What causes muslims to be violent

[Sculptor]

Every Marxists "struggle" ever was exactly that.

Religion was always a minor aspect of any communist "struggle".

Well yes -- if you include the Marxist desire to exterminate it.

If you know Marx, you know that he called the critique of religion the "first critique" of all. He believed that if religion were not wiped out (and he meant especially Judaism and Christianity, but others as well, presumably) then the Marxist utopia would never be achieved. So you couldn't get a more ardently Atheistic and even ardently Anti-Theistic project than Marxism.

Well in that he was right.
We can't go on following gods instructions to exterminate and destroy again and again.
Religion is at the heart of all conflict.
And Christianity is the worst. If there were more Jews they would probably get first prize.

I'm not a Catholic.

LOL
The fact that you are a Catholic has got nothing to do with it. Jesus was not a Protestant either!
You are funny
That fact remains that Prots and Teagues are both Christians, and have caused more violence between them than any other religion. In fact much of their violence has been against each other. The Reformation deaths alone runs into millions.

[Immanuel Can]

If you know Marx, you know that he called the critique of religion the "first critique" of all. He believed that if religion were not wiped out (and he meant especially Judaism and Christianity, but others as well, presumably) then the Marxist utopia would never be achieved. So you couldn't get a more ardently Atheistic and even ardently Anti-Theistic project than Marxism.

Well in that he was right.

If he was right, then how come, in every case, Marxist regimes have proved not merely the most economically-suicidal of all regimes, and not only the most antithetical to freedom, but also the most homicidal regimes in history...by far?

Religion is at the heart of all conflict.

That's like saying "Judaism was at the heart of the Holocaust." In a very demented sense, it's true. It's just a very bad misrepresentation of what anyone should understand by "at the heart."

Moreover, it fails to take any account of the fact that NONE of the wars of the 2Oth Century in which the West was embroiled was motivated by religion at all.

If there were more Jews they would probably get first prize.

Aaaand...there it is.

With so much hatred, how long could it be until antisemitism raised is ugly head? It's always around.

[Sculptor]

If you know Marx, you know that he called the critique of religion the "first critique" of all. He believed that if religion were not wiped out (and he meant especially Judaism and Christianity, but others as well, presumably) then the Marxist utopia would never be achieved. So you couldn't get a more ardently Atheistic and even ardently Anti-Theistic project than Marxism.

Well in that he was right.

If he was right, then how come, in every case, Marxist regimes have proved not merely the most economically-suicidal of all regimes,

They have not.

Religion is at the heart of all conflict.

That's like saying "Judaism was at the heart of the Holocaust."

Don't be stupid.

In a very demented sense, it's true.

Only in your demented mind.

It's just a very bad misrepresentation of what anyone should understand by "at the heart."

It's your bad invention. Idiot.
Dn't get too carried away by you silly little straw man lest you burn your own house down.

Moreover, it fails to take any account of the fact that NONE of the wars of the 2Oth Century in which the West was embroiled was motivated by religion at all.

You might want to read Hitler's mobilisation of Gott for his Reich.

If there were more Jews they would probably get first prize.

Aaaand...there it is.

WHy?? The Old Testament is by far the most Violent of the 3 books of the Messianic religions.
In fact it is just one long list of ethnic cleansing by Jews as they wage war across the middle east.
Since you and your buddies are so keen to point to the Koran, I suggest you take a look at the book that is also sacred to Christians, but especially the Jews.
Get your head out of the sand.

With so much hatred, how long could it be until antisemitism raised is ugly head? It's always around.

I don't know. Where is the antisemitism?

[Averroes]

One way or another, we have to end this conversation, and as I said if you don't want to further it, just say so and we are done.

No, I'm quite happy if you are interested in these things.

That's good that you be happy as my interest is in knowing the sources of your belief that biblical Jesus was God. As you agreed, this is indeed such an important subject particularly when biblical Jesus clearly said he was not God. For example, it is reported by some unknown authors of the Christian Bible that biblical Jesus admitted to being ignorant, weak, and dependent while clearly saying that only God is All-Knowing, Almighty and Absolute:

In John 5:30, biblical Jesus admits being weak:

• By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. (John 5:30)

In John 14:28, biblical Jesus said that there is someone greater than himself:

• "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.(John 14:28)

And in Mathew 24:36, biblical Jesus admits being ignorant of the hour and such knowledge belongs only to the Father, which in biblical language is a metaphorical reference to God.

• "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Matthew 24:36)

In Mathew 26:39 it is said that biblical Jesus fell on his face to the ground and prayed like a Muslim to God:

• Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." (Matthew 26:39)

I'm just not sure everybody else is; and my concern is that nobody here wants to see us take this strand and turn it into a debate on something very different from the main topic. After all, people do have a right to decide what threads they want to participate in, without others dragging them away from it.

If that be your concern, then rest assured as we are spot on topic of the OP. I think of it this way, if some Christians can still believe that Jesus was God in spite of very clear biblical verses to the contrary, then there must be a great amount of mental gymnastics being played with their scriptures. And fortunately for us the OP talks about this by denying the possibility of such interpretation of the Christian scriptures:

Another possibility is of course, that the Quoran allows for the interpretation that violence is accepted, while the Christian and Jewish holy books (bibles) are not so open for interpretations.

What you think?

I think the OP is wrong and that indeed there is a great deal of interpretation of the Christian scriptures inorder to fit beliefs clearly not in the Christian scriptures. And as an example of such interpretations, I put forward the unscriptural Trinitarian belief that Jesus was God. So, now the discussion that I am interested in has been cleanly related to the OP; your concerns has been intelligently addressed, the hurdles have been removed and we have the green light, so let's finally get to it, God willing. If you are still happy about my interest, then please tell me what are your sources for believing that biblical Jesus was God. The Christian Bible is no longer an option as nowhere in the Bible did Jesus ever claimed to be God, rather the contrary is true in that he clearly said he was not God.
However, if you be no longer "quite happy" about my interest or just don't want to discuss a subject addressed in the OP, I still would understand.

I recommend: http://www.nabeelqureshi.com/no-god-but-one. Nabeel was a convert from Islam, one who remained very sympathetic to persons of Islamic background, and who deals with the questions with wisdom and tact. I think you'll enjoy his book.

Thank you for the attention but Nabeel Qureshi did not convert from Islam to Christianity. Nabeel Qureshi converted to Christianity from a religion known as Ahamadiya. I know his story. Depending on the person, some may find his story ironic while some others may consider it tragic. Some background context for others reading this is in order.

In the Ahamadiya religion,  the adherents thereof follow a 19th century man from India by the name of Mirza Gulam Ahmad, who died as one might say colloqially by shitting himself to death ( ie he died of dysentry in medical jargon).

Mirza Gulam claimed a lot of clear cut nonsenses. For example, he claimed the second coming of Prophet Jesus(peace be upon him), awaited by the Muslims, was in fact himself!! And a lot more nonsensical claims like that. This is the religion that Nabeel Qureshi was following, and from such a religion, unsurprisingly, he got great doubts. So, David Wood, then his friend, found fertile ground to entice him to Christianity. So, he embraced Christianity from Ahamadiya. But in Christianity, he got far worse than just doubts; in Christianity he got stomach cancer and died in agonizing pain in 2017 at the age of 34. As to your thought of me enjoying his story, well I already knew that embracing Trinitarian Christianity is a very bad idea. I didn't need Nabeel's story to come to that conclusion. For others, however, this might be helpful.

[Immanuel Can]

One way or another, we have to end this conversation, and as I said if you don't want to further it, just say so and we are done.

No, I'm quite happy if you are interested in these things.

That's good that you be happy...

Great. Then we go back to the OP.

[Immanuel Can]

If he was right, then how come, in every case, Marxist regimes have proved not merely the most economically-suicidal of all regimes,

They have not.

Then name one that didn't. And don't forget all the curtailing of freedom, and, of course, the homicides.

You might want to read Hitler's mobilisation of Gott for his Reich.

Well, you know how that works: every propagandist invents multiple rationales for his cause: "scientific," "historical," "religious," "practical," and so on. He wants to have a reason to persuade every audience. You're not foolish enough to take Hitler at his word, are you? You don't trust him in regard to his "historical" or "scientific" perspective: why would you believe him naively on "religion?"

If somebody used your name to justify, say, eating children, would you think Sculptor was the cause of eating children?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If you know Marx, you know that he called the critique of religion the "first critique" of all. He believed that if religion were not wiped out (and he meant especially Judaism and Christianity, but others as well, presumably) then the Marxist utopia would never be achieved. So you couldn't get a more ardently Atheistic and even ardently Anti-Theistic project than Marxism.

Well in that he was right.

If he was right, then how come, in every case, Marxist regimes have proved not merely the most economically-suicidal of all regimes, and not only the most antithetical to freedom, but also the most homicidal regimes in history...by far?

Religion is at the heart of all conflict.

That's like saying "Judaism was at the heart of the Holocaust." In a very demented sense, it's true. It's just a very bad misrepresentation of what anyone should understand by "at the heart."

Moreover, it fails to take any account of the fact that NONE of the wars of the 2Oth Century in which the West was embroiled was motivated by religion at all.

If there were more Jews they would probably get first prize.

Aaaand...there it is.

With so much hatred, how long could it be until antisemitism raised is ugly head? It's always around.

Why don't you just say 'totalitarian dictatorships are violent'? There has never been true communism. It was only a set of ideas--some of which were very good. Modern democracies have adopted some of the good ideas and discarded others that were too extreme and unworkable. That's called SOCIAL EVOLUTION.
Why don't you try thinking a little bit more deeply (a lot more deeply)? Everything is so black and white to you. There is a whole spectrum of colour out there.

[Immanuel Can]

There has never been true communism.

Everyone always says that.

Russia? Not true Communism. China? Nope. North Korea? Not real Communism. Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe? No, no and no. Nowhere, no time, not even for a little, has there ever been this "true" Communism.

To hear the proponents of Communism tell the story, there's never been real Communism anywhere...but I suppose they want you to think that if you gave THEM the chance, they'd do it right. Or they want you to believe that the NEXT time, freedom will not be destroyed, the economy won't collapse, and millions will not die...

That's what every bunch of Communist victims always believed: this time, it will work.

How long until we stop believing them? How many more economies do we have to wreck? How many more must be marched off to gulags and "re-education" camps? And how many innocent people need to die, before we find we have sufficient evidence to say, "Marx was an evil man who propounded a stupid and destructive philosophy"?

The evidence is in. We only have to face the facts.

And as you rightly point out, there's presently zero evidence Communism can ever be any other way.

[Immanuel Can]

Bernie.jpg

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There has never been true communism.

Everyone always says that.

Russia? Not true Communism. China? Nope. North Korea? Not real Communism. Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe? No, no and no. Nowhere, no time, not even for a little, has there ever been this "true" Communism.

To hear the proponents of Communism tell the story, there's never been real Communism anywhere...but I suppose they want you to think that if you gave THEM the chance, they'd do it right. Or they want you to believe that the NEXT time, freedom will not be destroyed, the economy won't collapse, and millions will not die...

That's what every bunch of Communist victims always believed: this time, it will work.

How long until we stop believing them? How many more economies do we have to wreck? How many more must be marched off to gulags and "re-education" camps? And how many innocent people need to die, before we find we have sufficient evidence to say, "Marx was an evil man who propounded a stupid and destructive philosophy"?

The evidence is in. We only have to face the facts.

And as you rightly point out, there's presently zero evidence Communism can ever be any other way.

Umm, perhaps people say that because it's true?
Where does it say in the communist manifesto that it's to be a dictatorship? Communism is the opposite of a dictatorship (all people being equal blah blah...).
Why are you so stupid?

[Immanuel Can]

There has never been true communism.

Everyone always says that.

Umm, perhaps people say that because it's true?

If it's true, it argues that there never has been a successful Communism. Lot's of tries, though.

What we can see is that there are no data to suggest it's even possible for Communism to go right. But what we do have data for, and data in abundance, is that WHEN Communism goes wrong (and it's never yet been a matter of "if" -- it has, in every single case, by your admission) the freedoms die, the economy crashes and the bodies pile up.

That's what we know for sure.

It's not "religion" that's the great killer: it's secular ideology. And the greatest killer in all of history is...Communism.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Everyone always says that.

Umm, perhaps people say that because it's true?

If it's true, it argues that there never has been a successful Communism. Lot's of tries, though.

What we can see is that there are no data to suggest it's even possible for Communism to go right. But what we do have data for, and data in abundance, is that WHEN Communism goes wrong (and it's never yet been a matter of "if" -- it has, in every single case, by your admission) the freedoms die, the economy crashes and the bodies pile up.

That's what we know for sure.

It's not "religion" that's the great killer: it's secular ideology. And the greatest killer in all of history is...Communism.

Then go and live in a totalitarian theocracy. See how much 'freedom' you get (and learn the meaning of 'secular' while you are about it). On second thought you are beyond hope. If you've learnt nothing in all these years then it's never going to happen.

[Immanuel Can]

Then go and live in a totalitarian theocracy.

Democracy. I live in a Democracy. I've no need of totalitarianism. That's a Communist taste. Have you not noticed how every Communist state degenerates into it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I recommend: http://www.nabeelqureshi.com/no-god-but-one. Nabeel was a convert from Islam, one who remained very sympathetic to persons of Islamic background, and who deals with the questions with wisdom and tact. I think you'll enjoy his book.

Thank you for the attention but Nabeel Qureshi did not convert from Islam to Christianity. Nabeel Qureshi converted to Christianity from a religion known as Ahamadiya. I know his story. Depending on the person, some may find his story ironic while some others may consider it tragic. Some background context for others reading this is in order.

In the Ahamadiya religion,  the adherents thereof follow a 19th century man from India by the name of Mirza Gulam Ahmad, who died as one might say colloqially by shitting himself to death ( ie he died of dysentry in medical jargon).

Mirza Gulam claimed a lot of clear cut nonsenses. For example, he claimed the second coming of Prophet Jesus(peace be upon him), awaited by the Muslims, was in fact himself!! And a lot more nonsensical claims like that. This is the religion that Nabeel Qureshi was following, and from such a religion, unsurprisingly, he got great doubts. So, David Wood, then his friend, found fertile ground to entice him to Christianity. So, he embraced Christianity from Ahamadiya. But in Christianity, he got far worse than just doubts; in Christianity he got stomach cancer and died in agonizing pain in 2017 at the age of 34. As to your thought of me enjoying his story, well I already knew that embracing Trinitarian Christianity is a very bad idea. I didn't need Nabeel's story to come to that conclusion. For others, however, this might be helpful.

Your response is very childish and ad hominen and that is not surprising [following the leader] given that Allah is such a God who is also childish, cruel and evil in dehumanizing non-believers. Here are two verses among many others;

• Quran 5:60 Say, “Shall I inform you of [what is] worse than that as penalty from Allah? [It is that of] those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry and made of them apes and pigs and slaves of ‹aghut. Those are worse in position and further astray from the sound way.
  
  Quran 98:6 Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.

The Ahmadiyyahs are a very special case re being Muslims.

Nabeel Qureshi and Ahmadiyyahs [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya] are contracted Muslims with Allah, i.e. they had declared the shahada which is the basic requirement to be a contracted-Muslim and many practice the 5 pillars of Islam, the 6 pillars of iman and elements of Tawhid.
As such they had fulfilled all the conditions of being a contracted-Muslim.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=30259

I don't believe the Ahamdiyyahs when declaring the Shahadah would have also mentioned Miza Gulam's name in the Shahadah.

The only difference is they believed in Miza Gulam who influenced the Ahmadiyyahs to believe in his personal beliefs. As such the only sinful Muslims in the eyes of Allah is Miza Gulam and not those Ahmadiyyahs who were innocently influenced but nonetheless fundamentally are Muslims as per the contract to be a Muslim as stipulated in the Quran.

Btw, do you have any divine authority to speak for Allah in this case.

[Belinda]

REVIVING TRUE ISLAMIC VALUES

We believe that Islam, which was established over 1,400 years ago by the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), is a universal religion of peace, with a simple but perfect message for mankind to develop and maintain a living relationship with a living God and to live in perfect harmony with all.

This message was revived by the founder of our community, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (peace be upon him) and we are the only community of Muslims to have accepted him as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi who was prophesied for this age.

From the outset he repeatedly emphasised the need for us to be mindful of our duty to God and His creation and to reflect our commitment to peace in our daily lives. He rejected the concept of a violent jihad, reminded us of the equality of mankind and of our duty to care for the needy. He also underlined the need to respect all religions, to abide by the law of the land and to be loyal to the government of the country in which we live. With this desire to promote peace this community has since flourished and is now a dynamic global movement established in more than 207 countries.

from the Ahamdiyya mosque in Nottingham.

I had never heard of Ahmadiyya until the press notified the death of a Glasgow(Scottish) shopkeeper, an Ahmadi. His death was mourned by all his customers and friends most of whom were not Muslims. He was a very good man, and that shows how Jesus was right "By their fruits you shall know them" And also Paul in his letter to the Corinthians about the nature of love.

Note "He rejected the concept of a violent jihad".

There are two forms of jihad. The greater jihad is the daily struggle and inner spiritual striving to live as a Muslim. The lesser jihad is a physical struggle or 'holy war' in defence of Islam. Mosque or 'masjid' A 'place of prostration' for Muslims, it is a communal place of worship for a Muslim community.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ian-attack

NB Mr Shah's family did not seek publicity for Ahmadiyya, and sectarianism within Islam.Rather the opposite.