Islam and violence

Is there any way to interpret the teachings in Islam as anything other than violent. I am actually curious about this. Any Muslims care to help explain this or offer passages that might shed some light on this?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidis)...
themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/islamic-invasion-of-india-the-greatest-genocide-in-history/
wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots
dw.com/en/report-germany-fails-to-tackle-rise-in-hate-crimes-against-refugees/a-19319098
wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitation_of_the_Indus_Valley_Civilisation
wikipedia.org/wiki/Shitala
islamreligion.com/articles/172/muhammad-s-biography-part-4/
youtube.com/watch?v=1D-2oQONdAU
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Technically they are guaranteed 72 ~raisins~.

You'd be violent too after you found out you werent getting 72 women.

Just ignore the parts you don't like. That's what Christians do with the whole "thou shalt not kill" and "turn the other cheek" things.

Anybody who studies religion and politics realizes pretty quickly that what the religion actually teaches has very little to do with how it's used in politics.

But the quran was written by one man Muhammad who was directly inspired by God rather than the many different prophets who wrote the bible

when have you read the actual quran instead of short verses on the net

The entire aim of the ideology is to take over the world by force

When you critically read the Quran, simply. Focus on the 5 pillars of Islam (Faith, Prayer, Charity, Ramadan, and Mecca Pilgrimage) and interpret the rest as your liking.

Which is already what meme Muslims around the world do

Did you know that what you're saying is heretical in Christianity ? The Apostles were divinely inspired by the Saint Spirit.

>Is there any way to interpret the teachings in Islam as anything other than violent

The Christian Bible is more violent. No Muslims were terrorising Europe or America until your country started destroying Muslim countries.

People use the religion as an excuse when they actually want political changes and power.

>The Apostles were divinely inspired by the Saint Spirit.
Of course. The books were written by different people across a vast time frame though.

>No Muslims were terrorising Europe or America until your country started destroying Muslim countries.

>No Muslims were terrorising Europe or America until your country started destroying Muslim countries.
What about the Muslims terrorizing Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists?

ACTUAL AUTHORITY ON THE SUBJECT HERE

Quran has peaceful and violent passages, just like every other holy book, its full of contradictions.
So they fixed this. With later phrases having more authority and overwriting the earlier passages.

Early on, sandnigger king mohammad or whatever you spell it, had only few followers. Early on, shitslam is peaceful.
Later on, sangnigger king has armies. Later on, shitslam gets violent.

t. 12 years of formal education in religion (its a secondary gig to me, I am doing computers for a living and got a degree in those first, doing culture and history courses at unis for fun)

since there's been a lot of shit happening where ahmeds are involved, i decided to read their holy book and the only thing i can say is: it teaches violent shit (it might not be that cancerous to people that don't live in the middle east, but it is a way to create fucking suicidal wackos if they do live in middle east). Just read it, everything everyone is bitching about is right there.

Christians used to be ruthless too, but not anymore; muslims, on the other hand, it's been a long long time and still do the same thing...it makes you think

>Europe or America

They were rewritten and recollected around conciles. Some books were deemed heretical, some others were deemed more important to others.

Several debate of interpretation sparked religious conflicts through millennium ; Cathars, Protestants...

There are schims of the same nature in Islam. The most known being Shia and Sunni, but also Sufi who are completely pacifist hippie Muzzies, or that weird sect of Muzzies that litteraly worship Lucifer (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidis)...

The difference is that Christianity was always open to global reforms, thanks to the Papacy, while Islam is more decentralised and reformation is slower.

By "open", I meant that reformation was easier to spread. My mistake.

so, what you sayin' is that muslims have been that degenerate and fucking savages since old times? not surprised to be honest

>No Muslims were terrorising Europe or America until your country started destroying Muslim countries.

M8, you must have been sleeping during you history class.
Islam califates have been trying to convert and invaded the world since the Hegira in 622.

So was the goal of missionaries in colonisation, though. We grew out of it.

Yeah I read that part. But I'll still like an answer to my question.

themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/islamic-invasion-of-india-the-greatest-genocide-in-history/

Theres nothing heretical about saying the books were written by different Christians.

That is why we named them after the author.

>No Muslims were terrorising Europe or America until your country started destroying Muslim countries.

>What about the Muslims terrorizing Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists?
You people have had hundreds of years to react. Why bother asking? Sikhs, Hindus etc should have killed Islam long ago.

Why didnt India ever go to a war against islam? If Serbia managed to lead a pretty insanely successful regional war against islam, why didnt India manage to lead an equally successful global war against islam?

It's quite easy, you just ignore all the violent stuff, and only take to heart the peaceful stuff.

That's what christians do, for the most part, and that's what many mudslimes do as well.

However, if you were to really dive into and equally interpret all the content of the quran, and also the hadiths, which generate more hate than the quran itself (as if the quran didn't have enough on its own) - then you should have big problems leaning towards a peaceful conclusion.

you should have put an end to those wackos, India, you could have saved millions of lives, you had the chance and now they want to blow the whole world up...

Muhammed was a prophet, not really the equivalent of Jesus since Jesus IS God himself in "the Son" form. He can be compared to an Apostle, and the Quran to the Gospels.

More like the Letters to Romans and other "secondary writings" in Christianity, there is a lot of "secondary writings" in Islam, the Hadith.

This shows that both religions have various sources that often contradict themselves, with explains the various branches of Christianity and Islam. Some branches of Islam are actually really pacific and friendly to outsiders, others are hegemonic like old Christianity.

What I conclude from it is that Islam is in dire need of reform, nothing else. This reform is needed if we want a peaceful and multicultural world, and this reform won't happen if we behave with Muzzies exactly like ISIS wants us to.

Well Serb'ed
Did you study Judaism also ?

Don't forget hadith, which has more hate than the quran and bible combined.

The difference is that christians used to ignore the peaceful stuff, not the violent stuff.

t. Abu-Bakr al-Helsinki

is da religion of piece))

Mohammed and Jesus being the basis for their respective collections are what make Islam so obviously violent.

Christians have never needed to follow the continuations of the Bible because they are forgiven in Gods eyes.

Christian books are not binding like Islamic texts.

Hinduism was never a single entity like Islam or Christianity. It was the constant Muslim onslaught which forced the concept of Hindutva (although this term wasn't used) to emerge.
The sole reason for the rise of Hindu nationalism is the ability of Muslims to peacefully coexist with other faiths.
"Hindus" had been peacefully living with people of other faiths and pagans. But there's something "cancer like"about Islam that makes it corrupt things.


>Why didn't India ever go to a war against Islam?
They did. Many aspects of Sikhism evolved as a reaction to the persecution by Muslims. Also, by the time the British took control of India, the Marathas had all but kicked the Mughals out.
Plus, our current PM is a person who was banned by countries such as USA and UK because he was a suspect in the 2002 riots which killed a lot of muzzies: wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots

the inability of Muslims

So did mudslimes. The real difference is that now even in 2016, the increased support for the totalitarian ideology that emerged when Muhammad came to Medina in 622, is still alive among muslims. Not only is it alive, but most mosques and mullas seem to take this stance rather than a peaceful one. It generates all the western hate we see among muslims today, because they learn it in mosques who takes a political stance with their religion.

Yes, people forget that verses theoretically descended upon Mohammed over a period of 20 years, with a lot of verses pertaining to events relevant during the time.

The majority of mainstream Islam, and I mean mainstream Islam, is harmless.

>"Hindus" had been peacefully living with people of other faiths and pagans. But there's something "cancer like"about Islam that makes it corrupt things.
Of course; but you asked about Muslims terrorizing Hindus and Sikhs.

Its happened because its been allowed to happen. A lot of Americans are done with this and thus, we are allowed to have the conversation.

religion of peace whether you like it or not honkey

>open Sup Forums
>see this

fuck this shit

t; Muammar Gadeadfi

>t. No Muslims were terrorising Europe

because we colonised them lol.
Before that they were warring against the other side of the mediterran and struggled for the balkans.

DELET

As long as you worship mohammed in mekka and not medina. Don't go to your local mosque, your own brain is better than listening to the crap from imams.

Islam also emphasizes a multitude of different approaches that one can take that are not inherently violent against the west. What people forget is that as a religion, Islam was hardly relevant 25 years ago when it came to international politics. The proposition that Islam itself has been violent since time immemorial is ridiculous.

>b-but they invaded x y and z since (...)
as every other empire at the time did. People forget that modern societies only really evolved in the past 200 years, and even then, most of it was incredibly violent. The only reason people are so apprehensive about it is because they see it as the ceasing of a period of peace (at home at least) that started when the 2nd world war ended. Then they forget that they plunged that area into conflict since just after the 2nd world war, and have done nothing to remedy the mess they made.

Why are Germans being so mean to their new friends?

Is this how Germans were taught to treat your guests?

dw.com/en/report-germany-fails-to-tackle-rise-in-hate-crimes-against-refugees/a-19319098

your perception on mosques is also skewed. Al-Azhar advocates no form of violence, it encourages coexistence, for example.

>The proposition that Islam itself has been violent since time immemorial is ridiculous.
But Islam would not have been allowed to spread or even exist unless it was aggressive.

>Hinduism was never a single entity like Islam or Christianity.
>or Christianity

Christianity actual started extremely heterogenous with hundreds of sects believing in radically different gospels, some including satan in the trinity, other havin reincarnation, weird alternatives about the nature of jesus or an adversity to the old testament which could be seen as the work of a false god.
Crazy shit.

Its just that after catholicism was made statereligion it devoured all other strains violently safe for orthodoxy and later on protestantism who proved to be too strong in war.

Eh, you shias are ok.
Your prophet will have to come first before setting out the rules how to deal with us so until that we can be kaffirs on our spot and you can be pious on yours..
At least that was the impression I got from you shias or is it different then that?

The distinction here being that the only form of state there was given legitimacy through religion as opposed to 'divine right', as was prevalent in the kings and queens of Europe. The expansion of the state itself was an objective at the time because Islam was born into persecution and had to wage wars of survival from day 1. It's not conducive to your existene if you're a little guy surrounded by a bunch of tribes, by the byzantines and by the persians.

Most mosques propegate the ideas that sharia laws are good, among other things. This is obviously not the interpretation of Mohammed's teachings in mekka. At least that's how it is in Scandinavia, and I doubt it's better in actual islamic nations. Medina teachings dominates the 21st century.

(and consequently, is not inherently more violent than any other empire at the time.)

I really don't understand why people set a different standard for Islam in comparison to any other place at the time then tout some perceived inherent violence. It's like when groups like black lives matter change the defintion of racism from a simple discrimination based on race (which would allow them to be racist) to one that adds an 'institutionalization' of racism as a qualifying quality, exempting them from the concept because they set their own standards for it.

The distinction between Mecca and Medina isn't as clear cut as people claim it to be, tbqh. But, anyway, when it comes to Sharia law at least, for example, Al-Azhar looks at the values or the reasoning behind the laws and tries to encorporate that in a more modern, civil manner, as opposed to clinging to archaic practices of beheading for murder and cutting hands for stealing or the like. There's a lot of idiots in the world. I grew up in the middle East, and am constantly stupefied by the sheer retardation of especially the non-arab Islamic diaspora.

>The expansion of the state itself was an objective at the time because Islam was born into persecution and had to wage wars of survival from day 1
Early Christians didnt subvert Rome or Israel though, even early Jews fled instead of fought. So its stands to reason that Islam could have remained peaceful. That standard was available.

>But Islam would not have been allowed to spread or even exist unless it was aggressive.

Same for Christianity. Do you think Nigerians, and Ghanaians and South Americans were always Christian?

Christianity owes its start to underground worship, it was illegal to be Christian for some time.

That is and never was a tenet of Islam.

Not when you have a state, as opposed to simply followers of a faith. Mohammed was given regency over a state.

Oh, and for the record, Muslims did the same, twice. They first fled to modern day Ethiopia, and when things became really bad,they fled to Medina. Hijra is the arabic word for migration; it's our equivalent of an exodus. However, even when Mohammed was in Madina, he was met by armies of Meccans. He had nowhere else to go.

Abrahamic religions were a mistake desu.

they did however all result in the adequate usage of loos.

>Not when you have a state, as opposed to simply followers of a faith. Mohammed was given regency over a state.
Which is exactly what makes Islam so oppressive and aggressive.

The fact that there needs to be an institutionalized authority.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitation_of_the_Indus_Valley_Civilisation
WE WUZ POOS IN LOOS

what is the Hindu God of pooing?

wikipedia.org/wiki/Shitala

Muslims are however persecuted as a religious group in recent history. Consider Bosnian wars, for example.

You're not listening. The early Islamic empire was as violent as any other state in the region, pioneering the use of religious legitimacy that was also ultimately expounded on in Europe itself as well, much later at that. You set it a different standard for some reason and then justify the reasoning you reach using flawed assumptions. How is this a sound argument?

POOZ IN LOOZ


>shit-al(l)a(h)

lmao you guys

I think the idolators of Mekka persecuted Mohammed after he continued to publically disrespect their holy places by his rants.
Then he rekt them and everyone else who didnt knew him yet.

islamreligion.com/articles/172/muhammad-s-biography-part-4/

Interesting is that the Sabeans, some arab tribe shared many religious customs with the moslems and the kingdom of Himjar (todays Yemen) already declared an own form of Monotheism before muhammed got the idea.
I guess it was a growing trend in the region, maybe because the christianised rome pressured them with their beliefs or because they suffered from an economic crisis due to the collapse of the incense trade from arabia to rome, which the pagans burned in great quantities but the christians did not.
(until catholicism started some limited smokerites again because they are dank as fuck.)

Here, Muslims are the target of violence. By Buddhists, of all people. Pretty embarassing 2bqh.

Yes, the existence of the Oumma and pan-Arabism is what makes Islam so political.
It doesn't mean that all Islam needs to be political, some Muzzies are actually fairly well integrated in the West.
There once was a time where Christianity was also spread by the sword and imperialistic however.

>The early Islamic empire was as violent as any other state in the region
But early Jewish and Christian practitioners were not.

Thus, the difference.

>Al-Azhar looks at the values or the reasoning behind the laws and tries to encorporate that in a more modern
See, to me this is still unacceptable. If your mosque even slightly acknowledge anything about sharia laws, no matter how "modern" they want to interpret them, they are being funamentalistic and it's islamism. There is no room for this in a peaceful society such as the scandi-nations (or all of europe). I cringe everytime someone is labeled "moderate" and yet they look to ridiculous teachings like the sharia laws. The fact that many muslims think of their religion as a politics is to me insane, and it's like we're back in medieval europe when the church ran the politics.

The commandments no longer apply after the death of Jesus. Turn the other cheek is kind of murky but it's assumed to be about non-violent action. This is what I remember (afaik) from my theology courses.

...

>as violent as any other state in the region

But eve the muslim sources Ive read admit that the pagans wanted to negioate with muhammed even during wartime and tolerated him begrudgingly in the beginning,
they were traders mainly and thrived by having all kinds of idols and gods the tribes visited, so they must have beenpeaceful in some waybecause no outsider will take on a pilgrimage into an expansive aggresive state.

"Open conflict, however, would have been against their interests. Their power depended upon their unity, and with the example of Yathrib - torn asunder by tribal conflict - as a grim warning of what could happen in their own city, they were obliged to bide their time. Moreover, the clan Hashim, whatever it might think privately of its rogue member, was bound by custom to defend him if he was attacked."

i'm an ex muslim fedora and this may sound like shilling but
islam is just a normal religion it has its retardation like christianity or judaism but its not an evil religion or whatever you guys imagine it is
it doesn't call for killing others or some shit if you want retards to stop bombing shit you have to take out saudia who are like the pope to the islamic world who benifit from people being retarded

tl;dr repression and ignorance makes people backwards and violent not religion


people here always say
"the west does everything better than us even islam they do it better than us"

compare foreign born muslims to arabs
etc
here is a based muslim
youtube.com/watch?v=1D-2oQONdAU

>It doesn't mean that all Islam needs to be political, some Muzzies are actually fairly well integrated in the West.
But Islam requires its own courts and legal statures. That is the definition of political.

Also, it seems very easy for 'western'/'integrated' Muslims to snap. Which is why its important for those in the US to explain how things work. Very clearly and sometimes physically if need be.

this

As far as I understand the rojingas are as arrogant and unruly as the muzzies in france, so it seems like they have it coming for them.

Also southernThailand should be a reminder that you cannot have longlasting peace with sunnis, even though the local bhuddists have no conflict with hindus.

This difference has little significance is the modern aspect of the religion. Neither Christianity, Judaism or Islam are not practised nowadays as they were at they creation.

There are no Islamic courts or legal statuses in France, Sweden, or the UK, no matter what Fox News tells you, and we all three have more than 5% Muslims.

>judaism wasn't violent
what the fuck are you talking about?

>christianity
it's kind of hard when you're literally at the mercy of the Roman garrisons of the empire and you're confined to catacombs. When Christian statebuilding took off it really took off violently. Simply because violence did not manifest itself from the earliest day doesn't mean violence wasn't inherent within it. Come on now, you can't be for real. Not when there was a war fought for 80 years on which language to write the bible in.

You do realize we trace a lot of our laws here in the west to judeo-christian thought right? I don't understand what's so incredulous about this. European law underwent a progression from being religiously based to being inreasingly secular, hell, the Catholic church boiled and burned people at some points, cheering as they screamed in pain. Now, the catholic church advocates coexistence to the highest order, reflective of the society it lives in.

It is an established fact that as a country develops (not modernizes, develops!) it's citizens become more secular. The fact is, the middle east has had it's institutions raped over the years and it's development stumped. Nobody is burned in the middle east for witchcraft, yet you have African countries aspousing hardcore Christianity that do exactly that.

The whole narrative of 'us vs. them' and the 'fundamental evil' of something is indicative of a certain degree of naivety. The fact that these moderate factions exist in themselves are a sign that progression isn't impossible, but that it's slow. That's what this indicates.

>This difference has little significance is the modern aspect of the religion.
It has everything to do with modern day.

Bad seeds dont grow good trees. Christianity has had the chance to evolve simply because of its lackluster past. While Islam is a tribute to someone who was a warrior. Must different that Christ or David.

All religion is that of manipulation. To empower soldiers to fight without fear of death. To control the mind. All.

First christians converted the mediterran.
Then muslims conquered it and converted northafrica, the levante and destoyed the zoroastrians of peris.
Christians and muzzies crusade a bit under themselves, catholics against baltic pagans and cathars, muzzies against ibadites and shias.
Now they crusade and jihad against each other.
Jihadies sack and settle southern spain.
Crusaders penetrate and settle in the levante.
The latter get kicked out.
The former too.
Suprise event! Ghengis fucks everyne up!
Ottomans attack try to subjugate the balkan while extending into india and central asia and fight europe while christians are busy claiming the new world and siberia.
Some kind of rest.
Eurochristians get harrassed by barbarry pirates enslaving euros.
Eurochristians colonize magrehb muzzies.
Muslims continue getting kicked as europe gorges itself on the riches of the new world and takes of industrially.
...
Now after the cold war antagonized the camps again they are at war again towards us.

Now really, how can you say one was more vilent then the other?
Both sides commited lots of genocides too, maybe the muslims fall short on the amerindian killcount but thats only because they didnt make it there.

Jews fled from Egypt. They stayed in the desert for decades as nomads.

Islam connived and aggressively executed its expansion. You have to jump back hundreds of years to note a Christian aggression.

That was for a while, and they did reach a truce for a bit, which you can read about here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah

However, they did engage him in open conflict. Badr, Uhud, and a lot of others. However, the more powerful he became, the more of a threat he became in the region, consequently validating war for them. The only reason he fled Mecca was that they were going to kill him on the night that he fled.

is there a full video to this?

>There are no Islamic courts or legal statuses in France, Sweden, or the UK, no matter what Fox News tells you
I didnt say there was.

But there are, however, places where Islam is word of law. Even taxation is based on Islamic laws, forget about courts.

Nice try, Sundeep. Looing was invented by the Pakis.

Yet that absolves them from religious violence because it wasn't conducted within an arbitrary timespan? As soon as the Kingdom of Judea was established, the Jews became violent. As soon as a Christian state was established, it became violent. As soon as a Muslim state was established, it became violent.

The fact that you ignore the context of the start of violence, instead focusing on the calendar year on which it started, worries me deeply. You're purposefully choosing to ignore it for the sake of your argument, more than anything else.

>Essentialism
êêêh

We French were the most royalist and catholic country in the world, having invented the idea of Absolute Monarchy. About a century after that, we destroyed the very idea of Absolute Monarchy in Europe almost forever.

(Napoléon was an autocrat, yes, but not of divine right and without a constitution like Louis XIV for exemple).

Ideologies and people change all over the time.

>the Catholic church boiled and burned people at some points, cheering as they screamed in pain. Now, the catholic church advocates coexistence to the highest order, reflective of the society it lives in.
Yes but not anymore. That's the point. I know there are many reasons to the middle eastern problems, and I don't want to think in a they vs us kind of way, nor do I want to simplify the reasons by calling the religion evil or whatnot. But the fact is that the ideas that are stuck in middle east should not come to europe at all. They should stay in middle east and develop into something good before they can come here, that's how I'd prefer it. Is that a deluded fantasy? Yes, sure. But that would be better. Anyway, it's time for bed. Good night, and stay out of your mosque.

This could go on forever, but yeah good night man.

>stay out of your mosque
Been agnostic at best for years.

>Ideologies and people change all over the time.
So then its not impossible for the once peaceful Islam to be violent again.

Thats all anyone is saying. And better to be prepared for all outcomes than get steamrolled by 1 unlikely event.

I see, it just rubbed me wrong that you said that muhammeds empire was just as violent as the other kingdoms there, who worked with rules for religious coexistence and warfare.
The pagan theological arguments may have been shitty suspicion-tier and "we have done it so in the past and it worked, dont disrespect muh ancestors!" but their society allowed broad religious freedom and did not pour out of the arab peninsular before with a drive to conquer.
Anyway, it may have been more of a power and oppurtunity thing with muhammeds rise.
A bit like hitler was one of a kind and only possible due to the weird atmosphere of tolerant but decadent weimar which couldnt haggle itself out of the situation either.
(Yeah hitler-comparisons are a shit, but I cant help it...)

Looking at all this shit, I really wish we had stayed with our 'pagan' beliefs, instead of taking on a religion which ultimately caused wars, killed millions, destroyed the rights which once existed, ad infinitum.
We could have had what the Hindus have - a collection of Polythestic religions which reflect the way in which humans really think, instead of a mass-produced Abrahamic religion that advises us on how to trim our beards or our fucking penises! If we had kept our Celtic beliefs, and others had kept their beliefs, I think we would have a more realistic society. Honestly, we would have had a renaissance, we would have had all of the good things which happened on our timeline, which just so happens to include an Abrahamic religion. What we wouldn't have would be this 'wishful thinking' which is the basis of all the world's problems.

You're looking at it in a very pessimistic fashion. It is your right.

As a French citizen living in an HLM, I experience our 7,5% of Muslims everyday, and yes, some of them are complete assholes. The majority of them are simply polite guys I've had nothing to complain about.

I won't be able to convince you though, so good night for now. Was nice to have a decent conversation without too much memes

Actually they were.
But in the past they were more economically/military/socially/scientifically relevant. That they went to full war against Europe.
They conquered most of Spain and grabbed middle East from the Byzantine empire and held it until the Jews kicked em out. They are still butthurt about it.

>Wirathu

The man is an insult to the saffron robe. He's an animal.

That's what I've been saying from the start man. The nature of the Islamic rise was political - the state only drew legitimacy internally from religion, as Hitler drew his legitimacy from the "protection of the german people" for example. It's not due to an inherent violence of the religion itself.

Realistic, not pessimistic.

Im not sure what you want me to be convinced of. The origins of Islam are much darker and aggressive than that of Christian or Judaism.

Of course all the religions have had their bad points, but only in Islam is the violence eternal.

the pagans of arabia fucked their mothers and didn't give rights to women at all
a guy would inherit his mother from his father as if she was cattle
yes they fucked them too
it was a crazed war religion too killing people if they dont pay to their gods and shit

t; Soldier of Odin