Is Islam Really a Religion of Terror?

[Fonceai]

Converting to save one's life and converting due to blind faith are two different things.

Our sentiment of blaming the followers is clearly addressing the latter.

[Apokalupsis]

Islam is truly the religion of peace. I mean isn't it obvious by now?

What better display of peace than to burn alive your own brothers in faith?

I mean doesn't the fact that the vast majority of the world's terrorist acts are being committed by followers of Islam, indicate that Islam is indeed peaceful?

[Fonceai]

Consider the number of Muslims living in the Middle East.

Now consider the number of Christians in America.

Realize that Muslim Extremists are to Islam what the KKK is the Christianity.

So, on an analysis of terrorist acts of violence per million practicioners, who has the bigger numbers?

[Apokalupsis]

That Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, cults, etc... may or may not be violent is 100% irrelevant to Islam being violent. It's called a red herring fallacy Fonceai.

The issue is the violence of Islam. Violence that exists elsewhere does not justify or excuse the violence of Islam in any capacity.

The fact remains that Islams founder was violent, Islam was spread through violent means, and Islam continues to practice violent actions. This does not mean that all Muslims are violent. It merely means that there is a great divide in the religion. It is false to suggest that Islam is a peaceful religion however. History and current events, tells us otherwise.

[Fonceai]

It is relevant to calling Islam violent.

If you want to call it a fallacy, then you are ignorant to the fact that the majority of Americans, immersed in Christianity more than they realize, don't understand that Islam is just as segmented and varied.

The point, which you ignorantly dismiss as fallacy, is that Islam is no more violent than any other religions... the violence is in its extremist practitioners.

If you want to deny that, go ahead and quote which aspects of Islamic scripture prove me wrong.

But consider this a lesson to learn for your future here on Volconvo... if you're going to flippantly accuse someone of fallacy, you better make sure your post is rich with proof and concise examples of your clearly-worded point.

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: Fonceai It is relevant to calling Islam violent.

No it isn't. And you claiming it is doesn't magically make it come true Fonceai.

If you want to call it a fallacy, then you are ignorant to the fact that the majority of Americans, immersed in Christianity more than they realize, don't understand that Islam is just as segmented and varied.

I more than realize that it is quite a diverse religion. But it being a diverse religion has nothing to do with introducing the violence of another worldview. Doing so does not justify the violence of Islam Fonceai.

The point, which you ignorantly dismiss as fallacy, is that Islam is no more violent than any other religions... the violence is in its extremist practitioners.

I understand the point that there are moderate Muslims and fundamentalist Muslims, and the latter are guilty of violence. This says nothing of the fact that you fallaciously justify the violence by introducing violence committed by other beliefs.

Let's take a new religion for argument's sake, and somehow, this religion is the most violent religion on earth (even though in reality, Islam is as it has many more violent followers to butcher all in the name of Allah). The fact that this new (fictitious) that is the most brutal of all faiths exists, does not take away the fact that Islam is a religion filled with violence both from its beginning and in its current state.

There are enough adherents to the violence in Islam that makes Islam a religion to watch out for. Instead of objecting to non-Muslims who are concerned about the violence, moderates out to be protesting and objecting to those who abuse their faith and commit horrible acts against humanity. However, this is not the case. The one thing that Muslims have in common (moderate and fundamentalist), is that they are followers of Allah. This bond is stronger than any bond formed between a moderate and an infidel.

If you want to deny that, go ahead and quote which aspects of Islamic scripture prove me wrong.

I've never denied it.

But consider this a lesson to learn for your future here on Volconvo... if you're going to flippantly accuse someone of fallacy, you better make sure your post is rich with proof and concise examples of your clearly-worded point.

The only lesson I've learned from this exchange, is that some of Volconvo's members are unfamiliar with fallacious theory.

That Islam has a split, in no way is relational to introducing 3rd party faiths guilty of violence as well. It says nothing of Islam's violence, only that of other faith's violence, which is irrelevant to Islam being violent. Thus, the red herring fallacy.

Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. 3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

[ByaKya]

Quote by: ItsDarts The article is a Wikipedia article, it is the works of many people. Do a google search on "Islamic Conquests" and you will find many articles on this subject. This doesn't mean that Islamists killed 80 Million hindus all at once, this is after centuries of fighting. Pakistan USE to be a Hindu nation, now it's mostly Islamic. Islam has done exactly what Chrisitianity has done, spread its self through force and charity towards the ignorant. It's just another in a long line of tools used to control the Sheople.

google it ? ill do you one better, google 9/11 + conspiracy, look at the number of sites, must be true !
Once again, this is not widely accepted as true that 80 million hindus were killed
The historian in question is one guy. It is not accepted anywhere with any authority that this is true.
it is akin to holocaust revisionism in reverse

[Fonceai]

@Apokalupsis

Two tasks for you.

First, instead of copy-pasting the definition of the fallacy, fill in Topic A and Topic B in order to show my statement was false.

Second, show me which parts of Islamic scripture call for violence.

Again... you are attributing behavioral characteristics to something that has no behavior. A religion can't be "violent" per se.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: ItsDarts You blame the followers? Interesting. It's one thing if the converts were converted through a rational thought process. i.e. if somehow Islam makes more sense or is more rational than say Hinduism. Since over the centuries, 80 million have DIED, it would seem that the ones who DID convert, did so to save their own lives and the lives of their family. How can you blame the converts? Nonsense!!!!!!

No not really nonsense! Converts got converted due to:

i) They had no faith in their own religion.

ii) Had many short comings in their religion like castism, torturous laws for general public thus developed minimum unity.

iii) Did not welcome members of Coverters into their religion as converts thinking their religion would become impure.

iv) Have been always a timid community with practically no resistance to converters.

In view of above the converts are to blame. This definitely does not mean converters are blameless, but comparatively less.

[pahl]

Red herring? I dont see how Christianity is irrelevant to Islam. That argument could be used when anyone tries to compare anything.

I think its a fair argument to point out that the other religions are also, or more (if that is the case), violent. Since what we are debating is if Islam is "A Religion of Terror". If you are living in a country that is proven to be just as violent, that just makes that claim ridiculous.

Besides i think the focus is way to centered on the religion of Islam, I think its obvious that is the culture, traditions and current situation in the middle east that is the problem. Rather then the religion of the extremist.

[luke virtual kh]

Quote by: Fonceai show me which parts of Islamic scripture call for violence.

I can do that:
Obligation of Jihad

eg:
Anas (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Prophet (PBUH) said, "Fight the polytheists with your wealth, lives and tongues.''
[Abu Dawud].

And:
For al-Maqdisi, democracy is a prohibited innovation that contradicts Islamic values and embodies a new heretical religion. Its followers are "infidels" and "polytheists," even if they consider themselves as Jews or Christians by religion.Al-Qaeda's Intellectual Legacy: New Radical Islamic Thinking Justifying the Genocide of Infidels - Jonathan D. Halevi

= Fact. Terror.


Debate...

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Kuldeep In view of above the converts are to blame. This definitely does not mean converters are blameless, but comparatively less.

Precisely, and for the very reasons you listed.

Obi-Wan said it best: "Who's more foolish; the fool or the fool who follows him?"

Quote by: pahl I think its a fair argument to point out that the other religions are also, or more (if that is the case), violent.

That's a rather fair statement to make, and probably easy to support if you're willing to quote scripture.

Quote by: pahl Besides i think the focus is way to centered on the religion of Islam, I think its obvious that is the culture, traditions and current situation in the middle east that is the problem. Rather then the religion of the extremist.

Exactly. That's the other crucial aspect of all of this.

Religion is neither a means nor an end. It's an excuse.

Someone willing to kill will do so regardless of what they believe. Religion is just a more convenient excuse because you can't prove anything beyond what is in your head.

@luke virtual kh

Sorry you were the one to take the bait (and the bullet).

Now prove to me that Christianity doesn't call for the exact same "fight" (fight, not violence, in your citation) against polytheists, idolaters, and those who worship false Gods.

[ByaKya]

Quote by: luke virtual kh I can do that: Obligation of Jihad eg: Anas (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Prophet (PBUH) said, "Fight the polytheists with your wealth, lives and tongues.'' [Abu Dawud]. And: For al-Maqdisi, democracy is a prohibited innovation that contradicts Islamic values and embodies a new heretical religion. Its followers are "infidels" and "polytheists," even if they consider themselves as Jews or Christians by religion.Al-Qaeda's Intellectual Legacy: New Radical Islamic Thinking Justifying the Genocide of Infidels - Jonathan D. Halevi = Fact. Terror. Debate...

Dead wrong, the quran doesnt call for violence, only the interpretation does.

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: Fonceai @Apokalupsis Two tasks for you. First, instead of copy-pasting the definition of the fallacy, fill in Topic A and Topic B in order to show my statement was false.

It isn't a matter of your statement being "false", but irrelevant. How does Christianity being violent or non-violent, JUSTIFY Islamic violence?

Second, show me which parts of Islamic scripture call for violence.

First, should we ignore Muhammad's example and teachings? Is being a "true" Muslim ignoring Muhammad, hadith, and instead only following what is said in the Qu'ran?

Others have offered passages, instead of more of the same, I'll take a different approach and use the reasoning of Muhammad and imams throughout history.

Let's revisit the Jewish town of Qurayza to which Muhammad decided to lay seige upon because the Jews would not convert to Islam (so much for tolerance, eh?). During the 25 day seige, the villagers made offers to surrender with promises to depart from their stronghold, leaving behind their land and property. Initially they requested to take one camel load of possessions per person, but when Muhammad refused this request, the Qurayza asked to be allowed to depart without any property, taking with them only their families. However, Muhammad insisted that the Qurayza surrender unconditionally and subject themselves to his judgment. The village had no choice, Qurayza surrended, hoping for the alleged mercy that Muslim apologists say exists(after all, Islam is a religion of peace, no?...No, not really). Instead of jizya (the unfair tax imposed on non-believers), Muhammad's soldiers dug trenches, then forced 600-900 villagers into the trenches, where they were all beheaded. The trenches became mass graves.

Again... you are attributing behavioral characteristics to something that has no behavior. A religion can't be "violent" per se.

It is common English to attribute characteristics of adherents to the belief system adhered to Fonceai. That is, when we say that Islam is violent, we mean that those who practice/follow it are violent.

From Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul, Islam’s earliest and most well received biography of Muhammad we read the gruesome account:

Then they (Qurayza) surrendered and the apostle confined them in Medina... Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches… They were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figures as high as 800 or 900… This went on until the apostle made an end to them.

A. Guillaume The Life of Muhammad: (Oxford University Press, Oxford England), p.464

Apparently, after this great slaughter, Muhammad's juices began flowing (perhaps the sight of so much blood and decapitated heads made Muhammad feel at peace with himself, who knows, but we do know that his thirst for more blood merely escalated). Soon after this incident, Muhammad had 400 more Jews beheaded. Muhammad was allied with two groups of men, the Khazraj and the Aus. The Khazraj were in charge of beheading the four hundred Jews but the Aus were standing by on the sidelines. When Muhammad looked and saw that the faces of the Khazraj were taking pleasure in beheading all the men and the Aus were standing on the sidelines, he ordered that the last twelve beheadings be carried out by the Aus:

Abu ‘Ubayda told me on the authority of Abu ‘Amir the Medinain, when the apostle (Muhammad) got the better of the sons of Qurayza he seized about four hundred men from the Jews who had been allies of Aus against Khazraj, and ordered that they should be beheaded. Accordingly Khazraj began to to cut off their heads with great satisfaction. The apostle saw that the faces of the Khazraj showed their pleasure, but there was no such indication on the part of Aus, and…when he saw that there were only twelve of them left he gave them over to Aus, assigning one Jew to every two of Aus, saying, “Let so-and-so strike him and so-and-so finish him off.”

A. Guillaume The Life of Muhammad: (Oxford University Press, Oxford England), p.752

These events have been documented and interpreteted by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. As reported by the scholar M.J. Kister (Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam. Vol. 8: p.69, [1986]), al-Mawardi (d. 1072 C.E.), the eminent Muslim jurist from Baghdad, characterized the slaughter of the Qurayza as a religious duty incumbent on Muhammad. Professor Kister quotes al-Mawardi as follows: "…it was not permitted (for Muhammad) to forgive (in a case of ) God’s injunction incumbent upon them; he could only forgive (transgressions) in matters concerning his own person.". The notion that this slaughter was sanctioned by God as revealed to Muhammad was, according to Kister, reflective of "…the current Sunni view about the slaughter of the Banu Qurayza." This remains the orthodox Sunni view regarding the treatment of such prisoners as expressed in current versions of "Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law" from Al-Azhar University in Cairo.

The scholar Bat Ye'or summarized the impact of the first two centuries of Arab Muslim conquests (The Jerusalem Quarterly 1987; Vol. 42, Pp. 84-85) on indigenous Jews and Christians of the Middle East, as follows:

"Muslim chroniclers described the ongoing jihad (holy war), involving the destruction of whole towns, the massacre of large numbers of their populations, the enslavement of women and children, and the confiscation of vast regions. This picture of catastrophe and destruction corresponds to the period of gradual erosion of Palestinian Jewry. According to [the Muslim chronicler] Baladhuri (d. 892 C.E.), 40,000 Jews lived in Caesarea alone at the Arab conquest, after which all trace of them is lost…". The 6 centuries between 640 and 1240 C.E., she further observes: ".. witnessed the total and definitive destruction of Judaism and Christianity in the Hijaz (modern Saudi Arabia), and the decline of once flourishing Christian and Jewish communities in Palestine (particularly in Galilee for the Jews), Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia. In North Africa, the Christians had been virtually eliminated by 1240 C.E., and the Jews decimated by Almohad persecutions… notwithstanding some brighter intervals, these six centuries witnessed a dramatic demographic reversal whereby the Arab-Muslim minority developed into a dominant majority, resorting to oppression in order to reduce the indigenous populations to tolerated religious minorities…"

And the truth is that whatever Muhammad says or does is considered just as authoritative and as inspired as the very Quran itself. It is the actions of Muhammad that dictate the model for living that Allah has ordained as his will for all Muslims:

If you love Allah, then follow me (Muhammad). -Sura 3:31

Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern of (conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day. -Sura 33:21.

By slaying the men of these Jewish villages this way, Muhammad set the example of what Allah has ordained and even commanded for all faithful Muslims to follow.

Current events and history should be more than enough evidence that Islam, is quite the violent religion. In fact, of all religions in the world, Islam has more followers butchering others in the name of their religion and god. Those butchering non-believers, are merely following Muhammad's example, nothing more.

Sources:
Muhammad, the Qurayza Massacre, and PBS
Banu Qurayza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Bani Quraytha Jews - Traitors or Betrayed?
ex-Muslims Denounce Islam
Muhammad And The Banu Qurayza
Why did the Prophet (pbuh) Order The Killing of the Banu Qurayzah? <-- from an Islamic Apologetc site, defending Muhammad's actions, validating the historical event.

[ByaKya]

excerpts taken out of context and many of the events were warfare related and then commented on by hate sites, great work.
great balance adding an "apologist" site in the mix, too bad its a minority view point

the total number of killed is nothing compared to those killed by christians

[Apokalupsis]

As expected, unable to refute the claim. Merely because Yuru says so, does not make it magically come true.

Please try harder Yuru.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Apo How does Christianity being violent or non-violent, JUSTIFY Islamic violence?

This thread isn't about justification of Islamic violence. It's about whether Islam is or isn't violent.

Quote by: Apo First, should we ignore Muhammad's example and teachings? Is being a "true" Muslim ignoring Muhammad, hadith, and instead only following what is said in the Qu'ran?

In that case, please cite for me the name of this holy scripture documenting the actions of Muhammed. One that is commonly recognized as being the "authority" for all those who are Muslim.

The point... which again you missed... is that there is nothing in Islamic history or documentation that asks for any more violence than Christian documentation.

Therefore, if you are going to call Islam a religion of terror, you better do it for Christianity too.

Or should we call the KKK, Christian Extremists, something other than terrorists?

Quote by: Apo It is common English to attribute characteristics of adherents to the belief system adhered to Fonceai. That is, when we say that Islam is violent, we mean that those who practice/follow it are violent.

No, it's common ignorance.

It's pigeon-holing to presume that because acts of violence are committed in the name of Islam that all those who follow Islam are violent.

Remember that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and vice versa.

If you want to talk Christian terrrorism, I refer you to the first half of the second millenium where the advancement of science was crippled due to the auspices of Christianity.

Uncountable Christians and Muslims died over the Crusades, a regular Christian Jihad. Make war on the savages for Jesus!! What better form of terrorism that to rush another country, claim it for your own, rape and pillage and then slowly disappear, leaving a vacuum that still hasn't settled to this day.

How about the current war in Iraq. Seems to me like a certain Christian got it into his head that he should try to conduct foreign policy based on his religious beliefs and used his military to go and completely turn a series of countries upside-down in an attempt to make it more like his own.

Sounds like terrorism to me.

This can continue pointlessly with example after example being thrown back and forth... or you can pick one of these two choices:

1. Stop calling Islam a religion of terror; because it endorses terror no more than Christianity.

2. Admit that Christianity, based on its history, is also a religion of terror.

Personally, I believe the first one.

But at least the second choice has a basis on truth.

Anything other than those two will, basically, be reflecting a prejudice in the face of evidence that says otherwise.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apokalupsis That Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, cults, etc... may or may not be violent is 100% irrelevant to Islam being violent. It's called a red herring fallacy Fonceai. The issue is the violence of Islam. Violence that exists elsewhere does not justify or excuse the violence of Islam in any capacity. The fact remains that Islams founder was violent, Islam was spread through violent means, and Islam continues to practice violent actions. This does not mean that all Muslims are violent. It merely means that there is a great divide in the religion. It is false to suggest that Islam is a peaceful religion however. History and current events, tells us otherwise.

I suppose if your only purpose is to attack a particular religion then comparing it to other religions might be inconvenient. If one wishes to put a religion into a suitable context then comparisons to other religions makes perfect sense. For a Christian to call Islam violent is indeed the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Your statements seem to suggest an ignorance of both Christian and Islamic history.

Islam has largely been spread through non-violent conversion, largely by Muslim traders in Asia and Africa. Most Muslims, of course, are not Arabic and do not live in the Middle East. The Qua'ran has violent passages often quoted by Christians who ignore the equally violent passages in the Bible. To take the violence ongoing in the Middle East, strip it of its political and social context, and simply blame the predominant religion is foolish.

[ByaKya]

Quote by: RickSp I suppose if your only purpose is to attack a particular religion then comparing it to other religions might be inconvenient. If one wishes to put a religion into a suitable context then comparisons to other religions makes perfect sense. For a Christian to call Islam violent is indeed the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Your statements seem to suggest an ignorance of both Christian and Islamic history. Islam has largely been spread through non-violent conversion, largely by Muslim traders in Asia and Africa. Most Muslims, of course, are not Arabic and do not live in the Middle East. The Qua'ran has violent passages often quoted by Christians who ignore the equally violent passages in the Bible. To take the violence ongoing in the Middle East, strip it of its political and social context, and simply blame the predominant religion is foolish.

Game, Set, Match

[ByaKya]

Quote by: Fonceai This thread isn't about justification of Islamic violence. It's about whether Islam is or isn't violent. In that case, please cite for me the name of this holy scripture documenting the actions of Muhammed. One that is commonly recognized as being the "authority" for all those who are Muslim. The point... which again you missed... is that there is nothing in Islamic history or documentation that asks for any more violence than Christian documentation. Therefore, if you are going to call Islam a religion of terror, you better do it for Christianity too. Or should we call the KKK, Christian Extremists, something other than terrorists? No, it's common ignorance. It's pigeon-holing to presume that because acts of violence are committed in the name of Islam that all those who follow Islam are violent. Remember that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and vice versa. If you want to talk Christian terrrorism, I refer you to the first half of the second millenium where the advancement of science was crippled due to the auspices of Christianity. Uncountable Christians and Muslims died over the Crusades, a regular Christian Jihad. Make war on the savages for Jesus!! What better form of terrorism that to rush another country, claim it for your own, rape and pillage and then slowly disappear, leaving a vacuum that still hasn't settled to this day. How about the current war in Iraq. Seems to me like a certain Christian got it into his head that he should try to conduct foreign policy based on his religious beliefs and used his military to go and completely turn a series of countries upside-down in an attempt to make it more like his own. Sounds like terrorism to me. This can continue pointlessly with example after example being thrown back and forth... or you can pick one of these two choices: 1. Stop calling Islam a religion of terror; because it endorses terror no more than Christianity. 2. Admit that Christianity, based on its history, is also a religion of terror. Personally, I believe the first one. But at least the second choice has a basis on truth. Anything other than those two will, basically, be reflecting a prejudice in the face of evidence that says otherwise.

Powerfull!
Agreed on all points!