If we did not allow Muslim foreigners into the United States...........

[PoliticalStench]

It all goes back to the liberal opinion that muslims have an absolute right to kill, blow things up and behead people walking down the street because they are fighting Christians, a common enemy of liberals. Americans, British, Swedish, French, the whole of the west should accept being murdered by muslims (who are really liberal footsoldiers, lacking the fortitude to do it themselves), as pennance for alleged crimes done 1,000 years ago.

If that's not good enough, western nations are also trying to stop muslims from killing people TODAY, that that, to liberals might be a greater crime.

I took issue with your comment about Paris Jackson's suicide attempt, but the above is thought provoking. I've never heard the subject approached this way before.

 

[Pogo]

I love it. LOL! Your mind is so closed that you can't see how your attitude would be off-putting, but because I didn't give you what you wanted, I backed off off due to your "busting" skills, according to you. Far from it. I got a whiff of your attitude and folded my arms.

Never said you USED the word intelligence. C-O-M-P-R-E-H-E-N-S-I-O-N.

Now you're just trolling. Fact is you made a claim and when it was challenged you bailed. You can't answer, because there isn't one. You painted yourself into a corner. I called your bluff and you lost.

See ya, loser.

Aww. Wah-wah. You think I'm a troll and a loser... Name calling... not surprised. My arguments don't qualify me as either. I just refuse to jump when you demand. Have a nice, misguided life.

I had to jump back to post 428 to find out what in the blue fuck you're talking about.

But there it is:

The above picture solidifies why most Americans are stupid

See, this is what I think Barack Obama thinks. There is a distinct ugliness in those who think they are intellectually superior. Snobbery from the poster who condemns others for not being more accepting. But then again, it's suspect when someone says they've had problems in dealing with Christians but praise Muslims, when we're all human and fallible. Suspect indeed. I've had problems in dealing with all sorts of people.

Nobody's "praised" Muslims here; in fact nobody's said squat about Muslims or Islam except for the bigot in the OP and a couple of his peanut gallery, all wallowing in negative stereotypes.

Where do you see this "praise" then?

A question you still can't answer -- and then you bring it up again to highlight your own dishonesty.

Man. Can't make this shit up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Muslims are not our enemy.

Terrorists are.

Period.

Why don't more Muslims speak out against terrorism and get rid of the radicalizing imams from among them?

And how exactly do you propose a given country with a sizable or majority Muslim population ‘get rid of them’?

Death camps?

Exile?

A bullet to the back of the head?

You’re advocating Muslims opposed to terrorism commit acts of terror against those who are innocent of any crime as a means to end terrorism.

 

[PoliticalStench]

There is one complication with such a simplistic and starry-eyed outlook...

Islam encourages its adherents to wage Holy War and to come to the defense of all their co-religionists under a variety of conditions and circumstances, including simple criticism of its precepts and practices and its founder.

No other surviving mainstream religion contains such enjoinders which remain operative on a broad-spectrum basis across their domains.

This difference renders Islam far more susceptible to use as a Spiritual Rationalization to wage war and to kill and to commit violence than its counterparts across the globe.

This, in turn, serves to present Islam as a Poison Pill and Warrior's Creed and Political System to the rest of the world, in the guise of a so-called Religion of Peace.

Your words are seductively attractive, and all people of goodwill are likely to wish that this was true, but the Realists of the world realize that there is something not-quite-right with that blanket statement.

Or so it seems to this observer...

This is the same tired BS argument over and over and over and over and over. We've heard it for years: "when they do it they're following their book; when we do it it's some wackaloon not following the book". You guys want it both ways: we collectively aren't responsible for a few deviants but they collectively are. That argument has never been valid, and doesn't fix itself by getting repeating it over and over.

You can run the same bad play out on the field again and again; it's still a bad play and it's still going to fail. What is it they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

It's the same argument as "well, my religion is 'the one true faith'" (pronounced by each one). Sure it is. Mine is too.

No, Pogo, it's true I'm afraid.

When Christendom goes to war, it does so in violation of the precepts taught by its Founder.

When Islam goes to war, it does in in accordance with the precepts taught by its Founder.

Big difference.

There exist a fair number of people of goodwill who are so deeply committed to Religious Tolerance across the board and in treating all belief systems equally that they are blinded to the differences and the resultant risks and dangers and susceptibilities.

We perceive this differently and I will have to be content with that.

I'm not saying all wars fought by "Christian" nations were just, but Jesus didn't tell his followers not to defend themselves. My former pastor (I moved) is a gun owner and will defend his home if a criminal enters. If some threat is encroaching, it doesn't mean you just let it trample you. The ancient Israelites fought wars.

 

[PoliticalStench]

"...That was addressed to Jeremiah, not you..."

Given that I was the 'exchange' just before that one...

And your use of the phrase 'another nolo contendre'...

I automatically deduced that I was the other one...

Perhaps I was wrong...

No no, "another" means both in the general population of message boarding NCs (such as that one-day wonder yesterday in this same thread) as well as "another" NC from Jeri (in others).

You though, I have faith in to follow up. You're in a higher uh, caste.

What are you...five years old?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I oppose any immigration bill that doesn't secure the border first and fails to punishes any employer who hires illegals for any reason.
Another point, actually two points, one put a hold on anyone from a Muslim society for at least five years and two....stop educational visas for Chinese students. Seem there is strong evidence that students from China after they return to China after getting high tech education in computer science are using it to attack both commercial and government military sites in the US.

What constitutes a ‘Muslim society’?

What constitutes ‘a hold’? They wait at the airport for five years?

How would you determine if someone is Muslim? Ask them? Make them show you their ‘Muslim papers’? By the way he looks?

Are you aware that ‘being Muslim’ is a terrible way to determine if someone is going to commit an act of terror?

This is the problem with most conservatives: they fail to think things through, likely as a consequence of their fear and ignorance.

 

[PoliticalStench]

christians are annoying, but they arent blowing themselves up, cutting off people's heads and committing the vast majority of terrorism worldwide.

now, calm down p.c. police dont get your panties in a wad i didnt say all but enough thats its a damn problem

when was the last time a christian said, the bible said verse and chapter thats jesus gave me permission to murder my daughter for sleeping with her bf, for honor (sarcasm)

or i can beat my wife cause the bible says so

or jesus said the abortion clinic was ok to bomb

even the bullshit about timothy mcveigh

i swear the p.c. drivel coming out of your some of your mouths convinces me you couldnt

rub two brains cells together if you tried

Westboro protest dead soldiers..

Christ soldiers kill abortion doctors..

KKK still burn crosses on lawn...

KKK is a terrorist group..

Christians have justified murder using the devil, hence the popularity of "the devil made me do it."

Want more examples?

We could definitely say the KKK and White Surpremiscists are Christian Terrorists, and they have been operating in recent times, and still do their dirty work. They have killed, tortured and terrorized people for well over a hundred years in America, in the name of the Bible which they claim states black people are the devil. And fundamentalist Christians think they have a right to kill OBGYNs who also perform abortions. Christians simply cannot claim they are all peaceful and it's the Other religion that is all bad.

Aren't you the one who threatened to report someone for stating you wrote something you didn't? Then why do you generalize when it comes to fundamentalist Christians? Do you know that those people were actually Christians? Or maybe they just thought they were. I thought I was until I found out I wasn't. Bombing clinics and killing docs are not the way of Christ. Just because someones says they are a Christian doesn't make it so. How does the Bible describe becoming a Christian? Would Jesus recognize those KKK members? Does the Bible tell these men to do what they do? NO. But the Koran commands that harm be done to infidels.

What those men do as so-called "Christians" is in contradiction to the Bible. Harming infidels doesn't contradict the Koran.

How do you feel about doctors who yank living children out of wombs and murder them...since you're on the subject?

 

[PoliticalStench]

You love to put all Christians in one nice little box don't you, yet why is this, so you can hope to defeat them all in this way or in one fail swoop? As you see we have dealt with our own over time, but I can't say that for other groups to have actually done that, and I don't think that you can either.. Martin Luther King new that their was bad in his people, just like there is bad in all people who gather in a group based on many things, so this is why he made that famous speech in which said in part, that he longed for a day that a man would be judged not upon the color of his skin, but instead upon the content of his character". It was true and is still true to this day, so what are you trying to achieve with your blanketing attempt at singling out a group name, as if it isn't just like many groups or people that have many characters within such groups, so this is to achieve what again ? Why not take a look at the groups whom won't out their bad, when many of the others will ? You speak of the KKK, when the white people are the ones who actually defeated them by outing them, and even at the cost of their own lives at times. Problem today is we have groups whom want to call themselves Americans, but won't out those who are undermining this nation from behind their group's identity, and this is a problem in this nation now, and even all over the world maybe.

You are correct that whites against slavery and pro civil rights (a number of them Christian) were helpful in turning things around in the US. Some of them were beaten, murdered and risked their lives during the civil rights freedom rides and black voter registration.

Curious: I've heard some things but does anyone know how some non-black Muslims feel about black Muslims?

 

[PoliticalStench]

Those of us who accept the past as a part of ourselves and our human commonality realize that the terrorism we see today is the same type of behavior that has been visited upon others by those we consider our people, our antecedents. We realize that all of humanity has done heinous things, that such things are not limited to any one culture, ethnic group, religion, nationality , gender, etc. You can pretend all you want that the past does not matter, but it does. Fortunately, not all people believe as you do, hopefully, not most.

Sounds very much like a weak justification for terrorism. Of course the past matters, but most cultures and peoples are able to move on. I don't see the Vietnamese flying planes into US skyscrapers although they certainly would have far more justification than the Islamist swamp you champion.

I don't know that all Vietnamese would feel that way. Don't know that all of them were happy with the murdering communists either. I worked with a woman who is from Vietnam but Chinese. It wasn't a picnic for her family in Vietnam. She was happy to leave and for her family to eventually make their way to the US. She's been a dentist for years and owns a practice with her husband. I appreciate your argument.

 

[PoliticalStench]

And, another one misses the point. I read 'The Profit' when I was a young liberal. In fact I leafed through it the other day which is why I brought it into this thread.

We live in a world of hard-ball politics. We always have. In the real world it is called "an eye for an eye." It is now an everyday occurrence. If you want the key to civilization read world history. Save Gilbran for your casual fiction reading.

Time for me to quote Winston Churchill, AGAIN.

Might wanna check where the quote "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" comes from, as well as what the people (Jews) who wrote that quote actually meant by it.

An eye for an eye means that if you injure someone and incapacitate them from doing their work, you have to compensate them for not only the injury that you brought upon them, but, if say...............they used their eyes as part of their livelihood, you had an obligation to pay for the work that they have lost as a result of that injury.

It's not quite the bloodthirsty idea that you think it is.

And by the way.....................the title is "The PROPHET", not "The Profit". I don't think his main reason for writing that book was to make money, as much as it was a statement on what Gilbran thought of the way people treated each other. Might wanna look into him being considered a rebel by many of the Muslim world.

The answer to you post on an "eye for an eye" is so obvious, I am not going to address it.

"The ProfEt" is not worth the paper it is printed on, when it comes to solving real world problems. If you like fiction, fine. But, keep it out of the political threads.

Why am I not surprised that you are hung up on things not of this world? Did you even look to see what the subject of this thread is before you posted?

Do you know what reality is when you see it? Is anything getting through the bubble you live in?
​

Thank you for posting the pictures of the radicals and their posters that let the world know who they are. More freedom loving people need to see that. "Freedom go to hell?" What a foolish, suicidal person. And his or her face is covered...probably afraid of losing welfare bennies.

I say the US should deport all and slowly allow those back in who aren't freedom- hating-rabid-death-cult-zombies. Those British butchers and the Tsarnaev killers are proof that citizens and residents can be turned. It seems the rules have changed.

 

[PoliticalStench]

And yet more paranoid, ignorant, bigoted, nonsense.

How exactly would you go about ‘declassifying’ Islam as a religion no longer subject to First Amendment protections. Would you then move forward to pass legislation making the practicing of Islam ‘illegal.’ What would be the penalty for the crime of ‘being Muslim.’

Again, what you and others of your ilk are advocating is the true terrorism.

Wait a minute now, so they have mass killed Americans, and have set off an IED explosive in a marathon in Boston, tried to knock down the twin towers from below, then hit them up high next, then we have the underwear bomber, the shoe bomber, Hason at Fort Hood, the USS Cole, the marine barracks in Lebanon and on and on it all goes, but some how Americans are the terrorist now for wanting to free themselves from such violence and war, and this by offering such people a way out, if it is their intent to kill while they are here because of their orders of belief in which they have to abide by ?

This is a serious situation, and it angers me. When you read this thread it is clear that Muslims and out-of-touch liberals hide behind freedom of religion for blowing up our country. It would be funny if there was not so much death involved. Americans like yourself realize there is a real threat here, and American lives have been lost.
Figures !

Last week in a news conference President Obama said he was going to really crank up the domestic terrorist budget. These Muslims somehow think they can come into this forum, make lots of noise about human rights, and we are just going to let them off the hook.

We can't trust Muslims, they are tribal barbarians who will do anything they can to steal the lifestyle America has built, and get rid of us. Americans have been far too generous with these psychotic animals. Looks like we are going to try the Russian approach, "Treat Muslims like cattle, and keep them on a short leash." Problem solved.

It is clear what Muslims think. Islam says kill Americans and Jews.
Have you ever heard an apology or even sympathy from them for American dead?
Of course not. What you see is what we get. It is time to realize that "Muslims are a cancer."
The only way to stop cancer is to cut it allout.
​

When it comes to the Prez, I go by actions, not words. Some doctor in the future may discover that he was severely allergic to the truth. Better find out Obama's definition of a terrorist because he hasn't been saying Islamic terrorism in his speeches. He won't utter the words: War on terror. He says Al Quaeda is on the run. He's more of an appeaser, imo. Considering recent history, his idea of a terrorist may be tea party members, Jews who support Israel and pro-life groups. Are Islamist terrorist his enemies or people in his own country who dare to oppose what he supports?

 

[PoliticalStench]

Now you're just trolling. Fact is you made a claim and when it was challenged you bailed. You can't answer, because there isn't one. You painted yourself into a corner. I called your bluff and you lost.

See ya, loser.

Aww. Wah-wah. You think I'm a troll and a loser... Name calling... not surprised. My arguments don't qualify me as either. I just refuse to jump when you demand. Have a nice, misguided life.

I had to jump back to post 428 to find out what in the blue fuck you're talking about.

But there it is:

See, this is what I think Barack Obama thinks. There is a distinct ugliness in those who think they are intellectually superior. Snobbery from the poster who condemns others for not being more accepting. But then again, it's suspect when someone says they've had problems in dealing with Christians but praise Muslims, when we're all human and fallible. Suspect indeed. I've had problems in dealing with all sorts of people.

Nobody's "praised" Muslims here; in fact nobody's said squat about Muslims or Islam except for the bigot in the OP and a couple of his peanut gallery, all wallowing in negative stereotypes.

Where do you see this "praise" then?

A question you still can't answer -- and then you bring it up again to highlight your own dishonesty.

Man. Can't make this shit up.

I've told you why I didn't answer your question several times. You still calling me dishonest because I chose not to answer a question due to your snotty, self-important attitude is in itself dishonest and childishness.
Your willingness to continually stoop to juvenile name calling diminishes any sense that may miraculously appear in your misguided arguments.

Have a nice day, pumpkin. Call me all the names you want. You'll be talking to yourself.

 

[PoliticalStench]

Muslims are not our enemy.

Terrorists are.

Period.

Why don't more Muslims speak out against terrorism and get rid of the radicalizing imams from among them?

And how exactly do you propose a given country with a sizable or majority Muslim population ‘get rid of them’?

Death camps?

Exile?

A bullet to the back of the head?

You’re advocating Muslims opposed to terrorism commit acts of terror against those who are innocent of any crime as a means to end terrorism.

Obsessed with violence much? Shun them. Denounce them. Stop listening to, reading, and circulating their hate sermons and literature.. Put so much pressure on them within the community that they exile themselves. The silence is deafening. Are they out numbered and out gunned by the radicals and are afraid or do many of them agree with at least part of what the radicals believe?

 

[Pogo]

Aww. Wah-wah. You think I'm a troll and a loser... Name calling... not surprised. My arguments don't qualify me as either. I just refuse to jump when you demand. Have a nice, misguided life.

I had to jump back to post 428 to find out what in the blue fuck you're talking about.

But there it is:

Nobody's "praised" Muslims here; in fact nobody's said squat about Muslims or Islam except for the bigot in the OP and a couple of his peanut gallery, all wallowing in negative stereotypes.

Where do you see this "praise" then?

A question you still can't answer -- and then you bring it up again to highlight your own dishonesty.

Man. Can't make this shit up.

I've told you why I didn't answer your question several times. You still calling me dishonest because I chose not to answer a question due to your snotty, self-important attitude is in itself dishonest and childishness.
Your willingness to continually stoop to juvenile name calling diminishes any sense that may miraculously appear in your misguided arguments.

Have a nice day, pumpkin. Call me all the names you want. You'll be talking to yourself.

You don't need to tell me; I knew before I asked. You can't, because you talked you talked yourself into a corner. The weird thing is you're too much of a pissant to just admit it.

 

[Pogo]

Might wanna check where the quote "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" comes from, as well as what the people (Jews) who wrote that quote actually meant by it.

An eye for an eye means that if you injure someone and incapacitate them from doing their work, you have to compensate them for not only the injury that you brought upon them, but, if say...............they used their eyes as part of their livelihood, you had an obligation to pay for the work that they have lost as a result of that injury.

It's not quite the bloodthirsty idea that you think it is.

And by the way.....................the title is "The PROPHET", not "The Profit". I don't think his main reason for writing that book was to make money, as much as it was a statement on what Gilbran thought of the way people treated each other. Might wanna look into him being considered a rebel by many of the Muslim world.

The answer to you post on an "eye for an eye" is so obvious, I am not going to address it.

"The ProfEt" is not worth the paper it is printed on, when it comes to solving real world problems. If you like fiction, fine. But, keep it out of the political threads.

Why am I not surprised that you are hung up on things not of this world? Did you even look to see what the subject of this thread is before you posted?

Do you know what reality is when you see it? Is anything getting through the bubble you live in?
​

Thank you for posting the pictures of the radicals and their posters that let the world know who they are. More freedom loving people need to see that. "Freedom go to hell?" What a foolish, suicidal person. And his or her face is covered...probably afraid of losing welfare bennies.

That's because it's obviously photoshopped by paragons of intellectualism such as yourself. And the OP. And you both fell for it.

Check the one sign out: "Demolition is on it's". Nobody makes that kind of spelling mistake outside of Ignoramistan.

This thread should be renamed, "Gullible's Travels".

 

[Beachboy]

Note how Muslims quickly disappear when confronted with three giant sized postings of their violence and terrorism?

What they do is indefensible, which is why they keep trying distractions from the facts.

Muslims are scared to death you will understand the truth about them.


Muslim Violence, Wiki

Islam's doctrines and texts have in some cases been associated with violence. This article deals with the juxtaposition in Islamic law and theology of violence and non-violence by groups and individuals. Attitudes and laws towards both violence and peace exist within the Islamic tradition.
Contents

• 1 Perception of Islam
  • 1.1 Western perceptions
  • 1.2 Islamic views on violence
• 2 Islamic sources
  • 2.1 Qur'an
  • 2.2 Jihad
    • 2.2.1 Qur'anic verses in favor of violence
    • 2.2.2 Scholars' comment in favor of Jihad
    • 2.2.3 Hadiths about Jihad
  • 2.3 Domestic violence
• 3 Modern violence
  • 3.1 Ayatollah
  • 3.2 Mujahedin
  • 3.3 Taliban
  • 3.4 Saddam Hussein
  • 3.5 Laskar Jihad
  • 3.6 Hezbollah
  • 3.7 Omar al-Bashir
  • 3.8 Wahabbists
• 4 Terrorism
  • 4.1 World domination
• 5 See also
• 6 References

Perception of Islam

Western perceptions

Sutton and Vertigans describe Western views of Islam as based on a stereotype of it as an inherently violent religion, characterizing it as a 'religion of the sword'. They characterize the image of Islam in the Western world as "dominated by conflict, aggression, 'fundamentalism', and global-scale violent terrorism."[1]
Juan Eduardo Campo writes that, "Europeans (have) viewed Islam in various ways: sometimes as a backward, violent religion; sometimes as an Arabian Nights fantasy; and sometimes as a complex and changing product of history and social life."[2] Robert Gleave writes that, "at the centre of popular conceptions of Islam as a violent religion are the punishments carried out by regimes hoping to bolster both their domestic and international Islamic credentials.[3]
The 9/11 attack on the US and other[when?] attacks since then associated with people who follow the Islamic faith, have led many non-Muslims to indict Islam as a violent religion.[4] According to Corrigan and Hudson, "some conservative Christian leaders (have) complained that Islam (is) incompatible with what they believed to be a Christian America."[5] Examples of Christian leaders who have expressed such sentiments include Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson.[6] According to a survey conducted by a research group affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, two out of three Protestant pastors believe Islam is a "dangerous" religion.[7]
Islamic views on violence

In response to these charges, Ram Puniyani assert that, "Islam does not condone violence but, like other religions, does believe in self-defence".[8]
Mark Juergensmeyer describes the teachings of Islam as ambiguous about violence. He asserts that, like all religions, Islam occasionally allows for force while stressing that the main spiritual goal is one of nonviolence and peace.[9] Hood, Hill and Spika write that "(a)lthough it would be a mistake to think that Islam is inherently a violent religion, it would be equally inappropriate to fail to understand the conditions under which believers might feel justified in acting violently against those whom their tradition feels should be opposed."[10]
Similarly, Chandra Muzaffar asserts that, "(t)he Quranic exposition on resisting aggression, oppression and injustice lays down the parameters within which fighting or the use of violence is legitimate. What this means is that one can use the Quran as the criterion for when violence is legitimate and when it is not."[11]
Islamic sources

Qur'an

Main article: Qur'an and violence
The Qur'an's teachings on matters of war and peace have become topics of heated discussion in recent years. On the one hand, some critics claim that certain verses of the Qur'an sanction military action against unbelievers as a whole both during the lifetime of Muhammad and after. The Qur'an says, "Fight in the name of your religion with those who fight against you."[12] On the other hand, other scholars argue that such verses of the Qur'an are interpreted out of context,[13][14] and argue that when the verses are read in context it clearly appears that the Qur'an prohibits aggression,[15][16][17] and allows fighting only in self-defense.[18][19]
Jihad

Main article: Jihad
Jihad, an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād translates as "struggle". Jihad appears 41 times in the Quran and frequently in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[20][21][22]
Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[23] In Twelver Shi'a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the 10 Practices of the Religion.
There is controversy regarding the extent of correlation between jihad and violence, and whether some have used confusion over the definition of the term to their advantage.[24]
Middle East historian Bernard Lewis argues that "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists (specialists in the hadith) understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."[25] Furthermore, Lewis maintains that for most of the recorded history of Islam, from the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad onward, the word jihad was used in a primarily military sense.[26] Although some Islamic scholars have different perspectives on the implementation of Jihad, there is strong consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against what they see as persecution and oppression.[27][28]


Qur'anic verses in favor of violence

Qur'an that claims it is the "clear truth and the best explanation"[Quran 25:33], a revelation that was sent down "to make everything clear"[Quran 16:89] and the eternal word of Allah[Quran 56:80], commands its adherents in chapter no. 47,

Quran in chapter 9 says,

“Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger to those of the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), with whom you made a treaty.[1]
So travel freely (O Mushrikun) for four months (as you will) throughout the land, but know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah, and Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.[2]

And a declaration from Allah and His Messenger to mankind on the greatest day (the 10th of Dhul-Hijjah — the 12th month of Islamic calendar) that Allah is free from (all) obligations to the Mushrikun and so is His Messenger. So if you (Mushrikun) repent, it is better for you, but if you turn away, then know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah. And give tidings (to Muhammad) of a painful torment to those who disbelieve.[3]

Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious — see V.2:2).[4]

Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.[5]

And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Quran), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.[6]”
—Muhsin khan translated Quran, verse 9:1-6
​

“O you who believe (in Allah's Oneness and in His Messenger (Muhammad)! Verily, the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, and in the Message of Muhammad) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah) after this year, and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you if He will, out of His Bounty. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. [28] Fight against those who
(1) believe not in Allah,(2) nor in the Last Day,(3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger(4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [29] And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth! [30]”
—Muhsin khan translated Quran, verse 9:28-30
​

Quran chapter 8 says,

“(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."[12]
This is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, then verily, Allah is Severe in punishment.[13]”
—Muhsin khan translated Quran, verse 8:12-13
​

“Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease (from disbelief) their past will be forgiven. But if they return (thereto), then the examples of those (punished) before them have already preceded (as a warning).[38]
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.[39]”
—Muhsin khan translated Quran, verse 8:38-39
​

In his tafsir, Ibn Kathir, one of the most well-renown Islamic scholars, explains the verses further:

“Allah then commanded fighting the disbelievers when He said:
(...until there is no more Fitnah) meaning, Shirk. This is the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ar-Rabi`, Muqatil bin Hayyan, As-Suddi and Zayd bin Aslam.

Allah's statement:
(...and the religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah (Alone).) means, `So that the religion of Allah becomes dominant above all other religions.' It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Abu Musa Al-Ash`ari said: "The Prophet was asked, `O Allah's Messenger! A man fights out of bravery, and another fights to show off, which of them fights in the cause of Allah' The Prophet said:
(He who fights so that Allah's Word is superior, then he fights in Allah's cause.) In addition, it is reported in the Two Sahihs:
(I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people until they proclaim, `None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. Whoever said it, then he will save his life and property from me, except for cases of the law, and their account will be with Allah.)”
—Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah
​

 

[Beachboy]

Scholars' comment in favor of Jihad

Imam Al-Suyuti (c. 1445-1505 AD) was a famous Egyptian writer, religious scholar, juristic expert and teacher wrote:

“Fight those who don't believe in God nor in the Last Day [Unless they believe in the Prophet God bless him and grant him peace] nor hold what is forbidden that which God and His emissary have forbidden [e.g., wine] nor embrace the true faith [which is firm, and abrogates other faiths, i.e., the Islamic religion] from among [for distinguishing] those who were given the Book [i.e., the Jews and Christians] unless they give the head-tax [i.e., the annual taxes imposed on them] (/'an yadin/) humbly submissive, and obedient to Islam's rule.”
—Suyuti, Durr al-Manthur (Beirut Edition), vol. 3, p. 228
​

About Jihad, leader of the Afghan Jihad, Abdullah Yusuf Azzam wrote:

“Jihad Against the Kuffar is of two Types: Offensive Jihad (where the enemy is attacked in his own territory) ... [and] Defensive Jihad. This is expelling the Kuffar from our land, and it is Fard Ayn [personal religious obligation on Muslim individuals], a compulsory duty upon all ... ...Where the Kuffar [infidels] are not gathering to fight the Muslims, the fighting becomes Fard Kifaya [religious obligation on Muslim society] with the minimum requirement of appointing believers to guard borders, and the sending of an army at least once a year to terrorise the enemies of Allah. It is a duty of the Imam (Caliph) to assemble and send out an army unit into the land of war once or twice every year. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the Muslim population to assist him, and if he does not send an army he is in sin.- And the Ulama have mentioned that this type of jihad is for maintaining the payment of Jizya. The scholars of the principles of religion have also said: " Jihad is Daw'ah [Islamic preaching] with a force, and is obligatory to perform with all available capabilities, until there remains only Muslims or people who submit to Islam.”
—A. Y. Azzam, Offensive Jihad Vs. Defensive Jihad
​

Shaykh Aḥmad Sirhindī (d. 1624) was an Islamic scholar and a prominent Sufi. He is regarded as having rejuvenated Islam, due to which he is commonly called "Mujadid Alf Thani", meaning "revival of the second millennium". He wrote,

“Shariat can be fostered through the sword. Kufr and Islam are opposed to each other. The progress of one is possible only at the expense of the other and co-existences between these two contradictory faiths in unthinkable.
The honor of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects kafirs, dishonors the Muslims. To respect them does not merely mean honouring them and assigning them a seat of honor in any assembly, but it also implies keeping company with them or showing considerations to them. They should be kept at an arm's length like dogs. ... If some worldly business cannot be performed without them, in that case only a minimum of contact should be established with them but without taking them into confidence. The highest Islamic sentiment asserts that it is better to forego that worldly business and that no relationship should be established with the kafirs.
The real purpose in levying jizya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that, on account of fear of jizya, they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honor and might of Islam. . . .
Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam”
—A. Sirhindi, Excerpted from Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, Muslim Revivalist Movements in Northern India in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Agra, Lucknow: Agra University, Balkrishna Book Co., 1965), pp.247-50; and Yohanan Friedmann, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi: An Outline of His Thought and a Study of His Image in the Eyes of Posterity (Montreal, Quebec: McGill University, Institute of Islamic Studies, 1971), pp. 73-74.
​

Hadiths about Jihad

Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:8:387 and Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:2:24 see also Sahih Muslim, 1:30,Sahih Muslim, 1:31,Sahih Muslim, 1:32,Sahih Muslim, 1:33,Sahih Muslim, 1:34​

On the day of Al-Ahzab (i.e. clans) the Prophet said, (After this battle) we will go to attack them (i.e. the infidels) and they will not come to attack us."

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:59:435 see also Sahih Muslim, 19:4294​

Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The example of a Mujahid in Allah's Cause-- and Allah knows better who really strives in His Cause----is like a person who fasts and prays continuously. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty."

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:46 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4646​

Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, "Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah's Cause)." Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it. A place in Paradise as small as the bow or lash of one of you is better than all the world and whatever is in it. And if a houri from Paradise appeared to the people of the earth, she would fill the space between Heaven and the Earth with light and pleasant scent and her head cover is better than the world and whatever is in it."

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:53 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:50, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:54​

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite. 'Abdullah b. Mubarak said: We think the hadith pertained to the time of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)

— Sahih Muslim, 20:4696 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4631, Sahih Muslim, 20:4634, Sahih Muslim, 20:4635​

A man whose face was covered with an iron mask (i.e. clad in armor) came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall I fight or embrace Islam first? "The Prophet said, "Embrace Islam first and then fight." So he embraced Islam, and was martyred. Allah's Apostle said, A Little work, but a great reward. "(He did very little (after embracing Islam), but he will be rewarded in abundance)."

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:63 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4639​

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Abi Aufa: Allah's Apostle said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords."

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:73 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:72​

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Somebody asked, "O Allah's Apostle! Who is the best among the people?" Allah's Apostle replied "A believer who strives his utmost in Allah's Cause with his life and property." They asked, "Who is next?" He replied, "A believer who stays in one of the mountain paths worshipping Allah and leaving the people secure from his mischief."

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:45 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4652,Sahih Muslim, 20:4653​

Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause."

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:65 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:48​

Narrated Abu Huraira: A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battle-field, enter your mosque to perform prayers without cease and fast and never break your fast?" The man said, "But who can do that?" Abu- Huraira added, "The Mujahid (i.e. Muslim fighter) is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders bout (for grazing) tied in a long rope."

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:44 see also Sahih Muslim, 19:4315, Sahih Muslim, 19:4314​

Domestic violence

Main article: Islam and domestic violence
The relationship between Islam and domestic violence is disputed. These ideas are vaguely justified with reference to the Qur'an, in one Surah, An-Nisa, 34, which discusses forms of beating in certain circumstances. Some of the scholars allowing "beating" stress that it is a last resort, discountenanced, and must be done lightly so much so not to cause pain or injury.[29]
Modern violence


This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this section if you can. (June 2011) See also: Criticism of Islam
According to Islamic scholar Khaleel Mohammed, throughout the world, Muslim intellectuals are punished for criticizing various aspects of traditional and contemporary Islam, citing the case of Muhammad Said al-Ashmawy, who is being held in Egypt under house arrest for his own protection; Abdel Karim Soroush who was beaten in Iran for raising the voice of inquiry, and Mahmoud Tahawho was killed in Sudan. Rifat Hassan, Fatima Mernissi, Abdallah an-Na'im, Mohammed Arkoun, and Amina Wadud were all vilified by the imams for asking Muslims to use their intellect.[30]
Other examples:

• Hashem Aghajari, an Iranian university professor, was initially sentenced to death because of a speech that criticized some of the present Islamic practices in Iran being in contradiction with the original practices and ideology of Islam, and particularly for stating that Muslims were not "monkeys" and "should not blindly follow" the clerics. The sentence was later commuted to three years in jail, and he was released in 2004 after serving two years of that sentence.[31][32][33]

• Christoph Luxenberg feels compelled to work under a pseudonym to protect himself because of fears that a new book on the origins of the Qur'an,[34][35] may make him a target for violence.[36][37] he goes/went by this assumed name in order to protect himself.[38]

• In recent times fatwas calling for execution have been issued against novelist Salman Rushdie and activist Taslima Nasreen for pejorative comments on Islam.[39]
• On 2 November 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was assassinated by Dutch-born Mohammed Bouyeri for producing the 10-minute film Submission critical of the abusive treatment of women by Muslims. A letter threatening the author of the screenplay, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, was pinned to his body by a knife. Hirsi Ali entered into hiding immediately following the assassination, and now is protected by bodyguards.[40]

• On 30 September 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published editorial cartoons, many of which caricatured the Islamic prophet Mohammed. The publication was intended to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship;[41] objectives which manifested themselves in the public outcry from Muslim communities within Denmark and the subsequent apology by the paper. However, the controversy deepened when further examples of the cartoons were reprinted in newspapers in more than fifty other countries. This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence, including setting fire to the Norwegian and Danish Embassies in Syria, and the storming of European buildings and desecration of the Danish and German flags in Gaza City.[42] Globally, at least 139 people were killed and 823 injured.[43]

• On 19 September 2006 French writer and philosophy teacher Robert Redeker wrote an editorial for Le Figaro, a French conservative newspaper, in which he attacked Islam and Muhammad, writing: "Pitiless war leader, pillager, butcher of Jews and polygamous, this is how Mohammed is revealed by the Qur'an." He received death threats and went into hiding.[44] The teacher was forced into hiding after describing the Qu'ran as a "book of extraordinary violence" and Islam as "a religion which ... exalts violence and hate."[45]

• On 4 August 2007, Ehsan Jami was attacked in his hometown of Voorburg in The Netherlands by three men. The attack is widely believed to be linked to his activities for the Central Committee for Ex-Muslims. The national anti-terrorism coordinator's office, the public prosecution department and the police decided during a meeting on 6 August that "additional measures" were necessary for the protection of Jami, who subsequently received extra security.[46]

"Hatred towards people who follow other religions such as Jews and Christians, as well as Hindus and other polytheists, are a part of the teachings of the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an."[47][/QUOTE]

 

[Beachboy]

Ayatollah

"Perhaps the most resounding call to jihad in modern times occurred on 21 January 1979," suggest authors, as the Ayatollah Khomeini announced a Jihad against the US. "The people have absolute confidence in their victory in this holy war (jihad-e moqaddas)," said the Islamic icon.[48]
Ayatollah Khomeini's "Radical Islamic Revolution executed and killed hundreds of thousands of people in the name of Radical Islam."[49]
Iran, under the Ayatollah Khomeini, categorized the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war as a 'Holy war'.[50] "Khomeini's call to jihad incited thousands of Iranian teenagers to volunteer for martyrdom missions."[48] The Basiji movement 'created' child and adult sacrifice as "holy soldiers,"[51] Blessed by Iranian mullahs' regime.[52]
The Basiji ideology enjoys a revival under Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,[51] who is a member.[53] The movement has a nominal strength of 12.6 million, and has been present in schools since it was first created in 1979 by the Ayatollah.[54] Basijis were used in crackdowns in 1999, in 2003[55] and in the brutality of 2009 on protesters in Iran.[56]
The group demands in training intense Quran studies, it calls for “Basij Ethics and Etiquette” and “Major Islamic Commandments.” The Basijis have been known to act in defending a strict Islamic conduct."[57] and enforcing Sharia law.[58] often "merging" with Ansar-e Hezbollah men in enforcing Sharia law.[55] In one example, Human rights activists charged that Basiji Islamic militiamen have raped and murdered 26 year old Elnaz Babazadeh for wearing an improper dress.[59]
On 19 August 1979 the Ayatollah declared a jihad against the Kurds in Iran. "Once jihad is declared, all males over 15 must join the fight, the enemy's property is open to confiscation."[60]
"Ayatollah Khomeini played on the messianic overtones of this belief during the Iranian revolution." The ideology of "Twelver" in Shiite Islam (return of the 12th Imam — belief) was invoked by many who believed that the Ayatollah will "return" as their Mahdi (Islamic Messiah). Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad refocuses this belief of the Mahdi's return by public statements and various symbolic actions, Iraq's Shiite al-Sadr's army is called the Mahdi army.[61]
Mujahedin

In 1979 Afghanistan, local Muslim rebels began fighting the Soviets army, calling themselves Mujahideen, they used guerrilla war.[62]
Author of the book Holy war Wilhelm Dietl accounted how one Mujahed fighter told him en route to an armed attack in Herat: "We love to kill Russians and to be killed."[63]
Taliban

Some of the Taliban have fought against the Soviets in the 1980s. They battle to conquer the country.[64] Many Madrassas endorse Jihad in Pakistan and in Afghanistan.[65]
In the 1980s, the Afghan jihad had been financed by Saudi Arabia[66] as well as other countries including the United States of America.[citation needed]
Saddam Hussein

Saddam Hussein warned of a jihad against the United States in 1991.[67] In 2003, after the March 20 US, British led invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein called for a holy war against "an aggression on the land of Islam." (invoking the Quranic theme: "Fight them everywhere...")[68] The statement accused the coalition forces of waging a war against Islam. His information Minister conlcuding: "Therefore, jihad is a duty in confronting them... Those who are martyred will be rewarded in heaven. Seize the opportunity, my brothers."[69]
Laskar Jihad

The paramilitary organisation Laskar Jihad called "to wage a jihad or holy war" into Indonesia's Moluccan islands, and carried out anti-Christian attacks in Sulawesi,[70] the same group was involved in the 1999 violence against Christians and Chinese[71] in East Timor.[72] It has been categorized as "Indonesia's Dirty Little Holy War Holy Terror.[70]
Hezbollah

Hezbollah's spiritual guidance, Sheik Muhammed Hussein Fadlallah, who witnessing journalist says was behind the hostage crisis in Lebanon in the 1980s,[73] said: "We see ourselves as mujihadeen who fight a Holy War." Justifying bombings, kidnapping, murder.[74]
However British journalist Robert Fisk disputes these claims about Fadlallh:

The Americans put it about that he had blessed the suicide bomber who struck the US marine base in Beirut in 1983, killing 241 service personnel. Fadlallah always denied this to me and I believe him. Suicide bombers, however insane we regard them, don't need to be blessed; they think they are doing God's duty without any help from a marja like Fadlallah.
​

[75]
Omar al-Bashir

"In the present conflict in Darfur, jihad is usually interpreted as holy war by the government in Khartoum."[76] The Sudanese National Islamic Front declared in 1992 a jihad, or holy war, against all in the Nuba Mountains who supported the SPLA."[77][78]
Sudan's leader Omar Al-Bashir, in 1997 "declared a jihad (holy war) against" Ethiopia.[79] Accused of genocide he threatened in 2007 "to mount a jihad against United Nations peacekeepers."[80]
Wahabbists

The Whabbists have a long history of fundamentalism and jihad, declaring holy wars on others, to force them into accepting their purified version of Islam[81]
In 2010, a 'Glut of fatwas spurred Saudi king to impose curbs,' Saudi political analyst explaining: "If you endorse jihad, it means you are searching for a war with the rest of the world."[82]
Some militant Islamic movements cite Saudi Wahhabi clerics to justify violence.[83]
Saudi Grand Mufti Ibn Baz repudiated violence. He stated:

From that which is known to everyone who has the slightest bit of common sense is that hijacking airplanes and kidnapping children and the like are extremely great crimes, the world over. Their evil effects are far and wide, as is the great harm and inconvenience caused to the innocent; the total effect of which none can comprehend except Allaah.
​

[84]
Terrorism

Main article: Islam and terrorism
Islamic terrorism is terrorism[85] committed by Islamists, and aimed at achieving varying political ends[86] and the advancement of Islamist goals; for example, Osama bin Laden's stated goal of ending American military presence in the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula,[87][87] overthrowing Arab regimes he considers corrupt and insufficiently religious,[87] and stopping American support for Israel.[88] Bombing in London 7/7 are said to be in retaliation for UK's support in the war in Iraq that began in 2003, though it can't be linked as a motive for Islamic terror plots on London, December, 2001.[89][90] The Islamic terrorism attack in Madrid were "explained" as "inspired by al-Qaeda's call to punish Spain's government for supporting the Iraq war," another motive was given that Spain holds a strong appeal to Islamic militants because the southern region of Andalucia was under Muslim control for almost 800 years, and "Al-Qaeda has called on jihadists to reconquer Spain as part of a broader Muslim caliphate, or kingdom under Islamic rule."[91][92]
At the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the Islamic terrorists were told by their handlers in Pakistan "that the lives of Jews were worth 50 times those of non-Jews."[93]
The Qur'an: (8:12): "...cast terror in their hearts and strike upon their necks."[94] The commanded to terrorize the disbelievers have been cited in motivation of Jihadi terror.[95][96][97][98]
A Jihadi cleric:

"Another aim and objective of jihad is to drive terror in the hearts of the [infidels]. To terrorize them. Did you know that we were commanded in the Qur'an with terrorism? ...Allah said, and prepare for them to the best of your ability with power, and with horses of war. To drive terror in the hearts of my enemies, Allah's enemies, and your enemies. And other enemies which you don't know, only Allah knows them... So we were commanded to drive terror into the hearts of the [infidels], to prepare for them with the best of our abilities with power. Then the Prophet said, nay, the power is your ability to shoot. The power which you are commanded with here, is your ability to shoot. Another aim and objective of jihad is to kill the [infidels], to lessen the population of the [infidels]... it is not right for a Prophet to have captives until he makes the Earth warm with blood... so, you should always seek to lessen the population of the [infidels]."[99]
​

Observers have also argued that the attacks are aimed at propagating Islamic culture, society and values in opposition to perceived political, imperialistic, and/or cultural influences of non-Muslims, and the Western world in particular.[100][101]
There are also historical dimensions to the phenomenon, and the history of Western influence and control after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, is a common stated reason used within some terrorist groups to justify and explain its use of violence as resistive and retributive against western influences.
World domination

The strive to an 'Islamic Caliphate.' Caliph is translated from the Arabic Khalifa (خليفة ẖalīfä) meaning "successor", "substitute", or "lieutenant". It is used in the Qur'an to establish Adam's role as representative of Allah on earth. Kalifa is also used to describe the belief that man's role, in his real nature, is as khalifa or viceroy to Allah.[102] The word is also most commonly used for the Islamic leader of the Ummah; starting with Muhammad and his line of successors.
Indeed, domination is the ultimate goal of jihadists.[103][104] Al-Qaeda revealed its grand plan towards an Islamic caliphate,[105] - global domination.[106] Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq, has released a statement in which it explains the reasons for its terror campaign:

"We are not fighting to chase out the occupier or to save national unity and keep the borders outlined by the infidels intact," [...] "We are fighting because it is a religious duty to do it, just as it is a duty to take the Sharia [Islamic law] to the government and create an Islamic state."[107]
​

"Al-Qaeda has called on jihadists to reconquer Spain as part of a broader Muslim caliphate, or kingdom under Islamic rule."[91] Explaining why even Hamas has an eye on Spain.[92] In the early 1990s, the GIA Algerian Armed Islamist Group, which is "well known for its radical positions and the barbaric violence of its operations, announced the restoration of the caliphate and the appointment of a caliph."[108] With Palestinian Islamic party Hamas victory in the 2007 election, a mass gathering followed with Hamas' spokesman calling for a Caliphate.[109] The official said Hamas seeks to create an "Islamic caliphate" in the land.[110][111]

​

Note how Muslims quickly disappear when confronted with three giant sized postings of their violence and terrorism?

What they do is indefensible, which is why they keep trying distractions from the facts.

Muslims are scared to death you will understand the truth about them.

 

[Beachboy]

......You’re advocating Muslims opposed to terrorism commit acts of terror against those who are innocent of any crime as a means to end terrorism.

Sounds like a workable solution worth looking into. My mother always told me I had to clean up my room because I was the one who made a mess of it. Why should we have to clean up their mess?

Besides, it would a be show of good faith to those of western culture.

 

[Osomir]

Wow, nice copy and past wikipedia spamming. I would gladly debate Islamic theology with you. from your posting it looks like you and i have very strong disagreements as to its content. Take sura 9 for example, you've posted a number of verses from there but conveniently left out the other verses in between that give general amnesties to those who the umma were not at war with at the time. Muhammad himself at that time was also allied with non-Islamic tribes. Sura 8 generally deals with the Battle of Badr, so you are taking specific theological passages and trying to apply them quite generally. In either case I'd be willing to discuss anything you'd like about the religion. I'm not a muslim, but I'm not scared of your "three giant posts".