Or predominately held beliefs in support of violence? Pic related.
~t. former muslim
Oh wow, surprised someone saved that pic. Glad to see it circulating.
It's amazing how untrue it is that "not all mulsims are violent". Not only are a shocking 15-20% violent, but as the pic in OP indicates, the MAJORITY support said violence even if they don't engage in it.
How is Islam defensible?
bump!
Who invited /pol/ here?
>>266337
The idea that any religion is inherently peaceful is bullshit. That said, christianity has just as much pro-violent shit in the bible, so in the end its up to the group to decide how literally they follow their book/scripture. As it stands the middle east is either a shithole or run by shitty despots, so it stands to reason that terrible people would be the result of terrible situations.
>>266512
I'm sorry I have a post with a question and literal data from Pew Research forum. What the fuck do you have?
>>266517
Uh oh here comes the Christianity too crowd. Nice deflection. Want to answer the question or address why most Muslims support violence?
>>266337
Damn, this pic convinced me of the no-state solution for palestinians.
>>266518
What page is the blue circle graph from?
>>266337
I had this argument with some guy a few days ago actually. He kept telling me that the Quran featured no verses of violence and it was wrongful interpretation which caused terrorism. Of course I couldn't offer any rebuttal since I haven't read the Quran (although I plan to), but given the arabic conquests which immediately follow the creation of Islam I doubt it spread through missionaries...
>>266517
>As it stands the middle east is either a shithole or run by shitty despots
Would you deny that islam has a hand in this? Just like an enlightenment that has taken central clues from christianity has a hand in making the west a much better place?
>>266517
>b-but Christians too!
The Quran commands followers to kill "enemies". The Bible doesn't. Its not up to interpretation.
>>266530
I know right? They clearly cannot integrate with Western society. There is no actual evidence for this. Again, I am OP and a former Muslim. Those who stick to the religion need to get away from secular society. This is not true of Christians (some of them) but I'm not sure why I need to stay this.
Also Mehmet was a pedophile and we are taught ways to distract from this fact when questioned.
>>266545
The religion spread through heterodox missionaries in the countryside and an urbanized merchant/bureaucratic middle class that developed around an Arab aristocracy which didn't care.
I don't see what's wrong with punishing adultery, homosexuality and abortion. Also a woman should obey her husband. Christian countries should start taking a leaf out of Islamic nations.
>>266571
But why did the arabs conquer so much land? How did they justify the conquests of Egypt and Persia?
>>266600
>How did they justify
there Islamic ideology b.s.
>>266536
What page is the blue circle graph from?
>>266608
So Islam does call for holy war against infidels in its scripture? Like waging holy war is a core part of the religion?
>>266337
ahem
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/
>>266600
Most likely adventurism and prestige. Most (admittedly 9th century) Arab chronicles on their individual conquests of regions and cities talk about personal honor, and the only time religion gets mentioned is when comparing Arab humility/piety with Persian vainglory and the like.
>>266623
No, what happened was once the Umayyad dynasty took off a religious justification for its universal religions imperialism was sought in the Quran, and through a principle known as abrogation Umayyad theologians concluded that it was justifiable.
>>266600
Egypt was actually a part of the Byzantine empire and abandoned when they lost against the Muslims in the levant.
>>266639
>62% of Pakistan just doesn't fucking care
based
Those people who voted favorable definitely adds up to more than the supposed 0.013% of Muslims who make up ISIS though.
>>266650
>What do you mean most likely?
Because we don't know all that much about them. The earliest sources are about a century after the fact from the Arab side, and they're quiet on the actual motivations and details of the individuals and tribes involved (of which Arab Jews and Christians were apparently also included), and the non-Muslim sources seem barely aware that these Arabs even had a religion at all. They didn't build mosques at first, nor dissimulate anything that could be recognized as a call to a new faith, etc.
>Then what is Jihad?
Exactly what I said in the rest of that sentence. A religious doctrine that had to be extrapolated through a convoluted theological process for the use of a new Emperor-Shahanshah proclaiming a new universal world order.
>>266678
Pakistanis are master fence sitters in matters that don't concern them.
t. Pakistani
>>266701
>Exactly what I said in the rest of that sentence.
But it's mentioned copiously in the Quran and in Hadiths. Clearly it was formulated in Muhammad's times...
>>266743
It's not. What you're referring to are specific conflicts between Medina and the Meccan coalitions, of which there is no doctrine but verses extolling the Medinans to fight until some favorable peace is reached.
The Hadith did not exist until later.
The only time I can think of is the Green March in Western Sahara.
Wow Islam really is a cancer on the world. I can't believe I fell for the "#notallmuslims" meme. This is pathetic. Fuck these brainwashed psychopaths. "Death for adultery" supported by a majority of Muslims.
You've gotta be fucking kidding me.
>>266761
>It's not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
>The word jihad (or variations based on its root—the letters J,H,D) appear 164 times in the Quran according to one count.
At this point I'm not sure if I can trust you.
>>266614
What page is the blue circle graph from?
>>266549
Passage pls
>>266778
First, your source is a blogger of unknown credentials, and second, the instances of the word J-H-D in the Quran are used for various contexts as a generic phrase. It's use in the Quran is different from its use in later scholarship discussing the meaning and theory of Jihad.
Much like the difference between S-L-M and Islam.
>>266810
>the instances of the word J-H-D in the Quran are used for various contexts as a generic phrase.
>Much like the difference between S-L-M and Islam.
..wat?
Is the Quran like Finnegan's Wake or something?
>>266337
im sure this asked every muslim on the planet and not a certain group
>>266743
>it was formulated in Muhammad's times...
The question is whether Muhammad wished it to be applied universally or in the context of his own feuds.
Muhammad essentially wanted to create an Arabic Judea but I doubt he ever had conquering Rome or Persia in mind.
The confusion comes in when some of his successors start justifying their political conquests by claiming Muhammad said so based on either fabrications or vague Nostradamus like prophesies.
Some of these claims are extremely dubious like Muhammad claiming the capture of specific cities or places which would have been impossible for him to have known to have existed.
>>266773
Adultery needs at least life in prison.
>muslims denying nothing but constantly casting "plausible doubt" in their posts
O i am laffin
>>266814
>Is the Quran like Finnegan's Wake or something?
Actually... that's not a bad comparison. And yes. The Quran is written in very strange Arabic-Aramaic and much of the definitions of words like Jihad, Islam, Muslim, etc, don't come from the Quran but from Arab linguists deriving the word from it to describe a more vague concept.
>>266822
>The question is whether Muhammad wished it to be applied universally or in the context of his own feuds.
Right. Is there anything to indicate that armed struggle is not a core part of Islam?
>Muhammad essentially wanted to create an Arabic Judea but I doubt he ever had conquering Rome or Persia in mind.
He did send threatening letters to the emperors of the Byzantine and Persian empires.
Didn't he also say something about conquering constantinople? Or that might've been one of his successors.
>The confusion comes in when some of his successors start justifying their political conquests by claiming Muhammad said so based on either fabrications or vague Nostradamus like prophesies.
Right, it's obvious that religion can be interpreted in any way to serve any purpose. The crusades are a fine example.
But my question is the following : is there, or isn't there, a fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity (and Buddhism) due to the fact that Islam calls for permanent war against the infidels?
And a second question : was this the driving force behind the arab conquests following Muhammad's death?
>>266517
>whataboutism
>>266850
>Right. Is there anything to indicate that armed struggle is not a core part of Islam?
Probably the fact that the earliest texts that describes armed struggle as a doctrine and not a historical event comes about 80 years afterward, and that by the time of the Crusades it had been 'forgotten' compelling a series of Zengid-Ayyubid Sultans to commission works on the subject.
>He did send threatening letters to the emperors of the Byzantine and Persian empires.
Curious such letters don't exist in Byzantine histories.
>Didn't he also say something about conquering constantinople? Or that might've been one of his successors.
Like the above, one of hundreds of unsourceable anecdotes flying around as unverifiable stories of a magic Arabian man who could and did do anything and everything.
>And a second question : was this the driving force behind the arab conquests following Muhammad's death?
It's very hard to see how, as both the biographical accounts of Muhammad's campaigns and the nature of Umayyad-Abbasid conquests are very different from the way the Rashidun Arab conquests played out either politically or religiously.
Perhaps the most interesting discrepancy comes from the way anti-Arab revolts in North Africa and Persia were led not by non-Muslims but nativist Muslim converts.
>>266898
>Probably the fact that the earliest texts that describes armed struggle as a doctrine and not a historical event comes about 80 years afterward,
That's a pretty short time span. When was the Quran committed to writing?
> and that by the time of the Crusades it had been 'forgotten' compelling a series of Zengid-Ayyubid Sultans to commission works on the subject.
Irrelevant.
>Curious such letters don't exist in Byzantine histories.
Now you're being willfully ignorant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_letters_to_the_Heads-of-State
>Like the above, one of hundreds of unsourceable anecdotes flying around as unverifiable stories of a magic Arabian man who could and did do anything and everything.
I'm pretty sure I read this from a good source, but I'll give you that
>It's very hard to see how, as both the biographical accounts of Muhammad's campaigns and the nature of Umayyad-Abbasid conquests are very different from the way the Rashidun Arab conquests played out either politically or religiously
How?
If Islam is so violent and full of terrorism and that, how come us kafirs are still around? There's over a billion muslims on the planet, surely with those numbers they would've rolled over us already.
It's almost as if Islam isn't a religion of violence or peace. It's almost as if religions exist out of and within the material conditions in which they are practised.
>>266869
>He litterally thinks critism of hypocrisy is some sort of fallacy.
Economic factors are to blame for the current rise of muslim extremism, and it could have easily been fought if, for example, the US had sanctioned the Saudis for sending Wahhabi scholars around.
Islam had and still has loooong periods of peaceful and civilized rule and co-existence with other peoples (even Jews), in the Cordoban Emirate, in parts of the Abbasid Caliphate or in the Ottoman Empire for example.
>>266930
>That's a pretty short time span. When was the Quran committed to writing?
Officially around 650, after a great deal of expansion under Abu Bakr and Umar I.
>Irrelevant.
Relevant to the concept of Jihad as a core doctrine.
>Now you're being willfully ignorant.
That's where I must rebuke you. I said such letters don't exist in Byzantine sources, and they don't. Once more, such letters seem to exist only in later Muslim lore. The source of these letters comes from a writer born two hundred years after Muhammad, and as the very Wiki states: "Most critical scholars doubt this tradition"
>I'm pretty sure I read this from a good source, but I'll give you that
"Good source" is a matter of huge debate, as stated above.
>How?
They built no mosques, made deals to share prayer spaces in churches with Christians, built garrison cities away from non-Muslims, made no attempt to proselytize or set up public courts, did not involve themselves with non-Muslim religious politics, and so on and so forth.
>>266934
Bullshit. You're just speculating. There's no evidence for this you're just playing at plausible deniability. There has NEVER been a context in which Islam was peaceful so MAYBE ITS PART OF THE PROBLEM.
>throw the middle east into chaos and division since the colonial era
>absolutely THRASH every secular ruler in the middle east throughout the 20th century and even after that
>ally with states on the Arabian Peninsula
>westerners
GUYS IS ISLAMS SIMPLY A RELIGION OF MURDER
>>266930
>Now you're being willfully ignorant.
He's does have a point though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_letters_to_the_Heads-of-State
>according to the usually told Islamic historiography
It's literally just al-Tabari who states this and has not been proven by the recipients themselves or any other evidence.
>religion can never ever be a reason for people's behavior
>unless they're christian
Hilarious. You all are fucking retarded. At least the Muslims in this thread know they're lying for their own benefit. What excuse do you mentally ill libkeks have?
>>266337
>former wahhabi
fixed
>>266953
maybe all of the detractors are fedorafags
>>266994
>There has NEVER been a context in which Islam was peaceful so MAYBE ITS PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Please define your terms here. When you say "Islam isn't peaceful" what are you referring to? Islamic nations being violent? Islamic people being violent? Saying "Islam is violent" is basically a meaningless essentialist statement and - here's the big issue - it destroys the nuance of history. Any historian of, say, the Arab Conquests would be laughed out the room if all they had to say was "Islam is violent." Like, even if I accept that, so fucking what? How is that unique?
>>266994
>There has NEVER been a context in which Islam was peaceful so MAYBE ITS PART OF THE PROBLEM.
lmao
u fucking wot
This entire thread is full of people doing EVERYTHING in their power to avoid the actual issues in OP. Islam is fucking violent and it teaches it. Either that or the majority of Muslims in the world just happen to be violent. Which could it be?
>>267051
But what do you want us to say? A pew poll found that some brown people have unsavoury opinions, so we should bomb them?
>>266981
Why are Muslims so supportive of extremism, including those living in Western countries, then? You'd think they might change their mind given that they are living off the dole.
>>267059
>You'd think they might change their mind given that they are living off the dole.
>>>/dailymail/
>>267058
I think they should stay in their own fucking countries instead of trying to poison Western society and acting like we owe them a favor. What would ever spur a fucking immigrant getting free healthcare and housing to fucking riot in a country that is not their own? What would cause them to support the terrorists they fled from and the ridiculous religion that supposedly created the conditions they don't like?
Oh wait, most of the refugees aren't even refugees anyway.
>>267051
That a large number of Muslims in the world are prone to violent and repressive ideologies and that Sunni Islamic theology has not squared itself with its past or the changes of modernization in the present leading to inaction or radical politicization.
And maybe because some of us would rather discuss history without memeing about current affairs.
>>267059
Because:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyQt1bCnDm4
>>267059
They're hypocrites and fucking stupid. Most muslims living in western countries are the biggest consumerist whores out there. They flaunt watches, jewelry, big cars etc.
>>267058
A pew poll found that the MAJORITY of Muslims support laws and acts that almost no Western secular state has supported in 300 years.
We would like there to be an acknowledgement that the average muslim supports act and laws that are not viable with modern western nations.
>>266517
>being this ignorant about Christianity
God only allows killing someone when being attacked, i.e. self defense you fucking moron.
>>267093
>300 years
Oh, what a coincidence, that's when Europe established hegemony over most of the rest of the world that has developed very little since then....
Hmmmm...
Here let's create a Muslim simulator guys:
>LETS ALL GO TO EUROPE TO BE OPPRESSED
>YOU DONT HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT TAILOR YOUR LAWS AFTER ME
>ISLAM IS ONLY VIOLENT BECAUSE OF YOU NOT BECAUSE OUR BOOK SAYS TO BE
>IGNORANT HICKS
>>267106
How does the West and Christianity being more successful matter at all?
I made my request. Don't try whataboutism or "they are just underdeveloped."
The majority of Americans think Islam is not compatible with our society, and the majority want us to not let in any Syrian refugees.
That's why our request is pertinent.
We want an acknowledgement that Muslims are different from Westerns. Different to the point where they are too different.
Throwing this out there, the 'clash of civilizations' theory is complete Orientalist bullshit.
>>267106
>developed very little since then
You've obviously never looked at places like Japan, China, Chile, Israel, India, the Philippines. While they might some might not be the greatest of countries, they're certainly not "underdeveloped". Africa is a shithole because of a power vacuum being filled with snake oil salesmen backed by drug and diamond warlords. South America is a shithole because they can't get away from communism and their drivel. The middle East is a shithole because of "radical Islam" (which ironically follows most of the laws in the Kuran to a fault) has control over the people which prevents them from advancing past the stone age. Every time a decent person gets power who isn't just a decadent fat ass they get Allahu Akbar'd and Freedom'd™.
And even then, your idea of undeveloped is highly subjective. Just because Europe had guns and high quality steel doesn't mean that life was any better there than in say, Sengoku Japan. Muh ebil Euros is your only argument.
>>267148
Your analysis is almost as bad as the zealous anti-Islam posters.
>>267168
Not him. But nice refutation.
At least take the lazy route and attack one of his points.
>>267187
How do you expect me to refute meaningless bullshit? "South America is a shithole because of communism" it's not exactly what you'd read in an international politics textbook is it?
>>267148
>muh japan
Japan was never under colonial rule.
Most of these places became independent or semi-independent states long ago. The Middle East was a big pile of different in-fighting tribes, not helped by the fact that the West was playing them out against each other, as late as 1945 when the British promised the palestinians the levant and then gave it to Israel.
And yes, I would say that what the British and the French especially but lately also the Americans have done in the middle east is evil. Actually, the last 60-70 years have probably been the worst EVER in the history of the middle east. Military intervention after military intervention, meddling western business and miltary interests. The boiling point has been reached just now, evidenced by the fact that christian and yazidi communities in syria/iraq that have lived there for thousands of years are being driven out just now.
Muslims shouldnt be held to a different standard because of this, but it's nontheless true.
>>266772
>Green March
Why the fuck can't Muslims do nonviolence more often?
>>267194
>Japan was never under colonial rule.
The Occupation from 1945-1952 counts. They're still a US satellite to this day.
>>267193
He said "South America is a shithole because they can't get away from communism and that drivel."
Slightly different meaning than what you said.
And he's quite right. Much of South America stagnated because of communism/populism.
The military dictators in SA generally presided over times of the highest growth rate and HDI improvement.
It's not the only reason, but it's a major one.
So tired of Muslims shitting up this board with their whining about oppression. Did Muhammad teach you not to act like men?
Don't worry, when all your women come for us, you won't have a reason to exist anymore anyway.
>>267168
>>267193
What does that have to do with anything? Could you actually come up with a refutation or what?
>>267194
I'm not saying that Europeans haven't done some shitty things to each other and other people. I'm simply saying that blaming it on Europeans is like blaming vaccines for increased autism levels. Also, iirc Japan was BTFO by nukes and is pretty much just a puppet state.
>>267214
I could've went on and articulated my point better, I'll admit that. But I wanted to keep my post short. And I wouldn't call those communists in the SA populists.
>>267220
Hahaha yes, racemix with us!
Our muslim idendity is not tied to our race , muslims are almost all mixed race
>>267226
I'm with you bro. I was responding to the guy who won't provide a proper refutation to what you said.
>>267220
>White men attracting women
good one ;)
>>266814
Arabic uses three letter roots to form words. Jihad just means struggle. In the same way, a fatwa isn't always a call to violence. I'm speaking only from a linguistic standpoint and will leave the politics to /pol/.
>tfw born muslim
>faith deteriorates in high school and starts to drift to deist
>can't tell anyone without losing friends, family, and the girl I love
Help
>The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.
>Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
>Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny.
>>266779
What page is the blue circle graph from?
Anyone know where I can find all the data on Muslims Gallup collected from 2001-2007ish? I think it's hard to find because some faggot wrote a book on it.
It would be interesting to see how it compared with Pew data
>>267760
Osama Bin Laden was a civilian.
>>267970
>I'm a pedant
If a significant amount of responders to that poll of any religion considered Bin Laden or other Jihadists to be civilians, I'll suck your cock
>>266518
He has his feelings. And they are hurt. Stop raping him.
>>267760
The difference between the American military and islamic terror groups when dealing with civilian casualties is that the American military tries actively not to target civilians. As we've already seen with isis and al qaeda, they couldn't care less about the lives of kuffar.
>>268003
Ok. I won't disagree with you. Most Muslim Americans seem to like that. Or do you only believe data that fits your worldview? Are you going to do mental gymnastics to convince yourself that Muslims are objectively horrible and 1-dimensional?
>>267696
What page is the blue circle graph from?
>>268012
No. What I will say is that core of Islam is violent and barbaric.
>>268040
no where
it was made up
>>268049
>continually spam a question that everyone ignores because you don't know how to use this website
>Samefag your own post
>>268107
I think you misread the question, m8
>>268135
That blue graph came from the pew research data
>>268107
you need to repair your samefag detector
>>268152
But the research data doesn't give a number to the total global number of muslims answering those questions, only on a per-country basis.
>>266660
The ERE was super shitty to the Copts, so when the Arabs invaded, they were greeted as liberators.
The ERE didn't abandon shit.
The Caliphate of Cordoba
Requesting peaceful Muslim to counter this
>The trick behind the apparent inconsistency of the Quran and why the radical Muslims are always correct: Like no other holy book among the world religions, the Quran contains an abundance of contradictory expressions. What is forbidden in one place is expressly demanded in another, and vice versa. However, the contradictory quality of the Quran is only an apparent one. It falls apart abruptly when one recognizes the very carefully protected secret hidden within the architecture of the Quran. For the Quranic Suras (chapters) are not arranged chronologically, but rather according to their length – and the newer Suras (from Muhammad’s violent later phase when he was in Medina) override the older ones from his era in Mecca that were comparatively more peaceful. However, this secret is guarded by Islamic scholars very closely as if it were a holy grail – and is aired only on particular occasions.
(An Essay from Michael Mannheimer, Germany, March 23, 2010 /
why is it that muslims cry so much about the crusades when muslim caliphates have spent their entire history in a state of jihad, the muslim equivalent of a holy war?
>Muhamad
Jihad that waged war to militarily subjugate and conquer Arabia
>rashidan caliphate immediately after Muhammad
jihad to conquer the levant, egypt, Algeria and most of Persia
>Umayyad caliphate
jihad to conquer the rest of the magreb, most of spain, all of modern iran and most of Pakistan
>abbassid caliphate
jihad to conquer more of central asia and turkey
>ottoman caliphate
jihad to conquer malta ,Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, and other Balkan countries only stopped in Austria
It's very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black when muslims whine and cry so much about the crusades.
they've done at least 4 more centuries of it than us.
>>268762
this post is referring to abrogation, and it isn't that secret.
>>268842
>religion of peace
>theologically incorrect
Please explain why this meme is still being spouted?
>>268945
this is a false dichotomy.
I'm saying that abrogation is not a closely guarded religious secret.
I'm not saying that it is screamed from the roof tops and is part of standard dawah or public relations between muslims and non-muslims.
the meme is still being spouted because most western casual muslims know very little about the quran or life of muhammad apart from the earlier peaceful verses that their preachers preach to them.
And western preachers still call it a religion of peace because they're lying or because they tell themselves that muslims in the west are not yet in large enough numbers to perform a jihad, so they're following the prophet's earlier example where he was preaching about coexistence etc. as a minority in mecca.
>>268981
That's not how abrogation works.
>>266549
Blessed be the lord our God that teaches my fingers to fight and my hands to war he is my rock and strong place in his name I go to slay my enemies. Psalm 144:1 I came not to bring peace but a sword Mather 10:34
>>266517
>That said, christianity has just as much pro-violent shit in the bible
True, but there is one massive difference between the Bible and the Qu'ran.
The Qu'ran is literally holy, it is the word of the god.
The bible (despite what some American bible belters say) is not the word of the god, it's just a dynamic (albeit a bit stagnant in the recent days) collection of books deemed relevant to Christianity
>>266996
Somalian muslims tried to do to a terrorist attack in my country.
My country has not done any of those things which you speak of.
>>269287
>I came not to bring peace but a sword Mather 10:34
>Using Matt 10:34 to support violence
>Being this retarded
It's metaphorical. If you bothered to even read one verse immediately thereafter, you'd know this.He's saying divisional conflict, not actual bloodshed.
>>266996
sob story: the sob story
>>268835
The Seljuks that ruled them were assholes, but the First Crusaders were Mongol tier in their conquests. There's a reason it's still remembered almost a millennium later.
Ask any Iranian what they think about the Mongols and they will have a similar sentiment as Levantines do about Crusaders.
>>268198
So you take the total amount of Muslims, what percentage each asked from all countries, and you combine that to the blue circle. It's just something someone else made if I'm correct, and it's there to visually display the data rather than give out little bars on graphs.
>>266517
A central underlying tenet of Buddhism is the elimination of yearning and conflict.
It is fundamentally incompatible with violence.
