No, Islam Isn’t Inherently Violent, And The Math Proves It!

[Norwegian]

Despite recent attacks in Paris and Copenhagen, Westerners face very little risk from Islamist terrorists.

There is a widely held belief in the United States today that Islam is a religion that goads its followers to violence. And indeed, global terrorism today is disproportionately an Islamist phenomenon, as I show in my recent book. The headlines in the past months have been full of Islamist-fueled violence, such asISIS killing its hostages, the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris, and yesterday’s attack on a Copenhagen café.

And a cursory look at the data shows that from 1994-2008, I found that 204 high-casualty terrorist bombings occurred worldwide and that Islamists were responsible for 125, or 61 percent, of these incidents, accounting for 70 percent of all deaths.

I exclude from the data all terrorist incidents that occurred in Iraq after the American invasion, and I consider attacks on occupying military forces anywhere to be guerilla resistance, not terrorism. I also use a restrictive definition of “Islamist” and classify attacks by Chechen separatists as ethnonational rather than Islamist terrorism. In other words, even when we define both “terrorism” and “Islamist” restrictively, thereby limiting the number of incidents and casualties that can be blamed on Islamists, Islamists come out as the prime culprits.

So, all that would seem to suggest Islam is more violent, right?

Not so. Rewind fifty or a hundred years and it was communists, anarchists, fascists, and others who thought than any means justified their glorious ends. Even now, Islamists are by no means the sole perpetrators. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and Colombia’s “narcoterrorists” blow up civilians and have nothing to do with Islam. In the United States, law enforcement considers the “sovereign citizens movement” to be a greater threat than Islamist terrorists. However, Islamists do commit most of the terrorism globally these days.

Look more closely, though, and you’ll see they don’t attack in the West very often. Of the 125 attacks committed by Islamists that I studied, 77—62 percent—of them were committed in predominantly Muslim countries, and their victims were overwhelmingly other Muslims. Another 40 attacks took place in just three countries—Israel, India, and the Philippines. Only four of the 125 attacks happened in the Western Hemisphere or Europe. They were ghastly and dramatic, just as they were intended to be. But they were, and still are, rare.

That means the risk of an American being killed by any act of terrorism in a given year is roughly one in 3.5 million, and the chances are that the act of terrorism won’t be committed by an Islamist. These facts are all the more remarkable given how easy it is to be a terrorist. The attacks on Charlie Hebdo were well-planned, but any cretin acting alone can throw a homemade bomb into a crowded café—or walk into a classroom and open fire. Three million Muslims live in the United States, and odds of an American being crushed to death by their own furniture or television exceed those of being killed by an Islamist.

The guys in Muslim skullcaps and the women in hijabs I might run into tonight at the Arab-run convenience store down the street will be last folks I’ll fear.
Things get even more interesting when we look at other ways that people kill each other besides terrorism. In one of the most influential works of social science penned in the late 20th century, Samuel Huntington claimed that Muslim societies are “bloody.” He asserted that they experience more major intrastate political violence, meaning civil wars, rebellions, interethnic clashes, and sustained government repression. These types of violence claim far more lives than do terrorist acts, which take the form of one-off events.

Huntington provided no support for his claim, and I tested it. The world experienced 235 episodes of intrastate violence that claimed over one thousand lives between 1946 and 2007. A total of just over 21 million people lost their lives in these conflicts.

Huntington’s thesis about Muslim bloodiness fares badly when we look at the evidence. In predominantly Muslim countries, on average, 0.65 percent of the population perished in major episodes of intrastate violence. In non-Muslim countries, 0.72 percent died in such episodes on average. In the postwar period, Muslim countries suffered slightly less severely from loss of life in major episodes of political violence than non-Muslim countries.

Analyzing the data is tricky. In order to have confidence in the results, it’s necessary to crunch the numbers in a multitude of ways. But any way you slice the data Huntington’s thesis falls flat. Muslim societies are not more prone to mass political violence than others.

What about violent crime? Here Muslims are way behind the rest of us—and in a good way. Homicide rates in Muslim-majority countries average about two murders per annum per 100,000 people. In non-Muslim countries, the average rate is about 8 per 100,000. Murder rates fluctuate from year to year, but they are consistently low in Muslim societies. The homicide rate in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, is 1 per 100,000—one-fifth the rate of the world’s largest Christian country, the United States. Christian countries live with murder rates that are unknown in the Muslim world. Brazilians and Mexicans are used to murder rates in the 15-25 range; the rate in Venezuela tops 50. Turks, Egyptians, Iranians, and Malaysians live with rates in the 2-4 range. In a good year, Christian South Africa lives with a murder rate of around 30. In a bad year, the rate in Muslim Senegal is one-tenth of that. Anyone who is skeptical of these numbers is invited to walk through minaret-dotted Dakar and steeple-studded Johannesburg at night and compare their experiences in the two cities. For that matter, have a stroll after dark in the low-income areas of Istanbul or Ankara. Then do so in Philadelphia or Oakland.

Differences this big call for an explanation. We can rule out several possibilities. One is that Muslims live under more authoritarian political regimes where the bad guys have more to fear from the authorities. In fact, the data show that authoritarian regimes do no better at controlling violent crime than democracies do. Even if Muslims generally live under harsher political regimes, they are not less prone to crime for that reason.

Sacred texts don’t explain anything either. The Quran staunchly prohibits murder. But the Bible and the foundational texts of every other major religion do as well.

But one possible explanation arises from the data: Greater socioeconomic inequality is correlated with higher homicide rates, and Muslim societies have comparatively low levels of inequality. The regions with the most murder, Latin America and southern Africa, also have the highest values on the so-called Gini score, the statistic that economists and political scientists use to measure class inequality. High economic inequalities (which is what a high Gini score indicates) and high murder rates go together. Statistical analysis shows that countries with proportionately larger Muslim populations have lower Gini scores and lower murder rates.

We don’t yet know why Muslims have lower murder rates and lower economic inequalities, but we do know that they enjoy both. We also suspect that lower inequalities make for less social tension and less homicide.

Are Muslims violent? These days, global terrorism is mainly Islamist. Even though the vast majority of Muslims oppose terrorism, it’s true their religion has a terrorism problem. Nothing is gained by denying it. But Islamists rarely strike targets in the West, and when it comes to mass political violence, Muslims do better, but only a tiny bit better, than others. They do far better at avoiding murder.

As I get out of my car near home in Oakland tonight, I will miss the relative safety of the teeming slum I once lived near in Surabaya, Indonesia’s second-largest city. And while there are quite a few Muslims in my neighborhood in Oakland, I can’t say I’ll be on edge worrying about a terrorist attack. In fact, the guys in Muslim skullcaps and the women in hijabs I might run into tonight at the Arab-run convenience store down the street will be last folks I’ll fear.
No, Islam Isn’t Inherently Violent, And The Math Proves It - The Daily Beast

@TimeTraveller @syedali73 @jamahir @LoveIcon @Pakistani shaheens @JonAsad @halupridol @Jf Thunder @utraash @graphican @BDforever @Maira La @yesboss @Star Wars @Lord Zen @khawaja07 @Mujahid Memon @jbgt90 @Razia Sultana @pkuser2k12 @faisal6309 @Akheilos @Mike_Brando @rockstar08 @Dr. Stranglove @haviZsultan @war khan @Jazzbot @DJ Crudept @Fawad Mahsud @naveen mishra @Spy Master @TankMan @MastanKhan @Ind4Ever @dexter @raptor22 @Gunsnroses @Muhammad Omar @Jay12345 @mr42O @venu309 @Fracker @Pakistani Exile @Patriots @Slav Defence @Aether @RescueRanger

 

[TankMan]

Good share. It's basically what I've been saying for a long time, backed by proper studies and statistics. The main reason Muslims are more involved in 'global terrorism' is because most major geopolitical hotspots today are in Muslim countries. (e.g Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan)

That creates radicals and terrorists, along with ripe recruitment grounds for them. They can then twist whatever ideology they want to.

A while ago it was Nazis everywhere, followed by socialist/communist/maoist terrorists everywhere, now its 'Islamists'. Eventually this will die down and be replaced by some other 'ism'.

As for the economic inequalities part, that is interesting. Perhaps the Zakat, along with regular tax, is what helps reduce the wealth disparity a little. Otherwise there isn't much else that could be different in Muslim countries, in that aspect.

 

[Dubious]

 

[Vassnti]

Good share. It's basically what I've been saying for a long time, backed by proper studies and statistics. The main reason Muslims are more involved in 'global terrorism' is because most major geopolitical hotspots today are in Muslim countries. (e.g Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan)

.

The conclusion may be correct but its hardly "proper statistics" proving you are more likley to die in the US by a druged up gun nut than a Muslim terrorist then extrapolating that to the rest of the world.

 

[shuntmaster]

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. 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.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. 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. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

 

[TankMan]

Top ten reasons why Islam is NOT the religion of peace
Violence in Muhammad's life and the Quran

James M. Arlandson

Ever since 9/11, Muslim leaders who have access to the national media have told us that Islam is the religion of peace and that violence does not represent the essence of Muhammad’s religion.

Even President Bush and Britain’s Prime Minister Blair have repeated this assertion, saying that Islam has been "hijacked" by a few violent fanatics. Is this true?

Sadly it is not, for empirical, observable facts demonstrate beyond doubt that Islam at its founding is filled with violence—in the life of Muhammad himself and in the Quran itself.

Hence, these Muslim apologists must stop misleading unsuspecting Westerners, and they must be honest about the heart of their religion, for once and for all.

Here are ten clear, verifiable reasons that explain why Islam is not the religion of peace.

Clear? In order to prevent the standard, reflexive "out of context" defense from Muslim apologists, the context of each verse in the Quran is explained either in this article or in the links provided within each of the ten reasons. No verse is taken out of context, and Muslim translations are used.

Verifiable? The readers are invited to look up each verse in the Quran in multiple translations, by visiting the website www.quranbrowser.com and typing in references, like so: 61:10-12. (61 is the chapter or sura, and 10-12 are the verses).

But first we must answer a Muslim strategy. A Muslim missionary or polemicist who believes that Islam is the best religion in the world and who wants it to spread around the globe attempted to refute this top ten list. But attempting to refute such a list is like reviewing a book only from the last chapter. The reviewer has skipped over the hard work of reading all of the chapters. In the same way, the Muslim polemicist or missionary has skipped over the hard work found in the back-up articles and the links. This top ten list is only a summary of many articles and a lot of strenuous labor from the present author and many other authors. The answers to the Muslim’s criticisms are all found in these articles. So his criticism is hollow, and his scholarship is shallow, since he has not done the hard work. He certainly does not understand the Bible. Plus, he whitewashes Islam in his attempted refutation. The back-up articles will show how. Thus, he whitewashes Islam either deliberately or unknowingly, which means he does not know his own religion or he knows it, but covers it up. Whatever the case, the truth about the real Islam must get out.

10. Muhammad nicknames his weapons.

Tabari (AD 839-923) is an early Muslim historian who is considered largely reliable by scholars today. In fact, the State University of New York Press selected his history to be translated into 38 volumes. (We use The Last Years of the Prophet, trans. Ismail K. Poonawala, 9:153-55.)

In the context of the list of Muhammad’s assets at the end of his life (horses, camels, milch sheep, and so on), Tabari records the nicknames of Muhammad weapons.

Muhammad nicknames three swords that he took from the Jewish tribe Qaynuqa after he banished them from Medina in April 624: "Pluck Out," "Very Sharp," and "Death." Two other swords from elsewhere are named: "Sharp" and "That is wont to sink" (presumably into human flesh). After his Hijrah or Emigration from Mecca to Medina in 622, he owned two swords called "Sharp" and "Having the vertebrae of the back." This last sword he collected as booty after his victory at the Battle of Badr in March 624.

Next, Muhammad took three bows from the Qaynuqa tribe and named them as follows: "Most conducive to ease, or wide," "white," and "of nab wood" (species of tree from which bows are made).

The name of a coat of mail implies "ampleness" or "redundant portions," probably because Muhammad was portly (cf. Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. Guillaume, p. 383).

Finally, even Muhammad himself has a nickname. After Tabari lists the positive ones, he matter-of-factly provides one that is not so positive: "The obliterator."

Muslim apologists may object that Tabari is not authoritative (except when he shows Muhammad as heroic or victorious) and that he is not on the same level as the Quran and some hadiths (words and deeds of Muhammad outside of the Quran). This is true. But Muslim apologists still must answer why such a tradition of naming weapons developed about Muhammad. After all, later, unauthoritative traditions about Christ developed, but they do not show him even owning weapons, let alone naming them. The answer to this question about Muhammad is found in the next nine reasons.

This article explains Christ’s attitude about swords more thoroughly, as does this one. Certainly he never fondled swords or nicknamed them, displaying them proudly, delighting in them.

Thus, violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in the life of Muhammad. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.

9. Muhammad commands in his Quran that adulterers and adulteresses should receive a hundred lashes.

24:2 Strike the adulteress and the adulterer one hundred times. Do not let compassion for them keep you from carrying out God’s law—if you believe in God and the Last Day—and ensure that a group of believers witnesses the punishment. (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Quran, New York: Oxford UP, 2004)

The supposed historical context of this sura occurs during a raid of a tribe in December 627 or January 628, on which Muhammad brought his favorite and youngest wife, Aisha, also the daughter of Abu Bakr, his right-hand lieutenant. After the Muslims’ victory, they journeyed back to Medina, one hundred and fifty miles to the north. On their last halt, Aisha answered the call of nature, but lost her necklace in the dark, just as the army was setting out from their encampment early in the morning. She left her litter, returned to look for the necklace, and found it. Meanwhile, the man leading her camel assumed she was in her curtained litter and led the animal away by the halter. Returning, Aisha saw that she was left behind.

However, a handsome young Muslim named Safwan saw her and accompanied her back to Medina, though both the Muslims and Muhammad’s opposition wagged their tongues at seeing the two youngsters entering the city together. Eventually, revelation came that Aisha was not guilty of any immorality.

Sura 24 thus establishes some ground rules against adultery, of which flogging one hundred times is one of the rules. Amazingly, 24:2 exhorts the accusers and judges not to let compassion keep them from carrying out God’s law.

Moreover, early and reliable traditions depict Muhammad and his Muslims stoning adulterers and adulteresses, as recorded by the two most reliable collectors and editors of the hadith, Bukhari (AD 810-870) and Muslim (c. AD 817-875):

Umar said: God sent Muhammad with the truth and sent down the Book [Quran] to him, and the verse of stoning was included in what God most high sent down. God’s messenger [Muhammad] had people stoned to death, and we have done it also since his death. Stoning is a duty laid down in God’s Book for married men and women who commit fornication when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession. (Muslim no. 4194)

Umar was Muhammad’s right-hand lieutenant (along with Abu Bakr), and even shortly after Muhammad’s death he tried very hard to get a verse allowing stoning into the Quran, but he did not succeed (Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. Guillaume, p. 684). Be that as it may, this and the next hadith are sufficient for many Muslims today to endorse stoning, as seen here: [1], [2], [3], [4].

Perhaps the most gruesome hadith is the following. A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification (by being punished for her sin). He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted that she was pregnant as a result of fornication. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community and ordered the woman’s death by stoning.

And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her ... (Muslim, no. 4206)

It is true that Muhammad told Khalid to be gentler, but how gentle does one have to be when one throws a rock at a woman buried up to her breasts? Is the rock required to go only 30 miles per hour or 40? Perhaps Muhammad was ordering Khalid not to curse her. In any case, the prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? They should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.

Even if some Muslim apologists today do not accept these hadiths, then they still have to answer why the true God would send down the harsh punishment of lashing in the Quran (Sura 24:2), when the New Testament says nothing about this. Christians should therefore rightly reject this verse, for Christ forgave the woman caught in adultery and told her to go and sin no more (John 8:1-11). He showed us the better way and taught the will of the true God.

For more information on this early punishment and how it is applied today, refer to this article, which also answers Muslim apologists and explains John 8:1-11 more thoroughly.

Thus, cruel violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.

8. Muhammad in his Quran permits husbands to beat their wives.

4:34 Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in the husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem)

Written in the historical context of the Battle of Uhud (March 625), in which Islam lost 70 holy warriors, this verse belongs to a larger collection of verses that outlines laws for the family, such as how to divide the inheritance and to how to oversee the assets of orphans (vv. 1-35).

Plainly said, Sura 4:34 specifies that husbands may beat their unruly wives if the husbands "fear" highhandedness, quite apart from whether the wives are actually being highhanded. This puts the interpretation of the wives’ behavior squarely in the husbands’ judgment, and this swings the door to abuse wide open. This verse embodies a gigantic cultural and social step backwards and should be rejected by all fair-minded and reasonable people.

The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

Bukhari reports this incident about the wives in the early Muslim community in the context of marital confusion and an odd remarriage law:

Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed hera green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" (Bukhari, emphasis added)

This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl-bride, Aisha (see rule no. 1, below), daughter of Abu Bakr, his right-hand Companion:

"He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain." (Muslim no. 2127)

For a more thorough analysis of this hurtful practice, refer to this article, which has many links to modern discussions of this policy (scroll down to the end).

This article, though long, offers a clear analysis of wife-beating, examining the hadith and other early source documents, as well as refuting modern Muslim polemics. This mid-length article answers a Muslim defense. This article is a superb analysis of the subject, giving various translations of 4:34. It cites the hadith and classical commentaries and refutes modern defenses. Finally, this article written by an Arab Christian is thorough in examining the Quran and hadith and Muslim polemics, offering many translations of 4:34.

Thus, domestic violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in the life of Muhammad and his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.

7. Muhammad in his Quran commands that the hands of male or female thieves should be cut off.

5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

Three passages in the hadith interpret Muhammad’s policy and provide its context. This is a quick compilation taken from Bukhari and Muslim:

Aisha [favorite wife of Muhammad] reported the Prophet saying, "A thief’s hand should be cut off for only a quarter of a dinar and upwards." (Bukhari and note two other hadith below this one).

A dinar, a word taken from the Roman denarius, was not a small sum, but not exorbitant either, yet one-fourth of a dinar merits the loss of a hand in Muhammad’s view.

Ibn Umar said the Prophet had a thief’s hand cut off for a shield worth three dirhams. (Bukhari and note the three hadith below this one)

The shield was fairly expensive. The poor in Muhammad’s armies could not afford one. But is a shield equal to a hand?

Abu Huraira reported the Prophet as saying, "God curse a thief who steals an egg and has his hand cut off, and steals a rope and has his hand cut off!" (Bukhari, see this parallel hadith here)

Some commentators are quick to say that an "egg" is really a helmet, and the rope is a ship’s rope, which is sizable and costly. However, the translation above is usually accepted, and this means that the penalty could be imposed for trivial thefts. But even if the more expensive items are in view here, they still do not measure up to a hand.

For more information on this gruesome practice and its historical context, consult this article, which answers Muslim apologists who seek to defend this practice and which also contrasts Christ with Muhammad. Suffice it to say here, Christ never endorsed this. And Paul the Apostle says that thieves should work with their hands in order to share with those in need, not get their hand cut off (Ephesians 4:28). So Paul excels Muhammad.

Thus, harsh and excessive punitive violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.

6. Muhammad assassinates poets and poetesses.

These two poets represent others in early Islam.

March 624: Uqba bin Abu Muayt

Uqba mocked Muhammad in Mecca and wrote derogatory verses about him. He was captured during the Battle of Badr, and Muhammad ordered him to be executed. "But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?" Uqba cried with anguish. "Hell," retorted the prophet coldly. Then the sword of one of his followers cut through Uqba’s neck.

March 624: Asma bint Marwan

Asma was a poetess who belonged to a tribe of Medinan pagans, and whose husband was named Yazid b. Zayd. She composed a poem blaming the Medinan pagans for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise. When the prophet heard what she had said, he asked, "Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?" A member of her husband’s tribe volunteered and crept into her house that night. She had five children, and the youngest was sleeping at her breast. The assassin gently removed the child, drew his sword, and plunged it into her, killing her in her sleep.

The following morning, the assassin defied anyone to take revenge. No one took him up on his challenge, not even her husband. In fact, Islam became powerful among his tribe. Previously, some members who had kept their conversion secret now became Muslims openly, "because they saw the power of Islam," so conjectures an early Muslim source that reports the assassination.

In addition to the sources that recount these and other assassinations, the Quran also supports harsh punishments for mockers and insulters (Suras 3:186; 33:57; 33:59-61; and 9:61-63).

However, even if Muslims reject the early non-Quranic sources where these assassinations are found, they still must answer these questions: Why would such a tradition grow up around Muhammad in friendly Islamic sources? What was it about Muhammad that produced such reports? Why are these friendly sources eager to present their prophet in a "positive" way?

For an in-depth analysis of Muhammad’s assassinations of poets and how they justify assassinations of artists today, like the one of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker, refer to this article, which also answers the Muslim apologists who try to justify Muhammad’s deadly policy, and which contrasts early Christianity with early Islam—Jesus assassinated no one, neither did he order this in the Gospels.

Go here, here, here, and here for more information on three of the assassinations of poets, along with other assassinations of non-poets. This page has some links to articles about how Muhammad dealt with his personal enemies.

Thus, bullying and murderous violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.

5. Muhammad in his Quran commands death or the cutting off of hands and feet for fighting and corrupting the land.

5:33 Indeed, the punishment of those who fight Allah and His Messenger and who go around corrupting the land is to be killed, crucified, have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or to be banished from the land. That is a disgrace for them in this life, and in the life to come theirs will be a terrible punishment. 34 Except for those who repent before you overpower them. Know, then, that Allah is All-Forgiving, Merciful. (Majid Fakhry, An Interpretation of the Quran, New York: NYUP, 2000, 2004)

According to the hadith, the historical context of these verses runs as follows and clarifies "fighting" and "corrupting" the land.

Some Arab tribesmen visited the prophet, but fell sick in the uncongenial climate of Medina, so he recommended an old folk belief: drinking the milk and urine of a camel. Subsequently, they are reported to have felt better. However, for some reason, after departing from Medina, they killed some of Muhammad’s shepherds, turned apostate, and drove off the prophet’s camels.

This news reached him, and he ordered them to be hunted down and brought before him. He decreed that their hands and feet should be cut off, their eyes gouged out, and their bodies thrown upon stony ground until they died.

For more information on this policy that punishes people today based on Sura 5:33, even on ambiguous charges like colonialism, racism, and the disintegration of family relationships see here, and for a reply to Muslim apologists, refer to this article, which also contrasts Christ with Muhammad. This shorter article explains the background of these verses and this gruesome law. Muhammad tortured people.

Thus, gruesome violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.

4. Muhammad aggressively attacks Meccan caravans.

A year or so after Muhammad’s Hijrah from Mecca to Medina in 622, he attacks Meccan caravans six times, and sent out a punitive expedition three-days away against an Arab tribe that stole some Medinan grazing camels (or cattle), totaling seven raids.

W. Montgomery Watt, a highly reputable Western Islamologist who writes in favor of Muhammad and whose two-volume history of early Islam (Muhammad at Mecca (1953) and Muhammad at Medina(1956)) has won wide acceptance, tells us why geography matters:

The chief point to notice is that the Muslims took the offensive. With one exception the seven expeditions were directed against Meccan caravans. The geographical situation lent itself to this. Caravans from Mecca to Syria had to pass between Medina and the coast. Even if they kept as close to the Red Sea as possible, they had to pass within about eighty miles of Medina, and, while at this distance from the enemy base, would be twice as far from their own base. (Muhammad at Medina, emphasis added, p. 2)

It must be emphatically stated that the Meccans never sent a force up to the doorstep of Medina at this time—they did later on when they were fed up with Muhammad’s aggressions. It is true that the Meccans gathered forces to protect their caravans, but when Muhammad confronted them, they were many days’ journeys away from Medina, often more than eighty miles. (Medina and Mecca are around 200-250 miles from each other, taking seven to eleven days of travel by foot, horse, or camel.)

Hence, two Muslim scholar-apologists are misleading when they assert that the caravans "passed through" Medina, adding that the Muslims haphazardly sought for whatever spoils they could get, whereas the Meccans mobilized for war (Isma’il R. al-Faruqi and Lois Lamya’al Faruqi, The Cultural Atlas of Islam, New York: Macmillan, 1986, 134). Rather, it is more accurate to say that the Muslims were aggressively harassing the Meccans.

To complete the picture of expeditions, raids and wars in Muhammad’s life from 622 to 632, Watt totals up the number that Muhammad either sent out or went out on: seventy-four (Muhammad at Medina, pp. 2; 339-43). They range from negotiations (only a few compared to the violent expeditions), to small assassination hit squads, to the conquest of Mecca with 10,000 jihadists, and to the confrontation of Byzantine Christians (who never showed up), with 30,000 holy warriors to Tabuk (see below).

For a fuller account of these six early aggressive attacks against Meccan caravans, go to this article, which explains more thoroughly why these attacks are not defensive.

Thus, aggressive military violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.

3. Muhammad in his Quran promises sensuous Gardens for martyrs dying in a military holy war.

Throughout the Quran, Muhammad promises the men in his fledgling Muslim community that if they die fighting for Allah and for him, Allah will reward them with a "virgin-rich" Garden (Suras 44:51-56; 52:17-29; 55:46-78).

In the following Quranic passage, representing others (Suras 4:74, 9:111; 3:140-143), the Arabic word "jihad" (root is j-h-d) is the means or currency to trade in this life for the life to come in an economic bargain.

61:10 You who believe, shall I show you a bargain that will save you from painful punishment? 11 Have faith in God and His Messenger and struggle [j-h-d] for His cause with your possessions and your persons—that is better for you, if only you knew—12 and He will forgive your sins, admit you into Gardens graced with flowing streams, into pleasant dwellings in the Gardens of Eternity. That is the supreme triumph. (Haleem)

These verses are found in the historical context of the Battle of Uhud (625), in which Muhammad lost 70 of his fighters. Thus, he must make the loss of life appear worth the sacrifice, so he frames their deaths in an economic bargain (note the word in bold print). If his jihadists trade in or sell their lives down here, they will be granted Islamic heaven—it is a done deal.

For an in-depth analysis of Islamic martyrdom and how Biblical martyrdom opposes it, consult this article. Christ’s "Martyrdom" on the cross opens the way to heaven so that Christians do not have to die in a holy war to reach heaven.

Thus, deadly, ‘heavenly violence’ sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.

2. Muhammad unjustly executes around 600 male Jews and enslaves the women and children.

After the Battle of the Trench in March 627 (named after a trench that the Muslims dug around parts of Medina) against a large coalition of Meccans and their allies, Muhammad imposed the ultimate penalty on the men in the Jewish clan, Qurayzah, his third and final Jewish rivals (he banished the Qaynuqa tribe in April 624 and the Nadir tribe in August 625). The Qurayzah tribe was supposed to remain neutral in the Battle, but they seem to have intrigued with the Meccans and to have been on the verge of attacking Muhammad from the rear. They were judged guilty by one of their Medinan Muslim allies, though Muhammad could have shown mercy, exiled them (as indeed they requested), or executed only a few.

The sentence: Death by decapitation for around 600 men (some Islamic sources say 900), and enslavement for the women and children (he took a beautiful Jewess as his own prize). Muhammad was wise enough to have six clans execute two Jews each in order to stop any blood-feuds. The rest of the executions were probably carried out by his fellow Emigrants from Mecca and lasted the whole night.

The prophet says the following in Sura 33:25-26 about the Battle of the Trench and his treatment of Qurayzah:

33:25 God sent back the disbelievers along with their rage—they gained no benefit—and spared the believers from fighting. He is strong and mighty. 26 He brought those People of the Book [Qurayza] who supported them down from their strongholds and put terror into their hearts. Some of them you [believers] killed and some you took captive. 27 He passed on to you their land, their homes, their possessions, and a land where you had not set foot. God has power over everything. (Haleem)

Now this atrocity has been enshrined in the eternal word of Allah—and the Quran seems to celebrate it. But these questions must be answered: Is intriguing with the enemy equal to slaughtering 600 men and enslaving the women and children? Who decides? The Arab tribal chief with the most powerful army? Muhammad said around the time of his Hijrah in 622 the following:

16:126 If you [people] have to respond to an attack, make your response proportionate, but it is better to be steadfast. (Haleem)

Any reasonable and fair-minded person would judge that Muhammad was not making his response (execution) proportionate to the breach of the agreement. The Qurayzah tribe never attacked the Muslims, and even if a few were to have done so, the punishment does not fit the crime. Therefore, Muhammad was being excessive and disproportionate because he used an irreversible penalty to express his human wrath.

For a fuller account of this atrocity, refer to this article. This one explores Muhammad’s relations with the Jews, answering the standard replies by Muslims for their prophet’s indefensible atrocity (scroll down to "Politics, Warfare, and Conquests," no. 5). See this series of articles for more information about Muhammad's atrocity against the Banu Qurayza. This online index provides other links.

Thus, anti-Semitic violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.

1. Muhammad launches his own Crusades.

In the following verse, Muhammad uses the Arabic word qital (root is q-t-l), which means warring, fighting, or killing:

9:29 Fight [q-t-l] those among the people of the Book [Christians] who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden and do not profess the true religion, till they pay the poll-tax out of hand and submissively. (Fakhry)

The two most interesting clauses in this violent verse are (1) People of the Book (Christians in this verse late in Muhammad’s life) are to be attacked if they do not profess the true religion: Islam. This leaves the door wide open for terrorists today to attack and fight Christians because they do not adhere to Islam; (2) Christians must pay a tax for the "privilege" of living under the "protection" of Islam—submissively or in humiliation.

The historical context of Sura 9:29 finds Muhammad preparing for a military expedition against the Byzantine Empire in 630, two years before his ordinary death of a fever in 632. Indeed, some scholars regard Sura 9 as the last sura to be revealed from on high. Therefore, it sets many policies for Muslims today, and is often interpreted as abrogating or canceling previous verses, even peaceful ones.

Muhammad heard a rumor that the Byzantines amassed an army some 700 miles to the north in Tabuk (northern Arabia today) in order to attack Islam, so he led an army of 30,000 holy warriors to counter-strike preemptively. However, the Byzantines failed to materialize, so Muhammad’s belief in the false rumor was misguided and his expedition was fruitless, except he managed to extract (extort) agreements from northern Christian Arab tribes that they would not attack him and his community. An army of 30,000 soldiers from the south must have deeply impressed the northern tribes, so they posed no real threat to Islam. They are the ones who paid the "protection" tax mentioned in Sura 9:29 (and so do tribes and cities after Muhammad’s death). Therefore, Muhammad’s forced tax was aggressive and hence unjust, not defensive and hence just.

Muhammad’s military expedition qualifies as an Islamic Crusade long before the European ones. After all, in 638, only six years after Muhammad’s death, Muslim armies conquer Jerusalem. Today, Muslims should never again complain about European Crusades, unless they first come to grips with their own.

For more information on the Muslim Crusades after Muhammad’s death and their atrocities and motives, refer to these articles (one, two).

Thus, crusading violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran—and beyond, even reaching to today’s western world. Islam is therefore not the religion peace.

What the ten reasons mean for us today

These ten aspects of violence that have burrowed into the hemorrhaging heart of early Islam have eight implications for us today. The first three are theological; the rest are practical.

The theological implications are as follows:

First, as each reason in this article has hinted at and the links explain more thoroughly, Christ never, ever engaged in such violence. For example, he never assassinated opponents, whipped adulterers, cut off the hands of thieves, or launched his own Crusades (what the Medieval Europeans did is not foundational to Christianity). Christ expresses the love of God. Therefore, Christians and all fair-minded persons have the right to question whether the true God would reveal the Quran when it contains such violent verses that conveniently support Muhammad’s violence, whereas the New Testament does not have such violence.

Second, Muslims believe that the New Testament is corrupted, whereas the Quran is inerrant. Even if we assume only for the sake of argument that these claims are true (but they actually are not), then why would reasonable seekers of the truth prefer the "pure" but violence-filled Quran over the "corrupted" but peaceful New Testament?

Before Muhammad is allowed to throw around unsubstantiated charges about alleged New Testament corruption, he and his Quran must pass a down-to-earth test regarding his dubious, violent practices. But he and it fail the test badly, as this article demonstrates, whereas Christ and the New Testament pass with a perfect score. Therefore, if Muhammad is so wrong about down-to-earth matters like whipping adulterers and cutting off the hands of thieves and beating wives, then he is likely wrong about unresearched accusations of New Testament corruption—and factually he is wrong.

Please refer to the articles listed on these pages for more information: [1], [2].

Third, since Muhammad who claims divine guidance is so wrong about practical matters, why should we believe him about theoretical matters like the deity of Christ and the Trinity, both of which he denies? Clearly, he was not divinely guided in practical matters because the true God would not degrade religion by endorsing such gruesome violence six hundred years after Christ came—the historical span is critical. Christ and the New Testament do not have even one example of such violence. Again, if Muhammad first fails the down-to-earth test, then he likely fails the theological or theoretical test—we have no reason to believe him in such high doctrines, especially since he was no theologian and his revelations are now empirically suspect.

The practical implications of the top ten reasons are as follows:

Fourth, nominal Christians who no longer take their faith seriously, but who are tempted to convert to Islam, must stop to think a second time. Christ the Son of God demonstrates the love of God (Matt. 3:16-17), not the wrath of an ordinary, self-described human messenger (Sura 3:144). Why would they trade in the religion of God’s peace and love for Allah’s human religion of violence?

Fifth, fanatical Muslims today are simply carrying on their prophet’s mission. Why should we be surprised if they want to conquer the West, in order to impose Allah’s will on non-Islamic societies? They are still working out Muhammad’s Crusades and trying to put a halt to the reality embodied in this simple logic:

(1) If A, then B. If Allah endorses Islam, then it should expand endlessly.
(2) Not-B. But it is not expanding endlessly (see this analysis).
(3) Therefore, not-A. Therefore, Allah does not endorse Islam.

This logic eats away at the heart of fanatics, especially premise two, even if they are not conscious of it in this logical form. What is stopping the endless expansion of Islam, according to the fanatics? Their answer: the US and even the very existence of the Jewish State of Israel in the heart of the Middle East. The fanatics have yet to uproot the Jews, despite three wars, which the Arabs lost. This tiny non-Islamic, Jewish State in their neighborhood slaps them in the face every day. How could Allah let this happen? Hence, premise two is the deepest reason that they have been launching attacks on the US and the West and Israel for the last two decades and why Osama bin Laden ignited 9/11. For more information on three Quranic verses that predict the worldwide dominance of Islam and that provide the motives for fanatics, refer to this article. And for more information on bin Laden’s motives specifically, go here.

Sixth, as noted in the introduction to this article, Muslim apologists who have access to the national media and who constantly assert that Islam is the religion of peace must stop misleading unsuspecting Westerners. Factually, Islam is not the religion of peace. True, it had peaceful moments, but not for very long. Muhammad sent out or went out on seventy-four expeditions, raids, and wars in only ten years (622-632), most of which were violent.

Seventh, western civilization must never accept the lie that Muhammad’s life, the Quran, and sharia (the law derived from the hadith and the Quran) are benefits to society. Rather, Islam represents many gigantic steps backwards, culturally and socially. One of the most tragic events in the western world in recent years—and one of the most underreported—is the existence of an Islamic court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce court in Australia, as well. The Canadian government should promptly shut it down, and Australia should never allow one. And such a court must never be allowed to exist here in the US or elsewhere in the West. Sharia does not benefit society, bluntly stated.

Eighth and finally, Islam should never be taught in our public schools, K through 11. Perhaps grade 12 is acceptable, but only on one condition. If school administrators insist on teaching it, Islamic violence must be included in the lesson plans because it is part and parcel of early Islam and Muhammad’s life.

Of course, Muslim apologists assert that Christianity is filled with violence, citing the Roman Emperor Constantine and the Medieval Crusaders. However, to repeat, they are not foundational for Christianity—only Christ and the New Testament are. And he and the New Testament authors never practiced or endorsed such violence.

On the other hand, Muhammad and his Quran are foundational for Islam, and violence fills his life and its pages.

Therefore, for ten clear and verifiable reasons, Islam is not the religion of peace.

10- Tabari is not one of the main sources of Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence.). Either way, what harm does naming weapons do?
9- Here's what Islamic lashes look like:

(not 100 and not for adultery, but lashes nonetheless)
More explanation: Islamic Voice
It's more for humiliation than it is about pain.

In comparison, ''If a man commits adultery with another man's wife.....both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.'' [Leviticus 20:10]

8- Women have rights similar to their husbands. The hitting part must be very light and is to illustrate the severity of the offence, not an actual punishment - similar to the lashes above.
Hitting one’s wife?
- islamqa.info

7- The punishment of cutting hands has very many restrictions. Firstly, the criminal must not be the main provider for a family. If he is, he can't be punished. Secondly, he is given a chance to return whatever he stole. Thirdly, it does not apply in famines or any situation where stealing was reasonable and not out of pure greed.

The Islamic state under the prophet and four caliphs was a welfare state, and anyone could simply request assistance if he needed anything. Thus, all theft was out of pure greed, unless in exceptional circumstances in which case the punishment doesn't apply.

6- Firstly, a lot of those incidents' narrations are not reliable at all. Secondly, those situations do not apply to us or Muslims in any other circumstances because we are not the Prophet (pbuh) and we do not have orders from God. The prophet could do those things because it was God's will to punish the people who rejected the Prophet, in the same way it was his will to have Moses (pbuh) punish the Pharoah or to have floods punish the people of Noah.

This is proven by these verses:
''Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people'' [At Tawbah 9:14]

and only applies to a certain people:
''a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time'' [At Tawbah 9:13]

5- ''Corrupting the land'' is better translated as ''creating anarchy in the land'', i.e rebellion and treason. Guess who else kills people for treason - the mighty US of A.
''Whoever is guilty of treason and shall suffer death''
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason | LII / Legal Information Institute

4- The attacks on the caravans were after the Prophet and his companions were expelled from Makkah - thus, they were in a state of war. Raiding caravans was an acceptable and regular war time practice during those times.

3- ''J-h-d'' means struggle. If you die struggling, you go to heaven - what's the big deal? It means that If I die while struggling to protect my country, or as an aid worker struggling to help people, or while distributing pamphlets against extremism (that could potentially save lives/have a positive impact on society) ,I go to heaven. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

2- Firstly, treason. They broke an agreement with the Muslims and collectively decided to support the attacking Makkans instead. Secondly, same principle about punishment from God.
For a more in-depth response: Refuting lies about Islam: Allegation that Muhammad brutally slaughtered the Jews of Banu Qurayzah

1- Very, very, very, restricted to one specific context and to only be done by the Prophet himself. It is limited to one year, 'the final year' and to one place, the Masjid ul haram i.e Makkah. The verse exactly before the quoted verse says:
''..let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year..'' [9:28].
Surat At-Tawbah - The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم

You know what's interesting? I have had this EXACT debate with extremists, advocates of the Blasphemy law, supporters of the Taliban or radical clerics - countless times. (defeated them every time) And here you are, helping them so shamelessly by peddling the same lies they do.

Posts like these help terrorists. You, @shuntmaster my friend, are helping terrorists. By constantly trying to prove the exact same thing that the terrorists themselves try to prove, you are helping them.

What terrorists say = 'Islam commands us to be violent, so our violence is Islamic' [and thus justified]
What you say = 'Islam commands people to be violent, so the violence is Islamic'

Actually, it is not. Not at all. For a variety of reasons, as described above. For an even more in-depth response, see:
Refuting lies about Islam: Allegation that the Quran tells Muslims to 'kill disbelievers wherever you find them'

 

[Brutas]

As a rational humanist, I must say European Christians has committed far more crime against humanity than any

-Crusades: Millions dead in 200 years
-Inquisition: Millions of other faiths burnt in stakes,expelled or executed
-Slavery: 50 million Africans made slave.15% of them died during the voyage or were thrown in the ocean as ships were over loaded
-Colonialism:Billions world wide subjugated & enslaved in their own land. Millions murdered, maimed & raped.
-Genocide: Entire native American & Australian aboriginal population wiped out !
-Racism/segregation: Millions treated worse than animals because of the color of their skin.
-Apartheid: Entire population of countries treated like bonded slaves.
- GENOCIDE:More than 65 million people were killed in two world wars due to the greed of colonial powers !
-Terrorism: Biggest act of terror committed by dropping atomic bomb on civilians in Japan (200,000 died instantly !).
Don't forget Neo-nazis, Aryan nation either.
Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, were are all born Christian.

 

[TankMan]

The reason why there are not very big numbers of kafirs killed by Islamic radicals is because majority of the Islamic radicals simply do not have necessary access to large populations of kafirs to carry out their religious obligations and wherever there is contact between radical Islamists and large populations of kafirs, the ungrateful kafirs make it very difficult for the true believers to carry out their agenda of earning their 72 virgins.
Majority of Muslims are located in Middle-east, North-Africa, South & South-East Asia. Middle-east & North-Africa are cleansed of most kafirs and the few Coptic Christians and Yazidis that are remaining are being genocided right now. Pakistan is almost cleansed of its non-Muslim population and since there are not many kafirs left for the radical Islamists to carry out their religious obligation of Jihad, they have to tag various other Islamic sects as kafirs to carry out their religious rituals.
In India the Muslims are relatively in weaker position in terms of population numbers than the kafirs. The kafirs of India are not in a mood to oblige the true believers in carrying out their religious obligations of Jihad, and would fight back with multi-fold aggression as demonstrated in the post-Godhra Gujarat riots in 2002. The Indian momeen knows this and are a little cautious about conducting their violent religious obligations in any big scale. Ditto for China, Russia, US etc. European kafirs have just come to realize this issue and seem to have started devising strategies to protect themselves from the true believers.

Kafir does not equal non-Muslim. The word Kafir comes from 'Kufr', which literally means, covering and hiding something (i.e. the truth).
The label Kafir can only be applied to someone who has knowingly rejected the truth out of arrogance, examples being: Iblees (Satan, basically) and the kuffar of Makkah. Not every non-Muslim on Earth.

''If we want to be inline with the Qur’an in using the word Kafir, then we cannot call all the non-Muslims Kafir. We are only allowed to call those people Kafir who reject the truth out of arrogance. Since we do not know about the inner intentions and feelings of individuals, we are never in a position to make such judgement and to use the word Kafir for people at our time. The people that we definitely can call Kafir are those that the Qur’an addressed as Kafir. These were people who rejected the message of the messengers who were directly sent to them out of arrogance.''

For a proper, in-depth and detailed argument:
Kafir - Exploring Islam

 

[Falcon29]

Nobody cares what the terrorist Crusader USA thinks. Nobody forgot what the Crusaders did in Iraq. It was genocide and extreme terror and targeting of women and children deliberately by their terrorist ground forces which came from Arab nations. The crusaders and the Arab regimes which indulged in the most massive terrorist attack of 21st century will be the ones eradicated. Not Islam, Islam is not the problem. Crusaders and their enablers are. The upcoming years are the years where revenge will be taken against the heart of the Crusaders. Nobody told them to mercilessly murder Muslims all around the region and prop up brutal dictators to kill Muslims. They brought it on themselves.

The crusaders want to destroy the whole world to satisfy the Jews. Their terrorism must end, they're to blame for what's coming. The terrorists must understand the message, end your terror and end your Zionist Crusade.

 

[MastanKhan]

As a rational humanist, I must say European Christians has committed far more crime against humanity than any

-Crusades: Millions dead in 200 years
-Inquisition: Millions of other faiths burnt in stakes,expelled or executed
-Slavery: 50 million Africans made slave.15% of them died during the voyage or were thrown in the ocean as ships were over loaded
-Colonialism:Billions world wide subjugated & enslaved in their own land. Millions murdered, maimed & raped.
-Genocide: Entire native American & Australian aboriginal population wiped out !
-Racism/segregation: Millions treated worse than animals because of the color of their skin.
-Apartheid: Entire population of countries treated like bonded slaves.
- GENOCIDE:More than 65 million people were killed in two world wars due to the greed of colonial powers !
-Terrorism: Biggest act of terror committed by dropping atomic bomb on civilians in Japan (200,000 died instantly !).
Don't forget Neo-nazis, Aryan nation either.
Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, were are all born Christian.

Sir,

You are forgetting the Afghan and Iraq war-----over a million muslims killed in afg and over a million and a half killed in Iraq under U S invasion.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

The American military committed large scale killings---. They did not have any brains to think before they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan----. They thought the Iraqis and afg's are gutless like the Japanese, german, Vietnamese, and whatever countries they invaded and left.

The things would not have been bad---but for our All American Girl Lyndi England and her boyfriend and other at abu Ghraib-----payback is a bitch---

HERE IS AN IRAQI FULL OF FECES

OUR ALL AMERICAN GIRL LYNDI ENGLAND AND HER BOYFRIEND

These americans did sickening acts of brutality against the prisoners---they should have rather executed the prisoners than to humiliate them.

And these pictures are supposedly not that bad----the real bad stuff would make the viewer insane----. Thanks to Rumsfeld---those pictures would not be released.

Bottomline---do not degrade muslim prisoners of war---. Either kill them or treat them with humanity---otherwise----it is all about BADAL.

 

[syedali73]

Hi,

The American military committed large scae murder---. They did not have any brains to think before they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan----. They thought the Iraqis and afg's are gutless like the Japanese, german, Vietnamese, and whatever countries they invaded and left.

The things would not have been bad---but for our All American Girl Lyndi England and her boyfriend and other at abu Ghraib-----payback is a bitch---

HERE IS AN IRAQI FULL OF FECES
View attachment 194575

OUR ALL AMERICAN GIRL LYNDI ENGLAND AND HER BOYFRIEND
View attachment 194576
View attachment 194577 View attachment 194579


These americans did sickening acts of brutality against the prisoners---they should have rather executed the prisoners than to humiliate them.

And these pictures are supposedly not that bad----the real bad stuff would make the viewer insane----. Thanks to Rumsfeld---those pictures would not be released.

Bottomline---do not degrade muslim prisoners of war---. Either kill them or treat them with humanity---otherwise----it is all about BADAL.

Guantánamo Diary

Since 2002, Mohamedou Slahi has been imprisoned at the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. In all these years, the United States has never charged him with a crime. A federal judge ordered his release in March 2010, but the U.S. government fought that decision, and there is no sign that the United States plans to let him go.

Three years into his captivity Slahi began a diary, recounting his life before he disappeared into U.S. custody, "his endless world tour" of imprisonment and interrogation, and his daily life as a Guantánamo prisoner. His diary is not merely a vivid record of a miscarriage of justice, but a deeply personal memoir---terrifying, darkly humorous, and surprisingly gracious. Published now for the first time, GUANTÁNAMO DIARY is a document of immense historical importance and a riveting and profoundly revealing read.

Guantánamo Diary by Mohamedou Ould Slahi — Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

Guantánamo Diary | The Guardian

 

[TankMan]

The conclusion may be correct but its hardly "proper statistics" proving you are more likley to die in the US by a druged up gun nut than a Muslim terrorist then extrapolating that to the rest of the world.

He never said that. You might want to re-read the article. The author clearly and properly differentiates between the US statistics, international or 'global' statistics and National statistics of Muslim countries with regards to their murder rates and civil-war deaths.

 

[DrawingDead]

Sir,

You are forgetting the Afghan and Iraq war-----over a million muslims killed in afg and over a million and a half killed in Iraq under U S invasion.

Do you have a breakdown of how many of these deaths were caused by US air strikes or US soldiers? Or are you planning on blaming us for you people killing each other too?

 

[I.R.A]

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. 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.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. 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. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

Hmmmmm you living in a country whose most professed religion is Islam (Malaysia) with these prejudices tells me otherwise of what you have tried to prove here.