Is Islam a good religion?

[Yasin]

spidergoat:

No, it says "Ye may conquer", in at least one translation, not Allah will conquer.

A secondary point is that Allah sets the example. If Allah aims to burn these people alive for disbelief, do you think a Muslim would have any more respect for them? You would be foolish to think so.

No. It doesn't say "Ye may conquer" in any translation of this verse. You can clearly see that from the dozen or so translations you presented. I don't understand why are you fixated on this point; you said something incorrect and I corrected you, and that should have been the end of it.

Can I point out the mobs of people that show up to lynch unbelievers in Egypt and Indonesia?
or this:
Pew researchers found that 84 percent of Egyptians favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim religion.
Note that not all Egyptians are Muslim, so the number must be higher among Muslims alone.

As someone has already pointed it out, your report is contradicting itself and proves nothing except how inefficient it is. When you know that 95% of Egyptians are Muslims and you present them with a question whether or not they will accept a penalty of Islam, whichever it is, and the result comes that 85 or 90 percent favour it, the only surprise would be why those 5 or 10 % didn't.
And yes, please, do point out the mobs that lynch unbelievers in Egypt and Indonesia.

Balerion:

You say "much," yet you put the onus on me to prove you wrong. How absurd. Support your claims.

Let me refer you to .. you:

It's not just what I think, it's an observable fact. Take a look at the Middle East and tell me how much of the violence there isn't influenced by religion.

Apparently the onus was on you to begin with, but you managed to forget you presented the claim originally.

As for which violence in the Middle East is influenced by religion, I again ask: Which isn't? The conflict between the Jews and the Palestinians is entirely based on religious claims. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were spurned by religious violence by Muslims against the US. It's all religiously inspired. How about the attacks on mosques by Jews, and vice-versa? You mean to say that the sides are coincidentally drawn between faiths? Please.

The Palestinians fight, not the Jews, but the Israelis; the ones that occupied their country and killed their people. It's not a religion-driven conflict, it's a land-driven one. Jews were living in Palestine unmolested, before 1948, for more than a century, first under the Ottomans rule then the British. Read this and this if you want more information. The Iraqi and Afghani conflicts have little to do with religion and much to do with the fact that they are under occupation, fighting for the freedom of their country. 'Spurned by religious violence by Muslims" you say ?! First, please, enlighten me on how Iraq came to the equation. Second, what are those violent acts, and how do you know they were done by Muslims ?!.
Now, in all fairness, my question to you, in response to your question to me, was not whether Islam is responsible for the conflicts in the middle east or not, but rather whether there was any religious influence responsible at all, Islamic or any other. With that in mind, we may attribute the conflict in Palestine as a religious conflict from the Jewish side of the equation. Namely, that they claim Palestine is their promised land and it's rightfully theirs. Even though this shouldn't explain or cause for any bloodshed at all, and we know that every massacre the Israelis committed in Palestine could have been avoided with every regard to their religion taken into account; and even though, without the promise of Jerusalem in the Torah which they take as their excuse, they would have still come to Palestine if nothing but for the fact they were persecuted in every other part of the world and jumped on the first chance they got; but you may go ahead and consider this conflict caused by religion since it began in it's name.

 

[Balerion]

Yes. Does that somehow make a difference?

Hmm, good point. Yet, in Indiana- quite religious, that violent behavior is much less. Why is that? It's the same religiousness, still humans involved, so why is the social behavior that different? I'd suggest that there are other factors involved than just the one influence of religion.
Take away the one influence of religion and the violent crime rate would decrease by only the amount of fanatics that wouldn't have as much influence from that one factor.
They may find that influence somewhere else- it is something that they want. They are fanatics. Many, would also not be fanatics having not been indoctrinated from an early age and being susceptible to be one.

What you're left with is a small portion of those religious fanatics may be influenced into less violence.

There is plenty of religious violence in India. I don't know of any statistic that shows India being less violent than the US.

And again, you're trying to knock down a straw man. Nobody said that religion is the only cause of violence. Even religious violence can have other, non-religious factors involved.

 

[Balerion]

The Palestinians fight, not the Jews, but the Israelis; the ones that occupied their country and killed their people. It's not a religion-driven conflict, it's a land-driven one. Jews were living in Palestine unmolested, before 1948, for more than a century, first under the Ottomans rule then the British. Read this and this if you want more information. The Iraqi and Afghani conflicts have little to do with religion and much to do with the fact that they are under occupation, fighting for the freedom of their country. 'Spurned by religious violence by Muslims" you say ?! First, please, enlighten me on how Iraq came to the equation. Second, what are those violent acts, and how do you know they were done by Muslims ?!.
Now, in all fairness, my question to you, in response to your question to me, was not whether Islam is responsible for the conflicts in the middle east or not, but rather whether there was any religious influence responsible at all, Islamic or any other. With that in mind, we may attribute the conflict in Palestine as a religious conflict from the Jewish side of the equation. Namely, that they claim Palestine is their promised land and it's rightfully theirs. Even though this shouldn't explain or cause for any bloodshed at all, and we know that every massacre the Israelis committed in Palestine could have been avoided with every regard to their religion taken into account; and even though, without the promise of Jerusalem in the Torah which they take as their excuse, they would have still come to Palestine if nothing but for the fact they were persecuted in every other part of the world and jumped on the first chance they got; but you may go ahead and consider this conflict caused by religion since it began in it's name.

Ah yes, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about land and has nothing to do with religion. Of course.

How conveniently we forget that the whole basis for the conflict is that the land in question is promised to a people by their god. Their right to it is divine, but let's just set that aside, apparently.

 

[Neverfly]

you said something incorrect and I corrected you, and that should have been the end of it.

Funny how it never works out this way.
In saying that, I'm not attacking Spidergoat who is one of the strongest contributers of the board with outstanding commentary the majority of the time (He's got me beat, I'm hitting at 7.6% good contributions statistically, the rest is garbage).

As someone has already pointed it out, your report is contradicting itself and proves nothing except how inefficient it is. When you know that 95% of Egyptians are Muslims and you present them with a question whether or not they will accept a penalty of Islam, whichever it is, and the result comes that 85 or 90 percent favour it, the only surprise would be why those 5 or 10 % didn't.
And yes, please, do point out the mobs that lynch unbelievers in Egypt and Indonesia.

Is this a response to whether they support the idea of putting to death people that stop believing in Islam?

 

[Balerion]

Frig the mod queue, I'll just try again.

Balerion:

Let me refer you to .. you:

Apparently the onus was on you to begin with, but you managed to forget you presented the claim originally.

And I've supported the claim. All of the violence in the Middle East is religiously-motivated. All one needs to do is look.

The Palestinians fight, not the Jews, but the Israelis; the ones that occupied their country and killed their people. It's not a religion-driven conflict, it's a land-driven one. Jews were living in Palestine unmolested, before 1948, for more than a century, first under the Ottomans rule then the British. Read this and this if you want more information. The Iraqi and Afghani conflicts have little to do with religion and much to do with the fact that they are under occupation, fighting for the freedom of their country. 'Spurned by religious violence by Muslims" you say ?! First, please, enlighten me on how Iraq came to the equation. Second, what are those violent acts, and how do you know they were done by Muslims ?!.
Now, in all fairness, my question to you, in response to your question to me, was not whether Islam is responsible for the conflicts in the middle east or not, but rather whether there was any religious influence responsible at all, Islamic or any other. With that in mind, we may attribute the conflict in Palestine as a religious conflict from the Jewish side of the equation. Namely, that they claim Palestine is their promised land and it's rightfully theirs. Even though this shouldn't explain or cause for any bloodshed at all, and we know that every massacre the Israelis committed in Palestine could have been avoided with every regard to their religion taken into account; and even though, without the promise of Jerusalem in the Torah which they take as their excuse, they would have still come to Palestine if nothing but for the fact they were persecuted in every other part of the world and jumped on the first chance they got; but you may go ahead and consider this conflict caused by religion since it began in it's name.

I'm sorry, but the Israelis are Jews--apparently that one got by you--and their conflict is entirely religious in nature. Yes, it's over land, but that land is divinely granted, according to the Israelis. Their God granted them that nation, apparently. But yeah, I guess we can just overlook the very thing that gives the Jews the authority for their claim. Yeah, makes sense.

 

[Yasin]

Is this a response to whether they support the idea of putting to death people that stop believing in Islam?

Yes.

I'm sorry, but the Israelis are Jews--apparently that one got by you--and their conflict is entirely religious in nature. Yes, it's over land, but that land is divinely granted, according to the Israelis. Their God granted them that nation, apparently. But yeah, I guess we can just overlook the very thing that gives the Jews the authority for their claim. Yeah, makes sense.

No, it doesn't, which is why I agreed it is based on religion. Iraq, Afghanistan and recently Egypt, though, aren't. Therefore, "much" of the violence in the Middle East isn't religiously caused.

 

[Neverfly]

Yes.

What do you suppose compels them to believe that it's "ok" to kill people for stopping to believe in a religion?

 

[Balerion]

No, it doesn't, which is why I agreed it is based on religion. Iraq, Afghanistan and recently Egypt, though, aren't. Therefore, "much" of the violence in the Middle East isn't religiously caused.

Iraq and Afghanistan most certainly are. The impetus for war was a series of religiously-inspired terrorist attacks against the United States. George W Bush said numerous times that God told him he was fighting for the right cause. I believe it was Donald Rumsfeld who used to write fiery biblical verse on satellite images after bombing campaigns during both conflicts.

The Arab Spring is different, obviously, but there are religious elements to all of it.

 

[spidergoat]

spidergoat:No. It doesn't say "Ye may conquer" in any translation of this verse. You can clearly see that from the dozen or so translations you presented.

Chapter 41 26 Those who disbelieve say: Heed not this Qur'an, and drown the hearing of it; haply ye may conquer.

I don't understand why are you fixated on this point; you said something incorrect and I corrected you, and that should have been the end of it.

Because I don't accept your authority on this matter as absolute? Call me a skeptic.

As someone has already pointed it out, your report is contradicting itself and proves nothing except how inefficient it is. When you know that 95% of Egyptians are Muslims and you present them with a question whether or not they will accept a penalty of Islam, whichever it is, and the result comes that 85 or 90 percent favour it, the only surprise would be why those 5 or 10 % didn't.
And yes, please, do point out the mobs that lynch unbelievers in Egypt and Indonesia....

That's exactly my point, blind adherence to their religion leads them to consent to practically anything in it's name.

Atheists rally for persecuted unbeliever in Indonesia
Aan was arrested in January after posting “God doesn’t exist” and cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad to the page of a Facebook group he started dedicated to atheism. The group had 1,200 members.

A crowd came to his house and beat him, according to news reports. Aan was charged with blasphemy and persuading others to embrace atheism, both crimes in Indonesia. In June, he was sentenced to jail and a fine of 100 million rupiah (about $10,600).


Rights groups condemn detention of atheist on blasphemy charges
Two days after protests and clashes between security forces and protesters broke out over the film near the US Embassy on 11 September, neighbors of Saber claimed that he shared the anti-Islam YouTube video “Innocence of Muslims” on his Facebook account, which led an angry mob to storm Saber’s house in Marg district, kicking out Saber and his mother.
Kariman Meseha, Saber’s mother, told journalists attending a press conference at the Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression yesterday that she called the police to protect her son, but once police arrived, it was Saber who was arrested, not those who attacked his home.

“Police forces told me that he would be taken to the police station to protect him from the angry mob, and that I could come by the police station the next day to receive him,” Meseha said, adding that the next day, she discovered that he was arrested on blasphemy charges.

AFTE lawyer Ahmed Ezzat said police incited the prisoners against Saber, claiming that he was an atheist and insulted the Prophet Mohamed; one of the prisoners injured him in the neck with a razor blade.

 

[Yasin]

What do you suppose compels them to believe that it's "ok" to kill people for stopping to believe in a religion?

Compels them ?! I have no idea. Is the law in Islam to kill those who believe in it then refuse it, to kill them ? Yes.
To help clarify a few things, I should say this: Islam doesn't force anyone to believe in it, or to embrace it. If you did embrace it, and became a full fledged Muslim, and for some reason decided not to be one any more, the law in Islam is to be killed unless you repent. In that, Islam acts like the law of a country that punishes a citizen with high treason if he decides to forfeit the rights of his citizenship. It's worth noting that this law is to be applied only by the governor and not any individual, after a judge has verified it.

Iraq and Afghanistan most certainly are. The impetus for war was a series of religiously-inspired terrorist attacks against the United States. George W Bush said numerous times that God told him he was fighting for the right cause. I believe it was Donald Rumsfeld who used to write fiery biblical verse on satellite images after bombing campaigns during both conflicts.

The Arab Spring is different, obviously, but there are religious elements to all of it.

Let's take it one step at a time. The religiously-inspired terrorist attacks you speak of, what are they ? Have you any proof of them ?.
Are you making the claim that since Bush and Ramsfield sought to silence the religious minority by claiming what they did was approved by god, then the campaign was done in the name of religion ?! Of course not. If it was for any noble cause, it would have been for the safety of the country, which it wasn't, since it was never released how they figured who it was that planned those attacks.

 

[Balerion]

Let's take it one step at a time. The religiously-inspired terrorist attacks you speak of, what are they ? Have you any proof of them ?.

Are you kidding me? Are you really going to say 9/11 wasn't a religiously-inspired series of terrorist attacks?

Are you making the claim that since Bush and Ramsfield sought to silence the religious minority by claiming what they did was approved by god, then the campaign was done in the name of religion ?!

Not entirely, but that was obviously a part of it. But it wouldn't matter what Bush's motivations were, as the trigger for the conflict was a religiously-inspired series of attacks. Without 9/11, we don't go to war.

Of course not. If it was for any noble cause, it would have been for the safety of the country, which it wasn't, since it was never released how they figured who it was that planned those attacks.

Oh, you're one of those 9/11 Truthers. That explains a lot.

 

[Yasin]

Chapter 41 26 Those who disbelieve say: Heed not this Qur'an, and drown the hearing of it; haply ye may conquer.

That's a different verse, notice the numbering, and you misunderstood it as well. Here are several translations of it from the sources you list:

41:26
Sahih International
And those who disbelieve say, "Do not listen to this Qur'an and speak noisily during [the recitation of] it that perhaps you will overcome."
Muhsin Khan
And those who disbelieve say: "Listen not to this Quran, and make noise in the midst of its (recitation) that you may overcome."
Pickthall
Those who disbelieve say: Heed not this Qur'an, and drown the hearing of it; haply ye may conquer.
Yusuf Ali
The Unbelievers say: "Listen not to this Qur'an, but talk at random in the midst of its (reading), that ye may gain the upper hand!"
Shakir
And those who disbelieve say: Do not listen to this Quran and make noise therein, perhaps you may overcome.

Because I don't accept your authority on this matter as absolute? Call me a skeptic.

Refute it then.

That's exactly my point, blind adherence to their religion leads them to consent to practically anything in it's name.

Atheists rally for persecuted unbeliever in Indonesia
Aan was arrested in January after posting “God doesn’t exist” and cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad to the page of a Facebook group he started dedicated to atheism. The group had 1,200 members.

A crowd came to his house and beat him, according to news reports. Aan was charged with blasphemy and persuading others to embrace atheism, both crimes in Indonesia. In June, he was sentenced to jail and a fine of 100 million rupiah (about $10,600).


Rights groups condemn detention of atheist on blasphemy charges
Two days after protests and clashes between security forces and protesters broke out over the film near the US Embassy on 11 September, neighbors of Saber claimed that he shared the anti-Islam YouTube video “Innocence of Muslims” on his Facebook account, which led an angry mob to storm Saber’s house in Marg district, kicking out Saber and his mother.
Kariman Meseha, Saber’s mother, told journalists attending a press conference at the Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression yesterday that she called the police to protect her son, but once police arrived, it was Saber who was arrested, not those who attacked his home.

“Police forces told me that he would be taken to the police station to protect him from the angry mob, and that I could come by the police station the next day to receive him,” Meseha said, adding that the next day, she discovered that he was arrested on blasphemy charges.

AFTE lawyer Ahmed Ezzat said police incited the prisoners against Saber, claiming that he was an atheist and insulted the Prophet Mohamed; one of the prisoners injured him in the neck with a razor blade.

I quoted this passage completely so as not to take any recognition that is due you, but my goal was the first sentence only. "... blind adherence to their religion leads them to consent to practically anything in it's name". When did I contradict that ?! That's actually what I stand for, that you shouldn't judge the actions of a religious person, judge his religion and assume he 'blindly adheres to it's every instruction'.

 

[Yasin]

Are you kidding me? Are you really going to say 9/11 wasn't a religiously-inspired series of terrorist attacks?

I'm not the one saying it was, without proof.

Not entirely, but that was obviously a part of it. But it wouldn't matter what Bush's motivations were, as the trigger for the conflict was a religiously-inspired series of attacks. Without 9/11, we don't go to war.

Since Bush and Ramsfield don't matter, you specifically say that without the attacks there wouldn't have been a war, then why mention them ?!

Oh, you're one of those 9/11 Truthers. That explains a lot.

Which is ... ?

 

[Neverfly]

Compels them ?! I have no idea. Is the law in Islam to kill those who believe in it then refuse it, to kill them ? Yes.

In which case, those that voice agreement for such ignorant and primitive laws are compelled by something to agree with what amounts to nonsense.
What is that something?

To help clarify a few things, I should say this: Islam doesn't force anyone to believe in it, or to embrace it. If you did embrace it, and became a full fledged Muslim, and for some reason decided not to be one any more, the law in Islam is to be killed unless you repent.

That's pretty barbaric. In other words, if you ever claim to be Muslim, then you can be put to death for coming to your senses and realizing that religion is a bunch of hocus pocus. Way to promote ignorance, there...

In that, Islam acts like the law of a country that punishes a citizen with high treason if he decides to forfeit the rights of his citizenship.

This is not correct, at least for my country. Treason is if you act in betrayal against the country, not if you simply renounce belief in it.

It's worth noting that this law is to be applied only by the governor and not any individual, after a judge has verified it.

That doesn't make it any less absurd.

it would have been for the safety of the country, which it wasn't, since it was never released how they figured who it was that planned those attacks.

Fascinating. What was it for, then?

Edit:
Supposedly, this law to kill Muslims that later decided to not be Muslim is based on a problem of Spies. That during war, people would come, claim to be Muslim, then leave, recant and report numbers and compromising information to those wanting war with those Muslims.
Supposedly, this law was a Temporary injunction that Mohammed later lifted- though no references have been given to me to support any of this.

 

[Balerion]

I'm not the one saying it was, without proof.

I didn't realize I needed to provide proof for something so obvious. That's like asking me for proof that 1+1=2. How about you drop the subterfuge and either make the point you're trying to make, or move on.

Since Bush and Ramsfield don't matter, you specifically say that without the attacks there wouldn't have been a war, then why mention them ?!

I never said that Bush and Rumsfeld don't matter. I said that their religious motivations don't matter, because the basis for war was a religiously-motivated attack against the US. It also happens that Bush and Rumsfeld had religious motivations, illustrating how deeply religious these conflicts are (or were).

Which is ... ?

You don't know what a Truther is? It's a person that denies the official 9/11 story.

 

[Yasin]

In which case, those that voice agreement for such ignorant and primitive laws are compelled by something to agree with what amounts to nonsense.
What is that something?

Let me rephrase my answer. The reasons some people agree with the law are not known to me; the reason they obey the law, I believe, is due to their faith in Islam. That 'something' that you are looking for, I'm as well; if an explanation could be found I will let you know.

That's pretty barbaric. In other words, if you ever claim to be Muslim, then you can be put to death for coming to your senses and realizing that religion is a bunch of hocus pocus. Way to promote ignorance, there...

This is not correct, at least for my country. Treason is if you act in betrayal against the country, not if you simply renounce belief in it.

That doesn't make it any less absurd.

Like I said, it was only for mentioning, I have no intention of discussing the reason behind the laws of Islam.

Fascinating. What was it for, then?

I don't know. There are many speculations and theories but they are equally groundless. You are an atheist, correct ? why don't you believe in a higher power ? Because there is no proof of it, correct ? How, then, do you believe in the religiousness of those attacks without proof ?!. By all means, search or ask around for it; my knowledge is limited by what I saw, read or heard by my personal effort; you, or someone you know, may have lived through that period and watched every press release, every conference and every white house announcement, and in one of them there was the proof that I look for. I would welcome it as any other fact. But don't act like my inability to take it for granted is that astounding, please.

Edit:
Supposedly, this law to kill Muslims that later decided to not be Muslim is based on a problem of Spies. That during war, people would come, claim to be Muslim, then leave, recant and report numbers and compromising information to those wanting war with those Muslims.
Supposedly, this law was a Temporary injunction that Mohammed later lifted- though no references have been given to me to support any of this.

Actually, no. There are two Hadiths I know of that allows for killing those who renounce Islam, with none of the restrictions you mention. For those restriction to be even considered and compared with the rest of the evidence, you should provide how you know them. In other words, sources.

 

[Yasin]

I didn't realize I needed to provide proof for something so obvious. That's like asking me for proof that 1+1=2. How about you drop the subterfuge and either make the point you're trying to make, or move on.

It seems that many times when someone is asked for proof on this forum, '1+1=2' appears from no where. I have no subterfuge, and my point is clear. You claim that religion is the reason for much of the conflict in the M.E, I consent to only Palestine, not Iraq and Pakistan. You claim Iraq and Pakistan were caused by the religious attacks of 9/11, my question is how do you know that. As you say, answer it or move on.

I never said that Bush and Rumsfeld don't matter. I said that their religious motivations don't matter, because the basis for war was a religiously-motivated attack against the US. It also happens that Bush and Rumsfeld had religious motivations, illustrating how deeply religious these conflicts are (or were).

I meant their motivations as well, not the persons themselves.

You don't know what a Truther is? It's a person that denies the official 9/11 story.

Like I said to Neverfly, I don't deny the official 9/11 story. I'm impartial towards it. I will believe it if or when a proof for it arises.

 

[Balerion]

It seems that many times when someone is asked for proof on this forum, '1+1=2' appears from no where.

If that's a recurring theme for you, it's likely because you have a habit of demanding proof of things that are already established truths. While that isn't by itself ignoble, you're clearly doing this just to be a nuisance. Unless you claim that 9/11 was not religiously-motivated, then asking for proof of it--which is well-established--serves no other purpose than to distract.

I have no subterfuge, and my point is clear. You claim that religion is the reason for much of the conflict in the M.E, I consent to only Palestine, not Iraq and Pakistan. You claim Iraq and Pakistan were caused by the religious attacks of 9/11, my question is how do you know that. As you say, answer it or move on.

So in other words, you don't consent that 1+1=2. And you mean Afghanistan, not Pakistan.

But okay, you need me to explain the concept of "two-ness" to you, then I will. We invaded Afghanistan because the al-Qaeda network of terrorists was believed to be responsible for the attacks on 9/11, and Afghanistan was their primary base of operations. The war in Iraq was not primarily about al-Qaeda (though the rationale given by many was that Saddam harbored and aided al-Qaeda) but again, this war does not happen without the religiously-motivated 9/11 attacks. And let us not forget the bloody sectarian violence that has taken place in Iraq since the fall of Saddam.

I meant their motivations as well, not the persons themselves.

Ultimately, their motivations don't matter because the initial attack on the US was religiously-motivated, and as such, any ensuing conflict owes itself to that religiously-motivated attack. It just so happens that Bush and Rumsfeld are both deeply religious and believed themselves to be doing God's work. I point it out because it shows just how deeply religious this war was for both sides, not just the Muslim terrorists.

Like I said to Neverfly, I don't deny the official 9/11 story. I'm impartial towards it. I will believe it if or when a proof for it arises.

The evidence is ample. That you have chosen to ignore its existence makes you no better than a Truther who believes an alternative story.

 

[Neverfly]

Let me rephrase my answer. The reasons some people agree with the law are not known to me; the reason they obey the law, I believe, is due to their faith in Islam. That 'something' that you are looking for, I'm as well; if an explanation could be found I will let you know.

Something was missed, here. The question was not, do they obey the law- it was do they agree to the existence of the law?
There must be a reason why they would agree with it. Perhaps you do not know what their reasons are. But you can examine that question- "why?" and ask yourself that question. Why would they agree with that? What does that mean?
I can ask you- do you agree with that law? Why or why not? You may choose to not answer and that's fine. But in the end, 84% said they agree and 16% said they disagreed with that law.

But don't act like my inability to take it for granted is that astounding, please.

Here is how I understand it: The motives for the attack are not necessarily the same as those for the men who actually carried out the attack.
So those that orchestrated the attack may have been only attacking capitalism and the economy for some unknown reasons.
However, that is not the behavior exhibited in video addresses sent to the US. Remember the Nick Berg Murder? Not a video for the squeamish... He cited a Holy Reason and claimed it was commanded by Allah (Allah Akhbar! - not sure how to properly spell it in English...)
The reasons given for their hatred are:
Unholy behavior, unclean behavior and a gross negligence toward the respect due to Allah.
Indecency and corruption of the American way of life where they do not obey Allah's commands, tolerate hedonism and usury... it goes on and I'm sure you know it all...

Actually, no. There are two Hadiths I know of that allows for killing those who renounce Islam, with none of the restrictions you mention. For those restriction to be even considered and compared with the rest of the evidence, you should provide how you know them. In other words, sources.

I just said I have no source- it's what was relayed to me. But you apparently know the sources for two hadiths with no restrictions- which undermines the argument of a faith that doesn't condone or encourage acts of murder and violence over belief.

I will believe it if or when a proof for it arises.

Proof of what? What is sufficient proof? Do you believe the attack was an Inside Job? Or do you believe it really was Islamist terrorists, but not for religious reasons?

 

[lightgigantic]

Freedom for everyone except those who choose not to follow Islam, apparently.

Obviously the news article was sensational, given that the research indicated more were in favour of freedom than the death sentence (IOW if statistics give a majority support for two conflicting precepts, it tends to indicate that the issue is complicated or the research method is faulty .... as opposed to being an invitation to declare one particular claim as evidenced according to what ever agenda one is hoping to establish)

So it's a very limited kind of freedom, simply that which the Quran advocates, in that they can accept people of other religions as long as they are demure and submissive, and don't question Islam. Which in my opinion isn't really freedom.

You are now moving away from your original statement about muslims being collectively in favour of killing people who are not muslim.

Do you want to go back to your original statements about islam, and explain why the world's several billion muslims are not doing what you suggest they are doing ... or do you want to discuss the notion of a regions maintaining precepts of freedom in the midst of persecution and political strife in light of dominant cultural values of the said region?