Islamophobia meets a new Lowe

[Symmetry]

Subjective, but whatever. The main difference is that violent religious conflict among Christians has all but stopped while violent religious conflict among Muslims is still going strong, mainly because to stop would be to go against Islamic principles.

Is the last parenthetical sentence talking about Christian conflicts being about power or money, or Muslim conflicts?

I'm sure there were people who would have said to end the wars of the reformation would have been against Christian principles. I would argue the reasons you see "religious" (many of these are ethnic conflicts wrapped in religion) conflicts among Muslim peoples is due to their forms of government, which have come about for a variety of reasons (colonial legacies, Cold war tyrants ect).

There is no reason why Islam would specifically lead to conflict as an inherent principle of the religion.

Not really. While I agree that other religions (Christianity in particular) have been twisted for violent ends, it is different with Islam, mainly because you don't have to twist anything about the religion to beget violence. For example, Jesus never said that any Christians who leave Christianity should be killed. But Muhammad did say the same about Islam. (This is also why apostasy is punished with death under Sharia law.) Furthermore, the Quran itself is rife with messages about killing unbelievers and also about how Muslims who violate Islamic principles aren't true Muslims. For these and many other reasons, many Islamic sects don't consider each other to be true Muslims (although your mileage may vary on this point, depending on the sect.) This can lead to retardedly ridiculous scenarios, such as in the case of Abdus Salam, a well respected Nobel Prize winning Muslim physicist who was buried in his home country, Pakistan, with the epitaph "First Muslim Nobel Laureate" written on his tombstone, with the word "Muslim" etched out by the Pakistani government because he was an Ahmadi. Unfortunately, it also leads to the scenarios of Sunnis and Shias murdering each other through terrorist attacks and the like. It's an intrinsic characteristic of the religion which, also unfortunately, isn't going to stop being a part of Islam.

And yet Muslims are not, actually intrinsically violent.

Of course not. But we weren't talking about Muslims, we were talking about Islam itself.

Then I would say that being Islamic does not make a person intrinsically violent.

[everywhere116]

I'm sure there were people who would have said to end the wars of the reformation would have been against Christian principles. I would argue the reasons you see "religious" (many of these are ethnic conflicts wrapped in religion) conflicts among Muslim peoples is due to their forms of government, which have come about for a variety of reasons (colonial legacies, Cold war tyrants ect).

There is no reason why Islam would specifically lead to conflict as an inherent principle of the religion.

Not really. While I agree that other religions (Christianity in particular) have been twisted for violent ends, it is different with Islam, mainly because you don't have to twist anything about the religion to beget violence. For example, Jesus never said that any Christians who leave Christianity should be killed. But Muhammad did say the same about Islam. (This is also why apostasy is punished with death under Sharia law.) Furthermore, the Quran itself is rife with messages about killing unbelievers and also about how Muslims who violate Islamic principles aren't true Muslims. For these and many other reasons, many Islamic sects don't consider each other to be true Muslims (although your mileage may vary on this point, depending on the sect.) This can lead to retardedly ridiculous scenarios, such as in the case of Abdus Salam, a well respected Nobel Prize winning Muslim physicist who was buried in his home country, Pakistan, with the epitaph "First Muslim Nobel Laureate" written on his tombstone, with the word "Muslim" etched out by the Pakistani government because he was an Ahmadi. Unfortunately, it also leads to the scenarios of Sunnis and Shias murdering each other through terrorist attacks and the like. It's an intrinsic characteristic of the religion which, also unfortunately, isn't going to stop being a part of Islam.

And yet Muslims are not, actually intrinsically violent.

Of course not. But we weren't talking about Muslims, we were talking about Islam itself.

Then I would say that being Islamic does not make a person intrinsically violent.

And I didn't say that either. As I have stated before, I'm talking about the religion itself. Not all Muslims are violent for the same reason why you'll find Christians who rarely go to church or Jews who will eat pork. But for those that completely follow and understand Islam's message, violence is inevitable, and it makes the Islamic violence, terrorism, and discrimination against non-Muslims all over the world both unsurprising and completely predictable.

[Symmetry]

Then I would say that being Islamic does not make a person intrinsically violent.

And I didn't say that either. As I have stated before, I'm talking about the religion itself. Not all Muslims are violent for the same reason why you'll find Christians who rarely go to church or Jews who will eat pork. But for those that completely follow and understand Islam's message, violence is inevitable, and it makes the Islamic violence, terrorism, and discrimination against non-Muslims all over the world both unsurprising and completely predictable.

Can I ask you if you know many muslims? What are you basing this on?

[everywhere116]

Then I would say that being Islamic does not make a person intrinsically violent.

And I didn't say that either. As I have stated before, I'm talking about the religion itself. Not all Muslims are violent for the same reason why you'll find Christians who rarely go to church or Jews who will eat pork. But for those that completely follow and understand Islam's message, violence is inevitable, and it makes the Islamic violence, terrorism, and discrimination against non-Muslims all over the world both unsurprising and completely predictable.

Can I ask you if you know many muslims? What are you basing this on?

Sure, I went to school with many Muslims. They were pretty normal people. You won't find very many intolerant Muslims in America, although there are some.

Which part of my post are you asking me about what I base it on?

[Symmetry]

Then I would say that being Islamic does not make a person intrinsically violent.

And I didn't say that either. As I have stated before, I'm talking about the religion itself. Not all Muslims are violent for the same reason why you'll find Christians who rarely go to church or Jews who will eat pork. But for those that completely follow and understand Islam's message, violence is inevitable, and it makes the Islamic violence, terrorism, and discrimination against non-Muslims all over the world both unsurprising and completely predictable.

Can I ask you if you know many muslims? What are you basing this on?

Sure, I went to school with many Muslims. They were pretty normal people. You won't find very many intolerant Muslims in America, although there are some.

Which part of my post are you asking me about what I base it on?

Ah, I'm not American, although I lived there for a while, also in Japan, but I'm not American. I'm asking where you get your knowledge that Muslims who really understand Islam are inevitably violent. It seems like a circular argument. That Muslims who aren't violent aren't Muslims, because they aren't violent.

[everywhere116]

Then I would say that being Islamic does not make a person intrinsically violent.

And I didn't say that either. As I have stated before, I'm talking about the religion itself. Not all Muslims are violent for the same reason why you'll find Christians who rarely go to church or Jews who will eat pork. But for those that completely follow and understand Islam's message, violence is inevitable, and it makes the Islamic violence, terrorism, and discrimination against non-Muslims all over the world both unsurprising and completely predictable.

Can I ask you if you know many muslims? What are you basing this on?

Sure, I went to school with many Muslims. They were pretty normal people. You won't find very many intolerant Muslims in America, although there are some.

Which part of my post are you asking me about what I base it on?

Ah, I'm not American, although I lived there for a while, also in Japan, but I'm not American. I'm asking where you get your knowledge that Muslims who really understand Islam are inevitably violent. It seems like a circular argument. That Muslims who aren't violent aren't Muslims, because they aren't violent.

Because they go against the Islamic scriptures, namely the Quran and the hadiths. Like I said before, violence is commanded in the Quran, for example in verse 2:216 "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." verse 9:5 " But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (this one is the famous "Verse of the Sword"), and 4:89 "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-". (All translations are Yusuf Ali) There are many more, and I will return and I can discuss this more in detail after I get back from work.

[Symmetry]

Can I ask you if you know many muslims? What are you basing this on?

Sure, I went to school with many Muslims. They were pretty normal people. You won't find very many intolerant Muslims in America, although there are some.

Which part of my post are you asking me about what I base it on?

Ah, I'm not American, although I lived there for a while, also in Japan, but I'm not American. I'm asking where you get your knowledge that Muslims who really understand Islam are inevitably violent. It seems like a circular argument. That Muslims who aren't violent aren't Muslims, because they aren't violent.

Because they go against the Islamic scriptures, namely the Quran and the hadiths. Like I said before, violence is commanded in the Quran, for example in verse 2:216 "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." verse 9:5 " But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (this one is the famous "Verse of the Sword"), and 4:89 "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-". (All translations are Yusuf Ali) There are many more, and I will return and I can discuss this more in detail after I get back from work.

When you come back, tell me how the true Muslims behave. Are true Muslims those who act according to your reading of the Koran?

Are true Christians, in the mean time, those who assume a fundamentalist reading of the Bible?

Are you distrustful of those who claim to follow Islam, but don't practice violence?

[2dimes]

You may not believe this but I think you can eventually find and read the verses in each for yourself, if you desire. In your case Symm I think you probably have enough experience with the bible to know most of it. Write it out if you disagree here.

I don't know how much you've been able to read of the Quoran. I personally think a "true Muslim" could be either a person that acts on everything in the Quoran or chooses to focus on the peacfull and prayer parts. I have had beer with a person I consider a "true Muslim" yet many Muslims say alcohol is Haraam acording to Quoran.

Some violence in the Quoran that may happen in the future is as "everywhere116" states, basically an order to remove the non believers of that book who refuse to convert to Islam, accept Mohamed as the only true prophet and pay the tribute or return to their former beliefs after converting. Seems sensible actually, if you don't follow their prophet you're obviously not one of them. Something should be done about that.

The violence in the Torah is historical accounts of events certain tribes of Hebrews, some that don't to our knowledge exist anymore, did in the past. In many cases those things were done to other tribes of people that also likely don't exist anymore.

The violence in the New Testament in the past happened to followers of Christ that refused to deny him. The violence in the New Testament that may happen in the future is predicted to happen to followers of Christ that refuse to deny him and God.

The New Testament and Quoran might be saying the same thing to some extent. If you refuse to deny Jesus is Christ and not a mere prophet that isn't even equal to Mohamed there could be some that might have to kill you.

I understand and agree that the most likely acts of violence to happen in the future is groups doing things they believe are required from either book that are not, as that's always a recurring pattern.

I'm sure nearly everyone can tell any violence commited in the name of Jesus is against his comands to love even your enemies.

42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

I'm not aware of a quote like that from another book everyone can access.

[everywhere116]

Sure, I went to school with many Muslims. They were pretty normal people. You won't find very many intolerant Muslims in America, although there are some.

Which part of my post are you asking me about what I base it on?

Ah, I'm not American, although I lived there for a while, also in Japan, but I'm not American. I'm asking where you get your knowledge that Muslims who really understand Islam are inevitably violent. It seems like a circular argument. That Muslims who aren't violent aren't Muslims, because they aren't violent.

Because they go against the Islamic scriptures, namely the Quran and the hadiths. Like I said before, violence is commanded in the Quran, for example in verse 2:216 "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." verse 9:5 " But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (this one is the famous "Verse of the Sword"), and 4:89 "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-". (All translations are Yusuf Ali) There are many more, and I will return and I can discuss this more in detail after I get back from work.

When you come back, tell me how the true Muslims behave. Are true Muslims those who act according to your reading of the Koran?

Are true Christians, in the mean time, those who assume a fundamentalist reading of the Bible?

Are you distrustful of those who claim to follow Islam, but don't practice violence?

First of all, define "true Muslim." A Muslim that chooses to drink alcohol is still a Muslim (although there are some Muslims that would disagree with that statement. Also, don't insinuate that the violent is my interpretation of the Quran. It has been the interpretation of Islamic scholars throughout history.

Again, define true Christian.

No, not necessarily. There are many reasons why a Muslim would choose to be non-violent. They could have assimilated into Western culture (or any other culture) in all but their religion. They may not be aware of Islam's violent teachings or may not care about them. They may be questioning their own beliefs. There is no reason to be distrustful of normal (by Western standards, depending on where you live) Muslims unless you have reason to believe that they might be lying to you.

You seem like a rational person. Convincing you should be just a matter of showing you the relevant information about Islam.

[everywhere116]

Some violence in the Quoran that may happen in the future is as "everywhere116" states, basically an order to remove the non believers of that book who refuse to convert to Islam, accept Mohamed as the only true prophet and pay the tribute or return to their former beliefs after converting. Seems sensible actually, if you don't follow their prophet you're obviously not one of them. Something should be done about that.

I sure hope that this statement is made as a statement from the perspective of early Muslims and not supposed to say that this behavior is sensible in a present-day objective perspective. Because this behavior is called "religious intolerance" and is, well, let's say that it's frowned upon in today's world. But if this was the point you were trying to make I can see your logic.

Also, why did you put my name in quotes?

[2dimes]

I'm just talking about what is some what logical. If you're not going to be part of what they are doing and they perceive you being there will interfere. It makes sense for them to need to get rid of you. I'm not making any case for it being right or wrong and I'm not saying it would not be "frowned upon" by some, only that it makes sense in the context of, "If they won't convert..."

Also, why did you put my name in quotes?

I'm not sure, probably due to my terrible writing skills or lack there of.

[2dimes]

Oh, sorry. I quite agree that it's obviously "religious intolerance" I certaily don't condone it. I just understand why some might feel the need to do it past, present or future.

[PLAYER57832]

And I didn't say that either. As I have stated before, I'm talking about the religion itself. Not all Muslims are violent for the same reason why you'll find Christians who rarely go to church or Jews who will eat pork. But for those that completely follow and understand Islam's message, violence is inevitable, and it makes the Islamic violence, terrorism, and discrimination against non-Muslims all over the world both unsurprising and completely predictable.

Uh.. the comparison is not that you will find Christians who rarely go to church and Jews who eat pork, but that most Christians and Jews don't go around burning down houses and villages of unbelievers any longer.

Not sure why you seem to think Islam is the only violant religion, but it is pretty dangerous thinking, indeed.

[barackattack]

One day you will read a history book, learn about the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Reformation, the Scramble for Africa etc. and realise that Christianity has just as great a history of violence as Islam (if not more so).

You will probably then be tempted to claim that all religion incites violence and war, as this is a conclusion favoured by many knuckleheads.

You will then realise that the Cold War, Vietnam War, World War 2, World War 1, Boer War, Crimean War, American War of Independence etc. were not caused by religion.

You will then find a better way to fill your time than poking holes in Islam.

[everywhere116]

And I didn't say that either. As I have stated before, I'm talking about the religion itself. Not all Muslims are violent for the same reason why you'll find Christians who rarely go to church or Jews who will eat pork. But for those that completely follow and understand Islam's message, violence is inevitable, and it makes the Islamic violence, terrorism, and discrimination against non-Muslims all over the world both unsurprising and completely predictable.

Uh.. the comparison is not that you will find Christians who rarely go to church and Jews who eat pork, but that most Christians and Jews don't go around burning down houses and villages of unbelievers any longer.

Not sure why you seem to think Islam is the only violant religion, but it is pretty dangerous thinking, indeed.

It's the only one I can think of where violence is commanded by the religion's holy book and by the religion's main prophet himself. Muhammad was a military commander and a warlord, remember. He killed hundreds of thousands.

[2dimes]

You will then find a better way to fill your time than poking holes in Islam.

Poking holes? What do you mean?

Are you suggesting,

Sura 2:187-189 “And kill them wherever ye shall find them, and eject them from whatever place they have ejected you; for civil discord is worse than carnage: yet attack them not at the sacred Mosque, unless they attack you therein; but if they attack you, slay them. Such the reward of the infidels...Fight therefore against them until there be no more civil discord, and the only worship be that of God: but if they desist, then let there be no hostility, save against the wicked.”

2:190-292 “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for Allah does not love transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out: For tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; But fight them not at the sacred Mosque unless they first fight you there; But if they fight you, Slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.”

is somehow positive, an easily miss inturpreted peacefull message or an error in translation?

You might want to re-read your Quorans people. It's of course best to use a proper Arabic copy that has not been corrupted by the language of infidels.

[Symmetry]

And I didn't say that either. As I have stated before, I'm talking about the religion itself. Not all Muslims are violent for the same reason why you'll find Christians who rarely go to church or Jews who will eat pork. But for those that completely follow and understand Islam's message, violence is inevitable, and it makes the Islamic violence, terrorism, and discrimination against non-Muslims all over the world both unsurprising and completely predictable.

Uh.. the comparison is not that you will find Christians who rarely go to church and Jews who eat pork, but that most Christians and Jews don't go around burning down houses and villages of unbelievers any longer.

Not sure why you seem to think Islam is the only violant religion, but it is pretty dangerous thinking, indeed.

It's the only one I can think of where violence is commanded by the religion's holy book and by the religion's main prophet himself. Muhammad was a military commander and a warlord, remember. He killed hundreds of thousands.

Many other religions command violence in their holy book, and of course, many other religions don't have a single holy book at all, or indeed any holy books. The Quoran is open to interpretation, surely? Why else would there be rival factions of Islam?

[2dimes]

The Quoran is open to interpretation, surely? Why else would there be rival factions of Islam?

In my admittedly somewhat limited though relative to an average person here perhaps significant exposure. It seems exactly like most Christians, they go by a particular leader's interpretation of said holy book instead of actually reading it.

Why would I read it? My good pal told me it said,
[insert possible complete fabrication here]

[PLAYER57832]

And I didn't say that either. As I have stated before, I'm talking about the religion itself. Not all Muslims are violent for the same reason why you'll find Christians who rarely go to church or Jews who will eat pork. But for those that completely follow and understand Islam's message, violence is inevitable, and it makes the Islamic violence, terrorism, and discrimination against non-Muslims all over the world both unsurprising and completely predictable.

Uh.. the comparison is not that you will find Christians who rarely go to church and Jews who eat pork, but that most Christians and Jews don't go around burning down houses and villages of unbelievers any longer.

Not sure why you seem to think Islam is the only violant religion, but it is pretty dangerous thinking, indeed.

It's the only one I can think of where violence is commanded by the religion's holy book and by the religion's main prophet himself. Muhammad was a military commander and a warlord, remember. He killed hundreds of thousands.

Ever read the Old Testament? God specifically commanded the Jews to kill other peoples on multiple occasions. In some cases, down to the last woman and child.

Not to mention how the Roman Catholic Church, etc have interpreted the words of both the New and Old Testaments. When you define one group as not quite human, such becomes pretty easy and that is exactly what has been done. I would absolutely say falsely, but that is the point. Muslims say that their faith is one of peace.

I certainly don't agree with Islam, but there is little to be gained by painting this one religion, believed by so many as somehow violant over and above all others. Violance stems not from religion, but from deprivation and restrictions. The best thing we can do is promote moderate Islam, build schools and pass out food. THAT is why so many intelligent people have become radicalized. In the Palestinien territories, Hammas gave widows and orphans money. They sent kids to school. In Afghanistan, they took young boys (some orphans, some not) and put them in fulltime schools of indoctrination. Look around, THAT is why they are gaining grounds.

[everywhere116]

And I didn't say that either. As I have stated before, I'm talking about the religion itself. Not all Muslims are violent for the same reason why you'll find Christians who rarely go to church or Jews who will eat pork. But for those that completely follow and understand Islam's message, violence is inevitable, and it makes the Islamic violence, terrorism, and discrimination against non-Muslims all over the world both unsurprising and completely predictable.

Uh.. the comparison is not that you will find Christians who rarely go to church and Jews who eat pork, but that most Christians and Jews don't go around burning down houses and villages of unbelievers any longer.

Not sure why you seem to think Islam is the only violant religion, but it is pretty dangerous thinking, indeed.

It's the only one I can think of where violence is commanded by the religion's holy book and by the religion's main prophet himself. Muhammad was a military commander and a warlord, remember. He killed hundreds of thousands.

Many other religions command violence in their holy book, and of course, many other religions don't have a single holy book at all, or indeed any holy books.

Then I'm sure you can name some. If you take anything away from this conversation, it is this: Not all religions are the same.

The Quoran is open to interpretation, surely? Why else would there be rival factions of Islam?

Not really. The legitimate interpretations are those of the tasfirs (Ibn Kathir, Ibn Abbas, etc.) and other Islamic scholars. Modern interpreters usually draw from them. Furthermore, the differing sects weren't caused by conflicts with Quranic interpretations, they mostly have to do with the supplementary material, the hadiths and so forth. For example, the differing hadith collections are the main difference between Sunni and Shia Islam, well, that and who should have been Muhammad's successor, which sparked the schism in the first place.

[2dimes]

Ever read the Old Testament? God specifically commanded the Jews to kill other peoples on multiple occasions. In some cases, down to the last woman and child.

Reference?

[everywhere116]

Ever read the Old Testament? God specifically commanded the Jews to kill other peoples on multiple occasions. In some cases, down to the last woman and child.

Some of it. It's pretty barbaric, and is one of the reasons why I left Christianity. But there is a crucial difference between the Bible and the Quran. The Bible is essentially a storybook, a collection of stories that (supposedly, of course) happened and includes the atrocities that you mentioned. But the Quran isn't a storybook, it is basically a list of commands directly written by God for Muslims to follow for all time. It's the difference between saying "Violence happened at this point in time" and "I directly command you to commit violence." Which is why Christian violence has all but ceased but Islamic violence is still incredibly common.

Not to mention how the Roman Catholic Church, etc have interpreted the words of both the New and Old Testaments. When you define one group as not quite human, such becomes pretty easy and that is exactly what has been done. I would absolutely say falsely, but that is the point.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why I am completely against a doctrine that claims that its own people are the "best of peoples" while also claiming that most others are "perverted transgressors" (3:110) and are the worst of creatures (98:6), tells it's followers not to befriend those "outside of your ranks" because they will surely corrupt you (3:118) and says the same for Christians and Jews specifically in 5:51, commands that believers "do not take your fathers and your brothers for guardians if they love unbelief more than belief; and whoever of you takes them for a guardian, these it is that are the unjust." (9:23), and so on and so forth.

Muslims say that their faith is one of peace.

It is not.

I certainly don't agree with Islam, but there is little to be gained by painting this one religion, believed by so many as somehow violant over and above all others. Violance stems not from religion, but from deprivation and restrictions. The best thing we can do is promote moderate Islam, build schools and pass out food. THAT is why so many intelligent people have become radicalized. In the Palestinien territories, Hammas gave widows and orphans money. They sent kids to school. In Afghanistan, they took young boys (some orphans, some not) and put them in fulltime schools of indoctrination. Look around, THAT is why they are gaining grounds.

Reminds me a lot of the Scandanavian Muslims who justified their rampant welfare abuse by claiming that it was their form of fulfilling the infidel's obligation of jizya to the Muslims.

[barackattack]

People who get angry about religion are arseholes.

Just sayin'.

[PLAYER57832]

Ever read the Old Testament? God specifically commanded the Jews to kill other peoples on multiple occasions. In some cases, down to the last woman and child.

Some of it. It's pretty barbaric, and is one of the reasons why I left Christianity. But there is a crucial difference between the Bible and the Quran. The Bible is essentially a storybook, a collection of stories that (supposedly, of course) happened and includes the atrocities that you mentioned. But the Quran isn't a storybook, it is basically a list of commands directly written by God for Muslims to follow for all time. It's the difference between saying "Violence happened at this point in time" and "I directly command you to commit violence." Which is why Christian violence has all but ceased but Islamic violence is still incredibly common.

On The Bible.. no. The "stories" specifically talk about people following God's commandments, including directives to kill, etc. While some Christians, particularly the Mennodites, Society of Friends, Hutterites, etc do aschew violance in the name of Christ, you also find many who take the opposite stance. The KKK burns a cross for a reason. Even sensible folks, though have varying views of violance. Ask any army Chaplain about violance being "unChristian" and see what response you get, just as an example.

Not to mention how the Roman Catholic Church, etc have interpreted the words of both the New and Old Testaments. When you define one group as not quite human, such becomes pretty easy and that is exactly what has been done. I would absolutely say falsely, but that is the point.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why I am completely against a doctrine that claims that its own people are the "best of peoples" while also claiming that most others are "perverted transgressors" (3:110) and are the worst of creatures (98:6), tells it's followers not to befriend those "outside of your ranks" because they will surely corrupt you (3:118) and says the same for Christians and Jews specifically in 5:51, commands that believers "do not take your fathers and your brothers for guardians if they love unbelief more than belief; and whoever of you takes them for a guardian, these it is that are the unjust." (9:23), and so on and so forth.

Not going to argue the K'ran. I am saying that the Bible has passages some people view similarly. I don't agree with Islam, but painting them as a terroristic religion does no one any good, particularly not us.

I certainly don't agree with Islam, but there is little to be gained by painting this one religion, believed by so many as somehow violant over and above all others. Violance stems not from religion, but from deprivation and restrictions. The best thing we can do is promote moderate Islam, build schools and pass out food. THAT is why so many intelligent people have become radicalized. In the Palestinien territories, Hammas gave widows and orphans money. They sent kids to school. In Afghanistan, they took young boys (some orphans, some not) and put them in fulltime schools of indoctrination. Look around, THAT is why they are gaining grounds.

Reminds me a lot of the Scandanavian Muslims who justified their rampant welfare abuse by claiming that it was their form of fulfilling the infidel's obligation of jizya to the Muslims.[/quote]
Uh.... try not distorting things quite so much, please. Building schools builds more partners than bombs.

We can control the harmful expressions of Islam, much as we do the harmful expressions of Christianity and other religions in our country, but painting them as terrorist just pushes them to stay apart and basically to associate with those who are more narrow minded.