Islam Do Not Bash Muslims

[Joyousperson]

One of the greatest misunderstanding in discussing the issue of Islamic-based terror, evil and violent acts, is barking up the wrong tree, fire fighting and missing the critical root cause, thus allowing the problem to fester and grow.
In most cases [presumption all religions are peaceful], the attention is always on the terrorists themselves whom I believe are victims of an evil laden ideology.

Here is my argument;

A Muslim is a person who had entered into a covenant with Allah to comply with the covenanted terms as in the Quran [final authority of Islam] with support from the Ahadiths.

Note the following conditions surrounding who is a Muslim, his/her obligation and actions;

1. DNA wise ALL humans are embedded with an existential crisis,

2. The most effective strategy to deal with the existential crisis is at of a promise of salvation to soothe the existential pains with the assurance of eternal life.

3. To be assured of the promise of salvation, believers MUST enter into a covenant with God/Allah to comply with the stipulated covenanted terms in the holy texts.

4. The covenanted terms of the ideology of Islam contain loads of evil and violent elements, (evidence available) [in contrast while that of Christianity is purely pacifist.]

5. DNA wise ALL humans has the potential to commit evil and violent acts. [argument available]

6. Appx 20% of all humans are born with an active evil tendency [evidence available] who will be naturally drawn towards evil and violent elements and commit them.

7. Potentially, SOME of the 20% of all Muslims [300 million!!!] will likely commit evil and violence in alignment with their obligation to gain salvation. Note the seriousness of this number when even a lone wolf can create terrible terrors.
​

From the above, ALL humans are 'cursed' with an embedded existential crisis naturally and thus all will seek solutions to deal with the existential crisis.

The majority take the religious or spiritual, where the Abrahamic followers [thus Muslims] has to enter into a covenant with their God to comply with the covenanted terms to gain salvation with eternal life.

It is very evident there are SOME [from a pool of 300 million!!] Muslims who had committed terrible terroristic and other forms of evil and violent acts.
Here is a crude stat but [even if reduced to 50% or 10% ] in essence is very valid to justify the above point;

However from the logical syllogism re point 1-6, it is very logical we cannot blame the Muslims who as vulnerable human beings are seeking salvation to deal with an inherent existential crisis.

Alternatively and in contrast where any one who had followed the Christianity path, they will NOT be influenced in any way to commit any evil or violent act since the overriding moral maxim of Christianity is purely pacifist in nature.​

In the above case of evil and violent acts committed by SOME Muslims, we cannot primarily blame those Muslims.
The critical cause for the Muslims in committing terrible evil and violence is point 4, i.e. the ideology of Islam that contain loaded evil and evil elements that would compel and inspire SOME [from a pool of 300 million] to commit terrible evil and violent [in their eyes a divine duty] to secure their salvation and eternal life in paradise.

As a control point [in theory], if there is no Islam with the evil and violent element in its ideology, there will be no Islamic-based evil and violent terror at all. In fact there will be no purely religious driven evil and violent acts at all. This is because no other mainstream religion condone evil and violence in their ideology, the only exception is Islam.​

Of course, those extremist Muslims and others who commit evil and violent acts must be accountable for their crimes but for humanity sake in seeking effective solutions, the primary blame should never be pointed at the extremist Muslims but the attention should be on the root cause, that is in the ideology of Islam. If we blame the extremist Muslims, then we are fire-fighting the symptoms rather than tackling the ultimate root cause.

Note there other factors in the above model which are the inherent existential crisis, the evil potential. But these are DNA based element thus difficult to control and change.

Affiliation with a religion is a serious emotional and psychological affair but it can be changed or modified for the better. There are many who have converted in and out of religions.

My point;
In any discussion of Islamic based evil and violent acts, we must differentiate the Muslims as human beings from the ideology of Islam [as ideas and beliefs].
(note the guilty Muslims must be accountable to the laws of the land)

Per the model above, we must not put the primary blame and direction attention at the Muslims and even extremist Muslims for the evil and violent acts they committed in the name of their religion.

The main attention and focus must be on the evil and violent elements within the ideology of Islam.

One problem is the ideology of Islam within the Quran [& supporting texts] is extremely difficult to grasp in its totality. Thus the first attention is to ensure the Quran and its essence is easily understood by all. This is a difficult task, but must be undertaken with an academic, objective and philosophical basis.

Views?

​

 

[Skittles]

What specifically are you proposing be done to make things better?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

"In any discussion of Islamic based evil and violent acts, we must differentiate the Muslims as human beings from the ideology of Islam [as ideas and beliefs].
(note the guilty Muslims must be accountable to the laws of the land)"

So Islam as a religion has no impact on one's actions? Or is that only the actions we enlightened westerners find acceptable that Islam is responsible for creating in it's adherents?

Your idea is flawed. Religion does impact action for good or bad, depending on how you view any given issue. The Crusades were not fought for economic factors but on the basis of Catholic zeal to capture the holy land. Many Monastics have entered the cloister on religious devotion alone. Saints gave their lives for Christ in the hopes of attaining him. Or are we to dismiss the religious motivation in these actions as well?

Personally I've never denigrated individual Muslims but I will make it known how odious i find their faith.

 

[Joyousperson]

"In any discussion of Islamic based evil and violent acts, we must differentiate the Muslims as human beings from the ideology of Islam [as ideas and beliefs].
(note the guilty Muslims must be accountable to the laws of the land)"

So Islam as a religion has no impact on one's actions? Or is that only the actions we enlightened westerners find acceptable that Islam is responsible for creating in it's adherents?

Your idea is flawed. Religion does impact action for good or bad, depending on how you view any given issue. The Crusades were not fought for economic factors but on the basis of Catholic zeal to capture the holy land. Many Monastics have entered the cloister on religious devotion alone. Saints gave their lives for Christ in the hopes of attaining him. Or are we to dismiss the religious motivation in these actions as well?

Personally I've never denigrated individual Muslims but I will make it known how odious i find their faith.

I think you missed the rest of my point.

I am stating the ideology of Islam is at fault primarily and not the Muslims.
Note my OP, i.e. do not bash Muslims, thus we need to be critical of the ideology of Islam and not the Muslims.

Thus my theoretical solution;

As a control point [in theory], if there is no Islam with the evil and violent element in its ideology, there will be no Islamic-based evil and violent terror at all. In fact there will be no purely religious driven evil and violent acts at all. This is because no other mainstream religion condone evil and violence in their ideology, the only exception is Islam.
​

Suggest you reread the whole OP again.

​

 

[Joyousperson]

What specifically are you proposing be done to make things better?

I have not proposed any solutions.
My main point is to bring the awareness that the ideology is the main root cause and people should not blame Muslims and those extremists Muslims as the primary cause.

In theory, get rid of the religion of Islam, then no person will be able to commit any evil and violence in the name of that religion of Islam.

As a control point [in theory], if there is no Islam with the evil and violent element in its ideology, there will be no Islamic-based evil and violent terror at all. In fact there will be no purely religious driven evil and violent acts at all. This is because no other mainstream religion condone evil and violence in their ideology, the only exception is Islam.​

The point is the ideology of Islam is commanded to be perfect [Quran 5:3] and thus immutable.
Since it is perfect it cannot be reformed as to reform it, then it would not be that perfected Islam.
Another point is, as dictated in the Quran no fallible humans can edit the Quran, i.e. the perfect work of the all-powerful Allah. slse it would an insult to Allah potency.

However, practice that would not be possible in the short term.

Nonetheless, people must be aware the critical root cause is the ideology of Islam and not the believers who commit the evil and violence in the name of Islam. Therefore all people who are concern must understand the Quran thoroughly for what it is objectively and rationally.
The inherent nature of theology is that believers who has to exercise faith [beliefs without proofs nor reason] cannot be objective.

Given the above dilemma, you have any idea how to resolve the issue?

 

[Anthony2019]

There are a lot of differences between the world religions, and whilst people are never going to agree on what they believe, for the majority of people there are many values that are shared: the desire to become a better person, the desire for companionship, the need to be loved and to give love, to desire to help others and to make the world a better place.

I follow the Christian faith as I agree with its teachings. However, I aim to treat followers of other religions with utmost respect, recognising that they are people just like me: human beings who experience the same feelings and emotions and the same hopes and dreams.

Most religious people are not extremists. When we learn to treat people as our friends, rather than our enemies, we build bridges and create opportunities not only for dialogue but the ability to work in partnership to pursue things for the common good.

 

[Skittles]

I have not proposed any solutions.
My main point is to bring the awareness that the ideology is the main root cause and people should not blame Muslims and those extremists Muslims as the primary cause.

In theory, get rid of the religion of Islam, then no person will be able to commit any evil and violence in the name of that religion of Islam.

As a control point [in theory], if there is no Islam with the evil and violent element in its ideology, there will be no Islamic-based evil and violent terror at all. In fact there will be no purely religious driven evil and violent acts at all. This is because no other mainstream religion condone evil and violence in their ideology, the only exception is Islam.​

The point is the ideology of Islam is commanded to be perfect [Quran 5:3] and thus immutable.
Since it is perfect it cannot be reformed as to reform it, then it would not be that perfected Islam.
Another point is, as dictated in the Quran no fallible humans can edit the Quran, i.e. the perfect work of the all-powerful Allah. slse it would an insult to Allah potency.

However, practice that would not be possible in the short term.

Nonetheless, people must be aware the critical root cause is the ideology of Islam and not the believers who commit the evil and violence in the name of Islam. Therefore all people who are concern must understand the Quran thoroughly for what it is objectively and rationally.
The inherent nature of theology is that believers who has to exercise faith [beliefs without proofs nor reason] cannot be objective.

Given the above dilemma, you have any idea how to resolve the issue?

Practically speaking Islam is not going to just go away. And while we can play mental games imagining it not being a force in the world; whether it is present or not humans will still have concupisence and a tendency to sin. Various forces in the world just channel that (or in some cases condone it) so my proposal would be to live virtuously according to the Gospel and trust in God without putting your head in the sand about the realities of the world and the value of prudence.

 

[com7fy8]

In most cases [presumption all religions are peaceful], the attention is always on the terrorists themselves whom I believe are victims of an evil laden ideology.

I think there are Muslims themselves who claim the Qur'an does not mean for terrorists to do what they are doing. Possibly, they mean only for violence to be upon combatants who are actually attacking Muslim people. Of course, perhaps here, someone can quote Qur'an verses which spell out when and how and why babies and women need to be killed and butchered and blown up.

Also, by the way . . . about violence > it is reported that there are ones who claim to be Muslims who use unsterile cutting instruments to destroy parts of little girls so they can not experience sexual pleasure. So, in case this is true, terrorist attack numbers do not tell of all violations which certain ones do, claiming it is for Islam. But I do not know if there is any actual quote of the Qur'an which directs Muslims to so violate little girls. So, ones who do such a thing possibly are not functioning according to Islam as presented in the Qur'an and also possibly not what is recorded in the acts of Muhammed. I don't know; someone is welcome to actually quote anything which calls for this.

So, in your statistics, possibly the number of violations of girls could be added to the number of terrorist actions.

people must be aware the critical root cause is the ideology of Islam and not the believers who commit the evil and violence in the name of Islam.

But I am considering it is possible, how ones because of their own nature have been misinterpreting how, for all I know, Muhammed means for violence to be used only against anyone who is actively attacking Muslims. Also, of course, I think the Qur'an does have rules for killing ones who refuse to obey religious items of Islam. And perhaps Muhammed excused military conquest of Arab tribes who refused to cooperate with his one-god movement. But, in case my information and memory of it are correct > did he justify killing women and children, in order to accomplish his end?

So, you might quote what you claim is a direct order to commit terrorist attacks against noncombatant women and children, including blowing them up . . . or, also, using suicide tactics in which the attacker kills his or her own self and is not killed by the enemy. But, in case these are not stipulated in the Qur'an, then they are not a part of the ideology of Islam, I would consider.

Another thing > even if there are clear orders by Muhammed to attack and kill noncombatant women and children, in order to use terror to get control and weaken the enemy, where did this approach come from? They would have come from Muhammed and ones who helped put together the Qur'an and writings about the acts of Muhammed; and so they would have started before the writings were developed; and therefore such violent stuff did not start from the Qur'an, but from whoever wrote and put together the Qur'an!

So, in truth, the terrorism does not come from any ideology, but from the hearts of ones willing to create and use ideology and other means to justify what they do.

Adolph Hitler got different people of different ideological ways involved with him, in different ways; his was not an ideology, really, but only his own foolishness which he could not see and defeat. Of course, he had the help of how humans can be simply cowardly so they do not stand up to an evil person . . . a thing which is reported to happen, often in how more mild Muslims do not stand up to terrorists in their areas. For example, in Palestine > it seems to me that there are plenty of citizens who could easily stop terrorists from using their hospitals as launching points for missiles. But they do not stop those people.

And communism uses violence, I think I was told, as part of their ideological guide, i,e., to use violent takeover. But the violent ideology is a product of how certain people are, in their hearts.

And, by the way, something I read says Muhammed took action to unite Arabs with one god. There had been many tribes, each tribe of Arabs with their own god . . . or maybe certain ones with more than one god . . . I don't know. But did he or did he not at times use violence to subjugate certain tribal people who did not want to join with him in his unifying effort?? In case he did, wouldn't this came from his own heart, and not from the Qur'an or Islam which came after he did what he did? Didn't the writings come after how he was able to get his own self to do things??

And in case this is historically correct, possibly Muhammed was seeking a cultural result, that Arabs would all be united so they would not be bullying each other, plus so non-Arabs could not isolate and bully and subjugate one small tribe, at a time. He knew of what were claimed to be gods, though; but perhaps really for the culture of the Arabs, he was acting to get them together.

Yet, now, we see how still Arabs can find ways to become against one another > ones can not get straight, now, about who is supposed to be in charge of all of them. The Sunni and Shia have been hating and killing each other, plus the Taliban has been trying to subjugate the moderate Muslims in Afghanistan. So many can not uphold Islam, because they can't even tell which way it is supposed to be. This is how Satan's kingdom works . . . and fails > because "God resists the proud" (in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5). Satan's kingdom can not get anywhere, because of God's constant resistance limiting evil. Terrorists are now a special demonstration of this.

So, in case there is anything to this, the real problem starts in a person; then that person chooses what he or she wants to use.

But, of course, if there is already a culture of depending on violence to get what you want > this can help feed you to act on your ability to depend on violence to get what you want. But we see how in the same location, there can be Afghans who are Taliban while others are getting themselves killed by having a dancing girl party which gets raided by Taliban operatives. So, in the same cultural area, ones can be influenced in exact opposite ways.

So, only God through Jesus . . . not through a new ideology or system of controlling people > only through Jesus do we have peace and self control and strength to hold up against cruel and/or charming pressures to do evil and violence.

And why do people claiming Islam use or want to use violence against others, historically? They have been in historical conflict, of a vendetta sort, maybe, with one another or with the Jews, and now with Americans. There is this tendency of people to have their self identity as individuals, and even as whole nations, and as ethnic and tribal groups, so they can feel they are better than others or that others have somehow slighted them or hurt them; and now they want to get back at their real or supposed enemies, and get back what they suppose they are entitled to have.

So, Islam and the Qur'an are a product, more or less, of what has been going on, long before Muhammed came along.

Notice the superiority thing. Ones in Sharia Law Islam can suppose they are somehow superior to non-Muslims; and so, their Sharia system does not give equal justice to non-Muslims. So . . . ones into this are into conceit. They are imitators of the so-called Americans who felt superior to Afro people, so they could justify the kidnapping and murder of Africans, in order to have slaves. And they could justify invading the sovereign lands of native nations and raid and kill their women and children, at times, by official military action.

So, evil people, when it suits their purpose, use violence to take what they want. Then, after they get what they want and do not want to pay any more blood and money to get more, then is when they say oh let's have peace and they can play the poor innocent victims when someone else comes along to attack them . . . to try to get what they took from someone else!!

So, part of the real problem is our conceit with its comparing and covetous competition to be better and have more than someone else.

The Bible says, "be content with such things as you have" > this is in Hebrews 13:5. So, God's word is not only telling us to be nonviolent, as an ideology. But with Jesus we are experiencing how God's love in us makes us content. Plus, God has all so better and superior to all which foolish conquerors are sacrificing to get for themselves >

"Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us." (Romans 8:37)

So, we with Jesus have more than all which conquerors are trying to get, because we share all God has, with Him . . . now, already . . . more and more in us of how He is in love, not merely of all which He owns which is the material universe.

And our methods are superior to what conquerors use. Charm and deceit can not get all the good which God is in us and shares with us . . . and how He has us sharing, by living in His love and personal guiding. Control and force and violence and pressure and intimidation can not get the peace and goodness of family loving which we have in Jesus > we see how American conquerors have taken so much and defended so much, yet now Americans have a fifty-percent or so divorce rate and other major problems . . . because our methods of military and social conquest and controlling can not conquer our own conceit and its dulled senses which keep us from knowing who is a truly loving person and who is not!!!!

So, Christianity is not only some ideology, but how people love and how things work in God's kingdom in us . . . now. And how can we help others to join us in this? > prayer, example, ministering God's word, depending on how God produces the result, doing all which He alone is able to do in each of us.

"And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment." (Philippians 1:9)

We are cups running over with whatever is really in our own cups . . . spreading this to possibly make others, including our children, the same way. What is spiritually in us is spreading, deeply. This is part of why we pray > in love, we can spread the effect of God's own love to ones we pray for. Because we depend on God to do the spreading

 

[JosephZ]

4. The covenanted terms of the ideology of Islam contain loads of evil and violent elements,

The main attention and focus must be on the evil and violent elements within the ideology of Islam.

Nonetheless, people must be aware the critical root cause is the ideology of Islam and not the believers who commit the evil and violence in the name of Islam.

Here is a crude stat but [even if reduced to 50% or 10% ] in essence is very valid to justify the above point;

The first question to ask would be; is the religion of Islam really to blame for the violence being committed by Muslim extremists?

Since you posted an image that gives an estimate of the number of terrorist attacks carried out by Islamist since 9/11, I will give you some stats that will challenge your theory that Islam is a violent religion.

Between 1970 and 2017 the Global terrorism Database lists 181,691 Terrorist Attacks worldwide. Between 1970 and 2010, 10% of those were carried out by Islamic extremists with the remaining 90% being carried out by communists, anarchists, fascists, etc..

Your source says that there have been 34,993 deadly terror attacks by Islamic extremists since 9/11.

The GTD lists 28,393 attacks between 1970 and 2001 that resulted in fatalities; around 10% of which would have been carried out by Islamic extremists, or roughly 2,839 attacks.

Between 2002 and 2017 the GTD lists 54,836 attacks. According to your source 34,993 of those would have been carried out by Islamic extremists or roughly 64%.

Since Islamic related terrorism increased from just 10% of all terror incidents worldwide prior to 9/11 to more than 60% after 9/11, have you ever considered that there may be other factors that have led to the increase of Islamic related terrorism besides the religion of Islam?

Have you ever asked why the history of Islamic terrorism so short, while Islam has been around for 1,400+ years?

The Qur’an and other Islamic texts like the hadiths weren't rewritten in the past few decades, so how can the religion of Islam be the cause of the violence we are seeing today?

Common sense should tell us that Islam is not the root cause of the dramatic increase in Islamic related terrorism and violence in recent years.

Let's look at where most terrorism takes place in the world:

Just ten countries accounted for 84 per cent of all deaths from terrorism in 2017. All ten of these countries were classified as being ‘in conflict’ by the UCDP’s Armed Conflict Dataset, meaning that they had at least one conflict which led to 25 or more battle-related deaths. Furthermore, of these ten, eight were classified as being involved in at least one war, meaning a conflict that resulted in over 1,000 deaths in a calendar year. Only Egypt and India were classified as having ‘minor conflicts’.

Of these ten, eight were ranked in the ten countries most impacted by terrorism in 2016, with Egypt and the Philippines replacing Turkey and Lebanon in 2017. Despite a significant fall in the number of deaths from terrorism in Iraq, there was no change in the five countries most impacted by terrorism. All of these countries have been ranked in the worst five every year since 2013. Global terrorism Index 2018

Now let's look at five countries that have found themselves in the top 10 countries most affected by terrorism for several years running.

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

When you look at the graph above, the first thing that stands out is the lack of terrorist activity in these countries prior to 2002. In fact, there had never been a suicide bombing recorded in Iraq prior to 2003, now it leads the world in the number of suicide attacks.

If the ideology of Islam within the Qur'an and supporting texts are the root cause of terrorism, how do you explain the lack of Islamic terrorism prior to 9/11?

Here is some information on what has been discovered about people who join Islamic extremist groups.

From the UN:

UN study finds foreign fighters in Syria 'lack basic understanding of Islam'

“Most saw their religion in terms of justice and injustice rather than in terms of piety and spirituality,” said the authors of the report, which was based on interviews with 43 people from 12 countries.

“Religious belief seems to have played a minimal role in the motivation of this sample,” the report found, saying economic factors had become more important as terrorist groups promised wages, homes and even wives.

From MI5 in the UK:

Research, carried out by MI5's behavioural science unit, based on in-depth case studies on "several hundred individuals known to be involved in, or closely associated with, violent extremist activity" ranging from fundraising to planning suicide bombings in Britain found that far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.

In the Philippines:

Cocoy Tulawie, a politician and member of an influential family in Sulu, said this has long been the norm and local government officials have been in connivance with Abu Sayyaf for decades.

He said younger members are ignorant of Islam, yet they are extremely fanatical about representing it. Their version of Islam is flawed simply because the dawas - or Islamic schools - are usually in the main towns and they do not get the chance to study the Quran "properly".

That ignorance, he said, is what makes them dangerous.


Here's another report:

Thousands of leaked Islamic State documents reveals most of its recruits from its earliest days came with only the most basic knowledge of Islam. A little more than 3,000 of these documents included the recruits’ knowledge of Shariah, the system that interprets into law verses from the Quran and “hadith” — the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad.

According to the documents, which were acquired by the Syrian opposition site Zaman al-Wasl and shared with the AP, 70 percent of recruits were listed as having just “basic” knowledge of Shariah — the lowest possible choice. Around 24 percent were categorized as having an “intermediate” knowledge, with just 5 percent considered advanced students of Islam.

The group preys on this religious ignorance, allowing extremists to impose a brand of Islam constructed to suit its goal of maximum territorial expansion and carnage as soon as recruits come under its sway.

As can be seen in the above articles, Most recruits of Islamic extremists groups are not well versed in Islam and ignorance of Islam is a common theme.

When it comes to homicide rates, Muslim majority countries averages are much lower than that of most non-Muslim countries.

Muslim-majority countries average about 2 homicides per 100,000 people and Non-Muslim countries average about 8 per 100,000.

Here's a comparison between the countries with the largest Christian and Muslim populations.

United States: 5.35 per 100,000
Indonesia: 0.50 per 100,000

If you compare the murder rates between Muslim and Christian countries at this link List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, you will find that Muslim majority countries come no where close to having homicide rates as high as some of the Christian countries in which many range in the 20 to 50+ per 100,000 range.

If you study history, you will find that Christian Europe has seen more conflict and bloodshed than the Middle East and North Africa in modern history.

There were Islamic wars of conquest, but they were no different from conquests from other cultures. Imperial expansionism and conquests came from the pagan Mongols; Christian explorers conquered lands in North and South America, the Caribbean, Africa, the Pacific Islands and Southeast Asia to establish new territories and Christianize the natives. The United States had it's orders to do the same under Manifest Destiny. So there was nothing unique about Islam in that department.

As a control point [in theory], if there is no Islam with the evil and violent element in its ideology, there will be no Islamic-based evil and violent terror at all. In fact there will be no purely religious driven evil and violent acts at all. This is because no other mainstream religion condone evil and violence in their ideology, the only exception is Islam.

For your theory to have any merit you first have to provide evidence that those who follow the religion of Islam are more violent than followers of any other religion. While it's true that terrorism is mainly Islamic in nature today, that wasn't the case just 20 years ago. The countries where 84% of terrorism related deaths take place are also countries that have been ravaged by war and conflict in recent years.

You also claim that the ideology of Islam promotes violence, when most Muslim majority countries, outside of those in conflict, have lower rates of violent crime than Christian majority countries.

Countries that experience high levels of terrorism also share one or more of the following characteristics: occupation, authoritarianism, repression, tyranny, and/or corruption. When it comes to terrorism and violent extremism, it's historical and political factors, not religious or even militant religious ideologies that are the primary driving forces. Rather than trying to convince 1.8 billion Muslims and the rest of the world that their religion is to blame, maybe it would be better to address the political conditions and injustices that terrorist groups exploit instead.

 

[Joyousperson]

There are a lot of differences between the world religions, and whilst people are never going to agree on what they believe, for the majority of people there are many values that are shared: the desire to become a better person, the desire for companionship, the need to be loved and to give love, to desire to help others and to make the world a better place.

I follow the Christian faith as I agree with its teachings. However, I aim to treat followers of other religions with utmost respect, recognising that they are people just like me: human beings who experience the same feelings and emotions and the same hopes and dreams.

Most religious people are not extremists. When we learn to treat people as our friends, rather than our enemies, we build bridges and create opportunities not only for dialogue but the ability to work in partnership to pursue things for the common good.

Noted and I agree with many of your points.

My point of the OP is this;

The ideologies of all the mainstream religions are inherently peaceful except Islam where its ideology do not promote peace with non-Muslims. [evidence available].
As a result SOME [from a pool of appx. 300 million with evil tendency] Muslims has been inspired by the ideology of Islam to commit evil and violent acts. This evil acts are evidenced in the following stats [need refinement] on terror attacks, i.e.

and a wide range of other evil and violent acts.

What is most natural with most people [Muslims and non-Muslims] is to rush to blame [bash] the Muslims killers and Muslims in general as the primary cause for the evil and violent acts committed by SOME Muslims. I argue this is premature and WRONG in identifying the main primary ultimate cause of the evil and violent acts.

As argued above, the main ultimate cause is the ideology of Islam with its inherent evil and violent elements. Therefore we should blame the ideology of Islam as the ultimate cause and in a way should not blame and direct primary attention as the extremists Muslims and Muslims in general.

Of course, the guilty Muslims who committed the crimes must be held accountable to the laws of the land, but we should not stop there. We must establish the ultimate root cause, i.e. the ideology of Islam with its evil and violent ethos within its ideology.

Thus to resolve the problem of evil and violent acts committed by SOME Muslims we must address the ultimate root cause, i.e. the evil and violent elements within the ideology of Islam as embedded in the Quran, the core and final authority of Islam.

 

[Joyousperson]

For your theory to have any merit you first have to provide evidence that those who follow the religion of Islam are more violent than followers of any other religion. While it's true that terrorism is mainly Islamic in nature today, that wasn't the case just 20 years ago. The countries where 84% of terrorism related deaths take place are also countries that have been ravaged by war and conflict in recent years.

You also claim that the ideology of Islam promotes violence, when most Muslim majority countries, outside of those in conflict, have lower rates of violent crime than Christian majority countries.

Countries that experience high levels of terrorism also share one or more of the following characteristics: occupation, authoritarianism, repression, tyranny, and/or corruption. When it comes to terrorism and violent extremism, it's historical and political factors, not religious or even militant religious ideologies that are the primary driving forces. Rather than trying to convince 1.8 billion Muslims and the rest of the world that their religion is to blame, maybe it would be better to address the political conditions and injustices that terrorist groups exploit instead.

Noted your points above and many of them are strawman and red-herrings.

It is quite obvious there are evil and violent acts of all sorts in various degrees around the world.
The point is all these evil and violents acts must be addressed first individually and in categories without exception. As you will note in most developed countries, even those who committed even petty crimes and caught will have to appear in a court.

One of the effective techniques of problem solving is to break down the problem into smaller categories with similar elements to facilitate its resolution.

Thus to resolve ALL evil and violent acts effectively within humanity, I would categorize them into;

1. Secular related
2. Non-Secular, religious related​

We need to breakdown the total secular related evil and violent acts into sub- and sub-sub categories, e.g. political, economics, cultural, social, financial, etc. This must be done but it is not related to the OP.

Now for the religious related evil and violent acts we need to classify them in terms of the various religions, cults, spirituality, etc.

Under the religion-related categories we will break down the evil and violent acts into;

1. Christianity
2. Islam
3. Judaism
4. Buddhism
5. Hinduism
6. Bahai
7. Others​

It is from this stage that we dive in to find the proximate and ultimate root cause of the evil and violent acts related to the above respective religions.

In the above all the above evil and violent acts are driven by various causes EXCEPT most of the Islam-related evil and violent acts are the only ones that can be traced to the religion and its ideology, i.e. the Quran and supporting texts [evidence available].

The excuses you gave above are wrong and deflections, i.e.
- there is an decreasing trend of Islam evil and violent acts which highly disputable and you do not take into account the intensity and potential threat to the extreme of exterminating the human species.

You want to dilute and dissolve the the number of evil and violent acts committed by Muslims against the total number of all secular and non-secular evil acts thus deflecting attention to Islam-related violent and evil acts. This way you are allowing the real cause to fester generating greater threats to humanity.

Note the terror, evil and violent acts related to Islam is the most prevalent and reported in these current times regardless of your dispute of their numbers. It will be irresponsible to behave like an ostrich to such evil acts.

Note most of the attacks by Muslims [SOME] are often preceded and followed by quotes from the Quran and Ahadiths with shout of Allah-u-Akbar. This is already clue that the ideology is involved. There are Buddhists and others who kill but they don't quote verses from their religion. Even for Christians who kill and if they ever quote the Bible, they are wrong because of the overriding pacifist maxim of Christianity-proper.

My point of the OP is,
1. Every acts of evil and violent from ALL sources, secular or non-secular must be addressed without exception.

2. The blame of Islam-related evil and violent acts should not be directed and end with the Muslim perpetrators and Muslims in general but rather MUST be directed at the ideology of Islam which is the ultimate cause.

 

[JosephZ]

In the above all the above evil and violent acts are driven by various causes EXCEPT most of the Islam-related evil and violent acts are the only ones that can be traced to the religion and its ideology, i.e. the Quran and supporting texts [evidence available].

You are glossing over Christianity's past. The Bible has been used to justify many injustices, violent acts, and atrocities throughout history. Even today scripture from the Bible is being quoted by terrorists to support their violent acts against innocent people. For example, in both of the recent synagogue shootings the perpetrators used the Bible to justify the their actions.

My point of the OP is,
1. Every acts of evil and violent from ALL sources, secular or non-secular must be addressed without exception.

I agree.

2. The blame of Islam-related evil and violent acts should not be directed and end with the Muslim perpetrators and Muslims in general but rather MUST be directed at the ideology of Islam which is the ultimate cause.

If the ideology of Islam which is the cause, then why is the history of Islamic terrorism so short, while Islam its self has been around for 1,400+ years?

The Qur’an and other Islamic texts like the hadiths weren't rewritten in the past few decades, so how can the religion of Islam be the cause of the violence we are seeing today?

Islam isn't the ultimate cause. This is the mistake you are making. I will repeat what I said at the end of my last post.

Countries that experience high levels of terrorism also share one or more of the following characteristics: occupation, authoritarianism, repression, tyranny, and/or corruption. When it comes to terrorism and violent extremism, it's historical and political factors, not religious or even militant religious ideologies that are the primary driving forces. Rather than trying to convince 1.8 billion Muslims and the rest of the world that their religion is to blame, maybe it would be better to address the political conditions and injustices that terrorist groups exploit instead.

 

[Joyousperson]

You also claim that the ideology of Islam promotes violence, when most Muslim majority countries, outside of those in conflict, have lower rates of violent crime than Christian majority countries.

Your point is too vague and the stats you provided are too selectively.
As argued above you cannot lump all evil and violent acts together for the purpose of resolution.

In terms of evil and violent acts inspired by the ideology of a religion, Islam is the only religion that inspire its believers to commit evil and violent act on non-Muslim to defend Islam under the most vague threats, i.e. even drawing of cartoon and this glaringly evident.

Countries that experience high levels of terrorism also share one or more of the following characteristics: occupation, authoritarianism, repression, tyranny, and/or corruption. When it comes to terrorism and violent extremism, it's historical and political factors, not religious or even militant religious ideologies that are the primary driving forces.

Rather than trying to convince 1.8 billion Muslims and the rest of the world that their religion is to blame, maybe it would be better to address the political conditions and injustices that terrorist groups exploit instead.

I admit the stats I quoted i.e.

would include non-religious factors.
However, I presume you are aware, Islam is an ideology that cover the whole way of life all the non-secular activities are also covered within the ideology of Islam.
For example, the Israel-Palestinian started off as a political issue, but inevitably Islam will be involved because the Islamic ideology also encompasses the political aspects. This is why so many innocent non-Muslims and Jews had been killed by non-Palestinians who are not politically involved all over the world, but they acted as Muslim in support of their Islamic bethrens.

What is most dangerous is, whether there is a problem with Muslims anywhere in the world, there will be killing by a mob of Muslims from all over the world killing local non-Muslims. Note the drawing of cartoons of Muhammad.
This evil effect do not happen with believers of other religions in such a scale.
When Muslims were killed in Christchurch, NZ, Christians were killed in Sri Langka even when the murderer in NZ was not a serious Christian.

Rather than trying to convince 1.8 billion Muslims and the rest of the world that their religion is to blame, maybe it would be better to address the political conditions and injustices that terrorist groups exploit instead.

I say you are very ignorant of the underlying evil ethos of the ideology of Islam. Diverting attention to the secular issues will not get rid of the evil ethos of Islam.

Here is what I_S_I_S stated in their own magazine;

I.S.I.S give 6 hateful reasons why they despise and target Brits

1. Because you are disbelievers
"We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers;
you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices."

It reads:

2. "What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred,
this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is,
even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to HATE you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."​

Note it stated, foreign policies are secondary, [thus your point is toothless] the main reason why innocent non-Muslims are attacked by Muslims for the primary reason they are merely disbelievers of Islam.
The above carefully where the above is supported by verses from the Quran.

The existence of Islam is such that the Muslims above will not dare to invent their own interpretations else it is bidah and they will go to hell. Thus their ideas [evil as it may be] are very sincere in attempting do their divine duty as best Muslims to please Allah.

The point is a good religion MUST never include any evil and violent elements in their holy text that is vague and not overridden by any maxim of peace. Buddhism, Christianity and others are examples of good religion but Islam it not due to the loads of evil laden verses [55%] that are antagonistic to non-believer, i.e. the kafir, kuffar, infidels labeled in the most derogatory terms, like apes, swines, cattles, worst of creatures, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] [najis] etc.

Can you dispute the above ethos is not from the Quran?

Don't blame Muslims, blame the evil and violent elements of the ideology.

 

[Joyousperson]

You are glossing over Christianity's past. The Bible has been used to justify many injustices, violent acts, and atrocities throughout history. Even today scripture from the Bible is being quoted by terrorists to support their violent acts against innocent people. For example, in both of the recent synagogue shootings the perpetrators used the Bible to justify the their actions.

Note my definition of who is a Christian of Christianity,

1. A Christian is one who has entered into a relation with God by establishing a covenant with God to comply with the covenanted terms as stipulated in the Gospels supported by other texts.

2. The covenanted terms of Christianity do not condone Christians to commit evil and violent acts. Rather there is an overriding maxim for all Christians to love all including enemies.

3. Therefore Christianity is not an evil laden religion and no Christian proper will ever commit evil and violent acts.​

Do you dispute the above argument? I believe you cannot.

Therefore the Christians who committed evil and violent acts even when they referred to the Bible, cannot be acting for Christianity-proper. Therefore the Christians were not acting as true Christians in the course of those evil and violent acts.
Anyone can refer to any texts, but what counts as a true Christian is per the definition above.

If the ideology of Islam which is the cause, then why is the history of Islamic terrorism so short, while Islam its self has been around for 1,400+ years?

The Qur’an and other Islamic texts like the hadiths weren't rewritten in the past few decades, so how can the religion of Islam be the cause of the violence we are seeing today?

You seem to be very ignorant of the history of violence and terror of Islam since the last 1,400 years. Note the massacre of the Jews by Muhammad in the earlier days and then the 1000 years occupation of India till both "arms" of India were torn apart purely based on Islam's ideology. That is not evil and violence?

Note the violence started very early when the relatives of the prophet were killed that initiated the separation of the Sunnis and Shias.

Islam isn't the ultimate cause. This is the mistake you are making. I will repeat what I said at the end of my last post.

Countries that experience high levels of terrorism also share one or more of the following characteristics: occupation, authoritarianism, repression, tyranny, and/or corruption. When it comes to terrorism and violent extremism, it's historical and political factors, not religious or even militant religious ideologies that are the primary driving forces. Rather than trying to convince 1.8 billion Muslims and the rest of the world that their religion is to blame, maybe it would be better to address the political conditions and injustices that terrorist groups exploit instead.

Note my response above prior to your post on how the evil and violent ethos is embedded deep within the ideology of Islam as declared by I-S-I-S.

 

[JosephZ]

Your point is too vague and the stats you provided are too selectively.
As argued above you cannot lump all evil and violent acts together for the purpose of resolution.

You claim that Islam teaches violence, yet violent crimes rates are lower than non-Muslim countries. There are many non-Muslims living in these countries, and they aren't being slaughtered by the Muslim population. If Islam commands Muslims to kill non-Muslims as you believe, why aren't non-Muslims being slaughter in Muslim majority countries all over the world?

In terms of evil and violent acts inspired by the ideology of a religion, Islam is the only religion that inspire its believers to commit evil and violent act on non-Muslim to defend Islam under the most vague threats, i.e. even drawing of cartoon and this glaringly evident...
What is most dangerous is, whether there is a problem with Muslims anywhere in the world, there will be killing by a mob of Muslims from all over the world killing local non-Muslims. Note the drawing of cartoons of Muhammad.
This evil effect do not happen with believers of other religions in such a scale.

How many Muslims participated in the violent protests as a result of the cartoon drawings of Muhammad worldwide? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 10,000,000? Whether the number was 10,000 or 10 million (Not even realistic), those who took part in protests against the drawings of Muhammad still represent less than 1% of the Muslim population.

Christians have also violently protested against what they believe is inappropriate artwork.

Violent clashes between hundreds of Arab Christians and police erupted in Haifa on Friday after a protest over a piece of art showing a crucified Ronald McDonald titled “McJesus”.

Authorities said three police officers needed medical treatment after being wounded in the head – with protesters hurling stones after being blocked from breaking into the Haifa Museum of Art to remove the artwork. Footage from the protest showed scuffles as police used tear gas and stun grenades to clear the demonstrators.The demonstration came after a firebomb was thrown at the museum overnight Thursday.

When Muslims were killed in Christchurch, NZ, Christians were killed in Sri Langka even when the murderer in NZ was not a serious Christian.

There was no connection between the Christchurch mosque attacks and the bombings in Sri Lanka.

Perhaps the most dangerous misconception is that these attacks were retaliation for the mass shooting of worshippers at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. This claim, reportedly made by the suspects in detention, was relayed by Sri Lanka’s Minister of Defense. It may well have been what the suspects said – but it is almost certainly false.

The Easter attacks were far too complex and sophisticated to have been slapped together in the five weeks between March 15 and April 21. Each of the six sites had to be extensively surveilled, logistics arranged, supplies acquired, expert bombmakers trained or brought in. It is not very difficult to kill a dozen people. It is (fortunately) far harder to kill hundreds.

I say you are very ignorant of the underlying evil ethos of the ideology of Islam.

That is your opinion, but the opposite is true. It's my extensive knowledge of Islam that allows me to differentiate between the extremists ideology that ISIS follows and what true Islam teaches.

 

[JosephZ]

Here is what I_S_I_S stated in their own magazine;

I.S.I.S give 6 hateful reasons why they despise and target Brits

1. Because you are disbelievers
"We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers;
you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices."

It reads:

2. "What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred,
this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is,
even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to HATE you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."
Note it stated, foreign policies are secondary, [thus your point is toothless] the main reason why innocent non-Muslims are attacked by Muslims for the primary reason they are merely disbelievers of Islam.
The above carefully where the above is supported by verses from the Quran.

ISIS is a terrorist group. Here is what the world's Muslims have to say in response to what you posted above:

"[ISIS] have nothing to do with Islam and its principles that call for justice, kindness, fairness, freedom of faith and coexistence.” -- Iyad Ameen Madani, the Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the group representing 57 countries, and 1.4 billion Muslims.

Nearly 70,000 clerics came together and passed a fatwa against terrorist organizations, including IS, Taliban and and al-Qaida. These are “not Islamic organizations,” adding that the members of these outfits were “not Muslims”.

“It is written in the Quran that killing one innocent person is equivalent to killing all humanity,” said Mohammed Ehsan Raza Khan

From an open letter to the leader of ISIS signed by more than 150 Islamic scholars and clerics (PDF):

• It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
• It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.
• It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.
• It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.
• It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.
• It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.
• It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God

The point is a good religion MUST never include any evil and violent elements in their holy text that is vague and not overridden by any maxim of peace. Buddhism, Christianity and others are examples of good religion but Islam is not due to the loads of evil laden verses [55%] that are antagonistic to non-believer, i.e. the kafir, kuffar, infidels labeled in the most derogatory terms, like apes, swines, cattles, worst of creatures, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] [najis] etc.

Can you dispute the above ethos is not from the Quran?

Can you provide a source for where the 55% of evil laden verse that are antagonistic to non-believers came from?

Don't blame Muslims, blame the evil and violent elements of the ideology.

I don't blame either. Islam can be made into anything an individual wants to be, just as Christianity can.

Note my definition of who is a Christian of Christianity,

1. A Christian is one who has entered into a relation with God by establishing a covenant with God to comply with the covenanted terms as stipulated in the Gospels supported by other texts.

2. The covenanted terms of Christianity do not condone Christians to commit evil and violent acts. Rather there is an overriding maxim for all Christians to love all including enemies.

3. Therefore Christianity is not an evil laden religion and no Christian proper will ever commit evil and violent acts.
Do you dispute the above argument? I believe you cannot.

A Muslim would respond almost exactly the same about their religion. They would say something very similar to what you said above:

1. A Muslim is one who has entered into a relation with God by establishing a covenant with God to comply with the covenanted terms as stipulated in the Qur'an supported by other Islamic texts.

2. The covenanted terms of Islam do not condone Muslims to commit evil and violent acts. Rather there is an overriding maxim for all Muslims to love all including enemies.

3. Therefore Islam is not an evil laden religion and no Muslim proper will ever commit evil and violent acts.

If you don't believe me, thousands of examples can be found here: Muslims Condemn

Now let's look at some currently active terrorist groups that claim to be Christian:

Anti-Balaka Militias in the Central African republic

After the Muslims were baptised into the Apostolic Church in a ceremony attended by the village headman, they “had to show the anti-balaka [their] baptismal cards to not be killed,”

“We had no choice but to join the Catholic Church,” the oldest brother told Amnesty International. “The anti-balaka swore they’d kill us if we didn’t.” Another brother said that the family members have to attend church services every Sunday. “We have to confirm that we’re really Catholic,” he explained.

“The anti-balaka told us to go to church,” recalled Abdoulaye A. “‘If you don’t want to, we’ll kill you,’ they told us.”

“If you refuse to be baptised you have to pay a fine,” said Hassan I., age 61, who lived in Balego until recently

“It is effectively illegal for us to pray,” said Abdou Y., in Mbaiki. “We have to hide, do it quickly, and do it by ourselves. Collective Friday prayers are impossible.”

Besides massacres, sectarian killings, and wholesale ethnic cleansing, one of the clearest signs of the intensity of sectarian animus was the destruction of the country’s mosques. In town after town, village after village, mosques were looted, vandalized, damaged or destroyed in early 2014, at the same time that the Muslim population was driven out. Some have estimated that more than 400 mosques were destroyed.

The NLFT

The NLFT manifesto says that they want to expand the kingdom of God and Christ in Tripura. They have been accused of funding terrorism and forcing local tribals to convert to Christianity at gunpoint.

The government in India's north-eastern state of Tripura says it has evidence that the state's Baptist Church is involved in backing separatist rebels.

The NSCN

Equally disturbing is the NSCN faction’s dubious claim of being the torch bearers of Christ’s gospel. Isak Chishi Swu the NSCN-IM chairman has on records said that Nagalim will send out 10,000 missionaries around the world when it achieves independence. “Our intention is that Nagalim is for Christ. We have proclaimed it. Nagalim is for Christ. God has got his plan for Nagalim,” he said. “We were evangelized by the American Baptist missionaries back in 1839, and we don’t have the adequate words to thank the American missionaries.”

There have been reports from North east region that the Naga insurgents have used threats and intimidation in areas where they operate all the name of Lord Jesus Christ...


And finally, the LRA, which has killed and maimed as many people as ISIS, claimed it was fighting for the establishment of the rule of the Ten Commandments in a theocratic Uganda. Their activities covered a large swath of Africa committing atrocities in not only Uganda, but also South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Central African Republic.

"The LRA is fighting in the name of God. God is the one helping us in the bush. That’s why we created this name, Lord’s Resistance Army. And people always ask us, are we fighting for the Biblical Ten Commandments of God. That is true because the Ten Commandments of God is the constitution that God has given to the people of the world. All people. If you go to the constitution, nobody will accept people who steal, nobody could accept to go and take somebody’s wife, nobody could accept to innocently kill, or whatever. The Ten Commandments carries all this.” -- Vincent Otti, LRA Commander

You and I know that these groups are not representing the true teachings of Christ. But if you are going to say these groups do not represent the teachings of Christ and are therefore not Christian, then you have to also apply this same method of judgment to Islamic terrorist groups since the vast majority of Muslims in the world do not adhere to or support the ideology of extremist.

Muslims distance themselves from groups like ISIS and al Qaeda just the same as we distance ourselves from the groups above.

Therefore the Christians who committed evil and violent acts even when they referred to the Bible, cannot be acting for Christianity-proper. Therefore the Christians were not acting as true Christians in the course of those evil and violent acts.
Anyone can refer to any texts, but what counts as a true Christian is per the definition above.

Once again, Muslims would define what it means to be a Muslim in exactly the same way.

You seem to be very ignorant of the history of violence and terror of Islam since the last 1,400 years. Note the massacre of the Jews by Muhammad in the earlier days and then the 1000 years occupation of India till both "arms" of India were torn apart purely based on Islam's ideology. That is not evil and violence?

Islamic imperialism has been no different than Christian imperialism throughout history. There have been many colonial powers over the past 1,400 and what the Islamic empires were doing was no different than any other during this period in history.

The subject of jihad has tended to generate two opposing polemical positions, both of which should be rejected by serious scholars. The first is that Islam is inherently and immutably a violent religion committed to the slaughter of the infidel. This view is entrenched in the popular imagination of the West as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and countless acts of violence before and since. This perspective assumes that the violence of Osama bin Laden is the logical and inevitable consequence of Islamic doctrine as formulated in the Quran. The reality is that religions change as the societies in which they are embedded do. What flesh-and-blood believers actually do does not necessarily correspond to what their sacred texts say they ought to do. The Crusaders who slaughtered the Muslims and Jews of Jerusalem in 1099 were clearly not loving their enemies or blessing those who cursed them. Moreover, different believers can and do interpret the same text in radically different ways. Benny Elon and Pat Robertson may believe that God has commanded Israel to expel all Arabs from the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, but many Jews and Christians disagree. Osama bin Laden may believe that slaughtering thousands of people in the World Trade Center was an act of righteous zeal, but many Muslims disagree. Islam is no more inherently or immutably violent than Christianity or Buddhism is inherently and immutably pacifist.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222624233_Religion_and_violence

When we explore the promotion of each type of violence, we find that the Bible has a significantly higher proportion of verses which promote interpersonal violence while the Quran has a significantly higher proportion of verses which promote collective violence. We stress that these findings do not necessarily imply that the language of the Quran is a sufficient or even necessary condition to explain the greater current collective Muslim violence. First, the Christian world has arguably seen much more violence than the Muslin world. Second, alternative or complementary factors, such as an authoritarian regime or a weak state, may be major promoters of violence. Third, even if holy texts do help to enable violence, just a few passages might be sufficient. Such complementary and alternative explanations, not explored here, should be the subject of future work.
Thou Shalt Kill? Measuring Political Violence in the Bible and the Quran

Note my response above prior to your post on how the evil and violent ethos is embedded deep within the ideology of Islam as declared by I-S-I-S.

ISIS is a terrorist group. They do not represent historical or modern day Islamic teachings. Why do you choose to believe what the terrorists tell you about Islam and not what the overwhelming majority of peaceful Muslims in the world tell you about their religion?

 

[Joyousperson]

You claim that Islam teaches violence, yet violent crimes rates are lower than non-Muslim countries. There are many non-Muslims living in these countries, and they aren't being slaughtered by the Muslim population. If Islam commands Muslims to kill non-Muslims as you believe, why aren't non-Muslims being slaughter in Muslim majority countries all over the world?

I thought you agreed every individual evil and violent act must be addressed.
Note it is not only violent crimes but the whole gamut of evil acts that is committed by SOME Muslims against humanity, i.e. the rapes, oppressing the basic human rights, restricting the freedom of religion, preventing free speech, etc.

As I had mentioned the ideology of Islam contains loads of evil and violent elements directed against non-Muslims to the extreme of killing non-muslims because they disbelieved.
This is evident by thousands of those who killed millions of non-Muslims quoting verses from the Quran and the Ahadiths.

I quoted earlier this from the horses mouth, i.e. the extremists;

"The fact is,
even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to HATE you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."
​

You are very dishonest in deflecting the evils and violence inspired from the ideology of Islam with the total evil and violence committed in the world.

How many Muslims participated in the violent protests as a result of the cartoon drawings of Muhammad worldwide? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 10,000,000? Whether the number was 10,000 or 10 million (Not even realistic), those who took part in protests against the drawings of Muhammad still represent less than 1% of the Muslim population.

Again you are trying to deflect from the main issue.
Note again, every and each act of violence and evil must be addressed.

The point here is the heinous sensitivity where even the drawing of cartoons triggered killings by Islamic mobs around the world.
Now if even cartoons can trigger as a threat, it is obvious other perceived threats are worst.

Note even 1 ebolo virus is dangerous and must got rid off.

Christians have also violently protested against what they believe is inappropriate artwork.

Violent clashes between hundreds of Arab Christians and police erupted in Haifa on Friday after a protest over a piece of art showing a crucified Ronald McDonald titled “McJesus”.

Authorities said three police officers needed medical treatment after being wounded in the head – with protesters hurling stones after being blocked from breaking into the Haifa Museum of Art to remove the artwork. Footage from the protest showed scuffles as police used tear gas and stun grenades to clear the demonstrators.The demonstration came after a firebomb was thrown at the museum overnight Thursday.

What is your point? Are you implying we should ignore evil and violent acts by SOME Muslims who killed when triggered by cartoons. Frankly your critical thinking skills and wisdom are surely lacking in this case.
These evil and violent acts by Christians must be addressed without exception.

What needs to be highlighted is the violent acts of these 'Christians' are not condone by the ideology of Christianity per se. Therefore not all Christians will react violently as such. In the West Jesus is depicted with the worst kind of insults possible and there are no response of violence.

There was no connection between the Christchurch mosque attacks and the bombings in Sri Lanka.

Perhaps the most dangerous misconception is that these attacks were retaliation for the mass shooting of worshippers at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. This claim, reportedly made by the suspects in detention, was relayed by Sri Lanka’s Minister of Defense. It may well have been what the suspects said – but it is almost certainly false.

The Easter attacks were far too complex and sophisticated to have been slapped together in the five weeks between March 15 and April 21. Each of the six sites had to be extensively surveilled, logistics arranged, supplies acquired, expert bombmakers trained or brought in. It is not very difficult to kill a dozen people. It is (fortunately) far harder to kill hundreds.

Note it is claimed by the attackers themselves and communicated by the Ministry of Defense. How can that be false. I am sure what the terrorists stated must have been recorded otherwise the MOD would not state it and open to be accused.

What is claimed to be false as above is the attacks were not done by the locals alone but supported by outsiders. This would in fact reinforced the point the attacks in Sri Lanka were revenged for what happened in NZ. Note this revenge motive is very common with the ideology of Islam in addition to all the unilateral attacks they had started since 1,400 years ago.

That is your opinion, but the opposite is true. It's my extensive knowledge of Islam that allows me to differentiate between the extremists ideology that ISIS follows and what true Islam teaches.

You may have read the Quran and taken a course of Islam from a Muslim [likely bias] but you definitely had not understood the essence and ethos of the ideology of Islam.

Here is the challenge;
There are 3400++ verses in the Quran that are directed antagonistically with hate and extreme hatred towards non-Muslim. Coupled with extreme verses that condone killing of non-Muslims merely because they are disbelievers, this form a very strong and core ethos of hatred towards non-Muslims thus resulting in the glaringly and evidently killings of innocent non-Muslims by SOME Muslims from a possible pool of 300 million evil prone Muslims.
Can you dispute the above?

Show me 5 [if not one] verses that is positive and compassionate towards all non-believers [the kafir, kuffar, infidels] that is unconditional and unabrogated in the Quran? Note my emphasis, unconditional and unabrogated.

Note the contrast in Christianity where there is a overriding pacifist maxim of loving all even one's enemies, love one's neighbor, give the other cheek, and the likes. Is there any one verse in the Quran that is similar to the Christian's love of non-Christians in the NT.

Don't try to quote the very conditional 5:32.
§7 “Whoever kills a person (unjustly)….Quran 5:32

 

[Joyousperson]

ISIS is a terrorist group. Here is what the world's Muslims have to say in response to what you posted above:

"[ISIS] have nothing to do with Islam and its principles that call for justice, kindness, fairness, freedom of faith and coexistence.” -- Iyad Ameen Madani, the Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the group representing 57 countries, and 1.4 billion Muslims.

Nearly 70,000 clerics came together and passed a fatwa against terrorist organizations, including IS, Taliban and and al-Qaida. These are “not Islamic organizations,” adding that the members of these outfits were “not Muslims”.

“It is written in the Quran that killing one innocent person is equivalent to killing all humanity,” said Mohammed Ehsan Raza Khan

From an open letter to the leader of ISIS signed by more than 150 Islamic scholars and clerics (PDF):

• It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
• It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.
• It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.
• It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.
• It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.
• It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.
• It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God

Note I have defined a Muslim is one who has entered into a covenant with Allah to comply with the covenanted terms within the Quran and supported by verses from the Ahadiths.

The above fatwas are merely opinions thus not objective to a definition of who is a Muslim within the ideology of Isiam.
Note WHO ARE THEY as fallible humans to obtain the right to override the authority of Allah as in the Quran.
The point is no human nor Muslims [other than Muhammad who is dead thus not available] can represent Allah on Earth.

What is claimed by I.S.I.S is objective and verifiable to the Quranic verses as commanded by God.

Can you provide a source for where the 55% of evil laden verse that are antagonistic to non-believers came from?

I have done my own analysis which is 55% with reference to specific verses.

Here is one done by Bill Warner who claim it is 64% in terms of paragraphs not verses.

Kafir | CSPI
Kafir in the Quran- Meccan
http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/Koran/Kafir_in_Koran.pdf
Kafir in Quran - Medina
http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/Koran/Kafir_in_Koran.pdf​

Note again, Bill Warners analysis of 64% is based on the context of the paragraph and not on individual verses. Thus some verses in the paragraph may not contain the kafir element, but as a whole paragraph would had reference to the kafir or non-believers.
This basis of referring to the paragraph and context is more tedious whereas referring to individual verses is easier but in any case has to refer to the context subsequently.

I don't blame either. Islam can be made into anything an individual wants to be, just as Christianity can.

Nope.
Whatever is stated it must be objective with reference to whatever is stated in the perfected Quran from Allah [5:3].

You on the other hand are suffering from cognitive dissonance* and thus is bias. * i.e. all religion are peaceful, therefore Islam as religion must is peaceful, but objectively Islam is not peaceful within the essence of its ideology.

A Muslim would respond almost exactly the same about their religion. They would say something very similar to what you said above:

1. A Muslim is one who has entered into a relation with God by establishing a covenant with God to comply with the covenanted terms as stipulated in the Qur'an supported by other Islamic texts.

2. The covenanted terms of Islam do not condone Muslims to commit evil and violent acts. Rather there is an overriding maxim for all Muslims to love all including enemies.

3. Therefore Islam is not an evil laden religion and no Muslim proper will ever commit evil and violent acts.

If you don't believe me, thousands of examples can be found here: Muslims Condemn

You are bulls...g and lying.
Where in the Quran did Allah command Muslims to love all including their enemies.
The covenanted terms of the Quran contains loads of evil and violent elements directed antagonistically against the non-Muslims -note the links quoted from Bill Warner. These had resulted in true Muslims killing millions of non-Muslim throughout the 1400 history of Islam.

Now let's look at some currently active terrorist groups that claim to be Christian:

Anti-Balaka Militias in the Central African republic

After the Muslims were baptised into the Apostolic Church in a ceremony attended by the village headman, they “had to show the anti-balaka [their] baptismal cards to not be killed,”

“We had no choice but to join the Catholic Church,” the oldest brother told Amnesty International. “The anti-balaka swore they’d kill us if we didn’t.” Another brother said that the family members have to attend church services every Sunday. “We have to confirm that we’re really Catholic,” he explained.

“The anti-balaka told us to go to church,” recalled Abdoulaye A. “‘If you don’t want to, we’ll kill you,’ they told us.”

“If you refuse to be baptised you have to pay a fine,” said Hassan I., age 61, who lived in Balego until recently

“It is effectively illegal for us to pray,” said Abdou Y., in Mbaiki. “We have to hide, do it quickly, and do it by ourselves. Collective Friday prayers are impossible.”

Besides massacres, sectarian killings, and wholesale ethnic cleansing, one of the clearest signs of the intensity of sectarian animus was the destruction of the country’s mosques. In town after town, village after village, mosques were looted, vandalized, damaged or destroyed in early 2014, at the same time that the Muslim population was driven out. Some have estimated that more than 400 mosques were destroyed.

The NLFT

The NLFT manifesto says that they want to expand the kingdom of God and Christ in Tripura. They have been accused of funding terrorism and forcing local tribals to convert to Christianity at gunpoint.

The government in India's north-eastern state of Tripura says it has evidence that the state's Baptist Church is involved in backing separatist rebels.

The NSCN

Equally disturbing is the NSCN faction’s dubious claim of being the torch bearers of Christ’s gospel. Isak Chishi Swu the NSCN-IM chairman has on records said that Nagalim will send out 10,000 missionaries around the world when it achieves independence. “Our intention is that Nagalim is for Christ. We have proclaimed it. Nagalim is for Christ. God has got his plan for Nagalim,” he said. “We were evangelized by the American Baptist missionaries back in 1839, and we don’t have the adequate words to thank the American missionaries.”

There have been reports from North east region that the Naga insurgents have used threats and intimidation in areas where they operate all the name of Lord Jesus Christ...


And finally, the LRA, which has killed and maimed as many people as ISIS, claimed it was fighting for the establishment of the rule of the Ten Commandments in a theocratic Uganda. Their activities covered a large swath of Africa committing atrocities in not only Uganda, but also South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Central African Republic.

"The LRA is fighting in the name of God. God is the one helping us in the bush. That’s why we created this name, Lord’s Resistance Army. And people always ask us, are we fighting for the Biblical Ten Commandments of God. That is true because the Ten Commandments of God is the constitution that God has given to the people of the world. All people. If you go to the constitution, nobody will accept people who steal, nobody could accept to go and take somebody’s wife, nobody could accept to innocently kill, or whatever. The Ten Commandments carries all this.” -- Vincent Otti, LRA Commander

You and I know that these groups are not representing the true teachings of Christ.
But if you are going to say these groups do not represent the teachings of Christ and are therefore not Christian, then you have to also apply this same method of judgment to Islamic terrorist groups since the vast majority of Muslims in the world do not adhere to or support the ideology of extremist.

Your claim is not logical, rational and lack critical thinking.

Whether the Christians or Muslims are following their true teaching, one must be VERY objective in verifying to who is a Christian and who is a Muslim based on the covenant and covenanted terms they have to comply with.

I have already argued true Christian is conditioned by an overriding pacifist maxim of love all even your enemies, thus no killing of even enemies. I don't have to prove this to you, do I need to?

Islam on the other hand, the covenanted terms are loaded with evil and violents elements that condoned Muslims to kill non-Muslims and commit other evil acts upon non-Muslims.
I have argued on this and provided the necessary global evidence but have not gone into the details yet.

Muslims distance themselves from groups like ISIS and al Qaeda just the same as we distance ourselves from the groups above.

Yes the majority of Muslims being progressive good human beings would definitely distance themselves from those SOME Muslims who had committed terrible evil and violent acts. This is common human sense.

But you cannot avoid the inherent essence of the ideology of Islam in an objective and truthful sense in relating to Who is a Muslim and the covenanted terms [full of evil and violent elements] in the Quran.

One point is the majority of Muslims had been and are very ignorant of the true nature of the essence of the ideology of Islam. This evil and violent essence has been confined only to the learned and clergy who had filtered out the evil elements when preaching to the majority of Muslims.

However due to the internet, more and more Muslims have access the the Quran, the Ahadiths directly together will all the tafsirs of the wide range of Islamic scholars.
It is very transparent and objective and the essence of the ideology of Islam is not more transparent to many more Muslims who would influence their peers and friends towards the true essence of Islam i.e. the loaded evil and violent elements.

One obvious trend the number of female wearing the hijab throughout the world. Note also the burga. More majority Muslims countries are pressured by the majority to be more Islamic, i.e. Sharia laws, blasphemy laws, note Brunei, Indonesia and others.

Once again, Muslims would define what it means to be a Muslim in exactly the same way.

No way, pure Islam [black] can be comparable to pure Christianity [white].

Islamic imperialism has been no different than Christian imperialism throughout history. There have been many colonial powers over the past 1,400 and what the Islamic empires were doing was no different than any other during this period in history.

The subject of jihad has tended to generate two opposing polemical positions, both of which should be rejected by serious scholars. The first is that Islam is inherently and immutably a violent religion committed to the slaughter of the infidel. This view is entrenched in the popular imagination of the West as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and countless acts of violence before and since. This perspective assumes that the violence of Osama bin Laden is the logical and inevitable consequence of Islamic doctrine as formulated in the Quran. The reality is that religions change as the societies in which they are embedded do. What flesh-and-blood believers actually do does not necessarily correspond to what their sacred texts say they ought to do. The Crusaders who slaughtered the Muslims and Jews of Jerusalem in 1099 were clearly not loving their enemies or blessing those who cursed them. Moreover, different believers can and do interpret the same text in radically different ways. Benny Elon and Pat Robertson may believe that God has commanded Israel to expel all Arabs from the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, but many Jews and Christians disagree. Osama bin Laden may believe that slaughtering thousands of people in the World Trade Center was an act of righteous zeal, but many Muslims disagree. Islam is no more inherently or immutably violent than Christianity or Buddhism is inherently and immutably pacifist.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222624233_Religion_and_violence

When we explore the promotion of each type of violence, we find that the Bible has a significantly higher proportion of verses which promote interpersonal violence while the Quran has a significantly higher proportion of verses which promote collective violence. We stress that these findings do not necessarily imply that the language of the Quran is a sufficient or even necessary condition to explain the greater current collective Muslim violence. First, the Christian world has arguably seen much more violence than the Muslin world. Second, alternative or complementary factors, such as an authoritarian regime or a weak state, may be major promoters of violence. Third, even if holy texts do help to enable violence, just a few passages might be sufficient. Such complementary and alternative explanations, not explored here, should be the subject of future work.
Thou Shalt Kill? Measuring Political Violence in the Bible and the Quran

Note my argument, a true Christian of true Christianity is conditioned by its overall pacifist maxim of love all, even enemies, neighbors, give the other cheeks.
There is no such parallels within the ideology and covenanted terms of Islam.

The Christians who committed crimes and killing were not doing those acts wearing their true Christian hats. They were acting as ordinary human beings for whatever the human reasons of which some will be good while others may have evil intentions.

I bet on Judgment Day, these Christians who sinned would be ticked off by God for not complying with the covenanted terms of 'love your enemies' and it would be up to the merciful God to forgive them if their repentance are sincerely and their acts are forgivable. If Hitler was baptized as a Christian and claimed to be a Christian, it is not likely the wise Christian God would forgive Hitler under normal circumstances.

On the other hand, for those SOME Muslims who killed for reasons to defend Islam [under the most vague threats] they will be praised by Allah as martyrs or warriors of Islam and they will be highly rewarded in paradise with eternal life and sensual delights. This is supported by the covenanted terms in the Quran.

ISIS is a terrorist group. They do not represent historical or modern day Islamic teachings. Why do you choose to believe what the terrorists tell you about Islam and not what the overwhelming majority of peaceful Muslims in the world tell you about their religion?

What authority as a non-Muslim and fallible human do YOU have to make that judgment?
No human on earth, even the most pious clergy can override the authority of Allah as stipulated in the covenanted terms of the already perfected Quran [5:3].
Only Allah can judge and one will have to wait for Judgment Day, until then all Muslims must comply with the covenanted terms and the real consequences will be terrible evil and violent acts no human can judge whether it is right or wrong.

I am not relying totally on what the Muslim terrorists are telling or claiming to be as the final view. What they claim need to be verified to Allah's words and authority.
I am assessing their acts, intentions, expression, statement in accordance to the covenanted terms within the Quran on an objective and independent basis without bias.

 

[JosephZ]

I quoted earlier this from the horses mouth, i.e. the extremists; "The fact is,
even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to HATE you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."
You are very dishonest in deflecting the evils and violence inspired from the ideology of Islam with the total evil and violence committed in the world.

There's a reason they are called extremists. Why do you choose to believe the words of the less than 1% over the words and actions of the more than 99%?

The point here is the heinous sensitivity where even the drawing of cartoons triggered killings by Islamic mobs around the world.
Now if even cartoons can trigger as a threat, it is obvious other perceived threats are worst.

The best I can tell from reading news sources, there have been less than 100,000 Muslims worldwide that have been involved in protests against drawings of Muhammad (It's probably much less than 100,000, but for the sake of argument I will be overly generous). Many of those protests have been peaceful. That means that only o.ooo1% of the world's Muslims participated in these protests. Greater than 99.99% of Muslims either didn't care about the cartoons, or decided it wasn't a big enough issue to take to the streets over.

Why are you using the actions of such a tiny minority to make a judgement about Islam?

What needs to be highlighted is the violent acts of these 'Christians' are not condone by the ideology of Christianity per se. Therefore not all Christians will react violently as such. In the West Jesus is depicted with the worst kind of insults possible and there are no response of violence.

But in other cultures that's not always the case as I gave you an example of already.

Note it is claimed by the attackers themselves and communicated by the Ministry of Defense. How can that be false. I am sure what the terrorists stated must have been recorded otherwise the MOD would not state it and open to be accused.

What is claimed to be false as above is the attacks were not done by the locals alone but supported by outsiders. This would in fact reinforced the point the attacks in Sri Lanka were revenged for what happened in NZ. Note this revenge motive is very common with the ideology of Islam in addition to all the unilateral attacks they had started since 1,400 years ago.

The Sri Lankan Minister of Defense jumped to conclusions because of the timing of the attack. The terrorists can claim whatever they want. They were clearly using the Christchurch attack out of convenience.

ISIS says the attacks were against Christians who are war with the Islamic State. There is no evidence that shows it was in retaliation for the attacks in Christchurch, and an attack of that magnitude and scope takes a very long time to plan and carry out.

• None of the official statements posted by the Islamic State thus far have portrayed the bombings in Sri Lanka as retaliation for the slayings in New Zealand.
• New Zealand PM says no intelligence linking Sri Lanka attacks to Christchurch
• Kiwi security expert says attacks unlikely to be linked to Christchurch

You may have read the Quran and taken a course of Islam from a Muslim [likely bias] but you definitely had not understood the essence and ethos of the ideology of Islam.

I have taken many courses in Islamic Studies from various sources over the past 30+ years from Christian, Islamic, and secular schools of thought. In fact, the verse first course I took was while in the military and was provided by the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary. Not one of these schools taught what you believe Islam teaches.

There are 3400++ verses in the Quran that are directed antagonistically with hate and extreme hatred towards non-Muslim.

Source?

Coupled with extreme verses that condone killing of non-Muslims merely because they are disbelievers,

Every single verse in the Qur'an that calls for the killing of anyone come with strict conditions, every single one! There are no verses in the Qur'an that call for the killing of non-Mulsims simply because they are not Muslims.

 

[Joyousperson]

There's a reason they are called extremists. Why do you choose to believe the words of the less than 1% over the words and actions of the more than 99%?

I don't think you have read my post properly.
I stated the following in my earlier post glaringly;

JP": I am not relying totally on what the Muslim terrorists are telling or claiming to be as the final view. What they claim need to be verified to Allah's words and authority.
I am assessing their acts, intentions, expression, statement in accordance to the covenanted terms within the Quran on an objective and independent basis without bias.

Only Allah can judge and one will have to wait for Judgment Day, until then all Muslims must comply with the covenanted terms and the real consequences will be terrible evil and violent acts no human can judge whether it is right or wrong.​

Btw, my focus is not on terror attacks only but the whole gamut and range of evil and violent acts perpetrated by millions of Muslims throughout the history of Islam around the world till the present.

The best I can tell from reading news sources, there have been less than 100,000 Muslims worldwide that have been involved in protests against drawings of Muhammad (It's probably much less than 100,000, but for the sake of argument I will be overly generous). Many of those protests have been peaceful. That means that only o.ooo1% of the world's Muslims participated in these protests. Greater than 99.99% of Muslims either didn't care about the cartoons, or decided it wasn't a big enough issue to take to the streets over.

Why are you using the actions of such a tiny minority to make a judgement about Islam?

You don't seem to get my point.
I had mentioned we must address all the evil and violent acts committed by SOME Muslims since its 1400 history up to the present which is driven by the covenanted terms within the Quran.

I highlight the violence triggered by the drawing of cartoons as an example of the extra sensitivity Muslims are offended and provoked to kill non-Muslims.
The slightest offence to the normal person would be perceived as a great threat to Islam that triggered them to kill non-Muslims.
With this low threshold therefore there will be loads of incidents where non-Muslims are killed for the slightest offence. Note many kill for commenting or critique Muhammad or Islam in say Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

But in other cultures that's not always the case as I gave you an example of already.

Even if there are violent response, I have already explained many times, these violent 'Christians' are not responding as Christians-proper because their covenanted terms do not permit such violence.

The Sri Lankan Minister of Defense jumped to conclusions because of the timing of the attack. The terrorists can claim whatever they want. They were clearly using the Christchurch attack out of convenience.

ISIS says the attacks were against Christians who are war with the Islamic State. There is no evidence that shows it was in retaliation for the attacks in Christchurch, and an attack of that magnitude and scope takes a very long time to plan and carry out.

• None of the official statements posted by the Islamic State thus far have portrayed the bombings in Sri Lanka as retaliation for the slayings in New Zealand.
• New Zealand PM says no intelligence linking Sri Lanka attacks to Christchurch
• Kiwi security expert says attacks unlikely to be linked to Christchurch

You are ignoring the earlier statement by the MOD official.
Note the MOD repeated what the terrorists themselves are claiming.

Even if it is not linked to I.S.I.S, it is still a compliance with the covenanted terms of a Muslim-proper.
This meant a Muslim do not have to be linked to I.S.I.S to commit terror but merely because he is a Muslim-proper.

I have taken many courses in Islamic Studies from various sources over the past 30+ years from Christian, Islamic, and secular schools of thought. In fact, the verse first course I took was while in the military and was provided by the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary. Not one of these schools taught what you believe Islam teaches.

Regardless of what the majority views, what counts and is credible with my views is they are verifiable directly and objectively to the Quran, i.e. the final authority of Islam.

There are 3400++ verses in the Quran that are directed antagonistically with hate and extreme hatred towards non-Muslim.

Source?

Did you not read my post carefully? Here it is again!

I have done my own analysis which is 55% [3400 verses] with reference to specific verses.
Here is one done by Bill Warner who claim it is 64% in terms of paragraphs not verses.
Kafir | CSPI
Kafir in the Quran- Meccan
http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/Koran/Kafir_in_Koran.pdf
Kafir in Quran - Medina
http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/Koran/Kafir_in_Koran.pdf​

Every single verse in the Qur'an that calls for the killing of anyone come with strict conditions, every single one! There are no verses in the Qur'an that call for the killing of non-Mulsims simply because they are not Muslims.

Note many of the verses involving killing with conditions are abrogated with hatred and a call for violent jihad against non-Muslims for being disbelievers..

Note the quote directly from i.S.I.S I posted earlier.

The main problem with the covenanted terms is there are no overriding condition to stop Muslims from killing and oppressing non-Muslims.
The point is the verses that permit Muslims to kill non-Muslims are conditioned by very vague threats, therefore non-Muslims can be killed if they commit the slightest threat to Islam.
Another problem is, no human on earth can be any final judgments on this vague verses and conditions.

As you had admitted Islam is a false religion and Muhammad is a false prophet, but what is most critical is the malignant evil and violent elements and ethos that is imputed therein.

Another critical reason is the issue of salvation is a matter of life and death, thus the emotions are very raw and primal. Note even Abraham is willing to kill his son for God!

Therefore a good religion should NEVER include any elements of war and killings of non-believers, even it it mean just-wars. Unfortunately this is the problem with Islam which reflects the intentions of those who compile the Quran.

A example of a good religion is Christianity which commanded an overriding pacifist maxim to love all, even enemies, love one's neighbors, give and other cheeks. Such an overriding maxim are the ultimate conditions to cover any holes and to ensure 100% there is no room for any Christian to commit evil or violence as a Christian. As such Christianity is a good religion.
If Christians decide to commit violence, it cannot be condoned by Christianity due to the overriding pacifist maxim, and it will be up to God to judge those Christians on J-DAY.

Another point is DNA wise it is naturally 20% of humans are born with an active tendency to commit evil and violent acts.
Therefore a good religion must be fool proof [100% certain] to ensure these who are hungry for evil and violent do not have any opportunity at all to commit evil and violent acts as condone by the religion itself.

Unfortunately it is not the case with Islam which is not fool proof to ensure the evil prone do not have root to commit evil acts.
However Islam as it is with its covenanted terms for Muslims do condone Muslims to commit evil and violent acts within very vague conditions of threats to the religion of Islam.
More unfortunate for Islam and the majority of Muslims is there is 20% [pool of 300 million] of naturally born evil prone Muslims who will feast on the evil elements.