Why Islam Is More Violent Than Christianity

[PoliticalChic]

But that is exactly what Islam does. Ask a Californian Muslim at Starbucks and he says our koran says, "don't kill infidels". Ask a Syrian Muslim on the street in Idlib and he says our koran says, "kill infidels". Both are right and in their situation both are applying the koran as it is meant to be applied. The problem is that the according to Islam the Muslim in Idlib is probably going to heaven while the one in California is probably not. It is the duty of Muslims everywhere to make the world more and more like Syria and Iraq, where true Muslims live.

No, they are not both telling the truth.
The first one understands both abrogation and the use of taquyya, lying to infidels, the second one is following Wahhabism, and admitting it.

Perhaps I should have said that the first step is to get rid of lying pols like Obama who won't allow the enemy to be identified.

Perhaps we should have the Supreme Court revisit
The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)....
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages.


"The Constitution is not a suicide pact"

Is there not some place in the koran where it says, "do not kill infidels"? So this does not even provoke the taquyya privilege. (I am playing the Muslim game of 'we can't kill them just yet'.)

I read the Koran and do not recall a line anything like
"do not kill the infidels" My take on islam based on
that which muslims told me and that which I have observed
is their HUGE problem ----of that which they worship----
namely muhummad and the Koran. I have also read the OT and have learned about Judaism (I am a jew) from lots of
different jews with differing POV's including some of the
most adherent (hot shot chassidim) No matter how
adherent to Judaism a jew is----I have never encountered
any who worshipped moses or the bible. On the other hand---even non adherent muslims get all bent out of shape over
any comment that can be construed as disparaging to the
absolute divinity of muhummad and the Koran. -----don't
consider a joke-----or a quip

“…There is no compulsion in religion…” (Quran 2:256)

I have never understood that line in the Koran, in view
of the fact that -------islam is ALL COMPULSION.
I kinda define "do it or die" as ---'compulsion'. Maybe
it comes out differently in arabic

Perhaps the explanation can be found here:
"The common wisdom holds that 'both parties' have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."
Coulter, 11-27-03


So.....earlier promises in the Q'ran make promises that are removed in later suras.

 

[irosie91]

No, they are not both telling the truth.
The first one understands both abrogation and the use of taquyya, lying to infidels, the second one is following Wahhabism, and admitting it.

Perhaps I should have said that the first step is to get rid of lying pols like Obama who won't allow the enemy to be identified.

Perhaps we should have the Supreme Court revisit
The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)....
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages.


"The Constitution is not a suicide pact"

Is there not some place in the koran where it says, "do not kill infidels"? So this does not even provoke the taquyya privilege. (I am playing the Muslim game of 'we can't kill them just yet'.)

I read the Koran and do not recall a line anything like
"do not kill the infidels" My take on islam based on
that which muslims told me and that which I have observed
is their HUGE problem ----of that which they worship----
namely muhummad and the Koran. I have also read the OT and have learned about Judaism (I am a jew) from lots of
different jews with differing POV's including some of the
most adherent (hot shot chassidim) No matter how
adherent to Judaism a jew is----I have never encountered
any who worshipped moses or the bible. On the other hand---even non adherent muslims get all bent out of shape over
any comment that can be construed as disparaging to the
absolute divinity of muhummad and the Koran. -----don't
consider a joke-----or a quip

“…There is no compulsion in religion…” (Quran 2:256)

I have never understood that line in the Koran, in view
of the fact that -------islam is ALL COMPULSION.
I kinda define "do it or die" as ---'compulsion'. Maybe
it comes out differently in arabic

Perhaps the explanation can be found here:
"The common wisdom holds that 'both parties' have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."
Coulter, 11-27-03


So.....earlier promises in the Q'ran make promises that are removed in later suras.

My take on the Koran and its---"progression" -----muhummad
starts out his career something like a very diplomatic
Mafioso. He gathers faithful followers and does fairly
(comparatively) minor crime. -------property crime---
and convinces his followers that he is "divine" and getting
instructions from heaven. His mafia style way of keeping
followers is by sharing the profits. A very interesting aspect of the Koran writings includes the BIG SIN----of not giving
to muhummad his FULL SHARE of the booty----there are many lines devoted to "how to divvie up the stolen property which includes both male and female captives as slaves"----
<<<< that 's the beginning. Muhummad comes up with a
brilliant mafia style dictum "we don't kill muslims but it's legal to kill anyone else"-----thus once he had gathered a large following----anyone who did
not JOIN UP------would virtually be committing suicide. The
more followers he has the more aggressive are his actions
and his dictums and less prone to diplomacy and compromise-----to the point of genocide of all those
in Arabia who do not JOIN UP << that's islam as presented
in the Koran. Muhummad made himself the king of
"offers one cannot refuse". The dilemma of Arabia became-----once everyone was a muslim----there were no
people left to rob and exploit. Thus compromise and
diplomacy went out the window (or tent flap). One cannot
LEAVE once one joins up------same is true of the mafia.
To understand islam-----read "the godfather"---or at least
watch the movies. Pay attention to the logic as to what
is right and what is wrong and the intense "honor" issue

 

[PoliticalChic]

19. ".... [the recently retired] Benedict XVI...made this the central point of an important speech he gave in 2006 at the University of Regensburg, in which he addressed the relationship between Christianity and Islam. Benedict argued that “the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith,” and defended the “Hellenization” of Christianity. ....There was some controversy about this within early Christianity...and at first the anti-Classical side won out. But those early controversies made it easier for Christianity to re-absorb Classical ideas during the late Middle Ages and Renaissance.


Islam went through an opposite progression. It encountered Classical science and philosophy, “falsafa” in Arabic, during its conquest of various Mediterranean countries, and the Muslim world would produce great scientists and philosophers steeped in the ideas of the Greeks, including ibn Sina (Avicenna) in Persia and ibn Rushd (Averroes) in Muslim Spain.


But by the late Middle Ages, just as the West was rediscovering Classical philosophy, the Muslim world purged it. This is generally blamed on the theologian al-Ghazali, who denounced “The Incoherence of the Philosophers” and caused Muslim theologians to reject the Classical influence as incompatible with faith. The result is that Islam allows much less room for philosophical discussion and debate over the meaning of the religion.

Again, this history is connected to a deeper doctrinal issue."
Why Islam Is More Violent Than Christianity

 

[Dajjal]

Is there not some place in the koran where it says, "do not kill infidels"? So this does not even provoke the taquyya privilege. (I am playing the Muslim game of 'we can't kill them just yet'.)

The Quran says a couple of times, it is forbidden to kill believers. But it does not say do not kill Infidels (unbelievers).

 

[Dajjal]

“…There is no compulsion in religion…” (Quran 2:256)

The much quoted verse 2.256 should not be taken on its own as the following verse 2.257 says unbelievers will burn in eternal hellfire. I don't see that as much of a choice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Submission" obviates, forbids, any use of reason, of human intelligence.



20. "... Benedict focused on in his Regensburg speech. He approvingly cited a dialogue in which one of the Byzantine emperors was debating with a Muslim and argued that in Christian theology, God is rational: he acts according to reason and is understandable by reason.


He cited a Biblical passage about God being “Logos”—which means both “word” and “reason” in Greek—as evidence that “the world comes from reason” as part of the animating spirit of God’s creation.


Islam rejects this view.
Al-Ghazali even rejected the law of cause and effect. The Muslim God does not establish laws of nature and leave them to operate. He is personally involved in causing every natural event by a direct act of will. Thus, al-Ghazali insisted that when a ball of cotton is placed into a flame, the fire does not burn the cotton. Instead, “when fire and cotton are placed in contact, the cotton is burned directly by God rather than by the fire.”



... there was a controversy in the 1980s in Pakistan, when Islamists insisted that chemistry textbooks had to say that when hydrogen and oxygen are combined, then by the will of Allah, water is created—directly borrowing al-Ghazali’s formulation. The rejection of scientific laws and secular reason was codified in Islam long ago, and those who depart from this orthodoxy continue to be ostracized, as seen in Pakistan’s rejection of one of its most eminent physicists."
Why Islam Is More Violent Than Christianity


So....if reason, e.g., debate is not allowed in bringing converts to Islam.....there remains only one recourse.

 

[Dot Com]

You see this PoliticalSpice?: Christian Bigots shout down Muslim kids singing National Anthem at Texas rally Page 16 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[PoliticalChic]

You see this PoliticalSpice?: Christian Bigots shout down Muslim kids singing National Anthem at Texas rally Page 16 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

As your post has nothing to do with the thread.....what could have moved you to post herein?

Aha!

I just put up a post explaining how the use of reason is forbidden in Islam....and it struck a chord, resonated in your worldview.

Yes, I have noticed that characteristic in your attempts to post.

 

[chikenwing]

Christianity in its sum total has been more violent than Islam. Christianity found its way out of its centuries long violent phase as secularism began assert more influence over Christian cultures.

LOL

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is left for a religion that disallows debate, or questioning?


21. " All of this has a lot of implications for how you deal with disagreement and whether you think religion is a subject that can be debated. The Byzantine emperor quoted by Benedict argues, “Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats,” to which Benedict added: “The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.”

Whereas if reason is itself heretical, then why should anyone tolerate your arguments and philosophical debates?



Christianity has its own religious law, laid down by Moses in the Old Testament, though much of it does not survive Christ’s revisions. But Christianity also has a long tradition of coexisting with secular systems of law....This, as I understand it, is part of the significance of Christ’s admonition to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”

So the idea of religion as the source of law was not well-established under Christianity.

By contrast, Islam recognizes no room for any law other than what was supposedly revealed to Mohammed... The explicit argument offered by Islamists against representative government is the complaint that laws voted on by the people are laws createdby man, whereas God is the only one who can make law.

....—Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya—was the question of whether Islam should be cited as the sole source of law. Then there is Saudi Arabia, where the Koran is the constitution.



But what is really telling is the concreteness of Islamic law. As it is usually interpreted, Sharia is not a set of general principles that leave room for individual judgment in their application. It is a set of extremely detailed, specific requirements and prohibitions. This is why we see Islamic clerics asked to issue “fatwas” on every triviality under the sun, from soccer to tomboys to Mickey Mouse, which can lead to some very weird results.

....everything is determined by revelation—and how little room it leaves for individual choice. So no wonder it is used as a license for unlimited coercion."
Why Islam Is More Violent Than Christianity


Yet, time and again, the two religions are equated by fools.

 

[PoliticalChic]

22. " The final big difference between Islam and Christianity isn’t something that’s wrong with Islam, but rather something that happened uniquely in the West that influenced Christianity: the history of religion in America.


From the beginning we had a profusion of different religious sects, many of which had come here seeking freedom from persecution. So from early on, at least from Roger Williams, American religious leaders were deeply involved in developing the ideology of religious freedom. While Enlightenment ideas had a wide influence in America, demands for religious freedom did not come primarily from anti-clerical types who wanted to abolish religion. Instead, religious freedom was literally preached from the pulpit, which is why it so naturally made it into our founding documents.




That’s only one aspect of Christianity in the West, of course, but it has had a global influence on the religion and its approach to liberty.




If you add up all of these things, you see what an explosive mix you get from Islam: the expectation that religion dictates everything and that their religion ought to be totally dominant here in this world, combined with the notion that religion is not open to reason and leaves no room for doubt, questioning, or debate.




....There will always be a tension between faith and reason; the concept of service to others can be used to demand service to the state; the concept of man’s sinfulness and imperfection can be interpreted to mean that the perfect religious society cannot be imposed on earth—or that humans can’t be trusted with freedom, so the state needs to curb our vicious impulses.
Certainly, the recent comments by Pope Francis on the Charlie Hebdo attack should make us wonder how committed he is to the principle of freedom of speech.


But this should make us appreciate all the more the way in which, after centuries of contentious and often bloody history, our culture’s dominant faith has settled into a more benevolent and liberal form.



We can hope that Islam will do the same. But in terms of their history and doctrines, they still have a long way to go—and I’m afraid they still have some of those contentious and bloody centuries ahead of them."
Why Islam Is More Violent Than Christianity