Danish researcher: dirty, filthy Islam by far the most violent religion

[Pumpkin Eater]

Together with a number of research assistants, the Danish linguist Tina Magaard spent three years examining the texts of the ten largest religions. The purpose was to investigate whether any of the religions incite violence.

The conclusion was clear: “The texts of Islam are clearly distinct from the other religions texts as they, to a higher degree, call for violence and aggression against followers of other faiths. There are also direct incitements to terror. … Moreover, in the Qur’an there are hundreds of invitations to fight against people of other faiths.”

The verses are in black and white and without mitigating context. One of the verses that deal with non-Muslims is: “So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks until you have inflicted slaughter upon them.” (Qur’an 47: 4).

 

Violent in practice

Islam is not only the world’s most violent religion in writing. A huge study, based on in-depth interviews with 45,000 subjects, confirms that it is also the world’s most violent religion in practice.

The study shows that Islam is the only religion in the world in which people become more violent, the stronger they believe in their religion.

Terror

The fact that Islam is the world’s most violent religion is most likely the reason why Muslims since September 11, 2001, have committed more than 27,000 deadly terrorist attacks in the name of Islam. This corresponds to approximately 2,000 a year, or five a day.

Another fact is that the number of Muslims in the Western world is increasing dramatically and that they are becoming still more religious: 75 percent of Muslims inside Europe think that the texts of the world’s most violent religion must be taken literally.

This is probably why 80 percent of young Turks in Holland see “nothing wrong” with waging Jihad against non-Muslims. And that 27 percent of all young French and 14 percent of all young British under 25 sympathize with the genocidal terror organisation Islamic State. This includes most probably the vast majority of young Muslims in these two countries.

http://www.klamathvoice.com/?p=1790

[Pumpkin Eater]

put that in your dirty, filthy, muslim supporting, cum-stained mouths and eat it, libgnoramuses.

[MLD Woody]

Help mw out, I don't see the link to the study in the article you posted. Could you please post that here?

[Pumpkin Eater]

Magaard, Tina. (2005, September 10). Islam er den mest krigeriske religion. Jyllandsposten.

[MLD Woody]

It is from 2005? Why is it blowing up now?

 

I google it and find a bunch of Christian and Conservative sites talking about it recently. One must have dug it up and then it hit the echo chamber.

[Osiris]

That quote isn't an instruction to Muslims today, it is part of a larger section discussing a historical battle. What violence is in the Quran refers to the persecution of early Muslims and their efforts to defend themselves.

 

It's pretty funny that the thing you quoted states itself they are omitting context. Why? Because the context would prevent the writer from inciting the readers to hate Muslims. Anyway, all the devout Muslims I know are very peaceful so it's pretty clear this isn't a fact-based source.

 

If you like, I can list you many verses from the Quran that show terrorists are violating Islamic teaching, making them in fact less devout, not more. I can even show you Islamic texts that warn against Daesh's coming and tells Muslims to fight them.

 

I might also point out that the author seems to have some kind of mental disorder when they claim:

 

And that 27 percent of all young French and 14 percent of all young British under 25 sympathize with the genocidal terror organisation Islamic State.

And then goes on to say:

 

This includes most probably the vast majority of young Muslims in these two countries.

Do I need to point out that 14 and 25 percent of anything does not qualify as as the "vast majority" of anything?

[gftChris]

Os:

 

1) If you could put a few of those verses here I'd be interested in reading them

2) The author is presumably (I haven't read it) claiming that 27 percent of french people under 25 support ISIS, which he presumes is actually broken down in to 'most muslims' and 'a few non-muslims' - at least, that's the way I read it. It's not 27 percent of muslims.

[gftChris]

Also, out of curiosity, if the koran is the word of mohammed, why is it talking about the historical persecution of muslims? what am I misunderstanding?

[The Cysko Kid]

This should be rich. Let's see these verses.

[LogicIsForSquares]

This should be rich. Let's see these verses.

"Hack the heads off of the apostates and infidels."

 

"Hack the heads off" was a term used in the Quran to describe a strong hug."

[The Cysko Kid]

I think when they said "strike at their necks until you inflict slaughter upon them" they really meant a friendly slap to the back if the neck and kill em with kindness.

[Osiris]

Also, out of curiosity, if the koran is the word of mohammed, why is it talking about the historical persecution of muslims? what am I misunderstanding?

The first Muslims were persecuted by the followers of the dominant religion in the region, which was a pagan one. These first Muslims were led by Mohammed to a Christian kingdom in what is now Ethiopia. He led them there because this King had a reputation as a just and kind ruler. The persecutors followed but the Christian king turned them away and put Mohammed and his followers under his protection.

[Osiris]

Os:

 

1) If you could put a few of those verses here I'd be interested in reading them

 

Sure. Will post it after kids are off to school.

[Osiris]

"Hack the heads off of the apostates and infidels."

"Hack the heads off" was a term used in the Quran to describe a strong hug."

I think when they said "strike at their necks until you inflict slaughter upon them" they really meant a friendly slap to the back if the neck and kill em with kindness.

The issue isn't one thing meaning something else. The issue is taking it out of context. If I read a historical documentary where someone says to do something, it is implied by the context that this is a historical account, not an instruction or commandment. That's the same thing that is happening in the passage quoted in the OP.

[The Cysko Kid]

But the koran is the literal word of god.

[The Cysko Kid]

Waiting for the old 5:32 chestnut. Leaving out, of course, 5:33

[gftChris]

The first Muslims were persecuted by the followers of the dominant religion in the region, which was a pagan one. These first Muslims were led by Mohammed to a Christian kingdom in what is now Ethiopia. He led them there because this King had a reputation as a just and kind ruler. The persecutors followed but the Christian king turned them away and put Mohammed and his followers under his protection.

Right, what I was getting at was I thought mohammed was the founder of islam - who were these muslims that were persecuted before the religion was founded? :S

[Osiris]

Right, what I was getting at was I thought mohammed was the founder of islam - who were these muslims that were persecuted before the religion was founded? :S

 

I never said there were any Muslims persecuted before it was founded. The Quran was written as things happened, not after they happened.

[Pumpkin Eater]

There is no mitigating context to the calls for violence against infidels.

[gftChris]

There is no mitigating context to the calls for violence against infidels.

Unless it's in the bible, obviously.

[The Cysko Kid]

Does the bible command christians to hack the heads off the unfaithful? Or strike at their necks? Or kill them wherever they find them? Or crucify them and hack their hands and feet off on opposite sides?

 

Because I could really see where people would take issue with that

[OldBrownsFan]

Unless it's in the bible, obviously.

 

The huge difference between the old testament verses of violence as compared to the koran is that the verses in the koran that speak of killing infidels are open ended and they apply just as much today as when they were first written. The verses of violence in the old testament are not open ended but relate to certain places and times.

[gftChris]

So you're saying there is mitigating context to the calls for violence against infidels?

[Osiris]

Chris, here are the verses I promised to post for you. Some of these may be from the Quran, some may be from the Hadith. I'm going to break it down in the context of the things Daesh does.

 

1) Daesh employs suicide bombers as a tactic. The Quran says the following on suicide:

 

"O ye who believe!... do not kill yourselves, for truly Allah has been to you Most Merciful. If any do that in rancour and injustice, soon shall We cast him into the Fire..." (Qur'an 4:29-30).

 

So, by employing suicidal tactics, they are are acting against Islam.

 

2) Deash kills innocent people. The Quran says the following about that:

 

"do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” - Lawfully meaning as determined by the state such as in corporal punishment.

 

3) Deash's actions amount to declaration of war on multiple countries. This is what Quran says about declaring war:

 

“Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.”

 

4) The following are more verses that terrorists like Daesh routinely violate:

 

“And do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness.”[5:8]

 

By hating everyone except themselves, they are unIslamic.

 

” . . . and you will find the nearest in love to the believers [Muslims] those who say: ‘We are Christians.’ That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud.”[5:82]

 

“Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness–their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.” [5:69]

 

 

By calling Jews and Christians 'infidels' they are contradicting the Quran, which states that basically anyone who believes in God, the day of judgement, and does good deeds, they will be rewarded in heaven.

 

Daesh people probably claim that they are responding to wrong-doing inflicted on Muslims. Here is what Hadith says about that:

 

“Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong (even) if they do evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)

 

In other words, respond to goodness with goodness and to wrong-doing with goodness.

 

Another concept that is propogated by Daesh and others is the 'convert or die' concept. This is forbidden by the Quran:

 

There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.”[2:256]

[OldBrownsFan]

So you're saying there is mitigating context to the calls for violence against infidels?

 

Just making a distinction. A huge one. The koran IS the problem here. All the evil being done by radical islamic terrorists (a word Obama cannot utter) is justified by the koran and they use the koran to justify their evil.

[Osiris]

There is no mitigating context to the calls for violence against infidels.

 

 

Does the bible command christians to hack the heads off the unfaithful? Or strike at their necks? Or kill them wherever they find them? Or crucify them and hack their hands and feet off on opposite sides?

 

Because I could really see where people would take issue with that

 

 

 

The huge difference between the old testament verses of violence as compared to the koran is that the verses in the koran that speak of killing infidels are open ended and they apply just as much today as when they were first written. The verses of violence in the old testament are not open ended but relate to certain places and times.

 

Once again, the context is everything. The verses of violence in the Quran are also NOT open ended but relate to certain places and times. You know this about the Old Testament because you are familiar enough with it. I know this about the Quran because I'm familiar enough with it. It is disingenuous to give the Old Testament a pass for doing the same thing that the Quran does.

[Osiris]

 

Just making a distinction. A huge one. The koran IS the problem here. All the evil being done by radical islamic terrorists (a word Obama cannot utter) is justified by the koran and they use the koran to justify their evil.

 

It is in fact, not only not justified, it is forbidden by the Quran, as I outlined above.

 

In any case, you are welcome to believe as you wish. Peace.

[OldBrownsFan]

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

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

Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's many calls to violence according to what their own moral preconceptions find justificable. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

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

 

 

 

TheReligionofPeace.com Presents:

Flying Hijacked Planes into Glass Houses

A response to the American Muslim article:
Throwing Stones at the Quran from a Glass House

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Bible-Quran-Violence.htm

[MLD Woody]

 

The huge difference between the old testament verses of violence as compared to the koran is that the verses in the koran that speak of killing infidels are open ended and they apply just as much today as when they were first written. The verses of violence in the old testament are not open ended but relate to certain places and times.

Isn't that exactly what Osiris is saying about the Koran?

 

Also, none of these books should apply today just as much as they did back then

[OldBrownsFan]

There is only one religion doing this terrorism today and using their holy book to justify it. Not too many people are losing their heads to fanatics screaming praises to Jesus or Buddha or other faiths but there are MANY Islamic terrorist groups of fundamentalist Muslims who are shouting "Allah Akbar" and killing people using the koran as justification and that is a fact that cannot be denied.