Is Islam really a religion of peace?

It translates as "submission" or "surrender", or if you're particular astute, the "peace of the grave".

>Islam has certain laws, values and customs
Correction, various historic communities of Muslims have certain laws, values, and customs, some of which are common with other Muslim communities but not always justified by the same theological, practical, or legal reasoning. These different traditions have defined who is and isn't Muslim by popular practice, and theory crafting on what key elements defines a Muslim in the general sense is very rare, and only recently gained popularity with the political-religious Islamism and Pan-Islamic movements.

Uniformity is not a word to use to describe Sharia practice outside of methodology among schools of thought, an academic debate for most of history without much practical application.

The history of Sharia isn't one of dogma and closing off fields of interpretation, but of a series of local, minority opinions by Muslim judges every now and then creating a flash in the pan debate where a more renowned theologian popularizes his personal opinion, which Muslim judges consider or ignore until several generations later a school of thought that developed around the writings of that past theologian popularizes the ruling as their majority ruling.

no one ever claimed that islam was the religion of peace

why do you retard repeat a sentence pronounced once by bush ? The guy who went on a "crusade" and im quoting him, against the secular sadam ?

oh in know it's le irony le cynism XDDD

Of course not.

Muhammad was actually visited by a false angel of light, it was a demon, a fallen angel of deception. Satan and his workers are great mimickers and Muhammad, deceived, established a demonic cult of Allah (false-God) called Islam (meaning voluntary submission to this false-God, i.e. Satan) which he spread like wildfire by the sword convinced that it was the last revelation of God Almighty.

Islam is none other than Satan's magnum opus, which now has 1.6 billion adherents (23% of the world population) and which will probably be followed by half of the world population by 2050.

>For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
2 Corinthians 11:13-15

Muhammad was a gluttonous wealthy slave owner, an adulterer, a child-molesting pedophile, a murderer, a liar, he encouraged theft, rape, torture and the list goes on. He was the pawn of Satan and is now in Hell.

>Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
Matthew 7:15-20

Jesus is the Christ prophesied in scripture, born of God, undeceivable.

> when 80% of the terrorist groups in the world are muslim
Why do people just talk without knowing what they're saying.

Jesus was an irrelevant cuck with no proof of existence while Mohammad gave birth to one of the strongest empire in Veeky Forumstory

>God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.
2 Corinthians 5:21

Read: storage.cloversites.com/fcfgroups/documents/Why We Believe 7.pdf

Muhammad was the pawn of Satan. What's so hard to understand? Him being "le badass" will never change this fact.

Jesus is mentioned so many times in the qur'an....

kek

The user you're talking to is likely atheist. Scripture won't convince him.

And again, I can point out the uniformity in thich islamic sharia adhering states adher to the certain interpretations of their renowned theologicians, always ending up with a result with a distinct pattern that marks either outright hostility or more "fair" subjugation to those of other faiths.

>responding to the copypasta that is posted every fucking time Islam or Muhammad is mentioned

go knowing basic stuff about islam sowhere else we dont want you here!

Your issue will be the gap between these historical states, interpretations of theology, and practical Sharia, as well as explaining where the influence of the latter two ends and where the influence of popular ghazi literature and mirrors for princes begins.

>Scripture won't convince him.
Because he won't listen.

No, you doofus. It won't convince him because an atheist doesn't believe in the super natural.

Why am I even replying?

Atheists are spiritually empty; they lie and live in denial.

>They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of their ignorance and hardness of heart.
Ephesians 4:18

filter him. there's no point in replying to this guy

Nah, I like seeing him be retarded. I just gotta keep myself from replying from now on.

>implying what cihng-chongs or niggers do to each other counts

Nah, not really.
They (sunnis-which are the group this debate should be aimed at) regulary get complacement with their societies or simply got beaten down themselves, ushering in relaxed "lets interpret this 5 times over until it sounds sane and nice" periods such as the 60s in the levante or the last breaths of the caliphate in the 12-13th.
In the end, they always end up longing for more expansion again and start purging or taxing religious minorities with the crime being their existence.

Hindus dont have these patterns, catholic ones do before the secularisation in the 17th century and bhuddists do never.
(bhuddists/hindus purge too, but mostly under much different premises lying in worldy-nonreligious issues.)

This makes islamic societies from a religious standpoint objectivly less peaceful then the other warwaging cultural spheres.

*bhuddists do neither

>Fully muslim Pakistan supposedly has less rape than Sweden
>Belgium and Norway don't show any increase yet similar muslim immigrant make up
What is this supposed to proof again?

What does this have to do with my response? Not that it's correct anyway - neither the 1960's nor the 12th-13th centuries were one of reinterpretation after reinterpretation to achieve some vague notion of sanity and niceness. In the Khaldunian cycle the Sunni religious establishment are usually the mitigating force trying to reel in a warmongering and expansionist dynasty to focus on internal law and stability, and are almost always petitioning the state for the lifting of what they saw as illegal taxes and tariffs, and had little influence on or power over regulating religious minorities.

Expansionism and suppression of non-Muslims were almost always the venue of border reavers, mendicant fakirs, and a mobs incited by the latter.

They kill you in Pakistan for raping (if found guilty).

>in 2008, 2009 and 2010

What about 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016? What are those "others"? How does the graph deal with organization that are both separatist and islamist (for example)?

Ok you know much more then me about this, so I guess im wrong and uninformed.
I still see their very existence in my country as a threat towards many values I hold dear in the next generation of my people so I frantically search for a reason to antagonize/dehumanize them in a way that I stop feeling bad for occasionally fantasizing about a myanmar-style removal desu.

Not that I care much for modern politics, but I'll just say you're only doing those who do believe themselves to be a threat to your values and next generation a favor that way. Wahhabism among Western Muslims, along with modern Islamism, necessarily feeds on the disconnect between Islamic tradition and Muslim immigrants, and gain recognition through conflict with those who antagonize/dehumanize Muslim immigrants.

It wouldn't bother me beyond the moral issues if it wasn't for the blatant fucking with history on all sides.

So it's literally a case of Muslims becoming violent because Islam is criticized? Or am I misunderstanding?

The only sure way to paradise is to die killing allah's enemies, of which there are many. Hence 1400 years of jihad.

Replace Islam with White/German identity, and anti-immigrant/anti-Muslim sentiment with the relevant equivalents. The sentiment that drives the reaction to it isn't too functionally different.

Maybe you'll find something in this lecture by Patricia Crone, which touches on a lot of history but does relate somewhat to modern anti-Western sentiment among many Muslim immigrants.

youtube.com/watch?v=QyQt1bCnDm4

Should be interesting, thanks user.

Historical Muslim imperialism and modern immigrant conflicts are two different things, user.

Crone also wrote a series of articles, and since it's topical on the question of religious violence I suggest:
opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/jihad_4579.jsp

I do however recommend diving into her actual historical publications, as well as the work of other major orientalists of the past two decades.

They're not, actually.

I await your peer-reviewed research in a Middle Eastern Studies publication, then.

I might do them a favour but the "hate fosters hate" could work for my kind too.
Its a chicken or egg question if you know what I mean as the antagonisation in the first place might have been a reaction to a perceived threat/antisocial behaviour.
I didnt wake up one day in bed and decided that its time to fear and hate the chinese for example, even though a lot of them live in my quarter as long as I remember.

Is not a nice feel, but interesting to ponder about once you recognised it.

In the end there will be conflict and the one who has the greater strenght and youth will be the more attractive for the fencesitters to turn to.
I could also do them a favour by not radicalising myself and trying to pass it to my future offspring by simply thinning out an opposition to their own numbers. what now?

Europe is falling to an islamic invasion as we speak. They've never given up their vision of world domination.

Maybe pick up a newspaper.

>2 Corinthians 11:13-15

Why are Paul's writings taken as fact?

Isn't that because the definition of rape is insanely loose?

Isn't submission referring to submission to Allah over other deities?

Because Saul met Jesus on the road to Damascus, was converted, transformed into Paul, and spent years with Jesus learning the New Covenant in Arabia. He's the greatest apostle of them all.

Why are James' writings taken as fact? He grew up with Jesus, never believed Jesus was the Messiah until after the resurrection, and did nothing but Judaize people in the Temple in Jerusalem. Why do Catholics and atheists focus so much on this nobody from Nazareth?

Yes, but it's also submission to Islam as a whole, which is an entire system of everything from government to religion to recreation etc. It's total control, total bondage.

I thought he converted after Jesus was resurrected?

more like it means something like inner peace, "Islam" means submission literally

also we did those(read: French secularism) in Turkey for 80 years, it didn't work

>also we did those(read: French secularism) in Turkey for 80 years, it didn't work
Worked fine until outside players convinced the Turks to 'give democracy a chance.'

Thank saudi money in your mosques and us euros going full retarded about human rights and cheering on your military-the kemalist vanguard against puritan islam-getting taken out of power.
Also turks being too accustomed to an authoritan leading figure to question what the fuck erdogan is doing to their childrens minds.

Yes, Saul encountered the risen Christ Jesus, was converted, transformed, and renamed Paul.

>China does this
>hurrrr muh human rights
>Singapork does this
>its ok good western ally

If you're a true libertarian both of these are awful

Okay, just making sure I wasn't misunderstanding.

Nobody cares about the Uyghurs.

If they were literally any other religious group, people would be losing their shit, but they're Muslims, so it's generally understood (albeit never vocalized) that their genocide represents a step forward.

It's always the Tibetans that people are worried about, because those guys kill themselves when they get angry, not everyone else.

It doesn't matter, muslims worship Satan.

Read:

Is it really Muslims who are so rapey or is it just Arabs? Persians and Southeast Asians don't seem as rapey as Arabs.

It's always been an Arab thing; "Boys are for fun, women are for children". But because it's not expressly forbidden or in any way discouraged in the qur'an, they engage in sodomizing young boys routinely.

Pakis are the rapelords of britain.
Id put them like this on the rape scale.

Wherever I am I must also rape:
Subsaharan muslims, pakis

I am ashamed, but my balls ached!:
Arabs, Northafricans

It isnt rape if she's drunk and indecent!
Anatolians, malays

Nah man, thats a sin!
Persians, western turks

I'm actually genuinely excited that in my lifetime GB will become a caliphate. As a strayan shitposter I'm amused at all these poms fleeing here and going on about how great it is in Australia. Biggest cucks I ever saw.

Muslims are violent, Islam is not any more violent than christianity.
If christians lived in a shithole being attacked by foreign religions and countries constantly, and having ridiculous borders, there would be lots of christian terrorist groups too.
Terrorism comes out of times of uncertainty and violence; religion is commonly used in many gangs and terrorist groups as a way to unify people.
see: the IRA and KKK

Rape too, even though the result is mostly capital punishment in practice there aren't any info about rape(men/women) in Qur'an/Hadith.

>Islam is not any more violent than christianity
mfw

lol

>All this religious obscurantist faggotry
"Do this" and "don't do this" are not equivalent statements and this appeal to individuality is beyond retarded. Fuck off.

>I havent read the Quran,how can people claim that it is a religion of peace

Because it says in the quran that muslims should rule the whole world in peace.
The war part is getting there.

>IRA
>Religion
no

>Islam has certain laws, values and customs

All religions have them, and in all religions they evolve and change.
They aren't "written in stone", even if they literally are sometimes. They are either flexible, or the religion eventually dies because culture abandons it.

See how christianity evolved on issues like kings, war, taxes, trade, blacks, native americans and australians, homosexual, contraceptives, abortion, internet, masturbation, sex outside of marriage, etc, moving from torture and death as a punishment, to reluctant acceptance and sometimes even promotion, like with the crusades.

>If christians lived in a shithole being attacked by foreign religions and countries constantly

>being attacked by foreign religions constantly

Since when? Since the dawn of Islam, muslim countries have traditionally been the aggressor.

>Trying this hard to be a Mudshit apologist
The IRA and the KKK might have prescribed a particular religion, but their reasons for existence were not that religion. Muslims groups kill in the name of God, the KKK and IRA did not kill in the name of God. There is a huge difference in justification here.

>What about 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016?
Data not collected and analyzed yet. It will follow the trend.
>What are those "others"?
Groups that arent numerous enough or popular enough for their won column.
>How does the graph deal with organization that are both separatist and islamist (for example)?
If the reason you are conducting terrorism is religion, you are a religious terrorist. If the reason is political and anti-government, you are a separatist.
Basically the terrorist is grouped by his terrorism, not by his preference for coke over pepsi or other irrelevant shit.

>trusting a newspaper over academic peer reviewed studies

>religion is irrelevant
>religion doesn't inform people's worldviews
Just listen to any of them speak. Every sentence is littered with Allahu.

No shit, its an arab word thats used in a ton of expressions.
Where an american would say "oh shit", or "oh god', or "amazing" or any manner of other expressions of strong emotion, an arab would ust say "allah akbar".

Entirely coincidentally, two of those words have nothing to do with ideology and one isn't used nearly as much as arabs litter their language with Allahu. Stop pretending to be retarded. Christianity isn't the religion which actual theocracies can be attributed to.

No, Allah Akbar has a much deeper connotation than the word 'amazing'. A better comparison would be with the Catholic phrase Deus Vult.

Arabs literally say allah akbar after taking a huge shit, to express their relief.
They say allah akbar after walking past a fat assed woman in tight jeans.
They say allah akbar when they walk out to work and it starts raining.
Its a phrase more universal than the english word "fuck", the polish "kurwa" or the russian "blyat".

And, entirely coincidentally, arabs are the most consistently religious (and religiously extremist) communities on the planet.

Yeah, nothing says piety as much as calling for your god while masturbating to chinese cartoons or injecting poison into your veins for a cheap thrill.

Its a fucking expression. You give it too much weight, more than any muslim does.

Only 8) isn't really true in the sense that they can do all those but that is really rare and disencouraged. Especially on the criticism

t. Singaporean

Language molds thought. What kind of simpleton are you?

So the very liberal and frequent usage of "fuck" in english speaking countries molds their thoughts, that people only do and act in the name of mindless fornication?

The loose application of "kurwa" in Poland molds their people to be whores and prostitutes, and thats their entire national identity?

You again, and again, put too much weight into an expression that has long lost its meaning.

No, nobody's saying that all words have to be acted out. But the overuse of the word "God" in the muslim world is certainly not unexplained by religion permeating every level of society.

So your argument is that this specific arbitrary word that you personally and subjectively put a lot of weight on molded a culture you don't know nor belong to?

How is the word "god" more special than the word "fuck"? Why do you think it is? Why do you assume others think it is?

Fuck implies no worldview and is merely vulgar. I'm sorry you're having such big problems.

Allah akbar implies no world view and is merely an expression of emotion, any emotions.
The fact that its in arabic instead of english doesn't change anything about it.

The moment you start thinking of allah akbar as the arabic language version of fuck is the moment you understand why its being said all the time.

bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372