Islam is a religion of peace

People get used to it, though.

Bet you if you compare two equally attractive girls: a girl you see in a short skirt every day versus a girl who dresses conservatively, if you see the latter in a short skirt some day I bet your dick would be diamonds, but you'd get used to the former.

not an argument for islam, though, just that more conservative dress would make more provocative dress better at the right time.

>Golden Age of Islam
You mean the golden age of Persian Muslims

What is Al-Andalus then? Nice dubs by the way.

What is Al-Andalus then? Nice trips by the way.

>In modern times, relgion is a disease, an impairment on the mind. It would do humanity well to move toward a global secular civilisation.
Yeah mang fuck that old Methodist woman for believing in her SKY DADDY xd. You should tell her she has a diseased mind.

Except it's really not. Want to read the Qur'an sometime?

Historical revisionism has no place here. Old Islam was shit. Al Andalus and Bagdad are not old Islam but transitional and peripheral movement. They were definitely quite advanced but their level of enlightenment has been greatly exaggerated by 19th century orientalism and current left wing propaganda. Modern Islam is terrible although there are fringe sects that are enlightened (Ammadiyas and Alevis). Of course those are tiny and persecuted by orthodox Muslims.

The only peace Islam can provide is the peace of cemeteries.

There is

Ah yes, the yearly "jihads" that were carried out on the frontiers of the Byzantine empire totally weren't raids that involved Rape and pillage and can in no way be justified. Fuck off.

lol didn't read.

which one is it?

>free thought and progress
forced greek and persian converts
the "golden age" was literally just the plunder of Byzantium and Persia, when the plunder ran out they became shitholes

>women didng veiled
sources
>bad as kuffir
disregard being second rate people and pay extra taxes not to be murdered or posetions confiscated

>contemporary islam...
ISIS is true islam

complete fabrication

the amount of victorian romantization of islam and leftist historical revisionism is mind boggling

>Muhammed was the perfect Muslim
>Girls in the desert mature more quickly
>Christians killed unbelievers too

All of these are true independently of what you think of Islam

Most of them are true, which is why anti-Muslim bigots always try to attack the person instead, saying they're insincere or untrustworthy.

>ISIS is true islam

Someone didn't read the fucking OP

Wow! You collected several accurate arguments that educated individuals use to fend off your idiotic opinions! What a good argument!

Reminder that people in the Arab world have been practicing consanguineous marriage for millennia.

>Quran is the word of god
How is that not true? The quaran was passed down directly by god according to islam, that's actually one of the problems with islam because it makes it so inflexible.

Who let this retard on the internet?

bbc.com/news/world-asia-38902960
Even if everything you said was true, Islam would STILL be bad for everyone who isn't a muslim and thus have no place in the civilized world.

You mean conservatism, if you are using that news article as some type of source for your bullshit claim.

Let me redpill you on the origin of islam.

It started as a form of Abrahamic puritan movement, a confederation of Arab monotheists convinced the end was nigh and that corrupting influences of paganism and a culture of internecine tribal conflict would damn them all if not pacified. Muhammad was likely one of many such preachers who happened to forge a series of political alliances in the semi-urbanized Western Arabian peninsula. This new confederation of the tribes of Medina, Mecca, and Taif subjugated all others in a few short years under its first ruler, Abu Bakr, before proceeding to unite the other tribes through raids and eventually conquests of Mesopotamia. At this point proto-Islam was still an ecumenical Abrahamic brotherhood, but the rapid growth of the Arab confederation and its territories awoke ancient chauvinist attitudes, and the conquerors began extolling the Abrahamic One God as their own personal deity and they His chosen people.

At this point the leaders began to fashion their confederation as a Divine Empire on the Byzantine and Sassanid model, creating a new court culture in which the movement began to develop as a religion rather than a philosophical movement. The now massive households of these courtiers, including the slaves and extended in-laws, began superimposing their own religious tropes onto the seeming purity of Muhammad and the distant desert far away from the luxury of Mesopotamia. At the periphery of the new empire, however, the old movement was still in play and resisted these centralizing attempts by reaching out to Berbers and Persians to join them in resistance to the Arab court and its governors, especially around the equally pure and mystical nephew of Muhammad, Ali.

Once the fighting died down and a short-lived peace established between the Arab governors of Mesopotamia, the inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula, and the local non-Arabs allied to dissident Arab mystics, a new generation of scholars fanned out across the empire gathering stories and traditions from everyone they could in their own quest for proper religion free of the corruption of the government and the cosmopolitan urban landscapes they were born into. Dozens of independent subcultures began to form themselves into schools, or at least student unions pledging themselves to a legendary mystic they took for a teacher. The end result was Islam, and it became synonymous with high culture throughout the Caliphate influencing even non-Muslim or non-Arab clients from Spain to India.

>Muslim defence force to the rescue

Liar.

Lying scum.

Sinister subversion.

Fuck you and your pedophile warlord of a prophet.

>lack of refutations
>whip up the buzzword "taqiyya" EVERY FUCKING TIME

Basically anti-Islam/Muslims in a nutshell. Fuck off.

Wow I guess I imagined all those terrorist attacks on civilians. Thanks for clarifying things achmed.

Ofcourse its so much civilized to bomb civilians from planes.

Nobody said America was civilized. Just that Muslims are not.

quran 5:33
"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,"
>killing and crucifixion isn't violent
quran 5:38
"[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent [punishment] from Allah . And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise."
>cutting off the hands of theives ins't violent.
Quran 2:216
"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
>allah literally says "fight even if you don't like it"
Quran 8:12
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
>cut off the head of the disbeliever. Not in self defense, just for being one who disbelieves
Quran 47:3-4
"Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost."
>litteraly says "in jihad, smite those who disbelieve", telling muslims to behead disbelievers during jihad

>islam is a religion of peace
No. throughout the entire quran violence and murder is advocated. Don't lie, it's a sin, and allah doesn't like sinners

Religions are as they are practiced.

Ex-muslim here.

I agree on the Jihad part -- Jihad by the sword is the least desirable form of Jihad. Also, What you said about the strict regulation of war in Islam is mostly true. Nonetheless, anyone who believes that Islam is a religion of peace should know that the inner-state Islamic system is a fascist one. Like textbook-definition kind of fascist:

-Most crimes are punishable by prison or financial compensation , which is in itself fine, but there are special cases in which the punishment is barbaric e.g. theft is punishable by the amputation of the hand, other crimes are punishable by stoning, burning the criminal alive, throwing them from an elevation or a high roof (seriously).

-You abide by the Chariaa and you serve the state if need be or else you'll lose your life -- and pray it's decapitation because the alternatives are ... painful.

-Personal freedom exists in an islamic regime, but it is heavily restricted and one could be pushed to forsake it in the name of the collective.

-Every single muslim should fulfill the standard "muslim image" that has been dictated by Muhammad and the Quran; any variation can be considered either a lack of discipline or an outright defiance (see clothing standards in Saudi Arabia).

Moreover, Islam is VERY intolerant towards pagans, Jews, Christians, homosexuals and apostates (I fall under this category so thanks God I don't live in Saudi Arabia). I should also add that according to Islamic belief, Islam should be spread at any cost since according to the Quran it is the one true faith and anyone who stands against it is stands against the salvation of mankind and should either convert or die.

Look, religions are strongly linked with tribalism ... goddamnit, Islam was founded by a fucking tribe chieftain who sought to conquer Arabia! So no matter how much progressive a religion may claim to be, it will ultimately boil down to the aggressive and primitive foundation of the tribe: "Us against Them".

That's like saying Jesus Christ wanted there to be a trinity because Paul interpreted it that way.

>Nonetheless, anyone who believes that Islam is a religion of peace should know that the inner-state Islamic system is a fascist one. Like textbook-definition kind of fascist
This is because the very idea of the modern Islamic nation-state was developed at a time when fascism and national-socialism was all the rage.

>Islam was founded by a fucking tribe chieftain who sought to conquer Arabia
See this user's posts: Islam most likely began as a way to break down tribalism, and evolved over time into an imperial culture where the Us vs Them mentality wasn't tribalist but cultural supremacist in the same vein as the Roman or Chinese disdain for barbarians.

this really isnt talked about enough. the byzantines suffered yearly raids into anatolia every year for a century.

literally centuries of struggle against pillage, rape, plunder, slavery and devastation.

kek

It doesn't matter what Jesus wanted. The point is that people create and sustain religions, and beliefs in general. Religions are created, not discovered. Gods don't exist, which means no interpretation is right or wrong, only more or less popular. This means that religions aren't static, people change their interpretations, actively rewrite their religions, to keep their religion compatible with reality. The only alternatives are to abandon the religion, or reach a dead end and most likely be destroyed by it.

>Muslim terrorist groups such as ISIS take this idea of jihad and radicalize it.

Modern Islamic revivalist movements - both violent terrorists and reforming Muslims - are actually applying a very different concept of jihad to the one most classical Muslims understood. The jihad that was undertaken by the great caliphates of the past can be described as imperialist missionary warfare akin to 19th century European imperialism that was understood by its defenders to be a great civilizing mission to crush barbarism and introduce the conquered to the fruits of their civilization.

But that's not the jihad modern activist Muslims and terrorists are thinking of today. Theirs is entirely an outgrowth of the 'greater jihad' idea, the personal struggle of the individual soul towards religious truth. And these groups today understand this personal struggle through the form of political and social activism, and see the struggle now in terms of fighting to establish their platform in the world around them.

The problem with ISIS is that their activism involves the establishment or re-institution of Muslim sovereignty where, they believe, there was none before. There's no precedent for it in classical Islamic law, hence their haphazard and experimental approach to everything they're doing, and their creation of a new religious warfare ideology based on Muhammad's hijra and battles with the Meccans.

Most practicing Muslims aren't terrorists though, the opposite of which your smug original comment was implying.

>nephew of Muhammad, Ali.

Ali is the cousin of Muhammad not his nephew.

Mohammad is the son of Abdullah, and Ali is the son of Abi Taleb, Abdullah and Abi Taleb are both the sons of Abdu Al-Mouttalib. Muhammad and Ali are cousins.

>smug original comment
What? My entire point is that islam is whatever muslims want it to be, because without real gods the practicioners are the only source of authority. The terrorist's and not-terrorist's ideas of islam are equally true, the fact that the not-terrorists are the majority gives them greater control over the definition of islam.

For the individual perhaps, but in religious theory it is accepted that interpretation of discourse is regulated through an institutional community that gain their authority through said transcendent discourse. The authoritative interpretation comes from the mosques and mullahs, so to speak, and it is through these that individual practice is shaped. I like Bruce Lincoln's definition of religion as described in Holy Terrors, which is about examining the religious forces at play around 9/11 and the immediate aftermath. I think you would enjoy the read.

I probably would, I'll have to check if I can order it to a local library.

jews practiced that too. But they're extremely smart because inbreeding allows the preserving on intelligence

>not a true Muslim
>a very true Muslim

lel, they're literally the same thing in today's society. that's why non-believers make so much fun of you faggots. christfags, i'm talking to you too.

>during jihad
that's the keyword there. Are western marines not taught to shoot to kill? That's the same thing.

>"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land
that's self defence because you're waging war against them. Are you accusing muslims of defending themselves when being attacked?

>cutting off the hands of theives ins't violent
that's how you decrease crime rates.

>that's the keyword there. Are western marines not taught to shoot to kill? That's the same thing.
Western marines doen't claim the USMC is a organization of peace
>that's self defence because you're waging war against them. Are you accusing muslims of defending themselves when being attacked?
First of all,"love your enemies". that quran quote directly disprove the muslim claim that jesus is a muslim, since he taught the exact opposite. Just because someone is waging war doesn't mean you need to "crucify them". Treating enemies with mercy is a thing. If someone attacked you in the streets and you tortured them before crucifying them, nobody would say you're in the right, you'd be overreacting. In verse 5:33 the quran is basically saying """"""warcrimes"""""" are both a-ok and encouraged. Just because someone is attacking you doesn't mean brutality and inhuman responses are justified or peaceable
>that's how you decrease crime rates.
And letting /pol/ do what they want to all african americans would drastically decrease violent crimes in the USA. Doesn't meant that it's not violent

...

>SAC
>part of the USMC
Moreover, even if both islam and the marines did claim to be peaceful, they can both be, and in fact would be, wrong

>jesus is a muslim
Well, Jesus predated Islam, so while he is an important figure in Islam, he is not consider a Muslim. That is why Muhammad is considered the only prophet of Islam, even though they recognize the NT and OT prophets, along with others.
>. In verse 5:33 the quran is basically saying """"""warcrimes"""""" are both a-ok and encouraged
Read it in context, bruh.
5: 32 Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.
5:33 Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,
5:34 Except for those who return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

The passage is referring to the Cain and Abel story, and is explicitly a decree unto the Children of Israel.

You can love your enemies and still kill them.

Jesus said he was going to come back and throw all his enemies into a lake of fire.

>Jesus predated Islam, so while he is an important figure in Islam, he is not consider a Muslim.

semantically Isa is actually considered a Muslim in the same way Ibrahim is

I didn't know that. Thanks for the correction.

Yes, both lies are the same.
Islam is a control structure built on lies, not a religion.

You, muslim. Look at your own books when the mahdi and Jesus fight and defeat nations.

Note which nations they defeat.

They are all muslim nations.

How is that different from the Christian new testament? Jesus comes down an subjugates all the nations under a rod of iron, and slays all the disbelievers and gets crows to devour their flesh.

I've now read eight biographies of Muhammad, F.W Burleigh's 'It's all about Muhammad' being the latest and had I read the Burleigh's 'non-believers' biography first, it could probably been somewhat shocking, but no: the biographies written by Muhammedian's all bring about the same message - but with lot more hoccus poccus - as the Burleigh's: Muhammad was a fugly person, who managed gain powerful supporters for his self-sustained 'prophecy' and eventually spread his cult with a sword (along the way massacring prominent Jewish and Christian tribes and polytheist Arabs). Only difference is the fact that Burleigh's gives more weight to the epilepsy (although not that much, contrary to what is written in the prologue) and writes from a non-theologic viewpoint. The 'story' is the same.

The 'peace' comes when there is no longer 'non-believers' in the world.
It's funny to read these apologist replies. For your information dear Ahmed: your religious text's have been translated to English and many other languages and are available to read to just about anyone in the free world, so we don't need your inteperation of the texts, because your fellow Muhammedians have translated them in the hope spreading the 'message', but in fact doing so, 'non-believers' can see what kind of disgusting garbage we're dealing with.

accept islam and you're in no danger at all.
It'll also fill the spiritual void inside you.
And how did Muhammad(phuh) even survive if he was spreading it by the sword?
Why would anyone accept islam in arabia at that time when they were having so much fun in their degenerate culture of promiscuity and alcohol?
Checkmate

You are relying on the most sensationalized biography of Muhammad, and ignoring the actual Muslim viewpoint in doing so. That is like reading only Zealot and declaring yourself an expert on the radical religion of Christianity.

Do you have trouble reading?
>I've now read eight biographies of Muhammad
>eight
Or can you count to potato only?

The Burleigh's biography (which is the latest I've read and I think the last I will ever read) is the only biography written by non-Muhammedian. Even so, there is very little difference compared to the 'religious' biographies, just the fact about him giving more weight to the epilepsy theory and writing with non-theological terms.

So I'm not ignoring anything. Its the Muhammedian viewpoint I gave consideration first and the 'non-believer' one last.

>Read 8
>Lists only one
Yeah, sure. The Burleigh biography is a propaganda piece, that only gets touted around by bible-thumpers in American fly-over states to justify burn-a-koran day. It was written after 9/11 to vilify Islam as a whole, while ignoring the important power-structures that use all religions as a tool to commit violence. Nice try though, Cletus.

No wait, I'm not sure about Martin Lings, he might be 'non-believer' too.

Rest of the biographers have names that leave no room for imagination, like Haykal's 'Life of prophet'.

And about the translations of Quran and sunna's: the standard argument of Muhammedian apologists is that the 'message' cannot be expressed in English or any other language correctly, i't must be read in Arabic.
So, did those believers - who translated these works to English - know about this fact? Or did they deliberetly translate them knowing the 'message' cannot be expressed in English correctly and readers get the wrong picture about the religion, it's rules and it's prophet?

If I'm dealing with mudslime here, it doesn't matter what I write: there is no way to get around your bullshit. 'Non-believers' on the other hand do not need to read any other biography, because there is no major difference in the 'story', just the use of words.

> while ignoring the important power-structures that use all religions as a tool to commit violence
Yeah, whataboutism.

>It was written after 9/11
He sure took he's sweet time writing it for 'after 911 purposes', considering it was released in 2014.
I guess he 'closely' missed the time-window of the popular supports for invasion of A-stan or war of Iraq.

So, what do you think about Ibn Ishaq's biography and it's English translation? Is it 'wrong' too?

>If I'm dealing with mudslime here,
You are not, but the fact that you use the term demonstrates your lack of care for real discussion; you only want to use these threads as a soapbox to peddle your ill-researched notions.
>here is no way to get around your bullshit
Because all the arguments I have seen have resorted to either extremely biased sources or Koran verses taken out of context. What is "bullshit" to you is nothing but an application of common sense.
>because there is no major difference in the 'story', just the use of words
I highly doubt that considered the difference in words naturally impacts the conveying of the story.
>Yeah, whataboutism
This is a term for someone who wishes not to think critically, but to dispel any opposing view with a simple label. What I was referring to was the use of religion by trans-national militia-type organizations in order to unify and mobilize followers. A reason, among others, as to why religion has become so radicalized is that it needs to be poignant enough to supplant nationalism as a driving force. Nations opposing this also use religion, but nationalism supplements it so it appears less radicalized; note George Bush Jr.'s use of Christian ideology in his speeches promising action after 9/11. He uses the exact same techniques as Osama Bin Laden does in his notorious videos, it is just that he is speaking to a different audience and therefore the coding of phrases is rooted in different texts.
A similar effect can be seen in all religions and nations; Theravada Buddhism mixed with Thai nationalism to produce violence in the southern provinces; Shinto was used by the Japanese imperial state to mobilize and nationalize citizens before and during WW2. Are Buddhism and Shinto violent religions? No, but they can be used for violence in certain circumstances
So is Islam a violent religion? No, but certain groups use radicalized ideology to get soldiers to commit acts of terror.

> 'after 911 purposes', considering it was released in 2014.
Was there still a crisis in the Middle East in 2014? And is 2014 after 9/11?
Ibn Ishaq's biography is a collection of oral histories, which he himself expressed caution and skepticism over. It isn't meant to be "right"; Ishaq frequently says "Only God knows whether a statement is true".

Your beautiful religion can suck these nuts

>George Bush Jr.'s use of Christian ideology in his speeches promising action after 9/11
Yet the (favorable) response did not stem from religious viewpoint. This 'Christian idelogy' was nothing but personal quirk for Bush.

>So is Islam a violent religion? No, but certain groups use radicalized ideology to get soldiers to commit acts of terror.
In contemporary context for Christians and Jews of the Western world, yes it is.

Is there no plight of Christians in Muhammedian countries? Do they not need to pay subjugation tax or (even today) lose their lives if they do not convert to the cult of Muhammad?
How did iSlam spread throughout Arabia and beyond? Did Judaism spread the same way? Did Christians before the Crusades? (which, by the way, were a response for the alarming spread of Muhammedian cult).

>This is a term for someone who wishes not to think critically, but to dispel any opposing view with a simple label.
This term (not a new term by the way) has come up again withing the context of Ukrainian crisis. Simply put, Russians are saying: others did this, so we can too! Is that not what the term is about? Muhammedians are doing the exact same thing.

Where do we get the facts for life of Muhammad then? Or how Islam works?
Maybe it is possible look at what Muhammedians today do and how they live and make assumptions based on that? Or is that haram? If so, why is that? Because contemporary Christian might see a negative character in Muhammedian and his religion?

lol you are wrong

t. Qutb

Underrated post

why not have all muslims fuck off to one country where they can kill each other?

>use the term demonstrates your lack of care for real discussion
It is a very simple test of patience: if the person goes berserk from this pejorative term, then he is not worth writing to.

Even though I'm a Christian myself, I've used similar pejorative terms with fellow Christians when arguing about theology.

>This 'Christian idelogy' was nothing but personal quirk for Bush.
That is untrue. Even president before and since has used Christian ideology in their speeches. It is not a personal quirk, especially considering he probably didn't even write the speech. It is called American Civil Religion if you want to look into it, which works to make sacred the polity.
Plus as the head of State, the president is speaking for the State to the nation. His rhetoric implies common ground, just the same as Bin Laden's did. Like you said, he got a favorable response; he found that common ground and used the surge of quasi-religious patriotism to his advantage.
>In contemporary context for Christians and Jews of the Western world, yes it is.
It is only because transnational organizations pose a threat to the well-established concept of the "nation". Regardless of faith or violence, these organizations are sources of severe anxiety to nationalists and nationalized-citizens. The Buddhist Soka Gakkai is given cultist elements, for example, as was the indigenous Falun Gong and Christian Eastern Lightning in China. It is not the religion itself, but the organization that uses the religion.
>Is there no plight of Christians in Muhammedian countries?
You can call them islamic, you know. And these States utilize Islam to establish their authority and propagate nationalism, so outsiders are seen with anxiety. As I have implied before, religion is heavily entangled with politics and concepts of nationalism. That is part of the reasons that there is a huge anxiety against Islam in the west currently, because Christianity is the de-facto State religion and it is through it that the State operates and imagines the nation. That is why there was violence and anxiety towards Catholics in the United States for so long, and why there is violence against Muslims happening infrequently throughout the West recently.

Right. Well you're an edgy retarded /pol/ faggot but don't bother replying because it will show you're not worth the time ; )

>Did Christians before the Crusades? (which, by the way, were a response for the alarming spread of Muhammedian cult).
That is largely bullshit, and the historical reasons for the crusades are far more complex than that. While justification was directed at reclaiming the Holy Land from Islamic rule, it was largely about gaining territory and economic advantages that the Middle East was enjoying at that time. It was for financial and political gain that the Crusades were fought; this is painfully obvious after the Crusader sacking of Constantinople.
The world isn't some game where there's a clear "villain" btw, so please stop treating it like there is.
>This term (not a new term by the way)
Okay, cool. That doesn't make it any less of a cop-out.

>You can call them islamic
I'm not sure when this use of this term became the standard in US or English speaking world, but in my native the use of 'Muhammedians' (as in followers of Muhammad) was standard before large amount of 'refugees' in the early 90's came from Muhammedian countries. Them and their well-wishers have tried to bring about these terms 'Muslim' and 'Islam', which mean nothing to 'non-believers'.

Why should 'non-believer' use this term? Muhammedian is more informative term: followers of Muhammad or persons belonging to the cult of Muhammad. Just like you use Mormons.

>The Buddhist Soka Gakkai is given cultist elements, for example, as was the indigenous Falun Gong and Christian Eastern Lightning in China. It is not the religion itself, but the organization that uses the religion.
There is no basis (or any evidence for them being 'counter-revolutionary') for persecution of Falun Gong or Eastern lighting, the CCP is simply afraid of people gathering.

>His rhetoric implies common ground, just the same as Bin Laden's did
Who's common ground it is bin Ladens case?

The religion is a 'quirk' in the US context, that the rhetoric means nothing: Bush (or Reagan) would have gotten same response without any use of religious rhetoric. Those who response from religious point of view are a tiny minority, and their support means shit.

>That is why there was violence and anxiety towards Catholics in the United States for so long
This I agree with, but not with regarding Muhammedians.
Because of the massive 'refuge' crisis, people now have large amount of first-hand experience of Muhammedians and they are largely negative. And there is no 'violence against Muslims', just the other way around in the West. Not a single Muhammedian has been murdered or raped in my native by a (native) Christian, but asylum seekers alone (so not counting all emigrates) have killed dozen and raped endless amount.

Yeah but I want a greater jihad.

>That is largely bullshit
So why didn't you mention those Christian empires existing in the Arabia and close to it during Muhammads life.
Again, Christianity for these empires meant nothing and they did not spread Christianity with a sword either, even if they were very imperialistic empires.

>The world isn't some game where there's a clear "villain" btw, so please stop treating it like there is.
For small nations and nationalities (except for cosmopolitans like Jews starting from medieval times), yes there is. For citizens of the Great powers it might not be so clear.

So how Christians and Jews got along with Muhammedians in empires or countries which became majority Muhammedian?

Yes and the byzantines never raped and pillaged anything themselves right?

Taqiyya is a Shia thing and 90% of muzzies are Sunni. Nice try though

>There is no basis (or any evidence for them being 'counter-revolutionary') for persecution of Falun Gong or Eastern lighting, the CCP is simply afraid of people gathering.
The Communist Party in China likes a strict regulation and clear visibility in their religions. That is why these indigenous religious movements scare them, because they are largely invisible to the state and it is difficult to regulate them. Though it is hard to say given the State's control of the media, Eastern Lightning had been involved in a few murders and kidnappings so there is kind of a basis there; still, these allegations could just as easily be fabricated.
In any case, the lack of basis is my point. The persecution shows clear anxieties of the State; China has recently been persecuting Christian and Muslims alike in trying to emphasize their idea Chinese citizen and his "traditional values". Religion in China is one of my areas of focus, so I could speak a little more on this topic if you wish.
>Who's common ground it is bin Ladens case?
Islamic fundamentalists, just as Bush's was right-wing Christian fundamentalists.
>that the rhetoric means nothing... Those who response from religious point of view are a tiny minority, and their support means shit.
That is wrong, not even considering that American Civil Religion is different from more overtly established religions. Pic related, and funny you should mention Reagan considering his election hinged around the Religious Right vote.
>And there is no 'violence against Muslims'
That is false. Just a few weeks ago 6 were killed in a mosque shooting in Quebec. I could list off incidents to you if you wish.
>have killed dozen and raped endless amount.
Please give me some reputable statistics to back up this claim.

please don't poison me CIA

Skrid hjem til Nationen

All muslims lie as their spiritual father is the father of lies, and knows no other language.

You cannot get the truth from the devil/allah.

>his election hinged around the religious right vote

Reagan would have stomped Carter + Mondale with or without the religious right, give me a fucking break. It just would've been less of a complete BTFO than it was in history.

You do not think the conjunction of politics and religion is significant, considering nearly every political speech references Judeo-Christian religion, religious leaders speak at important political events, nearly every politician practices a religion and swears on a Bible, most voters are religious, and many holidays celebrate both the nation and religion simultaneously? Religion is not significant here?

Thanks for making the case to keep muslims out of the USA forever.

It is more probable for there to be a Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu president than for an agnostic or atheist desu, because American Civil Religion is not overtly any religion yet relies almost entirely on Christian monotheism. All the anxiety towards muslims in the US is ridiculous considering they make up only around 1 percent of the population. There are more Buddhists in the US than Muslims.

why dont people blow themselves up in the name of jesus christ.

If I was muslim and somewhat capable of inward thought I would look at my religion objectively and say its fucking crazy.