but but but extremist are a minority in islam? Not really...

[BigNBAfan]

ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

NOP Research: 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY

People-Press: 31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq.
http://people-press.org/report/206/a-year-after-iraq-war

YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/06/32-of-palestinians-support-infanticide/
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4053251,00.html

World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans
41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans
83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose)
62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)
A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans:
(Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%)
About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaeda

[LikeABosh]

Careful, statistics are tirggering to liberals. Don't want to hurt their feels.

[Nick Young]

Facts and statistics? How dare you!

TRIGGERED

[fiddy]

Polls are not stats

[BoutPractice]

The sources are pretty reliable, though. Those polls sadly reflect realities.

I would add, though, that as a general matter of fact, 1) everyday people's political opinions are more fluid and dependent on framing than many believe 2) their opinions can be much more extreme than the media realizes, even if they're not consistent "radicals" (particularly in exceptional, life-or-death matters).

We prefer the simple to the complex, the black-and-white to the multicoloured, and the drastic to the subtle.

Many more people than the media would admit have fascistic tendencies, for example, and would support a thuggish dictatorship in the right conditions. Fascism is rarely a complete ideology that we adhere to wholesale... it's more like a little voice inside your head, your reptilian brain speaking and saying "forget about the niceties of civilization, this is about survival and if we don't follow the law of the jungle we'll get eaten alive". As long as issues are presented in a certain way, a disturbing percentage of the people (not criminal elements, mind you, your friends and neighbours) would support things like a war of aggression, a permanent state of emergency, internment camps etc.

This fluidity is the source of a lot of what is wise in popular wisdom, and is probably what allows us to survive as communities (we wouldn't last long if we had to play everything by a book that pre-limits our options in every situation). But it is also the source of some of our worst excesses.

All things considered, though, extreme rigidity - which has the power to influence the waverers who make up 99% of the population - can lead to even worse outcomes... and extreme rigidity is almost always the problem of a small minority. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many intolerant people there are if they're intolerant enough. 100 000 very determined people can ruin the lives of millions.

[Dresta]

I wish people would stop using the term 'fascism' - it has no coherent meaning, and hasn't done for a long, long time. It's funny, because Mussolini and Hitler are routinely referred to as fascists, but they are wholly different; historians still debate whether, in fact, the nazis even fit under the rubric of fascism. The word nowadays is only a distraction.

As it is now, it is used for little other than to smear those with dissenting opinions. Being sceptical as to the merits of democracy does not make one a fascist, nor does anti-semitism or racism, or numerous other things that are commonly associated with the term. Mussolini was the prototype fascist (which grew out of his socialist background) and he was pretty good towards the Jews before Hitler's coercion, and there were a hell of a lot of similarities between him, and FDR, yet the latter is rarely called a 'fascist.' Plenty in FDRs administration were highly admiring of Mussolini at the time, but this again, tends to be ignored.

Again, a word that can be applied so broadly and indiscriminately has no meaning outside of the world of propaganda.

[pinhead]

Just imagine the world today without any muslims.

Would it be more peaceful?

[~primetime~]

Yeah and like 95% treat women like shit, even the more "westernized" Muslims feel like women are "less than".

This was shown on an episode of Bill Maher, it was pretty shocking actually.

[pinhead]

I know a few Indian Muslims and they are OK. You never hear any of these Jihadis coming from India.

[NumberSix]

I know a few Indian Muslims and they are OK. You never hear any of these Jihadis coming from India.
Pakistanis are just Muslim Indians. Plenty of terrorists are Pakistani.

[n00bie]

These numbers will continue to grow as muslims are dying on a daily basis in the middle east.

Think about all the hate that will come out of 1 muslim we bomb. You kill 1 of them, and you will turn all their family & friends against you. There will NEVER be peace in the middle east.

[BoutPractice]

Dresta > There are several serious, "acceptable" definitions of the term by historians, political thinkers etc.

My claim is simply that, even under the most rigorous definition (that isn't historically bound to the 20s -70s, which if you believe should be the case, I would understand), a leader offering what you could reasonably call fascism to the masses could easily seduce, in the 21st century, a much greater percentage of the population than the mainstream realizes. A much, much greater percentage.

And I'm not just talking about caesarism, and the various forms of autocracy you will find in the world. Nor am I talking about populist, revanchist nationalism, nor even the mixture of caesarism and populist, revanchist nationalism. I'm talking about the most limited definitions you can think of, a carbon copy of what we had in the 30s... well, even that, in the right circumstances, framed in a certain way, could easily convince about a third of the population of most developed 21st century countries.

My broader point is that just because something is completely outside the bounds of mainstream political debate and thought (and I chose fascism as the best example, but obviously radical islamism is another one) doesn't mean that ordinary citizens can't find an appeal in it.

Just read the things people post on the Internet. You can see the dark side of humanity in full display... Our countries' liberal constitutions go against our deepest instincts - they're not just protecting us against some dictator, they're protecting us from ourselves, and it's a constant battle.

[imdaman99]

Yeah cuz the world could handle a billion extremists right? Didn't read the clown OP's daily agenda post.

[BigNBAfan]

Yeah cuz the world could handle a billion extremists right? Didn't read the clown OP's daily agenda post.

:biggums:

Not everyone act on their belief as they know there are consequences. Muslims are *******, this is a fact. Look at the refugees, majority are capable males leaving their kids and wives behind.

[9erempiree]

Water is wet.

I've already posted plenty of stats in regards to this.

Its the norm for Muslims.

[Nick Young]

I know a few Indian Muslims and they are OK. You never hear any of these Jihadis coming from India.
India is one of the few countries besides America where multiculturalism actually works-all the same, there are a ton of incidents in recent history of Indian Muslims going on murder riots targeting Buddhists, Jains and Hindus. There's even a scene in Slumdog Millionairre about it.

[Nick Young]

Nikka do u even speak Arabic or Hindi?

NO BETTER than your hipster buddies u mock thats fasho.
No need for vitrolic hate and anger bro.

I used to speak and read Arabic. can't remember much anymore.

I'm not a cultural expert, I just read books and the news, and watched Slumdog Millionaire once.

Can't we all just
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2014-07-20-Thankstomuslimvillage.jpg
???



Here is some info about Muslims attacking Hindus in India, if anyone's interested. (http://hinduexistence.org/category/attack-upon-hindus-by-muslims/)


Despite all of this violence and hate, we can still look to the Greatest Muslim of his generation for words of inspiration (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWgEUGnuwpk)


:rockon:

[poido123]

Perhaps some of the educated Muslims here can explain why certain sub groups of Islam radicalise in greater numbers than others...


wahabbism is one big problem. can anyone please share their thoughts on this teaching?

[UK2K]

Perhaps some of the educated Muslims here can explain why certain sub groups of Islam radicalise in greater numbers than others...


wahabbism is one big problem. can anyone please share their thoughts on this teaching?

Perhaps some of the educated Muslims can explain why Islam is the only major religion attempting to slaughter every other religion that is not them?

And before you say 'but its just a small %'... It's a lot bigger % in Islam than in any other religion. Have there been attacks all around the world every day in the name of any other religion? No. So, I'm not asking, nor do I care about what % are extremists, what I am asking is, why is the extremist percentage of Islam SO MUCH HIGHER AND MORE VIOLENT than any other religion?

[SuperPippen]

There's a reason most of you morons will never do anything meaningful with your lives and instead are content to spend your days talking shit on internet message boards. My god, you people are dumb.


Do you know how many lives have been claimed throughout history in the name of Christianity? Islam as a whole is no more or less prone to violence than any other major religion.

[UK2K]

There's a reason most of you morons will never do anything meaningful with your lives and instead are content to spend your days talking shit on internet message boards. My god, you people are dumb.


Do you know how many lives have been claimed throughout history in the name of Christianity? Islam as a whole is no more or less prone to violence than any other major religion.

DEFLECT! DEFLECT! DEFLECT!

But but but... you guys did it too like 800 years ago or some shit....

Discuss the TOPIC. I know it's tough, but I am here to support you every step of the way.

[BigNBAfan]

Funny how this thread is untouched by the terrorists.

[Nick Young]

Perhaps some of the educated Muslims can explain why Islam is the only major religion attempting to slaughter every other religion that is not them?

And before you say 'but its just a small %'... It's a lot bigger % in Islam than in any other religion. Have there been attacks all around the world every day in the name of any other religion? No. So, I'm not asking, nor do I care about what % are extremists, what I am asking is, why is the extremist percentage of Islam SO MUCH HIGHER AND MORE VIOLENT than any other religion?
We're to blame bro. It's all our fault, due to our imperialist meddling in the lands of the peaceful and progressive Arab Muslims.

They are literally blameless. This blood is on America and Western Europe's hands. The terrorists have no choice but to blow themselves up and chop peoples heads off in the name of Islam.

[Nick Young]

Funny how this thread is untouched by the terrorists.
Emotional based arguments built on logical fallacy don't work vs raw data and facts.

[poido123]

We're to blame bro. It's all our fault, due to our imperialist meddling in the lands of the peaceful and progressive Arab Muslims.

They are literally blameless. This blood is on America and Western Europe's hands. The terrorists have no choice but to blow themselves up and chop peoples heads off in the name of Islam.


That sarcasm just oozes win :roll: :roll:


It's my fault that Trump is popular in America. It's my fault and I'm a bigot for criticising the most violent religion of the 21st century.

[LootOP]

[QUOTE=BigNBAfan]ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

NOP Research: 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY

People-Press: 31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq.
http://people-press.org/report/206/a-year-after-iraq-war

YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/06/32-of-palestinians-support-infanticide/
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4053251,00.html

World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans
41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans
83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose)
62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)
A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans:
(Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%)
About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaeda

[Nick Young]

See,s like indeed, most of these stats say it's a minority.

hardly a tiny minority though.

[ISHGoat]

See,s like indeed, most of these stats say it's a minority.

It's a minority but that's a huge minority of people that basically outright support terrorism. Are we supposed to keep letting those ****s into western society? I say keep the entire lot of them from entering western countries, even if that means potentially missing out on some future scientists and the likes.

[UK2K]

See,s like indeed, most of these stats say it's a minority.

The amount of legal guns that go on shooting rampages are a minority too...

But that is so important, it has to be taken care of now.

[Clifton]

Do you know how many lives have been claimed throughout history in the name of Christianity?
This is a lazy claim. You tell me. How many?

I know the first few things you will name (Crusades, Inquisition), but I've found after that the list gets pretty dry.

Then you will reach for a bunch of wars that happened 500 years ago, most of which were actually political in nature and used the "name" of Christianity to advance a political agenda.

You will look for more modern incidents and not find any. You will find that the grotesqueries of the 20th century were all initiated by atheistic, secular Leviathans that suppressed Christianity in their realms and that the Church condemned each and every one of them (and even tried to assassinate Hitler).

And of course Christianity was illegal for the first 300 years of its history, so early Christianity certainly wasn't killing people.

And even if Christianity has a violent history (it doesn't). How come the ones slaughtering innocents in droves these last 20 years are all Muslim? How come Christians learned better, and Muslims have not?

The fact is Islamic wars of conquest have been a historical constant for 1300 years, ever since the very first caliphates.

Did you know that there hardly exist any contemporary Muslim historical accounts of the Crusades? Do you know why that is? It's because Islam had been at war with Christendom for the 500 years before the Crusades, and continued to be at war with Christendom for AT LEAST 200 years after. (Some would argue that they have been at war ever since, but I find that claim excessive.) For Christianity, especially Catholic Christianity at the time of the Crusades, the Crusades were a historical anomaly. Not so for Islam.

But yes, tell me more about those murderous Christians.

Obviously I do not think all Muslims are bad. Obviously not. I know several muslim people, some whose parents are Muslim, some converts. They come in all stripes, just like Christians do. Most in the developed world find terrorism abhorrent.

But that is not because of their religion. It is in spite of it. Their holy book, and their tradition, preaches that wars of conquest are justified in order to convert the world to "submission" to God. Christianity does not teach this.

[RoseCity07]

I wish people would stop using the term 'fascism' - it has no coherent meaning, and hasn't done for a long, long time. It's funny, because Mussolini and Hitler are routinely referred to as fascists, but they are wholly different; historians still debate whether, in fact, the nazis even fit under the rubric of fascism. The word nowadays is only a distraction.

As it is now, it is used for little other than to smear those with dissenting opinions. Being sceptical as to the merits of democracy does not make one a fascist, nor does anti-semitism or racism, or numerous other things that are commonly associated with the term. Mussolini was the prototype fascist (which grew out of his socialist background) and he was pretty good towards the Jews before Hitler's coercion, and there were a hell of a lot of similarities between him, and FDR, yet the latter is rarely called a 'fascist.' Plenty in FDRs administration were highly admiring of Mussolini at the time, but this again, tends to be ignored.

Again, a word that can be applied so broadly and indiscriminately has no meaning outside of the world of propaganda.

Have you read The Tyranny of Words?

[NumberSix]

There's a reason most of you morons will never do anything meaningful with your lives and instead are content to spend your days talking shit on internet message boards. My god, you people are dumb.


Do you know how many lives have been claimed throughout history in the name of Christianity? Islam as a whole is no more or less prone to violence than any other major religion.
Christianity in no way whatsoever promotes violence. Quite the opposite.

[brownmamba00]

This is a lazy claim. You tell me. How many?

I know the first few things you will name (Crusades, Inquisition), but I've found after that the list gets pretty dry.

Then you will reach for a bunch of wars that happened 500 years ago, most of which were actually political in nature and used the "name" of Christianity to advance a political agenda.

You will look for more modern incidents and not find any. You will find that the grotesqueries of the 20th century were all initiated by atheistic, secular Leviathans that suppressed Christianity in their realms and that the Church condemned each and every one of them (and even tried to assassinate Hitler).

And of course Christianity was illegal for the first 300 years of its history, so early Christianity certainly wasn't killing people.

And even if Christianity has a violent history (it doesn't). How come the ones slaughtering innocents in droves these last 20 years are all Muslim? How come Christians learned better, and Muslims have not?

The fact is Islamic wars of conquest have been a historical constant for 1300 years, ever since the very first caliphates.

Did you know that there hardly exist any contemporary Muslim historical accounts of the Crusades? Do you know why that is? It's because Islam had been at war with Christendom for the 500 years before the Crusades, and continued to be at war with Christendom for AT LEAST 200 years after. (Some would argue that they have been at war ever since, but I find that claim excessive.) For Christianity, especially Catholic Christianity at the time of the Crusades, the Crusades were a historical anomaly. Not so for Islam.

But yes, tell me more about those murderous Christians.

Obviously I do not think all Muslims are bad. Obviously not. I know several muslim people, some whose parents are Muslim, some converts. They come in all stripes, just like Christians do. Most in the developed world find terrorism abhorrent.

But that is not because of their religion. It is in spite of it. Their holy book, and their tradition, preaches that wars of conquest are justified in order to convert the world to "submission" to God. Christianity does not teach this.

Last paragraph is wrong...Islam tells Muslims not to force anybody in the word of God...also it is strictly forbidden to wage war unless you are under attack (Jihad) and when the enemy surrenders you must lay down weapons and stop fighting.

The term Jihad has many meanings it's the media that portrays Islam and it's teachings in a wrong way.

[Clifton]

Christianity in no way whatsoever promotes violence. Quite the opposite.
What is "Christianity"?

The Catholic Church?

Jesus' words in the New Testament?

The Bible as a whole?

The trouble with these kinds of conversations is: it's hard to tell what you mean by "Islam" and "Christianity."

The Bible has passages where God tells his Chosen People to commit genocide.

Meanwhile, there are many Muslim schools of thought today that are very sophisticated and profound. The Muslims had a better Middle Ages than the Christians did, and Catholics at least consider the Middle Ages a very good time for them.

This conversation requires a mental maturity and subtlety that can't be found here I think.

But, anyway, the dominant historical reality of Islam -- I don't know how else to judge it, since scriptural interpretation is whatever you want it to be it seems -- is much bloodier than that of Christianity. That's just the facts. I take the facts and then try to explain them... and I arrive at the life of Muhammad, the text of the Qu'ran, and the early years of the religion. It's not nearly as spiritual and sublime as the Christian counterpart. Not nearly.

[LikeABosh]

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1449616177788.png

[Clifton]

Last paragraph is wrong...Islam tells Muslims not to force anybody in the word of God...also it is strictly forbidden to wage war unless you are under attack (Jihad) and when the enemy surrenders you must lay down weapons and stop fighting.

The term Jihad has many meanings it's the media that portrays Islam and it's teachings in a wrong way.
I've had this conversation before. I've combed through the Qu'ran, and found passages that plainly called for the conquest of infidels who don't pay God the respect and deference He deserves. Each one was explained away.

I'm glad most Muslims interpret Jihad in a way that doesn't involve killing innocent people. They interpret it spiritually. By that interpretation, I find it appealing and profound. I wish Christianity had more of it (we can be a bit wishy washy at times about our faith).

But the historical fact, again, is that there is a long line of interpretation that says Jihad can be extended out of the spiritual realm to mean Holy War. And also that "under attack" has been very broadly defined.

How do you think Islam got control of the entire Arabian peninsula in 2 generations? War. They waged war. And they used their scripture to justify it. And they have been doing this ever since.

How then can you say that "Islam", whatever that is, is a religion of peace? Because you can interpret it that way? By all means: interpret it that way. But if others can interpret it another way -- and people have, ever since Muhammad himself -- maybe that is a hint that Islam can't be reduced to Judeo-Christian / modern-secular ideals like the PC police claim. Maybe it is a religion that is... susceptible to acts of terrorism and wars of conquest in a way that Christianity is not.

Maybe.

But read the historical account, man! It's hard to deny!

[LJJ]

^ the 2014 Kunming attacks were also committed by jihadis, I don't know why they have it listed as "unknown".

[Clifton]

By the way. I am a modern secular liberal born and bred. The air I breathe is politically correct and I wanted to see every religion the same.

But then I studied history. In depth. With no preconceptions one way or another. Indeed, preconceptions favoring Islam, since every Muslim I know without exception is kind, enlightened, and very spiritually alive.

Indeed, favoring Islam over Christianity, since most of the Christians I knew were hypocrites of one kind or another. I liked that Muslims tend to live out their faith better than Christians do.

But the historical record for that religion is not good. And as someone once said (it was Jesus), "You will know them by their fruits."

Christianity is the religion that has fruits to boast of. Specifically, Catholic Christianity. That's why I became Catholic, and that's why I don't think very much of Islam, as a religion.

But Muslims as people... very unwise in my opinion to have preconceptions about them. Everyone interprets their religion on their own terms these days.

[BlazerRed]

These numbers will continue to grow as muslims are dying on a daily basis in the middle east.

Think about all the hate that will come out of 1 muslim we bomb. You kill 1 of them, and you will turn all their family & friends against you. There will NEVER be peace in the middle east.

That is precisely why these savages need to be nuked to oblivion so that the world can forget that part of the planet even exists.

[oarabbus]

Pakistanis are just Muslim Indians. Plenty of terrorists are Pakistani.


You surely do not believe that Pakistanis are "just Muslim Indians".

Pakistanis and Indians hate each other more than Israelis and Palestinians.

[Nick Young]

This is a lazy claim. You tell me. How many?

I know the first few things you will name (Crusades, Inquisition), but I've found after that the list gets pretty dry.

Then you will reach for a bunch of wars that happened 500 years ago, most of which were actually political in nature and used the "name" of Christianity to advance a political agenda.

You will look for more modern incidents and not find any. You will find that the grotesqueries of the 20th century were all initiated by atheistic, secular Leviathans that suppressed Christianity in their realms and that the Church condemned each and every one of them (and even tried to assassinate Hitler).

And of course Christianity was illegal for the first 300 years of its history, so early Christianity certainly wasn't killing people.

And even if Christianity has a violent history (it doesn't). How come the ones slaughtering innocents in droves these last 20 years are all Muslim? How come Christians learned better, and Muslims have not?

The fact is Islamic wars of conquest have been a historical constant for 1300 years, ever since the very first caliphates.

Did you know that there hardly exist any contemporary Muslim historical accounts of the Crusades? Do you know why that is? It's because Islam had been at war with Christendom for the 500 years before the Crusades, and continued to be at war with Christendom for AT LEAST 200 years after. (Some would argue that they have been at war ever since, but I find that claim excessive.) For Christianity, especially Catholic Christianity at the time of the Crusades, the Crusades were a historical anomaly. Not so for Islam.

But yes, tell me more about those murderous Christians.

Obviously I do not think all Muslims are bad. Obviously not. I know several muslim people, some whose parents are Muslim, some converts. They come in all stripes, just like Christians do. Most in the developed world find terrorism abhorrent.

But that is not because of their religion. It is in spite of it. Their holy book, and their tradition, preaches that wars of conquest are justified in order to convert the world to "submission" to God. Christianity does not teach this.

This guy knows what's up.

Christianity doesn't teach its followers to cut off the heads of nonbelievers and never stop fighting until everyone's Christian.

Christianity doesn't teach its followers to spread terror in the hearts of non-believers.


Have Christians ever killed anyone in the name of Christianity? Yes. That doesn't mean they are following the source material.


Whereas Muslims who have killed people in the name of Islam ARE following exactly what the Koran tells them to do, and they are following in the example of the Prophet Mohammad, who lead a violent military campaign of conquest across the Arab Peninsula while he was still alive.

Mohammad was an actual historic figure. His actions and direct orders lead to the death of thousands, while he was still alive.




Has anyone who made the Christian/Muslim comparison ever actually read the New Testament?


Theres a major difference here. Mohammad the prophet of Islam is cool with slavery and he encourages his followers to commit acts of violence in the name of Islam. In both the Koran and the Hadiths.

Jesus, the prophet of Christianity only ever encouraged non-violence and peace and forbid slavery.


How can one claim with a straight face that Islam is a religion of peace? its founder was literally a violent warlord who ordered genocides and executions of people who refused to convert to Islam. He even ordered the murder of poets who wrote satirical poems that mocked him.

In contrast, Jesus was a hardcore pacifist who only ever preached non-violence and peace.

[oarabbus]

This is a lazy claim. You tell me. How many?

I know the first few things you will name (Crusades, Inquisition), but I've found after that the list gets pretty dry.

Then you will reach for a bunch of wars that happened 500 years ago, most of which were actually political in nature and used the "name" of Christianity to advance a political agenda.

You will look for more modern incidents and not find any. You will find that the grotesqueries of the 20th century were all initiated by atheistic, secular Leviathans that suppressed Christianity in their realms and that the Church condemned each and every one of them (and even tried to assassinate Hitler).

And of course Christianity was illegal for the first 300 years of its history, so early Christianity certainly wasn't killing people.

And even if Christianity has a violent history (it doesn't). How come the ones slaughtering innocents in droves these last 20 years are all Muslim? How come Christians learned better, and Muslims have not?

The fact is Islamic wars of conquest have been a historical constant for 1300 years, ever since the very first caliphates.

Did you know that there hardly exist any contemporary Muslim historical accounts of the Crusades? Do you know why that is? It's because Islam had been at war with Christendom for the 500 years before the Crusades, and continued to be at war with Christendom for AT LEAST 200 years after. (Some would argue that they have been at war ever since, but I find that claim excessive.) For Christianity, especially Catholic Christianity at the time of the Crusades, the Crusades were a historical anomaly. Not so for Islam.

But yes, tell me more about those murderous Christians.

Obviously I do not think all Muslims are bad. Obviously not. I know several muslim people, some whose parents are Muslim, some converts. They come in all stripes, just like Christians do. Most in the developed world find terrorism abhorrent.

But that is not because of their religion. It is in spite of it. Their holy book, and their tradition, preaches that wars of conquest are justified in order to convert the world to "submission" to God. Christianity does not teach this.



Ignore LeBron and Kevin Love and the Cavs are a pretty bad team :rolleyes:


Let's not act like Christianity isn't the CLEAR #2 when it comes to having blood on their hands. Buddhists? Jews? Hindus? Zoroastrians? Jains? Baha'ists? None of them come fuc.king close to Christianity when it comes to being murderous.

This thread is right about which religion is the #1 most violent offender right now but this silly defense of Christianity needs to stop.

[Nick Young]

Ignore LeBron and Kevin Love and the Cavs are a pretty bad team :rolleyes:


Let's not act like Christianity isn't the CLEAR #2 when it comes to having blood on their hands.
Proportionally, the Mayans and Aztec religion are probably #2.


If not proportionally, the Mongolian shamanism religion probably is #2. I don't know what their religion is officially called but there was a prophecy in it that inspired them all to go on their world conquest lead by Ghengis. Ghengis did things like massacre entire civilizations and then had them written out of history books. Pretty sure him and the mongols weren't Christians.





Islam has been in a state of constant warfare since its inception. And by the way, the religion was founded and built on war and conquest by its own warlord prophet.


Let's not act like your argument is based on actal fact or history here, bro.

[oarabbus]

Proportionally, the Mayans and Aztec religion are probably #2.


If not proportionally, the Mongolian shamanism religion probably is #2. I don't know what their religion is officially called but there was a prophecy in it that inspired them all to go on their world conquest lead by Ghengis. Ghengis did things like massacre entire civilizations and then had them written out of history books. Pretty sure him and the mongols weren't Christians.





Islam has been in a state of constant warfare since its inception. And by the way, the religion was founded and built on war and conquest by its own warlord prophet.


Let's not act like your argument is based on actal fact or history here, bro.

Between 1 and 3 million were killed in the Crusades which matches the death toll of the Aztecs/Mayans alone... then you bring up some religion that you don't know what the name is. Genghis was a Tengist by the way. And the guy I was quoting said "Then you will reach for a bunch of wars that happened 500 years ago, most of which were actually political in nature and used the "name" of Christianity to advance a political agenda." same with Genghis and Tengism...

Anyway learn to read... I already said Islam is #1 most violent today. If my argument isn't based on 'actual fact or history' then you tell me who is the #2 most violent religion. Must be those damn Hindus or Jews right?

[Nick Young]

Between 1 and 3 million were killed in the Crusades which matches the death toll of the Aztecs/Mayans alone... then you bring up some religion that you don't know what the name is. Genghis was a Tengist by the way. And the guy I was quoting said "Then you will reach for a bunch of wars that happened 500 years ago, most of which were actually political in nature and used the "name" of Christianity to advance a political agenda." same with Genghis and Tengism...

Anyway learn to read... I already said Islam is #1 most violent today. If my argument isn't based on 'actual fact or history' then you tell me who is the #2 most violent religion. Must be those damn Hindus or Jews right?
Proportionally-the Aztecs religion.

I have never heard of this religion called "tengism", but the Mongolian shamanism religion followed by Ghengis and his descendants is probably number 2.


Also, everything in Christianity preaches pacifism and peace. The Crusades were political, launched by corrupt popes and politicians in Rome, and went against the foundations of Christianity. The Crusaders were not following Christianity.

Mohammad and the Koran encourage and promote Jihad. Jihadists are following the example of their warlord prophet Mohammad, and doing what they're encouraged to do in Islam's holy book.


In contrast, Jesus and the New Testament preach only pacifism and non-aggression.

[oarabbus]

Proportionally-the Aztecs religion.

I have never heard of this religion called "tengism", but the Mongolian shamanism religion followed by Ghengis and his descendants is probably number 2.


Also, everything in Christianity preaches pacifism and peace. The Crusades were political, launched by corrupt popes and politicians in Rome, and went against the foundations of Christianity. The Crusaders were not following Christianity.

Mohammad and the Koran encourage and promote Jihad. Jihadists are following the example of their warlord prophet Mohammad, and doing what they're encouraged to do in Islam's holy book.


In contrast, Jesus and the New Testament preach only pacifism and non-aggression.


That's really great and all, now tell me which currently existing religions (the Aztecs were bloodthirsty killers - acknowledged) have killed more in their name than Christianity and Islam. Please inform me if the Hindus massacred a million Jains or the Jews killed 500,000 Bahai's or something and I wasn't aware.

[Nick Young]

That's really great and all, now tell me which currently existing religions (the Aztecs were bloodthirsty killers - acknowledged) have killed more in their name than Christianity and Islam.

I'll wait.
Probably none?:confusedshrug:

What's your point?

Because murder in the name of Christianity happened, it's ok when Muslims do it to?:confusedshrug:

[oarabbus]

Probably none?:confusedshrug:

What's your point?

Because murder in the name of Christianity happened, it's ok when Muslims do it to?:confusedshrug:


Not at all, murder is abhorrent regardless of the reason.

I think radical Islam is a massive, major problem in the world today, certainly far more than radical Christianity. And something needs to be done about it.

Just saw one too many "Christians are angels who do no harm" posts and I will call out that bullshit when I see it.

[Nick Young]

Not at all, murder is abhorrent regardless of the reason.

I think radical Islam is a massive, major problem in the world today, certainly far more than radical Christianity. And something needs to be done about it.

Just saw one too many "Christians are angels who do no harm" posts and I will call out that bullshit when I see it.
Do you understand the fundamental difference between Christian and Muslim violence though?


Christianity preaches peace and non-aggression. It only encourages its followers to be kind to fellow humans, regardless of their religion or creed or race.


Islam encourages its followers to commit acts of violence in the name of Islam. Islam encourages its followers to never stop the Jihad. Islam encourages its followers to behead non-believers and commit acts of terror in the name of Islam.

These are all things encouraged in the Koran, never mind the insanity that is written in the Hadiths-which to be fair not all Muslims follow.


Not only are these acts of violence encouraged to all Muslims, but they were actually practiced by the founder of Islam himself, Mohammad.

Whether Jesus actually existed or not, he only ever encouraged non-violence. Mohammad non only encouraged violence in his followers, but he committed acts of violence himself.

TL;DR Christianity encourages pacifism and peace.
Islam encourages a never-ending Holy Jihad until the entire world becomes Muslim.

Do you accept there's a fundamental difference between the two religious ideologies?

[NumberSix]

That's really great and all, now tell me which currently existing religions (the Aztecs were bloodthirsty killers - acknowledged) have killed more in their name than Christianity and Islam. Please inform me if the Hindus massacred a million Jains or the Jews killed 500,000 Bahai's or something and I wasn't aware.
What do you mean by "killing in the name of Christianity"? What does that mean?