Is Islam actually the religion of violence? I was reading ab

>>228562
>Islam was spread by the sword, but is there any evidence that it wasn't just self-defence because Muslims were being persecuted?
I doubt muslims were persecuted from Morocco to western China at a time when not a single muslim lived outside Arabia.

>>228562
>>Islam was spread by the sword, but is there any evidence that it wasn't just self-defence because Muslims were being persecuted?

Yeah, it must have been hard for those poor muslims living in the fucking desert, being persecuted by Romans and Persians thousands of miles away

>>228562
>I was reading about Islam from an anti-Islam site

Not even an Islam apologist, but why would you go to an admittedly biased source to learn things

>>228588
I don't know any other sources, that's why I am asking here
>>228577
They were persecuted within their own region, I heard.

>>>/lit/

File: 1444945324342.png (782KB, 559x828px) Image search: [Google]

782KB, 559x828px

Islam has always been a violent religion, and it has the least basis in historical fact. Every element of it is historical revisionism. We're supposed to believe that Judaism and Christianity were coverups and that all the prophets from these religions preached Islam and that their followers immediately silenced them and lied.

Obviously, there is not a shred of support for this, and all the evidence in the world to discredit it.

Islam grows by reproduction; no one with half a brain could convert to something so obviously crazy. It is literally disproven by the quickest Google search.

By the way, 4chan is being overrun by Muslim apologists who shit in every thread about Islam, so don't let the rabid pro Islam nonsense get to you. The most obvious way they do this is by immediately drawing attention away from Islam to Christianity. It's a classic diversion and obvious logical fallacy, but these fanatics have nothing else to go on.

>>228597
Why are you so opposed to Islam? Please state your reasons and use historical facts

>>228588
You are an Islam apologist though. Stop lying. No one believes you.

I'm so tired of you people shitposting all over 4chan. It was unbelievable last night how you made every board about how poor Muslims are being persecuted after your terrorists shot up Paris.

The damage control was outlandish.

>>228610
Islam did not cause terrorism, pseudo-Muslims did

>>228609
I already stated my reasons. I'm not going to be dragged into a conversation where you post unsubstantiated "evidence" so you apologists can score points for an imaginary audience.

FYI no one is converting to Islam on this board. As I already stated, it's historical revisionism to justify a made up religion. If you continue to try to bait me I will post a slew of evidence demonstrating your religion's proclivity for violence and contradiction.

Back off, now.

File: 1447457299673.jpg (58KB, 627x663px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 627x663px

>>228619

15-25% of Muslims actually engage in violent terrorism. Many more support it. Also, see pic related.

You are lying.

>>228619
>pseudo-Muslims did

Leader of ISIS has a PhD in Islamic theology. Your own knowledge is probably the sanitized feel-good bullshit white liberals get brainwashed with to convinved them Islam isn't a religion of war.

>>228609
Not him, but I am personally opposed to Islam because it is a disgusting "religion" based on terrible moral principles and which brings out the worst in people.

Also, as a student of history it's hard not to be repulsed by the absolutely abominable track record of Islam. By far the most destructive ideology in the history of the world.

>>228609
The false prophet Muhammed (pig upon him) would have convulsions, foam at the mouth and growl whenever he had "visions". His first wife thought it was demonic possession

>>228610

lol what

Telling people in /his/ that they should probably avoid biased sources when researching history is "lying" and "shitposting" and "damage control?"

For insight into Muhammad’s mental condition, consider Chapter 33 of his Koran, entitled “The Confederates.” This is one of the chapters Muhammad composed in Yathrib (later called Medina) where he fled after his Meccan compatriots determined they needed to kill him to preserve their way of life.

The chapter is like a wild theme park ride that races in and out of numerous topics. In the 73 verses that make up the chapter, Muhammad covers the following in the God-voice he used for the Koran: He recaps a recent battle with the Meccans and excoriates people who were afraid to fight and die for him; he gloats about his extermination of the men and boys of one of the Jewish tribes of Yathrib, the confiscation of their property, and the enslavement of their women and children; he authorizes himself to take as many wives as he likes, permits himself to marry the wife of his adopted son, forbids himself from taking any more wives after he has taken as many as he likes, but allows himself sex slaves.

Islam isn't the religion of violence, but it's not the religion of love, either. It's more the religion of justice and reason.

All the shit we're dealing with now is a reaction to modernism, just like fascism was a reaction to modernism in the West.

As the verses of this “revelation” continue, Muhammad imposes full body and face cover for women when outside the home, threatens people with humiliating punishment in the afterlife for annoying him, threatens to murder his critics, prohibits the practice of adoption, and dishes up images of sadistic torture in Hell awaiting people who don’t believe in him. He also praises himself as a “lamp spreading light,” and holds his behavior as a “beautiful pattern” for people to follow if they want to score well with Allah.

Among the verses is a celestial advisory that he must be obeyed:

“It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.” (Koran 33:36) [All of the Koran quotes in this article are taken from the Yusuf Ali translation.]

Despite their tediousness, it is worth exploring some of these verses because, in addition to providing evidence of his strange mentality, they also show that his Koran was like a blog in which he commented on the happenings of the moment. The happenings of the moment recorded in Chapter 33 had to do with war, sex, and Muhammad’s betrayal of his adopted son.

>Is Islam actually the religion of violence?
9:29 pretty muchs says "Fight those do do not believe in Allah until they pay you money", and looking at the actions of Muhammad, I'd say Islam do have some violent aspects to it

>Islam was spread by the sword, but is there any evidence that it wasn't just self-defence because Muslims were being persecuted?

Lot of the verses that say "kill the infidels" were used to make Muslims fight so that they wouldn't be slaughtered by other people that started persecuting them. But verse 9:29 came to Muhammad when he had subjugated Arabia and there were no more people that wanted to or had the power to persecute the early Muslims. Just look at the conqeusts of the Rashiduns (the Rightfully guided Caliphs), war,war and more war.

>Is there any evidence that Muhammed killed women and children?
I don't recall reading anything about him killing women and children, but he did take them as slaves on some occasions, like after the Battle of Khaybar. Iirc, he did feel sorry for orphans since he was an orphan himself, so I seriously doubt he would have killed children for nothing

>Is there any evidence he had sex with his underage wife Aisha?

This is stated in the hadiths and an accepted fact. (I don't remember the specific ones, but I'm sure you would find them if you googled it)

>Is there any evidence that Muhammed was a rapist?

He did take a woman as a sex slave after the Battle of Khaybar, and had a guard watch over so that she would not try to kill him, but I'm not sure if this counts as rape

Thereligionofpeace site is pretty biased, and I've found them giving verses that is completely taken out of context. Perhaps reading the verses with tafsirs could help you?

File: 1445353971697.jpg (49KB, 681x681px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 681x681px

Muhammad was a documented Pedophile. He forced his friend Abu Bakr to give him his daughter. He said he had a dream about her and since Allah made him dream about this SIX YEAR OLD GIRL, then it was “gods will” that they be married. Not wanting to offend Allah, Abu Bakr gave his six year old daughter over to Muhammad to be raped.

(Yes, Any sex with a six year old is rape. There is no possibility for comprehension or consensual sex with a six year old.)

So the Prophet of Allah had Pedophile dreams about a six year old girl and used god as an excuse to get her into his tent for nightly rapes.

That is all anyone needs to know about Islam. End of story. Its a sick cult with a perverted old man originating the sick , war loving religion.

Now lets look at what the Quran says about the events of the criminal Pedophile act.

First he took her from her family and married her at six years old:

Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated that the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) married her when she was six years old, and he consummated her in marriage when she was nine years old. Then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).[2]

Khadijah died three years before the Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) departed to Madina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.[3]

islam is not bad in and of itself. in fact its a very orderly way to live

if we can remove cancerous globalism from the world and stop importing muslims for economic growth then we could live in harmony

>>228627
Someone managing to interview 1.62 billion people, more than a seventh of Earth's population, some of them in areas with poor infrastructure or in the state of total war is truly an impressive task. Or a fabrication. Let us guess which is more likely.

>>228676
Are all of your dreams wet dreams?

>>228693
literally what

just look at any islamic survey, it checks out

>>228693
>creating plausible doubt where there is none
>what is sampling
>questioning one of the most respected polling institutions in the world, and that world leaders don't dispute

Bye bye, Muslim apologist. Your game is up. Everyone knows what a psychotic damage controlling retard you are.

>>228693
Seriously, Muslims are such liars. Look at this post. It's such spin, such a direct contradiction of fact. There's no argument, just "nuh uh!".

I can't stand that people like this shit up this board believing they're winning followers. If anything, I guess, it's a great way to highlight how stupid and averse to reason Muslims are.

I bet you wish you could impose shariah on 4chan, don't you? I bet you just hate knowing you can't do a thing about the fact that everyone recognizes your religion as dumb as hell.

Start posting history or fact or get off this board.

>>228693
I know maths is not the strong suit of you muslims (inb4 muh golden age) but polls aren't usually conducted on the whole population, but on a representative sample, you might wanna read about it between two verses of the Quran :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll#Sample_and_polling_methods

>>228696
Kek, is that really your retort? "You have wet dreams"?

That's not even clever!

File: turkish-islamic-calligraphy-2.jpg (133KB, 600x580px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 600x580px

>>228562

read op

http://booksee.org/book/1139833
if you have any questions you can mail me at [email protected]
but first, read
it's not bad to read stuff from anti-islam sites,
it's always a good thing to have different perspectives on a matter,
you'll figure it out

about the age of Aisha, there is a source that states that she was 6 when she married, 9 at the consummation of marriage, however other sources state that she was 19, scholars explain the different sources with the fact that they only started to count age from the first menstruation or a big event that happened at the time,

more on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8Nz2LpiYVs

i think you'll find enough info on rape and killing if you try to search a bit,

but if you're really interested you should read

peace

>>228752
kek at Islamic Golden Age. Let's see what a former Muslim has to say about that:

>no one can claim Islam is a proponent of critical thinking and skepticism. Islam misuses science, claiming it is scientific, while whenever there is a clash between science and Islamic rules, always Islam prevails. I was told that masturbation is as horrific as a deadly disease and that circumcision is very healthy and that fasting makes you healthy by science teachers. And then we have ridiculous things like “the scientific miracles of Quran”. Islam like all religions is incompatible with science, and its dishonest claims don’t disprove that.

But this is not simply an error, it’s a reinforcement of Islamic authoritarian hegemony.

That era wasn’t that Islamic. While Harun al-Rashid and Ma’mun, the caliphates at the time, were strictly speaking “the rulers of the faithful” and their regime was theocratic, they came much closer to secularism than we ever did before or after. Ma’mun supported the Mu’tizili sect who believed in rationality and the scientific method, and tolerated religious dissidence and even non-believers. And also by all accounts these caliphs drank wine. So this era is not defined by the Muslim majority world following the tenets of Islam.

>>228693
Yup, you got it killa, the face of global terrorism is just misrepresented and misunderstood. Fuck off back to starbucks

Go look at how fucked up India is when comes to religion.

Hindus were able to tolerate EVERY religion to end their shit hole but Islam.

Buddhism has gone full fucking extremist because of Muslim aggression.

Islam is a violent backwards religion, more so than the other two disgusting Abrahamic faiths.

>>228791
>end

*enter

>>228562
>I was reading about Islam from an anti-Islam site and it seems horrible.
You read an anti-Islam site. Thereligionofpeace is the absolute worst one. 90% of it will be total bullshit. Islam has plenty of criticisms yet those guys seem to love simple making things up. Don't tell me you're going to form an opinion without reading the Muslim side of the argument.

>Islam was spread by the sword, but is there any evidence that it wasn't just self-defence because Muslims were being persecuted?
No, i explained it in a post here, why it initially spread.
>>227426

>Is there any evidence that Muhammed killed women and children?
None.

>Is there any evidence he had sex with his underage wife Aisha?
The evidence that exists is a hadith (reported saying or action of the prophet) written down about 200 years after his death, based upon oral knowledge of the period. There are also conflicting sources which state the age as 19.

>Is there any evidence that Muhammed was a rapist?
It depends how you define rape. He fucked all his wives, but i imagine they were happy to be his wife, he was top dog. He would alternate every night to spend with his lives, and sources state he was kind with them.

Overall, i would say he was a kind man, but he grew up in 7th century Arabia, kindness there is not the kindness of today.

>>228597
>Islam has always been a violent religion, and it has the least basis in historical fact. Every element of it is historical revisionism. We're supposed to believe that Judaism and Christianity were coverups and that all the prophets from these religions preached Islam and that their followers immediately silenced them and lied.
That's not what it claims. It claims that over time every prophets message was corrupted. It claims that prophets were unjustly killed, such as Jesus. It claims all these prophets preached monotheism, worship of the one God, but over time people resorted to worshiping idols, a common theme in the old testament too.

Anyone who doesnt agree with your mad absolutist outlook is an "apologist"

>>228627
If 25% of the worlds muslim population engaged in terrorism the world wouldnt exist.

What a load of bullshit.

>>228812
>There are also conflicting sources which state the age as 19.

Let me guess you got it from a pro-Muslim site.
Those sources you talk about came way after the Hadiths. Which casts doubt in their authority and truth. And many of them have been falsified or don't exist. Sorry but according to historiography your claim of Aisha being 19 is bullshit.

>>228656
>It's more the religion of justice and reason.

>stone women
>hang gay people because faggots

>justice and reason


>All the shit we're dealing with now is a reaction to modernism, just like fascism was a reaction to modernism in the West.

So they're going to secularize in the nearby future? THAT I'd like to see.

This thread is one guy spamming his opinions over and over.

>>228812
>The evidence that exists is a hadith (reported saying or action of the prophet) written down about 200 years after his death, based upon oral knowledge of the period. There are also conflicting sources which state the age as 19.
Isn't this literally what Christians do with gospel? And they take it as gospel too.

>>228836
>Let me guess you got it from a pro-Muslim site.
If you got 9 from an anti-muslim site, then whats the difference?

All hadith are bullshit, but nonethless they say both 9 and 19.

>>228850
>7 ¶ Another time Jesus went forth into the street, and a boy running by, rushed upon his shoulder;

>8 At which Jesus being angry, said to him, thou shalt go no farther.

>9 And he instantly fell down dead:

An example from the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus literally kills a kid for bumping into him.

>>228850
I think the Gospels were written in the same century and one of them, i forget which, personally knew Jesus.

Whereas this is the method of Hadith.
Asking people all over what they think Muhammad said. Then writing it down, and using it as religious law. 200 years after his death, some 400 years.

At best from the cross referencing we can build up a general picture of his life but at worst you simply cant take the more detailed things at face value. It's a 200 year old game of chinese whispers and now people kill people for what those whispers say.

File: 1445617421393.jpg (10KB, 255x191px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 255x191px

Yo just what the fuck compels some of you faggots to defend this religion a day after the Paris attacks? Like I don't get get it man. I fuck with buddhism but if armed monks were trolling through a city (even a muslim city) murdering men, women, and children I sure as fuck wouldn't be on a nepalese footbinding board defending against anonymous shitposters. How the fuck is wacisssm!!!! so much worse than what jihadists are doing? I don't think every muslim is subhuman garbage obviously, I even really like Sufism, but you're a schizophrenic retard if the actions of jihadist groups are defensible at all. Kill yourselves

>>228863
Found the site
http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm
Links to the ones you claim that say that she was 19?

And no I got my sources from Islamic sites. She was 6 when they tied the knot and got fucked at 9. Unless you provide me links that show the hadiths. And make sure they are in Arabic, I want to make sure that they aren't being altered. my aunt is here and she is a Lebanese Christian.

>>228842
Justice of today is a lot more humane than it is used to be because we have a massive, well funded prison system.

>>228880
Oh and that site has been debunked since all the links lead nowhere.

>>228562
> I was reading about Islam from an anti-Islam site and it seems horrible.
>anti-Islam
>it seems horrible

wonder why it would seam horrible?

>>228876
What compels you to blame 1.6 billion people for the actions of less than 0.1% of them?

>>228876
>Yo just what the fuck compels some of you faggots
They're muslims.

If you've never met muslims before, they're the most arrogant people in the world. They truly believe their religion to be "true" and you to be a "dirty infidel". I don't blame them though, it's the result of the thorough brainwashing they got when they were kids. Because no one, except for mentally retarded people, willingly convert to shitslam.

>>228880
>>228885
That site explains it with references at the bottom, which do lead onto another site.

I am not defending hadith, i already said theyre all bullshit. She could have been 30 for all we know.

>>228895
>If you've never met muslims before, they're the most arrogant people in the world.
Oh man the irony in your post.

>>228911
>Oh man the irony in your post.
How is it ironic, mehmet?

>>228909
>which do lead onto another site.

That site is dead m8.

>>228915
Possibly one of the most arrogant posts I've read in a while.

My name is Clancy.
Yes, fucking Clancy.

>>228892
Because most of you support it?
I'm more mad that white people give ALL YOU fuckers a free pass but when a Mexican kills a white bitch, we are all responsible for it.

Fuck Islam. I want you faggots to kill the Pope already, I'll kill as many mudslimes here and then head to Mexico and then join the bloodbath there.

>>228933
>Possibly one of the most arrogant posts I've read in a while.
How am I being arrogant? Do you know what the word "arrogant" means?

>>228892
>everyone in the west is culpable for the state of islam now, so if muslims go killing innocents just trying to enjoy their night out (not to mention the thousands upon thousands of other muslims killed the same way), you had it coming
>WHY WOULD YOU HOLD AN ENTIRE RELIGION RESPONSIBLE FOR PAST TRANSGRESSIONS SHITLORD WAAAAHHHHHH

Fuck off back to tumblr faggot

>>228944
>Because most of you support it?
The vast majority of Muslims do not support Islamic extremism, terrorism, and especially ISIS.

I am not Muslim. I'm getting bored of that shitty line you tag onto the end of every post as if it somehow makes you more correct.

You'll hide in your room like the little coward you are if anything goes down. You sound about 16.

>>228971
>defending islam a day after the paris attacks

I think I seriously want to slug you in the fucking face

>>228971
>The vast majority of Muslims do not support Islamic extremism, terrorism, and especially ISIS.
See : >>228627

>You'll hide in your room like the little coward you are if anything goes down
>you dirty kuffar, I'll kill you when the jihad comes
>but I'm totally not muslim guys

>>228562
>, but is there any evidence that it wasn't just self-defence

there is tons of evidence

just read the 3 Islamic holy books - Koran sunna hadith

they spell out exactly what those gdamn sand monkeys did - ambush and kill marauding around as bandits terrorizing travelors and caravans

and then went and lied about it

mohamhead teaches his followers how to do these things in his own words in the Islamic holy books

read them and learn the true evil of allah

this blogger has done a phenomenal amount of effort about - killings for islam

http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html

Islam and Christianity have an interesting contrast. Jesus never killed anyone, and Christianity took 300 years before the killing began.
Whereas Islam began with killing of unbelievers right from the start.

For the first century of its existence, Islam was absolutely soaked in blood. The killing only slowed down as the Islamic empire finally ran into boundaries in the 8th century, after about a century of expansionist, imperialist, unprovoked Islamic aggression.

Even after the initial expansion slowed, the killings did not end. Slaughter (jihad) and oppression (sharia) are part of the core doctrines of Islam. Killing for Islam is not a modern idea, and it will never end until some sort of reformation takes place within the religion. Medieval Christianity was equally violent, but Christianity has since reformed.

>>228966
I don't believe i said either of those things. You have to commit a strawman fallacy to make an argument?

>>228624
>back off now

oh shit call the cops

>>228971
>The vast majority of Muslims

fuck every gdamn 1 of those vast majority of muslims

Mohamhead was a 7th century murdering warlord who rose to power on a river of blood surrounded by thugs and gangsters using intimidation, violence, deception and trickery to expand their criminal empire while mercilessly suppressing and killing their opponents and enriching themselves on stolen booty.

and every mooselimb worships that piece of human shit

The evil koran is a collection of sayings and speeches by this diabolical madman claiming divine guidance from some mythical sky-god which has inspired generations of crazed fanatics to abhorrent behavior resulting in historys worst ever crimes against humanity starting 1400 years ago and still continuing even today.

>>228978
I'm not going to change my opinions because of another attack, they happen all the time, they're happening constantly, and its very tragic when it happens in Europe too. I am just speaking the truth, or as close to the truth as possible to come as no one can ever be completely truthful.

>>228979
I image doesn't show support for terrorism or ISIS.

File: 1441658271334.png (319KB, 534x388px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 534x388px

>>228944
>Fuck Islam. I want you faggots to kill the Pope already, I'll kill as many mudslimes here and then head to Mexico and then join the bloodbath there.

Sure you would you pampered 1st world shit stain. If Muslims really rolled up I'm sure you'd just spread your ass cheeks and donate your daughter to Allah.

I'm not defending Islam but, there's no reason to act like you're some hardass motherfucker on 4chan of all places. Because we both know you're not.

>>229009
>some hardass motherfucker

you have no idea how many ex-miltypes post here

>>229013
>ex-miltypes
ah, welfare queens? that's pretty scary mane.

>>228980
>>228991
>gdamn sand monkeys
>travelors
>mohamhead
>gdamn
>mooselimb

Oh great, the children have arrived. There's clearly not an ounce of reasoning with these people.

I'm off for a wank. Check out this thread if you actually want to see rational discussion on Islam, not fervent ravings of fanatical lunatics. boards.4chan.org/his/thread/226803

>>229013
Sure, but it's not that guy.

>>228982
Don't pretend that's not an encapsulation of the liberal narrative concerning Islam. It's the West's fault for x, but not Islam's for y.

>>229003
Dude, I agree. Not every Muslim is bad. Like I said, I like Sufism, there are some parts of the Quran that I liked, I think arabs who are actually noble and got their shit together are some of the coolest motherfuckers out there, BUT the religion itself and how it is interpreted by hundreds of thousands of young men is a fucking outrage. I'd never get smug and pipe up about "NUH-UH, #NOTALLMUSLIMS" if people are still understandably raging about an attack that killed 100+ people in a European city.

File: 1447009100434.png (31KB, 600x751px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x751px

Hey guys, who got bingo so far ITT?

>>229035
Yeah, well Protestantism is an outrage too.

For everyone who needs a dose of sanity after putting up with nonsensical Muslim apologetics, remember this video exists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

>>229035
You're quoting me in both posts. I never said the weird screaming greentexts so i don't know why you said it. Modern islam is fucked up, but my view is that this is the result of politics, history and socioeconomic, not the book. Nobody even reads the book, religious people are hypocrites, they don't follow it. You think all these dumb fuck ISIS people or sympathisers dont fuck around and do drugs etc.

>>229039
>Take all arguments used to defend islam, from the obvious bullshit to reasonable ones, put them in a grid
>an obvious attempt to discredit any argument without having to do it personally
weak

>>229035
Catholics tried to blow up the king and the entire parliament, and bring the government to it's knees because of their reinterpretation of the bible. They also were responsible for starting huge wars and centuries of torture, interrogation and executions.

File: 45647457.gif (5KB, 252x263px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 252x263px

>>229068
How's this one? Look at those percentages and tell me about how Islam doesn't support terrorism
>greater than 50% in some countries
Top kek man Islam means peace amirite?

>>229030
>ounce of reasoning with these people

I agree it is long past time to "reason" with 8th century murdering religious fanatics

oh and a big fuck you too pal

go spew your b.s. spin somewhere else

>>229068
Why do so many "moderate" Muslims support terrorism if Islam means peace? There is literally no other religion in the world where vast populations support terrorist/violent activity in defense of their religion.

>>229079
Source on them numbers?

File: fag enabler.jpg (10KB, 252x244px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 252x244px

>>228693
>Humanities board
>People dont understand basic highschool level statistics
Why am I not surprised.

File: dhow.jpg (14KB, 218x284px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 218x284px

>>228562
>Is Islam actually the religion of violence? I was reading about Islam from an anti-Islam site and it seems horrible.

Yeah, that's the purpose.

>Islam was spread by the sword, but is there any evidence that it wasn't just self-defence because Muslims were being persecuted?

Islam did not spread by the sword. At least not the religion.

The Caliphate, on the other hand, being an organized state with plans for world domination and with an overly ambitious commercial aristocracy, yes, has spread by the sword.

>Is there any evidence that Muhammed killed women and children?

Nope.

>Is there any evidence he had sex with his underage wife Aisha?

"Underage" was not a thing at that time. Hell, if the girl had her period, she was ready to conceive.

Childhood is a modern invention. Do not apply to the past.

>Is there any evidence that Muhammed was a rapist?

...They invented that about him too?

>>228562
Not OP, but I'm also truly curious about this. I grew up Christian and all my family (while strangely otherwise mostly well-balanced) HATE muslims. I don't like that word, but it's the best fit. I went to a school that had a lot of them, so naturally some of my best friends growing up had muslim backgrounds. I've never really seen anything from them in my personal experience to believe that they were corrupted somehow by their religion, and in fact they were often more welcoming than Christians.

I understand that there is a difference between extremists and moderates, but few people seem to think so.

If I asked you to quote things from the Qua-ran, I have no doubt you could do it. I could easily do the same for the Bible.

Don't mistake me for an apologist. I just don't like unfairly attributing responsibility for acts of the few to the many. Also I haven't subscribed to any religion since I can remember.

File: 1447529673755.jpg (899KB, 1024x1152px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 1024x1152px

Here's some actual history for you all btw

>>229113
fuck you and your b.s. spin

>Islam did not spread by the sword. At least not the religion.

>The Caliphate, on the other hand, being an organized state with plans for world domination and with an overly ambitious commercial aristocracy, yes, has spread by the sword

islam is a theocratic totalitarian form of gubbmit

there is no separation of church & state under sharia law

File: 1447530027811.jpg (68KB, 640x206px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 640x206px

>>229128
Go ahead and do it then. Quote me a place where it says that Christians should kill non Christians or have sex with children.

>meanwhile, in reality

>>229147
>rape marry and divorce prepubescent girls
read >>229113


"Underage" was not a thing at that time. Hell, if the girl had her period, she was ready to conceive.

>>229128
>I've never really seen anything from them in my personal experience to believe that they were corrupted somehow by their religion, and in fact they were often more welcoming than Christians.
It's because you've had a chance to see them as living,breathing humans like the rest of us. Most people with extreme hatred most likely get their perception of them from various youtube videos,sites but not actual real life experience.

> I just don't like unfairly attributing responsibility for acts of the few to the many.
exactly, you can't excuse jihadist actions but there's no reason to enact punishment on people who have otherwise done nothing wrong.

File: 1447535091972.png (49KB, 595x680px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 595x680px

Not all terrorists are Muslim, just 99.3%!

>>228562
>self-defence because Muslims were being persecuted?

They weren't being persecuted. Islam was a religion that emerged from judeo-Christian inspiration in Arabia. It gained momentum through a charismatic leader and it took off because of capable leadership and religious fervour.

>Is there any evidence that Muhammed killed women and children?

I don't know but killing civilians was a reality of ancient/medieval warfare so most likely yes

>>228562
Any religion is a religion of peace and violence.
''Islam is all about peace'' is bullshit. It's not. It's a religion of life, and war is a part of life, especially during the advent of Islam. Most Muslims just want to live and practice their religion, though, so to them, the war parts are probably unnecessary. The same as Christianity is all about loving gays now, which is ridiculous if anyone was to read the Bible. The Qur'an says:
>Sahih International: O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.

>And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.

>>228562
Regardless of ideology they are biologically beneficiaries to a racially pure world by attacking c*ck multi racialists.

>>229147
Deuteronomy 13:13-17 says if you know of a city that worships a different god, you should put them all to the sword, destroy all of the things in it, burn the crops, salt the earth, and leave it ruins forever

>>229190
>The Qur'an says:

fuck the Koran

read the violent cruel injustice too over 1700 surahs on these topics in just a few 100 pages of Koran Islamic b.s.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/inj/long.html

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

File: jean_leon_gerome_150_view_of__cairo.jpg (223KB, 1400x732px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1400x732px

>>229146
>islam is a theocratic totalitarian form of gubbmit
>there is no separation of church & state under sharia law

There is a very serious problem in this reasoning.

There is no church in Islam.

There are no priests, priests, bishops, cardinals or equivalent.

There is no religious hierarchy.

There is religion, the faithful and God.

There is a natural law, the Sharia, and its interpretation, Fiqh; then emerge the Imams, Sheikhs and Muftis.

There is no doubt that the Caliphate was based on the Islamic religion. But never had any control over it, or the Sharia.

In fact, the Sharia became autonomously governed by jurisconsults, people who had the preference in free market of legal opinions.

It was totalitarian? In what definition? Anyone had safeguarded its lives and property. Could virtually enter into any contract, and act as pleased with its means.

>>229187
Also islam was able to get a ton of its early converts from the eastern provinces in the byzantine empire because of all the different Christian sects or heretics that didn't want to conform to the official Orthodox theology. So basically a ton of them were disillusioned and they were also treated better under the early caliphs than under the Byzantines. Many eventually converted to Islam because of the jizya tax and because there was the occasional persecution

>>229207
>Deuteronomy

ot = jewish yes ?

>>229174
that's comparing numbers killed, not numbers of attacks
you're just bitter because Muslims are more efficient and got a higher score than everyone else

>>229218
>There is a very serious problem in this reasoning

wtf ? are you actually claiming that the Islamic religion is not based in sharia law ? that sharia law is separate from islam ? and Islamic rule countries do not enforce sharia, ie, Islamic law on their people ?

nobody believes your spin anymore pal

>>229222
it's part of the Bible. It's preached in Church. Jesus himself said it all counts, every single letter and jot still applies.

And if you're going to use that loophole, you have to give it to Islam as well because 90% of the Koran is just plagarised from the OT. It's violent because it's the same source material as the Bible

>>228991
>>>/pol/

>>229235
>wtf ? are you actually claiming that the Islamic religion is not based in sharia law ? that sharia law is separate from islam ? and Islamic rule countries do not enforce sharia, ie, Islamic law on their people ?
>nobody believes your spin anymore pal

>Sharia = church
Well, so the problem of your reasoning is illiteracy.

And no, I do not know any country that applies the Sharia.

Sharia law is not applicable, is discovered.

What is applicable is the fiqh.

>>229238
>because 90% of the Koran is just plagarised from the OT

that's because mohamhead claims the jews & xtians corrupted their text and only Koran has the truth

>>229243
GFY

I am replying with appropriate posts in this thread which fits rules for history

>>229238
>And if you're going to use that loophole, you have to give it to Islam as well
No you don't. The very point of sending Jeezus to the people was to amend and renew the pact between god and men, so the older version is superseded, whereas Mohammed decided on his own to plagiarize the ot instead of the nt.

>>229238
The vast majority of Christians in the world, Catholic and Orthodox, do not, nor have they ever, supported this interpretation. In fact, the earliest Christians thought the entire Old Testament was allegorical, and no Christian community ever has stated that ritual or war-related law applies to them.

Ever.

>>229257
>, I do not know any country that applies the Sharia.

even wiki left wing central has list of dozens of Islamic countries with sharia law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country

>>229260
I'm not defending Islam but calling your ideological opponents the equivalent of stupid poopyheads doesn't make for rational discourse.

>/his/ is not /pol/, and Global Rule #3 is in effect. Do not try to treat this board as /pol/ with dates.

>>229238
Why are liberals this pathetic and dumb? Seriously! Muslims are compelled to follow the words of the Quran, Christians have never been compelled or agreed with following the law of the Old Testament. There has never been even a single instance of a Christian community that follow Deuteronimical law.

Just because you don't understand the religion of Christianity doesn't mean you get to make up its rules.

>>229266
>the earliest Christians thought the entire Old Testament was allegorical

I don't think so

the books in jewish OT can be clearly separated into separate groups - historical psalms legal etc

>>229272
You can not apply the Sharia. The precept is that it is not created, is discovered. Only the jurisprudence makes up the praxis.

It is a common mistake to call the Fiqh - the jurisprudence - as Sharia. An error leading to serious inconsistencies.

>>228562
Try sitting through this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RFK5u5lkhA

There is no one Muhammad, there are several. There was the original Arabian prophet born somewhere in Arabia, either in the North or the Hedjaz, of which little is really known. There is the vague idea of 'the prophet' among the early Caliphs who reference each other more often than him (if they even called him Muhammad) when referring to 'the sunnah'. There is the Muhammad of the minds of the 3rd and 4th generation of Muslims, many of whom were not Arab and lived thousands of miles from Arabia. Then there is the Muhammad of the Sufis, the Arab Nationalists, and finally the radical fundamentalists, all of which are versions based off a patchwork of sources from the 3rd generation coupled with their own interests and prejudices.

The Muhammad of anti-Islamic sites is a Western translation of the Muhammad of the above mentioned radical fundamentalists, both of which are a modern construct.

so is the belief that islamists are an insignificant minority just a myth?

>>229266
this is complete bullshit. Half of the OT is geneologies, measurements, or explicit commandments. There is no way to take that allegorically

And most of the stories that are taken allegorically are still horribly cruel and violent even with that interpretation. You constantly have X king of Israel killed ten thousands of people, burnt a few dozen as human sacrifices to Yahweh, take all the women and children as slaves, and they're exalted as virtuous and models for what a believer should be. Even taking it allegorically as "you should be totally devoted to god in your actions" it's still obvious that the Bible thinks that being a mass murdered doesn't prevent you from being a model of virtue, as long as the people you're murdering are nonbelievers

>There has never been even a single instance of a Christian community that follow Deuteronimical law.
right, except all of those Christians that pick and choose Deuteronomy for what they agree with, especially in regards to homosexuality and how women are treated

>>229284
I have historical scholars to back my point up. Quote me one peer reviewed source that said that Christians have ever applied the laws of Deut. to themselves, or shut the fuck up now and forever.

Since you won't produce that source, because it doesn't exist, you are a child and pathetic. You are actively arguing disinformation to prove a political point.

>>229310
See: >>229311

Haha literal children.

>>229281
>There has never been even a single instance of a Christian community that follow Deuteronimical law.

There is no equivalent to Deuteronomical code in the Quran. In its place Christian communities followed various interpretations of Canon Law.

>>229316
No shit, and none of those laws have ever encouraged murder and rape in the way the Quran has, which by the way, Muslims actually do follow to the letter.

This is the fucking point retard. Hurrr

>>229311
the Westminster Confession of Faith, basically the document the Church of Scotland was founded on, explicitly states that the moral laws in deuteronomy still apply, it's just the ceremonial shit (like diet, no mixed fibres, etc.) that doesn't

>>229321
Shariah (nor Canon) encouraged murder or rape. Such chaos was exactly what both systems avoided.

>>229321
>No shit, and none of those laws have ever encouraged murder and rape in the way the Quran has, which by the way, Muslims actually do follow to the letter.

so the Pope promising spiritual salvation for fighting in the Crusades doesn't count as the Church encouraging the murder of non-believers?

>>229333
The moral laws mean the 10 commandments. Do you even understand what you're arguing, retard? Moral law literally has nothing to do with the incitement to violence you quoted, nor has it ever been understood as such.

Its hilarious you're trying this hard to prove Christians are violent against all evidence and reason. Liberalism is seriously a mental illness.

>>229337
The Crusades were defensive and a direct result of Muslim aggression. Also, that's not the scripture. Why are you moving the goal posts? Wasn't your point that Christian scripture was just as bad as Muslim? Did you give up on that?

File: 1447530047654.jpg (460KB, 1280x1365px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 1280x1365px

Come on, what happened to all the college lib retards arguing that Christianity is as violent as Muslims? I thought you had some great sources and evidence to show us all!

LOL
O
L

>>229351
>The Crusades were defensive and a direct result of Muslim aggression
No, we've had this conversation dozens of times already.

>>229385
You haven't answered any of them.

>>229351
>Christian scripture was just as bad as Muslim? Did you give up on that?

that is #1 tactic debating mooselimb apologists

try to drag xnity into the discussion with some poorly made comparisons, trying to claim that because xnity also has problems this makes the problems in islam ok - which is b.s they both suck it's just that islam sucks much worse than xnity - any objective competent review of history ideology shows this easily

>>229339
the moral laws IN DEUTERONOMY
the 10 commandments are in Exodus

stop being a retard and accept that you're wrong

>>229351
> Why are you moving the goal posts? Wasn't your point that Christian scripture was just as bad as Muslim? Did you give up on that?
Yes, I already proved that the Bible has places where it says "kill the nonbelievers" but the response was "yeah, but Christians didn't take that part literally." I'm just showing that they definitely did

>The Crusades were defensive and a direct result of Muslim aggression. Also, that's not the scripture
yeah and guess what, modern Islamic terrorism is because the terrorists see their actions as a defensive and direct result of Western aggression

>>228633
>By far the most destructive ideology in the history of the world.
>as a student of history

You're not a very good student of history then.

>>229395
>No,

yes they were

its easy enough to prove by looking at a few historical maps

700ad - geographic area under sharia law is zero

1000ad - geographic area under sharia law is literally 1000s of square miles across several continents

and this was a "defensive" spread of islam ?

GFY

>>229408
>xnity
why do you call christianity 'xnity'?
I'm not really in the debate I'm interested on the word choice, is it because it easier because it's shorter?

>>229418
>its easy enough to prove by looking at a few historical maps
Said no serious historian of the Crusades ever.

>>228590
>They were persecuted within their own region, I heard.
Then why conquer half of the know world because of this?

>>228791
>Buddhism has gone full fucking extremist because of Muslim aggression.

Oh yes, those violent Rohingyas fighting against the military government of Burma and forcing those Buddhists to be ever so violent to tame them. Those Rohingyas who are among the most persecuted minorities in the world with some of the least freedoms. The very same being held in a smear campaign by hardline buddhists who want to control the country as they see fit and with impunity.

File: image.png (6KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 640x480px

>>228562
I find it funny how liberal-leaning Atheists actually defend Islam, yet attack Christianity. It really just shows how much of a joke they really are.

>>229418
And Christian history is full of these things too
Charlemagne massacring the pagan Saxons and taking their land
the Teutonic Order being founded solely to push East and conquer and subjugate the pagans in the Baltics
pretty much all of Ukrainian/Russian history in the 1000's being X king decides he's Christian now and any noble or neighbour of his that isn't gets their head chopped off

>>229421

yes less keystrokes....

I type in sentence fragments too :)

>>229412
The moral laws mean the 10 commandments. Still waiting for your peer reviewed source of JUST ONE Christian group that ever followed Deut law. Come on, you cited the quote that Christians allegedly follow. Now show me one source that proves it.

Or should we all just agree with you, despite proving you know nothing about Christianity at all?

>>229446
That's the story of this thread. It's embarrassing. Everyone can see it for what it is, and yet they think they are making themselves look good with their "arguments".

>>229446
no one is defending Islam, they're just rejecting the idea that Islam is a special case in being a crazy violent religion
show me one post ITT where someone actually claims Islam is peaceful

>>229235
>are you actually claiming that the Islamic religion is not based in sharia law

It's literally not and paradoxical for it to have been.

>>229451

quit trying to change the topic from islam to xnity

all of western society already knows about the evils of xnity

but sadly because of political correctness the libbies in the west think and believe the b.s. spin spewed by the mooselimb apologists that somehow islam is saintly and good and lovey dovey - which is total utter b.s.

mohamhead was a 7th century murdering warlord and islam is his own creation

>>229451
What is one example of Christian endorsed violence from the past 400 years? You realize that Islam is still doing this stuff, right?

Also not one of those historical incidents you quoted is actually premised on religion and not secular assertions of power.

File: image.png (228KB, 499x698px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 499x698px

I hope the next pope calls a crusade.

I've got a broadsword and a M14 rifle desu

What other religion in the world today is spawning terrorists at the rate Islam is? This is the only relevant question.

Go ahead, explain it to me.

>>229456
>III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.

>IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

>V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

It says it right there. Ceremonial stuff is out of the way with the New Testament, but the moral law "does forever bind us"

>the moral laws are just the 10 commandments
this is blatantly untrue. If you have something to back this up, please bring it up

File: image.png (93KB, 216x249px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 216x249px

>>229467
>evils of xnity

You mean the centuries of scientific breakthroughs and Nobel prizes, the Colonization of a new uncultivated world, and the feelings that after this shitty world, we'll live in a better place?

>>229418
Jesus Christ, the "defensive crusades" concept is that the attack on the holy land was a reaction to the violence against christians that happened in the 11th century after the caliphs did a 180° in their tolerance of infidels, not a reaction to muslim expansion by itself.

Why are muslims seemingly immune to atheism unlike whites and asians? It seems like people gradually become atheist when exposed to modern materialistic life, this isn't the case for muslims, even the youth who grew up in western nations are more radical than their parents

>>229469
>Also not one of those historical incidents you quoted is actually premised on religion and not secular assertions of power.
the Teutonic Order was a religious order. It was blatantly premised on religion. Was the ultimate goal a secular assertion of power? Sure, but you can say the same thing about all of modern Islamic terrorism.

>What is one example of Christian endorsed violence from the past 400 years?
plenty of it going on in Africa. Especially against homosexuals and perceived witches

>>229467
no one is claiming this. Stop arguing against a strawman that literally no one in this thread believes

>>229456
The letters of the Papcy from Gregory VIII on through to Innocent III reference Deuteronomy numerous times in their condemnations of and call arms against various enemies. and Deuteronomy was a significant element of the rituals followed by those on the First Crusade.

>>228562
>I was reading about Islam from an anti-Islam site and it seems horrible.

No shit.

>Is Islam actually the religion of violence?

It's a religion of many things - it encompasses dealing with violence. That does not make it 'A religion of violence' though.

>Islam was spread by the sword

The Caliphate was spread by the sword. The conquerers were Muslims and much of the demography during the Caliphates were not muslim being far more religiously pluralistic places. Places like central Asia, China, SE Asia were spread via trade and diplomacy more than anything else. The muslims, a new kid on the block so to speak, did no more and no less than any newly united regional power and expand. It was in vogue at the time and throughout history. Blaming it on divine precepts or on imperalistic ambitions why dismiss one over the other?

>Is there any evidence that Muhammed killed women and children?

Evidence? As in historical sources? There's plenty describing how woman and children were treated and to be treated in the aftermath of war. As for him personally not that I'm aware of.

>Is there any evidence he had sex with his underage wife Aisha?

Nothing definitive hence why so many 'answers' differ. There's no such thing as an 'underage' wife by the way. Girls were married at young ages throughout the world and would become 'wives' at young ages.

>Is there any evidence that Muhammed was a rapist?

Again no.

If you are genuinely curious about Islam then I suggest you read some proper historical books on it first before jumping into the theological underpinnings which evolved and is a far heftier and tangled challenge.

>http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Arab-Peoples-Updated-Edition/dp/0571288014/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407950688&sr=8-1&keywords=Albert+Hourani

>http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Venture-Islam-Volume-Classical-ebook/dp/B004QO9958/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1391347295&sr=8-5&keywords=Marshall+Hodgson%27s+History+of+Islam

>>229497
>after the caliphs did a 180° in their tolerance of infidels
More precisely after the Byzantines lost control of Anatolia and the Balkans, leaving pagan and Muslim Turkic tribes to rampage and devastate the region.

>>229504
>Why are muslims seemingly immune to atheism unlike whites and asians? It seems like people gradually become atheist when exposed to modern materialistic life, this isn't the case for muslims, even the youth who grew up in western nations are more radical than their parents
but that's not true. The youth are actually dramatically more secularised, it's just that a small group rebel against society and decide to go jihadi. It's literally the same as the hardcore white nationalists who reject liberalism and decide to shoot up a church

I live in a neighbourhood that's like 40% muslim immigrants. All of their kids are the same shallow materialistic wastes of humanity as the white kids are

>>229479
If it weren't islam, it would probably be some other radical, violent dogma dominating the increasingly unstable middle East.

>>229504

>generalisations

Think of atheism and agnosticism in Muslim countries as homosexuality - there's no doubt it's out there, it's just not socially acceptable.

Western-raised youth alienated from those societies for whatever reason (foreign policy/experiences of racism) turn to the religion because it allows them an identity. That happens less in actual Muslim countries.

>>229504
There are still many millions of Christians and a huge number of different quasi-religious nutjobs in every prosperous country, so I don't think your premise (people gradually become atheist when exposed to modern materialistic life) holds true.

But it may be the case that Islamic communities generally isolate themselves (think: neighborhood with predominantly Turkish inhabitants in a major city) and so there is less deviation from what among these families is the norm.

>>229529
no, you're retarded. The Turks weren't even around at the start of the Crusades
An for the most part the Ottomans weren't wild rampaging barbarians, they were very organised and methodical in their oppression of the local population. Relatively little wholesale slaughter, mostly just heavy taxes and slavery

>>229504
>Why are muslims seemingly immune to atheism unlike whites and asians?
Because the average muslim thinks it's ok to murder those who leave islam, so no atheist movement ever starts up. If you look at immigrant muslims, there's a shitload of secularized ones, pretty much everyone who doesn't fundamentalize becomes no more muslim than the average euro is christian.

File: image.jpg (59KB, 610x488px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 610x488px

>>229504
Not in the US. I'm an atheist and my parents are durkas. You have Islamist cells in your countries brainwashing the parts of the Muslim youth thats socially ostracized into becoming crazy durkas. 2nd gen Muslims turn non religious first and absorb Western values, then they 'find Islam' again.

My parents are Sufi though so I guess they're pussy Muslims.

Things could have been different:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX4RK8bj2W0

I love how people in this thread are demonizing Christianity as "oh its just as bad".

No, its not. While the Old Testament is filled with acts of violence against people, the New Testament is pretty much devoid of it.

Compare that to Islam, where you have its prophet saying that killing in the name of God is righteous. Jesus never commanded an army or conquered cities, and never justified violence of any kind, even in self defense.

So is there LITERALLY ANY point in Islam where Muslims weren't violent? Because there have been numerous instances in Christianity....

>>229558

[citation needed]

>>229552
>I love how people in this thread are demonizing Christianity as "oh its just as bad".
You're going to see this in every thread that's critical of Islam. Red herrings are an important tool in the Muslim apologist's toolbox.

>>229552
New Testament morality doesn't seem bad because it is the foundation for western conceptions of morality.

>>229529
>More precisely after the Byzantines lost control of Anatolia and the Balkans, leaving pagan and Muslim Turkic tribes to rampage and devastate the region.
No that's why Byzantium asked for help. The reason for all the Jerusalem crusading is that from Al-Hakim onward the caliphs started murdering christians, destroying churches and denying pilgrims access to the holy landmarks.

>>229547
>2nd gen Muslims turn non religious first and absorb Western values, then they 'find Islam' again.
it's pretty much just the way that the shithead violent youths act out trying to find some community and meaning in their lives when they have nothing to contribute
same as niggers and latinos with gang violence and white people with shooting up schools and churches. Everyone's just trying to act tough and find a cause where they can make a name for themselves

My city is 10% Muslim, my neighbourhood at least 30%, and the biggest terrorist act we've had here in our history was a white guy upset with feminists who decided to shoot up a college

>>229544
Look man, this is my specialty. I'm not saying this as a /pol/tard whose sole education in history comes from a .com website or the political section of a Barnes&Noble. The Seljuk Turkish tribes had been migrating into Anatolia and the Pecheneg Turks into the Balkans for decades before the First Crusade. Around 1090 the Byzantine Emperor's regime practically collapsed, and in the chaos these roaming tribes began surging and gathering under pretenders to Byzantine duchies or declaring themselves independent sultans.

>>229552
Nobody cares about Christianity, Petrus.
They are just as bad only in the sense that all Abrahamitic religions are accompanied by a history of genocide and faggotry.

>>229552
The Old Testament is the chronicle of hundreds of years of states and empires rising and falling. The New Testament is the life of one dude, that's why it's got less acts of violence.

>>229544

>The Turks weren't even around at the start of the Crusades

What the fuck? Literally the entire justification for the First Crusade was Turkish migration into (formerly) Byzantine Anatolia

>>229571
>No that's why Byzantium asked for help.

Correct

>The reason for all the Jerusalem crusading is that from Al-Hakim onward the caliphs started murdering christians, destroying churches and denying pilgrims access to the holy landmarks.

Nyet. It's a popular old theory, but it has no evidence to support this was the reason. Jerusalem had its own mystique related to popular prophesies at the time of the imminent end of the world. This was why, when the Crusader masses split off from the Norman princes at Antioch, they avoided conquering any other Muslim territory until they reached Jerusalem.

>>229585
>The New Testament is the life of one dude
Specifically like 2 years of that life.

>>228562
>Is Islam actually the religion of violence?
Duh. noone seriously believes it isn't except for suicidal liberals and a subset of deluded muslims.

>>229585
It doesn't have less acts of violence, it has none explicitly ordered by Jesus. Jesus commanded his followers to die rather than kill.

Meanwhile in Islam though, it was kill rather than die.

>>229573
my bad, I thought by "Turks taking the Balkans" you meant the Ottomans
usually no one calls groups anyone other than the Seljuks or Ottomans into "the Turks" because there are a ton of groups you could include in that when it comes to the Balkans, even the Bulgars back in the 600's

>>229591
>Literally the entire justification for the First Crusade was Turkish migration into (formerly) Byzantine Anatolia
More like their conquest of Jerusalem and Antioch in 1073 and 1085 actually.

>>229597
Do you actually think the west would have given a shit about the byzs if the seljuks hadn't also conquered Syria & Palestine and started harassing pilgrims? The conquest of Anatolia and consequent call for help only gave the pope an in, but was not the ideological drive.

Islam wasn't even united until Saladin. Of course the Crusades were seen as aggression, why would some Arab in Damascus care about some people nigging it up in Spain or the Balkans?

>>229571

>from Al-Hakim onward the caliphs started murdering christians, destroying churches and denying pilgrims access to the holy landmarks.

Nice meme. Al-Hakim's successor re-built it all and normalised relations with the Byzantine Empire. Then they lost it to the Turks and only took it back a few years before the Crusade

The people at the top of these terrorist organizations have agendas. They use Islam to recruit morons who will willingly fight to the death. The Japanese did the same thing.

The people at the top aren't just religious fanatics--they're power hungry and looking to take advantage of the destabilized region.

If the United States decended into chaos like Syria and Iraq, you'd see Bible thumpers doing pretty much the same thing here.

>>228562
The Islamic State, and later states spread by the sword, but conversion to Islam was generally of a persons free will, with some societal incentives. In fact it was mostly seen as a kind of upper class rulers super sekrit klub religion that they liked to keep to themselves. It does say in the Quran that an ultimate goal is for the whole world to be under the POLITICAL dominion of Islam. This is not the same as everyone being Muslim, it's a Christian thing actually to try to convert everyone.

>>229606
>it was kill rather than die
If that was it, I'd prefer islam to christianity. The problem is that islam is "submit or die".

It was certainly born out of violence and continued to be violent in many ways. However, there's also a great philosophical tradition in Islam, it's just being suppressed by Wahhabis and extreme Sufis at the moment.

File: peace.jpg (41KB, 644x422px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 644x422px

Fuck the people in this thread saying we should hate all muslims.

You are small minded and vile creatures, and as long as there are people who hold the views you do, there will be young, poor, angry muslim men, willing to die for a piece of brotherly recognition from his fellow man.

This people have been deeply twisted and corrupted by many aspects of society and the world we live in.
Their sickness in no way tarnishes the rest of the muslim world.
And you, you fucking racist, right wing lunatics, are just as much of the problem as any of the people manipulating these poor, damaged people to commit such violent acts.

Shame on you.
This attack is just part of the wider war happening in Syria. While this event fills me with unspeakable sadness, you have to realise that these tragedies are happening to muslim people on a daily basis, in Syria alone.

This is just a taste of what these refugees are fleeing from.
If you want to be part of the solution, stop advocating hate.

>inb4 sjw crap

Go fuck yourself, you insolent child.

>>229618
>Do you actually think the west would have given a shit about the byzs if the seljuks hadn't also conquered Syria & Palestine and started harassing pilgrims?

It was irrelevant, because what really got the Latins interested in the Byzantines was a concerted campaign of letter writing by Alexios to several counts, dukes, and bishops across Western Europe detailing various crimes and atrocities. The Seljuks had conquered Syria & Palestine decades earlier, and yet an earlier call to travel east by Gregory VII had almost no result.

>>229622
>Al-Hakim's successor re-built it all
Yes but right after him came the seljuks and they started doing the same shit as Al Hakim.

>>229643
2/10 bait

We can't expect Muslims to adapt to our own culture when we ourselves abandon it, treat it with sarcasm and call it naive and boring and let it be overrun by things that have a bad influence on it.
And I don't mean Sauerkraut and Baguette, I mean Literature, Music, Cinema.

>>229664
>We can't expect Muslims to adapt to our own culture when we ourselves abandon it
This is something that needs to be widely acknowledged. If you won't recognize the primacy of your own culture, you can be right sure than foreigners won't either. Bring back ethnocentrism and abandon poisonous multiculti.

>>229680
I agree to this, although this is all from Zizek, it's worth repeating:

We need to rehabilitate the idea of a european Leitkultur that you HAVE to adapt to in order to live here. We have to be honest and adapt to it ourselves aswell of course.

>>229443
You clearly know nothing about the situation.
>Those Rohingyas who are among the most persecuted minorities in the world with some of the least freedoms
You know who this is also true about, sans the minority part, Burmese people in general. Rohingyas actually have it better than most Burmese(Arakanese in this case), because of all the western aid they've been getting since forever. They're also pretty radical Muslims. Also: Calling them Rohingya is propoganda, as that is the historic name for Muslims in the area, who the Burmese have never had a problem with, and these people are almost exclusively Bengalis who only came to Arakan during British rule. The rest of what you said is pretty untrue too, but I don't feel like responding to the whole thing so: Fuck off if you don't know your shit.

>>228562
Islamic society was pretty advanced for it's time back in the golden ages of the caliphates. Now Muslim nations are shit. They'll catch up eventually

>Muslims are doing terrible shit currently
>B-But Christians did terrible things hundreds of years ago!
If you do this, please kill yourself.

>>228880
weird that the US/West is allied with literally all of those countries as far as I know and the highest one, Jordan, is actually pretty chill/the only place in the mid east you can go these days as a westerner.

>>229558
>So is there LITERALLY ANY point in Islam where Muslims weren't violent?

Numerous instances.

For someone who so very obvious can't be bothered to do their own research and takes a forgone stance it's pointless to direct you to them.

But seeing as you'd call me out as being a liar you can perhaps look at muslim merchants/trade missions to central asia, China, SE asia. You can perhaps look at periods of muslim rule in al-Andalus (periods I say because of course it wasn't all peachy all the time but you are only asking for points of peace). Various muslim theologians, scientists, sufi poets also - Ibn Arabi for instance.

So? How are you going to respond? Are they not legitimate?

>>229733
You're right, Christians are doing terrible shit now.

>>229759
Can you point me towards the latest Christian suicide bombing or massacre?

>>229763
The thing is Christians don't suicide bomb because there's no jihad bit in the bible. They just bomb, keep living and bomb again. Killing one self is a straight up sin.

>>229784
>They just bomb
>there have been religiously sanctioned wars since the invention of flight
Oh you.

>>229784
Alright, don't dodge this time. Point me towards the latest Christian acts of terrorism.

>>229763
Pretty much all the wars America has done in the last few decades have been done by Christians.

>but but they don't do it for Christianity!
Who cares, you said they're not doing it period. They are.

>>229784
Killing yourself in Islam is also forbidden and a sin.

>>229797
The mental gymnastics you have to play to justify your religion has to get tiring, doesn't it?

File: 1330503175722.gif (496KB, 180x208px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 180x208px

>>229694
>Rohingyas actually have it better than most Burmese

Oh god - look at this retard.

>They're also pretty radical Muslims.

Based on what?

>and these people are almost exclusively Bengalis who only came to Arakan during British rule.

For hundreds of years now they've lived in that region. They are entitled to to same rights any citizen should have yet are systematically denied. Vast numbers couldn't even vote in the 'democratic' elections held recently.

>The rest of what you said is pretty untrue too

Why don't you educate yourself instead of retreating like a coward when faced with a reality you can't deal with?

>http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/10/cloneofpromoting-muslim-threat-myanmar-151025123-151025132207025.html

>http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/exclusive-strong-evidence-genocide-myanmar-151024190547465.html

>http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/10/proxy-war-myanmar-buddhists-muslims-151027110344281.html

>http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/breaking-genocide-myanmar-151025133708542.html

>http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/10/rape-weapon-myanmar-ignite-fear-151024173444297.html

>http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/11/video-sowing-hatred-securing-power-myanmar-151109154209568.html

>http://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/genocideagenda.html

So is this a untrustworthy news site? Are all these investigations false to you? Are the humanitarian organisations supposedly giving them a 'better state of living than the average Burmese' lying when they call them prosecuted?
You don't know jack shit.

>>229809
What a fantastic deflection.

>>229819
You're comparing wars (not religious wars, the US didn't roll into Baghdad and force people to convert and they didn't burn mosques in Afghanistan) to Muslims intentionally attacking civilians in the middle of cities.
>But the kuffars bomb Muslim civilians all the time!
If the west was intentionally trying to kill Muslim civilians, there would have been far, far more bodies piled up.

>>229837
So what. It's still Christians killing people which you made out like they didn't do. The reasons don't really matter, especially considering they're not supposed to kill anyone.

And in the end your argument hinges on the Idea that all Islamic terrorism is purely for Islam. With ISIS this is definitely the case, but not necessarily before that, pretty much all the acts of terrorism came with reasons why they were doing it, which were never simply "You're not Muslim so we kill you". Even 9/11 was not done for that reason, Osama laid out a list of reasons, all political. However this is all washed over and painted as attacks because their God tells them to.

>>229797
It was obvious that he was asking for recent examples of Christians who do it specifically for religious reasons. You're being a smart ass by answering a question that we both know wasn't really asked

>>229876
>>229763
Anders Breivik.

>>229811
>For hundreds of years now they've lived in that region
Kind of like Jews in Israel, mmh?

>>229876
>>229837
In 2015, Robert Doggart, a former right-wing Congressional candidate, was arrested by the FBI while planning a terror attack on New York Muslims. The FBI says Doggart was planning to firebomb and burn down a mosque, school, and other buildings, and to use an M-4 assault rifle, a handgun, Molotov cocktails, a pistol, and a machete to kill anyone who resisted him. He faces five years in prison and was released on $30,000 bail after pleading guilty to a single count of interstate communication of threats. As noted by the criminal complaint, Doggart spoke of his willingness to sacrifice his life to prove his "commitment to our God". He also exhorted his followers to be "cruel" to Muslims, to burn down their mosque, kill them, and even to cut them to shreds with a machete. Doggart's defense attorneys said that their client is an ordained minister in the Christian National Church, has numerous degrees and certificates, and is a veteran. According to court documents, Doggart is a member of several "private militia groups".[107][108][109][110][111][112]

>>229837
>>229876
Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012.

Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church shooting, July 27, 2008.

The Centennial Olympic Park bombing, July 27, 1996.

. Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1994.

File: map750.gif (33KB, 800x373px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 800x373px

All right, muslims ITT, I want to ask you a simple question.

Why did the arabs conquer so much land? Why did they attack Egypt, Spain, Persia all the way to western China?

>>229876
>>229837
Christian Terrorist Organisations.

>The Army of God

They are described as,

A network of violent Christianists that has been active since the early 1980s, the Army of God openly promotes killing abortion providers

>The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA)

Most popularly known after a failed media campaign by Invisible Children, the LRA is run by Joseph Kony in Uganda. Raw Story describes the organization as such,

The word “jihadist” is seldom used in connection with the LRA, but in fact, the LRA’s tactics are not unlike those of ISIS or Boko Haram. And the governments Kony hopes to establish in Sub-Saharan Africa would implement a Christianist equivalent of Islamic Sharia law.

>The National Liberation Front of Tripura

Best described,

Most of India’s Christians are peaceful, but a major exception is the National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT). Active in the state of Tripura in Northeastern India since 1989, NLFT is a paramilitary Christianist movement that hopes to secede from India and establish a Christian fundamentalist government in Tripura.

> The Concerned Christians

This very strange pro-Israel, anti-Muslim group who believes their job is to convert all Jews to Christianity. The Concerned Christians are a doomsday cult in which members quit their jobs and devote their life to the cults mission which includes killing Muslims in Israel, or at least trying to.

In 1999, Israeli officials arrested 14 members of the Concerned Christians in Jerusalem and deported them from Israel because they suspected them of plotting terrorist attacks against Muslims.

>>229900
Why does any empire conquer?

>>229918
There can be various motivations.

Why are you dodging the question?

File: Arab on how to catch a predetor.jpg (108KB, 960x692px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 960x692px

>>228562

>>229900
The Arabs under Umar I's early reign stopped at the natural defensible borders of Mesopotamia, and showed no interest in expanding further. Under separate tribal leaders midway through his reign they began striking out independently into Egypt and, after the failure and collapse of the Sassanid counterattack, into Persia. From then on Arab adventurers started carving out personal tribal kingdoms with nominal allegiance to the Mesopotamian core.

Islam developed later in Syria and Iraq, and spread out following the Arabs later.

File: blacks on islam.jpg (49KB, 640x623px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 640x623px

>>229929
There's no single answer. It's not just because Islam if that's what you're trying to get at. They were an empire, they expanded because they could, land to the west was undefended and ready to take, Iberia was weak and would fell easily, Persia and India were rich. Only the Holy Land might have religious motives what with Jerusalem.

>>229942
>Islam developed later in Syria and Iraq, and spread out following the Arabs later.
hahah no

>>229947
>There's no single answer.
Then give me a multitude of answers.

> they expanded because they could
How chivalrous

>>229950
The center of early Islamic theology where the basis for Hadith studies and Islamic Law was Kufa, in southern Iraq, and in the Umayyad court at Damascus and Raqqa.

>>229938
But thats a picture of Ali.

Ali was such a bad ass to be fair. He was Muhammads adopted Son, in battle he was the one who would always go forward to do the champion duels before the battle, he never lost. His sword is also famous, the Zulfiqar, a sword which ends in two points.

>>229962
Sunni Islam, and you're correct. But not Islam as a whole.

>>229967
>He was Muhammads adopted Son, in battle he was the one who would always go forward to do the champion duels before the battle, he never lost. His sword is also famous, the Zulfiqar, a sword which ends in two points.
>this is the kind of people muslims base their religion on.

>>229971
More or less Islam as we know it, Sunni Islam being the vast majority of the Islamic world and scholarship, and with Shi'a Islam's early roots in Mesopotamia as well (along with many of its most important sacred moments, such as Karbala).

Before the Umayyads, there was a proto-Islam of which little is known directly.

>>229953
They initially expanded to keep their people united. They got into war with the Byzantines and Sassanids, as they were winning they continued to take their land off them. Both of those empires ruled north Africa and Persia, which the caliphate took from them, which is how they came to rule those lands. It seems like the invasion of Iberia was similar to the initial Arab explosion (lel). The Berber tribes who had converted were not good Muslims and about to rebel, so it seems they were redirected into Iberia. India comes much later and doesn't really fall under this, by that time lots of different people were Muslim and it was just nation building and war as usual. You cant immediately label any war done by muslims throughout history to be a holy war to spread religion.

>>229981
It's called Quran alone. They only had the Quran, so they followed it.

>>229978
The early Muslims were at war, whats the problem, champion warfare was a key part of Arabic culture. It's part of the reason they did so well against the Sassykids and Byzantines, they would challenge their officers to duels, who stupidly took the challenge, and get defeated obviously. Not only did they lose part of their command but being in front of the whole army it was a huge morale shock too.

>>229982
So you're telling me the arabs were a bunch of opportunistic camel fuckers who took advantage of byzantine and persian weakness to overrun large swathes of territory and imposing their barbaric religion and culture on conquered peoples, turning the middle east back centuries in terms of progress?

Seems accurate actually.

>>229988
>The early Muslims were at war, whats the problem,
The problem is that you're all pretending Islam is this a religion of peace when it's really a religion invented by a pedophile warlord caravan bandit to rally bedouin tribes around him to loot cities and capture sex slaves.

>>229989
Yes thats the gist of it but i don't understand the need for all the insults. Your final part is blatantly untrue, it improved the land greatly. The middle east had been a continual warzone between empires for centuries and was suffering from it, and facing very heavy taxes and economic stagnation. The Caliphate brought stability, internal peace, and economic prosperity, following this intellectual progress was made.

>>229988
>It's called Quran alone. They only had the Quran, so they followed it.
Not exactly that either. The Quran wasn't a major element in the government of the early Caliphate. It grew in importance later under the new class of scholars that arose specifically to interpret it. What was the major driving force was the 'Sunnah.'

Not the Sunnah of Muhammad, mind you, but the general idea of wise leadership embodied by a line of past Caliphs.

>>229989
Also incorrect. The Arabs were opportunistic as a military aristocracy tends to be, but they did not impose their religion or culture on the conquered. They specifically set out in fact to prevent such a thing, believing themselves too good for others to deign their admittance into their ranks. It was the educated slaves they took who, growing up and slowly overtaking this new aristocracy in the administration and high culture of the Arab cities, developed what became Islam and Islamicate culture of the early Medieval period.

>>230006
>The problem is that you're all pretending Islam is this a religion of peace when it's really a religion invented by a pedophile warlord caravan bandit to rally bedouin tribes around him to loot cities and capture sex slaves.
All i did was talk about Ali. Didn't know historical figures and their battles was off limits on a history board.

>>230006
>The problem is that you're all pretending Islam is this a religion of peace

Quote one person in this thread that did so.

>>230008
>Yes thats the gist of it but i don't understand the need for all the insults.
Because the spread of Islam was a tragedy.

>Your final part is blatantly untrue, it improved the land greatly.
Oh please.

Coptic Egypt, Christian Syria and Zoroastrian Persia were leaps and bounds more developed than those bedouin goatfuckers.

>following this intellectual progress was made.
Until Islam corrupted the minds of the few smart persians and egyptians left, and then the history of the middle east is one of absolute zero intellectual development.

>>229172
I basically grew up at a school of mish-mashed religion and I had far more trouble with the self-professed Christian students and teachers than the self-professed Muslims. We had other religions there, too, but the most welcoming were the Muslims and the most alienating (no matter who you were) were the Christians.

It's not like we had race/religion wars or anything, it was very peaceful and I never once heard or saw any religious arguments (apart from ms. preachers daughter getting in a fist fight with the science teacher about the bible). It's just something I noticed in the back of my head over the years that it tended towards the Muslim attitude > Christian.

>you can't excuse jihadist actions but there's no reason to enact punishment on people who have otherwise done nothing wrong.
That's basically what I believe, but I don't think many share that belief. I don't think all Christians are bad just because the nutjob down the street beats me over the head with a bible every time I walk my dog. Similarly, I don't think every Muslim is as trustworthy or respectful as my best friend Omar in HS.

>>230012
That's probably because the Quran, on its own, isn't a huge intrusion to life, it doesn't give a bazillion laws and rules, so it's effect on government would have been limited. But nonethless Muslims would have been following it, technically, or should have been. Not like most of them could read back then.

>>230020
I'm sorry, I think your head is too filled with rampant hatred and bias for intellectual debate on this topic. Please try to adopt a more open and neutral standing.

>>230020
>and then the history of the middle east is one of absolute zero intellectual development

After it had one of its most brilliant periods of intellectualism in its entire history, yes.

>>230035
>I'm sorry, I think your head is too filled with rampant hatred and bias for intellectual debate on this topic
It's indeed filled with hatred, but I wouldn't say it's filled with bias. Bias is whitewashing the horrible crimes of muslims throughout history. I'm just looking at facts objectively. Islam is the only reason why the middle east is such a shithole today. It absolutely corrupts the minds of its followers.

>>230039
Which only ended because of 1 huge, costly invasions which destroyed everything they had done.

>>230039
>After it had one of its most brilliant periods of intellectualism in its entire history,
Lol what? The middle east had far better periods in the past. It was basically the center of civilization up until muslim arabs ruined it.

>muslims invade afghanistan/pakistan
>they "defend" themselves from local buddhist
>mysteriously population now becomes muslim
kek

>muslims invade india
>they defend themselves from local buddhist/hindu "monasteries/universities/libraries"
>mysteriously buddhist population dissapear

After Jesus died his best buddies spread his word peacefully and were killed and shit because everyone hated them

After Muhammad died or whatever the fuck he did all his homies went around destroying shit and killing people. One even went up to some king or something and said "Let me show you a trick old muhammad taught me" then he decapitated the guy and raped his wife on top of his corpse

That should tell you what you need to know

>>229547
This.

It's literally Beta Uprising: Mohammedan Boogaloo

>>230044
>Islam is the only reason why the middle east is such a shithole today.
It's not though. From maybe 1300 to 1945 Islam was just a large but unimportant religion that wasn't strictly followed or adhered to. Islam had little influence on any of that period, it was largely the Ottomans and they were poor, no, not due to Islam, rather that Europe simply overtook them.

>>229664
This.

Ironically, secular society is what allows Islam to grow

>>230049
No serious historian contests the scale of academic activity of the 9th and 10th century Middle East. Not even Byzantine or Latin contemporaries commenting on them had anything dismissive to say about their achievement as a civilization.

>>230049
>Lol what? The middle east had far better periods in the past. It was basically the center of civilization up until muslim arabs ruined it.
Didn't you come saying this shit before and got destroyed?
No you are wrong. The flourishing Mesopotamia ended around 500BC, 400BC at the latest. It was a "shithole" from then until the Caliphate. The larger middle east including Egypt did well but in the Roman period it gradually declined. Certainly, by the time of the Arab conquest, the middle east as a whole was poor and backward, definitely not the center of civilization. I suggest you open any history book on the history of the mid east to see this.

>>229763
When was the last bombing or massacre commited by a Shi'a Muslim?

>>230053
>After Muhammad died or whatever the fuck he did all his homies went around destroying shit and killing people. One even went up to some king or something and said "Let me show you a trick old muhammad taught me" then he decapitated the guy and raped his wife on top of his corpse
Something gives me the idea that this is false.

>>230080
>It was a "shithole" from then until the Caliphate
Oh please.

Zoroastrian Persia.
Ptolemaic then Coptic egypt

shitholes?

GTFO

>I suggest you open any history book on the history of the mid east to see this.
I suggest you do the same. Not the Quran though.

>>230103
Roman Egypt including the Copts were not anything special, they certainly welcomed the Arabs. The true middle east was definitely a shithole.

This idea that the middle east was the center of civilisation, the bastion of human development, just before Islam took it over, and then apparently ruined it all, is completely wrong, has no basis, and couldnt be further from the truth.

>>229518
The theological underpinnings have direct relation to Islamic history.

>>229009
>implying

The mudslimes dont have the means to mount an actual campaign. That's why they stay hidden and kill civilians.

>>229470
>and a M14 rifle
Have fun lugging that around.

>>228693
>something% of white people have a negative view of Muslims

Clearly Islamophobia is here

>something% of Muslims around the world support honor killings

Polls don't accurate.

>>229415
Weh, sure won that argument you fucking coward

File: 1432774078943.jpg (70KB, 375x455px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 375x455px

>>228833
>the world wouldnt exist.

are you being serious right now

>>228944
>Because most of you support it?

I'm from a Muslim country and I can tell you that thats false.

/pol/ pls leave

>>228627
>15-25% of Muslims actually engage in violent terrorism
Congratulations, you just posted the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on 4chan.

>>228627
>>228693
>getting your info from jpgs
The picture misinforms.

Here's the actual study cited: http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

>The percentage of Muslims who say they want sharia to be “the official law of the land” varies widely around the world, from fewer than one-in-ten in Azerbaijan (8%) to near unanimity in Afghanistan (99%).

>At the same time, the survey finds that even in many countries where there is strong backing for sharia, most Muslims favor religious freedom for people of other faiths. In Pakistan, for example, three-quarters of Muslims say that non-Muslims are very free to practice their religion, and fully 96% of those who share this assessment say it is “a good thing.” Yet 84% of Pakistani Muslims favor enshrining sharia as official law. These seemingly divergent views are possible partly because most supporters of sharia in Pakistan – as in many other countries – think Islamic law should apply only to Muslims.

>The survey – which involved more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in 80-plus languages with Muslims across Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa – shows that Muslims tend to be most comfortable with using sharia in the domestic sphere, to settle family or property disputes. In most countries surveyed, there is considerably less support for severe punishments, such as cutting off the hands of thieves or executing people who convert from Islam to another faith. And even in the domestic sphere, Muslims differ widely on such questions as whether polygamy, divorce and family planning are morally acceptable and whether daughters should be able to receive the same inheritance as sons.

cont...

>>231800
>Overall, the survey finds that most Muslims see no inherent tension between being religiously devout and living in a modern society. Nor do they see any conflict between religion and science. Many favor democracy over authoritarian rule, believe that humans and other living things have evolved over time and say they personally enjoy Western movies, music and television – even though most think Western popular culture undermines public morality.

>The new survey also allows some comparisons with prior Pew Research Center surveys of Muslims in the United States. Like most Muslims worldwide, U.S. Muslims generally express strong commitment to their faith and tend not to see an inherent conflict between being devout and living in a modern society. But American Muslims are much more likely than Muslims in other countries to have close friends who do not share their faith, and they are much more open to the idea that many religions – not only Islam – can lead to eternal life in heaven. At the same time, U.S. Muslims are less inclined than their co-religionists around the globe to believe in evolution; on this subject, they are closer to U.S. Christians.

>Few U.S. Muslims voice support for suicide bombing or other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam; 81% say such acts are never justified, while fewer than one-in-ten say violence against civilians either is often justified (1%) or is sometimes justified (7%) to defend Islam. Around the world, most Muslims also reject suicide bombing and other attacks against civilians. However, substantial minorities in several countries say such acts of violence are at least sometimes justified, including 26% of Muslims in Bangladesh, 29% in Egypt, 39% in Afghanistan and 40% in the Palestinian territories.

>>229104
Indian numerals.

Femanon here, I don't like islam or muslims because they are pieces of shit who want to deprive me of my freedom. I want them all dead for that.

>>231800
>Pakistan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Pakistan_since_2001

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_discrimination_in_Pakistan

>Religious discrimination in Pakistan is a serious issue. Christians, Hindus and Ahmadi Muslims among other many other religious groups in Pakistan are routinely discriminated against. They are at times refused jobs, loans, housing and other similar things simply because of their choice of religious faith. Christian Churches and Ahmadi mosques and their worshippers are often attacked.[1]

Sure you can practice your religion except we'll kill you and destroy your churches if you do! Islam is the religion of peace!

Why are muslims such disgusting liars?

>>228627
>Wife should obey husband
But that one's not wrong

>>233251
I may follow my husband's advice if I deem it just and wise, but if he tries to order me around I will kill him. He has no right to order me around. You are another piece of shit to say something like that is right.

>>233251
No. I think for myself.

>>233267
There's literally nothing wrong with the husband being head of the household. There's nothing wrong with him giving direction and order to his wife. He should similarly strive to accommodate her when she needs something.

I still cannot comprehend the modernist loathing of authority as something inherently bad, there's such a massive resentment of authority. Not just bad authorities, but authority itself.

>>233269
What does that even have to do with it?

>>233286
I am my own head and if I make an household with a man I do it so we can be equal partners, I have no intention of being subservient or inferior to anyone. I give myself direction and order, I do not need it from him. He can give me advice just as I can give advice to him but the final decision is up to the self, not to the other. When the other needs something he or she cannot get by themselves, the other is there to assist and help. That's the way I want. I do not resent authority; I establish myself as my own authority, and anyone who does not accept that is not worthy of being with me.

>>233291
It has to do it that no husband commands me as I decide for myself.

>>233318
Accepting authority doesn't make you inferior or subservient at all.

Husband and wife are supposed to be one body. As much as possible, they should have one will. You look at it almost as a business partnership, no offense.

>>233328
It does make inferior and subservient if you attempt to deny me my own authority.

>Husband and wife are supposed to be one body. As much as possible, they should have one will.

Which in your view translates to annihilating completely the wife's will as she is not supposed to decide for herself but to just obey her husband like a cattle animal. If husband and wife were really supposed to be one body and one will, the husband would not attempt to obliterate the wife but would treat as his equal partner, who has as much authority as him and has as much of a say in all communal decisions as him, who is her own independent authority for everything regarding herself just as he is his own independent authority regarding himself. Two halves co-existing in mutual respect and forming an harmonious whole, not one half oppressing the other by taking all the power and authority for himself. Islam is not acceptable in any way.

>>233328
>Accepting authority doesn't make you inferior or subservient at all

So you talk back to your boss?

>Accepting authority doesn't make you inferior or subservient at all

Sure that's why I a simple employee am in a clearly lower position in my company than my manager whom I take orders from.

>>233361
>It does make inferior and subservient if you attempt to deny me my own authority.
No one is forcing it on you, it's just a question of what marriage *should* be. To accept it willingly does not make you subservient or inferior in any way at all, that's ridiculous. Christians respected Roman authority, that didn't make them inferior or subservient.

>hich in your view translates to annihilating completely the wife's will as she is not supposed to decide for herself but to just obey her husband like a cattle animal.
Authority ≠ slavery. C'mon.

> If husband and wife were really supposed to be one body and one will, the husband would not attempt to obliterate the wife but would treat as his equal partner, who has as much authority as him and has as much of a say in all communal decisions as him, who is her own independent authority for everything regarding herself just as he is his own independent authority regarding himself.
He should be deferential to her as much as possible. Ultimately, the onus is on her to let his will take precedence; if she tries to contest his will, he should defer, but she's in the wrong, generally speaking, unless he's tyrannical (but then he wouldn't be deferring, would he?).

>>233366
No, but because I don't talk back to anyone, not because he's my boss. If I didn't consider it bad for humility to talk back, I'd certainly talk back to my boss if he were seriously disrespectful.

>>233361
I do not accept authority from islam or allah either since I don't believe in monotheistics religions. Some of Jesus's teachings, especially those who teach you to be a good person and love other; those are good, but the rest is trash. In all matters I think for myself and draw my own conclusion.

>>233375
This a problem with capitalism, not authority per se. You're nothing but a worker to earn money to your manager, it's not really a comparable relationship.

File: 257776.jpg (71KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 850x400px

>>233386

>>228562

>Islam was spread by the sword, but is there any evidence that it wasn't just self-defence because Muslims were being persecuted?

How the fuck do you spread through self-defence?

>>233377
Marriage should not be a man forcing his will on me and deny me of my own. You are one who would force it on me since you are trying to force me to accept your view of what marriage should be when my view is entirely different. Other women are free to see it however they like; however you're asking me and I am telling you what marriage for me should be, which is not what you say.

>Authority ≠ slavery
In practice it is too often like that.

>He should be deferential to her as much as possible.

No. He should respect me and treat me as his equal.

>Ultimately, the onus is on her to let his will take precedence; if she tries to contest his will, he should defer, but she's in the wrong, generally speaking, unless he's tyrannical (but then he wouldn't be deferring, would he?).

Why would I be in the wrong for for upholding my own will? I am my own person with my own mind and my will matters as much as his. I do not accept being told I am in the wrong because I want my own will to matter too, that is extremely insulting. We can reach a combined will but his does not take precedence over mine, that is unacceptable. I do not matter less than him that he would have precedence over me.

>>233382
And you'd get fired because he has the authority to do so. But you're either lying or a sheep. I talk back to all those who deserve it.

>>233389
It is a comparable relationship since a husband in islamic view is not a husband in terms of power relations, it's a boss.

I struggle to believe that any large amount of Muslims truly support terrorism. Muslims are human beings, they're not monsters, they're not psychopaths, and like the majority of religious people they're simply born into it but don't actually know much about it and are unlikely to have even read their texts. I think it's more like this.

If, right now, after the Paris attacks, you did a survey on western people, asking if bombing of Muslim cities as justified. I imagine a good deal, maybe as much as 50%, would say yes.

These studies saying Muslims justify bombing of Americans is exactly the same, the fact that they're taken mid iraq war kind of proves that. You've got to understand that during the 00s, for better or for worse the majority of the worlds Muslims sided with Iraq and were against the US invasion and thought it would do nothing but bring suffering and strife to the region. And they were right.

>>233405
>>Authority ≠ slavery
>In practice it is too often like that.

here we see the western woman who has seen nothing of other cultures but what fox news has shown her.

>>233417
I see the way muslim men treat their wives here in my western country and see those wives turning to our western police for help. Sure western women do that too with abusive husbands, but western men do not hide behind "it's my culture" and "my god wills it so". Is that your "culture"?

>>233416
Too bad it's their own religion that teaches people to kill, abuse and fight non-muslims. There's not sense of respect and love others as you love yourself like in Christianity.

>>233434
I disagree that the Qur'an teaches that.

You can post some verses, then i will explain how they don't mean that.

>>233405
>You are one who would force it on me since you are trying to force me to accept your view of what marriage should be when my view is entirely different
How am I trying to force you?

>Why would I be in the wrong for for upholding my own will?
Because it's wrong to cause conflict.

>And you'd get fired because he has the authority to do so.
He'll have to explain his actions to his supervisor.

>But you're either lying or a sheep. I talk back to all those who deserve it.
I'm a sheep.

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.:

>>233407
I'm a Christian, though, I'm not a Muslim. Christianity glories servitude. God himself came to us a servant, and he says whoever wishes to be the most must serve the most.

>>233448
Which Constantine are you named after?

>>233446
Different poster, but care to tell me how this verse doesn't justify Muslims taking women as sex slaves from defeated enemies?


33:50 - "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty."

>>233456
Saint Constantine.

>>233466
are you greek? where are you from?

>>233448
>How am I trying to force you?
By posting about what marriage should be and disregarding what marriage should actually be. Doesn't mean you're succeeding though, I stand by own idea.

>Because it's wrong to cause conflict
He is the one causing conflict by disrespecting my will in the first place. It is not wrong to fight one who is oppressing you.

>He'll have to explain his actions to his supervisor
Which in religion is god in the afterlife, too bad there's no proof of that in this life and between a life of injustice that might never be set right and a life where my oppressor meets justice and is set right by fighting and defeating him, I choose the latter.

>>233455
Then the husband should logically be the servant to the wife. Anyway, that's personal to you; you do not force this view on those who are not willing to do it.

>>233462
Well first of all I'd say that slavery is not outlawed by the Qur'an but it is heavily condemned. I'd say that this is because slavery will never go away and will always exist, therefore it's better to regulate it than abolish it. The Qur'an gave slaves basic rights, such as the right to not be beaten, among other rights. It also continually extols its followers to release slaves. When a large sin is committed, often the repentance requirement is to release several slaves to freedom, this doesn't mean your own slaves, but to buy some and free them.

For example

>[4:92] No believer shall kill another believer, unless it is an accident. If one kills a believer by accident, he shall atone by freeing a believing slave, and paying a compensation to the victim's family, unless they forfeit such a compensation as a charity. If the victim belonged to people who are at war with you, though he was a believer, you shall atone by freeing a believing slave. If he belonged to people with whom you have signed a peace treaty, you shall pay the compensation in addition to freeing a believing slave. If you cannot find a slave to free, you shall atone by fasting two consecutive months, in order to be redeemed by GOD.
>[5:89] GOD does not hold you responsible for the mere utterance of oaths; He holds you responsible for your actual intentions. If you violate an oath, you shall atone by feeding ten poor people from the same food you offer to your own family, or clothing them, or by freeing a slave. If you cannot afford this, then you shall fast three days. This is the atonement for violating the oaths that you swore to keep. You shall fulfill your oaths.
>[58:2] Those among you who estrange their wives (by declaring them as forbidden in sex) as their mothers know full well that they are not their mothers...... [58:3] Those who estrange their wives in this manner, then reconcile thereafter, shall atone by freeing a slave before resuming their sexual relations.

cont

File: 224966.jpg (59KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 850x400px

>>233479
>By posting about what marriage should be and disregarding what marriage should actually be. Doesn't mean you're succeeding though, I stand by own idea.
That doesn't meet the criteria for application of force.

>He is the one causing conflict by disrespecting my will in the first place. It is not wrong to fight one who is oppressing you.
It takes two people to argue.

>Which in religion is god in the afterlife, too bad there's no proof of that in this life and between a life of injustice that might never be set right and a life where my oppressor meets justice and is set right by fighting and defeating him, I choose the latter.
Well, I chose love.

>>233481
>Then the husband should logically be the servant to the wife.
Someone can be in authority and still be a servant, or else how could God have been our servant?

>Anyway, that's personal to you; you do not force this view on those who are not willing to do it.
Why I am getting accused of forcing anything on anyone? Are you forcing women *not* to follow their husbands' authority?

File: lel.jpg (69KB, 920x380px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 920x380px

>/his/ opens up
>islam is de religion piece guis pls
>/pol/!! /pol/!! mods!!mods!!!! waah
>the paris shootings happen

>>233487
>That doesn't meet the criteria for application of force.
You have a very narrow view of that then.

>It takes two people to argue
It takes one to start conflict by disrespecting the other. A man who disrespects me in not worthy of being with me.

>Well, I chose love
Sure, that's why you advocate for oppressing a woman's will.

>>233485
So Islam is a religion for people who are incapable of abolishing slavery? You can agree, then, that is completely incompatible with Westerners who were able to abolish slavery? As long as it stays in its barbaric shithole in the middle east, we won't have any problems.

>>233494
>Someone can be in authority and still be a servant, or else how could God have been our servant?
>God have been our servant?

Funny how my Christian priests never said that. I think by now you are talking nonsense that doesn't matter to anyone but you. Also in practice no, if you are my servant I have authority over you, you do not have authority over me. I decide for myself and you and you have no say whatsoever. That's way it is.

>Are you forcing women *not* to follow their husbands' authority?
I'm not forcing women, I don't tell women what they should do. Likewise I do not tolerate men telling me what I should do. I decide for myself.

>>233503
*is

But you get the point. I would never marry a man like you.

>>233503
>You have a very narrow view of that then.
I don't. Telling someone what they ought to do is not forcing them to do it by any definition of the word "force".

>It takes one to start conflict by disrespecting the other. A man who disrespects me in not worthy of being with me.
I don't see why that means you should argue with him.

>Sure, that's why you advocate for oppressing a woman's will.
I advocate for a woman voluntarily obeying the husband's will.

>>233518
>>233518
>Funny how my Christian priests never said that.
It says it in the Bible.

"For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth."
Luke 22:27

>I'm not forcing women, I don't tell women what they should do
Telling someone what they should do does not equate to forcing them to do it.

>>233523
Well, I'm sure you wouldn't, since I wouldn't marry outside of my faith to begin with.

>>233540
why do you ignore this question? >>233477

>>229456
Paul's various letters arguing against Christian groups that did so?

>>233485
The Quran, doesn't say you should take slaves, it does say that if a slave woman wishes to marry, you must let her go. The same verse states that you cannot force slave women into prostitution, so that is abolished. If they are raped, they are not accountable for it. (Seriously, why don't Muslims read this shit, they kill women for getting raped)

>[24:33] Those who cannot afford to get married shall maintain morality until GOD provides for them from His grace. Those among your servants who wish to be freed in order to marry, you shall grant them their wish, once you realize that they are honest. And give them from GOD's money that He has bestowed upon you. You shall not force your girls to commit prostitution seeking the materials of this world, if they wish to be chaste. If anyone forces them, then GOD, seeing that they are forced, is Forgiver, Merciful.

Specifically 33:50, it does not say "These women are for you to fuck". It says these people that you own are lawful for you, which in relation to the rest stating that you must free slaves as often as you can't, they can marry who they choose, and must not be raped or prostituted, i find it hard to justify the claim that you can fuck your slaves, the verse is in a section all about marriage laws, so it is essentially saying your slave women are lawful for marriage.

>>233517
Slavery still exists in the west, and they live in terrible conditions.

>>233546
I'm from California.

>>233525
>Telling someone what they ought to do is not forcing them to do it by any definition of the word "force".

It's an attempt of verbal force. Still, there is no justification for "what they ought to do" as I do not believe in a god that would expect something like that and there is no moral justification for disrespecting someone's will and forcing her not to freely choose for herself.

>I don't see why that means you should argue with him
Of course you don't, since you'd be okay with my being miserable and oppressed. I have every right to argue with him as his doing does not make him happy, quite the contrary instead, and I do not want to live in misery.

>I advocate for a woman voluntarily obeying the husband's will.
>voluntarily
So why are you still attempting to convince me? I have already rejected your notion. I am not willing to obey any man's will as his wife. I voluntarily only obey mine.

>>233555
greek diaspora or armenian?
I heard orthodoxy converts a lot of people there, are you a new convert?

>praising people who kill those who criticize him or disagree with him
>putting an adulterous woman to death by stoning, but forgiving a husband that murders his family for being "unbelievers"
>having a fascination with swords and giving them edgy names
>personally murdering people, intentionally destroying families
>stealing the daughters of those he has slain
>instituting laws that reduce "people of the book" to 2nd class citizens, idol worshipers aren't even allowed to exist
>starting wars
>executing all the males of a defeated clan (Banu Qurayza) because their law decreed that as their punishment which Muhammad was happy to oblige, and forcefully marrying their daughters and wives to Muslims or otherwise just selling them off

Putting the contents of the scriptures aside, Muhammad's biography confirms him as performing admirable acts like these. How and why exactly are people supposed to be non-violent, peaceful and compassionate when their foremost prophet has been pretty much the opposite?
From my experience, all (Sunni) Muslims I know that are trying to be good people are necessarily ignorant about facts concerning Muhammad's life, and of the book. And even among them, although the idea of violence doesn't exist, a tendency of haughtiness and divisiveness is widespread.
As long as the populations of Islam are unable to reconcile facts with life and take a stance on whether they're going to follow the tradition by the letter or discard everything that creates division and enmity, I fear this question of "religion of violence or of peace?" will have to be asked over and over again for a long time.

File: imrs.jpg (120KB, 1484x733px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1484x733px

>>233554
>Slavery still exists in the west
And it is illegal, universally condemned. Contrast that with the Islamic State, where open air slave markets exist.