... and "most people," according to Wiki) don't think tipping over trash cans should be considered terrorism, like you do; at very least they're only addressing the violent aspects of terrorism, which should have been obvious to anyone who actually read the debate. The primary focus here is violence; any attempt to lead the discussion away from the main topic will be pointed out as such and countered.
Now, even if you were to give in to your special pleading, it would only like slightly less worse for your argument because the Tamil Tigers and various other communist groups around the world have committed even more acts of terrorism using such tactics as suicide bombing.
And? What's your point? A good number of the other non-Muslim terrorism related casualties were from stuff like suicide bombing; the Muslim terrorists just killed way, way more people with their suicide bombing.
Islam is only going to top the statistics if you focus your data on the past 10 years.
First of all, this is data you brought to the table. If you want to debate with different data you should have cited different data to begin with. I'm just using the facts you tried to use to support your argument to instead make an argument against you; that doesn't all of a sudden mean we need better facts.
And why would you focus on antiquated data to refute something like, "Most if not all terrorists in the world are muslims, which obviously says something," which is a statement about the current state of terrorism? If you were trying to determine which basketball team was the best and you figured out it was team X is there any point in trying to refute that discovery by saying, "well they're not the best if you focus on data from 10+ years ago."? If the Tamil Tigers were as violent/more violent/around as violent a decade or two ago as Muslim terrorists are today, so what? It doesn't mean the Muslims aren't violent, or that they aren't the most violent now.
all religions have bad and good sides...for some reason all you people see here are the bad sides of islam...focus on it, and attack it forgetting all the other good sides of it. stop judging this religion based on what you interpret! islam does not encourage violence....it is a religion like many other religions, has good and bad sides so do not ignore the good sides of it and only show the bad ones.
The main Question which states that the two excerpts are FROM the Quran are WRONG!!! They clearly state the names of the books from which they have been taken below neither is the Quran. A hadith is a book that was written after the death of the prophet by people who may have never met him in person, not all Muslims accept every hadith (since many different people wrote many different hadiths) to be accurate or true some may even be forgeries. another thing to note is that the thingy about the Jews refers to those Jews who had betrayed the treaty forged between the muslims and Jews by helping the Pagan polythiests in harming them.
Fuethr more Islam in itself not the people who follow but the IDEAL in itself heavilly encourages people muslims to live in love and harmony with their abrahmic brothers( the wise people of the book) one can't blame a religion or an entire community for the violent deranged actions of a few. further more the statement in the debate question above doesn't hold true especially for within the states 97% of in America terrorist attacks are from non-muslims.
muslims are the only ones as far as I know who venerate older prophets by placing the phrase "alais salaam" after their names which basically means " may god ever take care of them"
The idea people have in their minds about muslims hating jes=ws is also mistaken, they don't cause they can't. Prophet Moses is mentioned the most within the quran then any other!!! Islma happens to be the 2nd most largest religion in the world and to any senseible person christianities ally not enemy. killing all muslims in the world would leave a very huge dent in the worlds population.
muslims are also responsible for most of the scientific theories and advanses that we enjoy in our lives, many word in english are derived from arabic too.
Making people your enemy is dumb. like Abraham Lincoln said the best way to get rid of an enemy is to make him your friend. don't hate other people and don't use false statistics to propogandaficate them ( that's a fake made up word.)
the hadiths are still muslem holy books. so we clearlly have muslem holy books ecouraging violence agains the jews (it just says jews it dosent say these jews that did this it just says jews) but not supprising comeing foma religion with more conections to terrorism than frank sanatra had to the mob
Apart from a some extremist immams you have yet to prove any real links with mainstream Islam and Terrorism, there were a lot of Catholic Priests who supported the IRA so using the same argument its a bit hypocritical of you to accuse Islam of doing something wrong when you are a member of a religion which has supported Terrorism for years
The core of Chistianity is peace however the actions of the IRA against the orange volunteers was seen as self defense by most Catholics and given that many Americans already saw them as freedom fighters they even had supporters among American Protitants. It's not that any priests supported the fighting it was that they supported the fact that the Irish Catholics where defending them selves I'm not saying that was or wasn't what was really going on but that's why it got support.
There were some Priests and Churches as well as some Americans who used to collect money for the "cause" (the IRA) this money was then used by the IRA to buy weapons and Bomb making equipment to make Terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland and mainland UK. They were scumbag Terrorists not freedom fighters and they had the support of the Catholic Church so dont bullshit me that you guys are the Church of peace and love and go on about Islam being violent when Catholics are as guilty of supporting Terrorism as Muslims.
Also think about your stances on things you have made overt comments that you think the Muslim world should be wiped out you dont think Homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else, thats hardly peace and love.
Hitler another member of this religion of peace and love had similar ideas except instead of Muslims he had it in for the Jews.
Okay pal I'm usually a calm guy but this bull shit is unbelievable. As I've told you already self defense is acceptable in the church and is even seen a noble when the defense of others is factored in. And as I've also said the IRA's war on Britain and the orange volunteers was widely seen as a defensive conflict/fight for freedom the only thing the Catholic Church is guilty of is funding an organization it thought was fighting only to defend Catholics. And hitler was a false Catholic he misused the religion to justify his own sick plans. That being said its an undeniable fact that Islam has inspired more terrorism and anti-semitism than Christianity. I won't even comment on homosexuality I've stated my opinion it was meant as a compromise between the proponents and opponents of gay adoption so they can both feel like they won and the homosexuals would gain rights incrementally just like every other civil rights movement.
You can justify it however you like but they were still a Catholic Terrorist Organisation who killed innocent men, women and children which the Church were happy to support, Al Queeda could be spun the same way, fightining to free Afganisthan and protecting their people and religion you cannot condemn one and defend the other without being a hypocrite.
You were the one making sarcastic comments about homexuality and trying to convince me that you were pro gay all I said was if you did not feel someone was not allowed the same rights because of their sexuality then you were being bigoted and that it was no different to racism, could you not think of a way to spin that one so your relying on no comment
I told you I was compromising you can't go all or nothing on gay rights its too controversial. And I explained the situation with the Catholic Church supporting the IRA. Did you know that some imams here in the states support Al Quida because and they have said this "America is an evil empire and needs to be brought under the rule off Allah" or some shit like that so they admit Al Quida is not operating as freedom fighters but instead as conquerers for Allah.
Controversy bullshit you either allow people equal rights which is allowing everyone the same or you deny people the rights they should be entitled to equal rights is not a fence sitter there comes a time when you have to pick a side.
Now back to religion I note you said some Immams that does not mean all of Islam or all Muslims the same way some Priests supported the IRA some also condemned the IRA and said what they were doing was wrong the same way that some Immams and Muslims have condemned Al Quieeda and some think they are freedom fighters, now do you understand what I have been arguing that you cannot blame a whole group of people for the misguided actions of part of that community, although you seem to think that is a rule that applies to everyone except Catholics.
The IRA is one fucking grope there are 36+ Islamic terrorist groups get your head out of your ass the IRA has not one fucking shred of relevance here Islam is a religion of ignorance hate, jihad genocide and murder. End of fucking story.
You know fuck all about the IRA if you did you would not be trying to defend them and the people that supported them, you seem to know less about Islam otherwise you would have realised by now that most Muslims are peaceful civilized people.
All I have done is everytime you rant on about Muslims being violent extremists I have used the IRA as a mirror to prove to you that Christianity is just as capable of creating monsters as Islam is. You have ignored all my points because they did not suit your beliefs and just continued your exenophobic rants and become abusive. In my opinion it is you who needs to take his head out of his arse and take a look around you, meet some people of other faiths learn about their culture and you will find that most of them are normal peaceful people.
All religions including yours are capable of creating monsters as they are saints, one is not better than another just different. End of fucking story!!
And what I've been saying is even though all religions are capable of it Islam is more so than any other religion as evidenced by the fact THAT IT HAS CREATED MORE EXTREMIST GROPS THAN ANY OTHER RELIGION. NOW IT'S THE END OF FUCKING STORY
As I have told you before this isn't a pissing contest to prove one religion to be better than another, the only reason I brought the IRA up was to prove a point and thought it might make you think about some of the Islamaphobic stuff you were writing. If you knew anything about Northern Ireland you'd know there were more than two paramilitary organisations out there I just used the two famous ones as examples.
Jeez you say dumb shit like that and expect people to take you seriously Islamic Terrororists bombed a couple of Buses in London their bigger plans were foiled thats what happens after decades of being a Terrorist target your armed forces and police become good at stopping it before it happens.
Using your logic I should hate Catholics and Muslims but I can see the difference between a murderous fundamentalist and the rest of the people involved in that religion, something you seem unable to grasp.
I got robbed once and my mate was cut by an Irish Catholic should I hate all Irish Catholics because of that on top of them bombing my country? No because that would be stupid, you cannot blame a whole group of people because of the actions of a minority.
Mulsim Terrorists are broken up into tiny factions some of them only ha a couple of people in Al Quaida is probably the biggest most infamous. You really need to educate yourself turn off the TV and go and meet some people of other cultures and educate yourself about other cultures you'll find the majority of people aren't bloodthirsty baby eating lunatics that the press would like us to believe but real people.
As long as you believe the bullshit fed to you by the press you dont stand a chance for fucks sake you didn't even know the UK had been attacked by Muslim Extremists and you had been tricked into believing the IRA were Freedom Fighters.
Look at the history of Islam, look at the Middle East you have muslims killing Christians Muslims killing Jews, Muslims killing OTHER FUCKING MUSLIMS FOR FUCK SAKE. And yes I know that last part happened in Northern Ireland but that was one tiny region compared to all other areas with Christian majority's where no such in fighting occurs. The Middle East is called the heart of the Muslim world and its a war torn hell hole. The Muslims you know are moderates who fled the region because they are actually level headed people but the real religious Muslims are there killing each other. You know what real devout Christians do? They set up charity's and volunteer with Red Cross. You know what real devout Muslims do? They stone raped women and blow each other (and others) the fuck up.
The Catholic Church is not true Christianity. No one can show me Catholic Doctrine in the Bible. It teaches salvation by works. True christianity comes by faith in what Christ did not keeping the sacrements.
As for Islam:
There are over 109 verses to prove it it is a violent religion.
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding caravans with this verse
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast TERROR into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah'
Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.
Quran (4:95) - ". Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (iNot equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their personsn Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse
Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger 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
They were a Catholic terrorist organisation who bombed a lot of "soft" targets in their history killing a lot of innocent people planting bombs in shopping centres midweek in the afternoon, who are they gonna get, mainly women and children!!
You can say same about every soldier that comes from UK that he is fanatical Christian murderer that went to middle east to kills Muslims... because they are coming from Christian country... am I right? Like with IRA they would do same even when based in Liverpool.. ? ...nothing to do with Ireland :D
The British Army is not a Christian organisation, it contains people of many different faiths and does not murder women and children. The IRA are a Catholic organisation that do big difference
The British Army is not a Christian organisation, it contains people of many different faiths so that still means that they killed all those people in middle east because of their religion, right?
If your referring to Afghanistan and the Taliban they were not killed because they were Muslim they were killed because they were insurgents/rebels, the bristish army have been fighting alongside the American army in the ongoing civil war aiding the Afghan government which also happens to be Muslim.
Islam is no more violent than other religions have historically been when they had similar economic and political systems to reside in.
I expect Islam to become more liberal as liberalism takes a greater root in countries with many Muslims, the trick is to make liberalism seem something other than imperialism.
Which won't mean that it will be less violent, Christianity isn't really less violent, but it will find a form which current western society would find less issue with.
Islam doesnot encourage violence nor will it ever try. Muslims fight only when there's a cause to do so as many of the Quran's verses show. People who misunderstand what the verses actually mean are misguided.