Christian Terrorism vs. Islamic Terrorism

[JEDIYoda]

That's all you can say about the topic ?!

Thank You for not offering free iPads......oh Jesus Loves you!!

 

[FaaR]

Again I dare anyone to prove that my religion is evil.

Religions are just words on a page; all the violence a "holy" book can exert is if it somehow was to fall on top of your head. It's what humans do in their religion's name that defines if they're evil or not. People have made the same arguments many times about Nazism. "Oh no, it's not inherently evil! It was the bad people who did the evil things, they were wrong, they did not follow the teachings", blah blah blah.

Maybe some Christians were terrorists and supported by the church (crusades, vlad the impaler,.....) since they among the history clearly killed anyone in the name of their religion, but no muslim did so because nothing in Quran would command you to kill a civilian.

Nice. Nothing beats a good ole heaping of hypocrisy in a religious fight! lol

I didnt start any fight in fact fights were there. I came across while I was searching something and I came across those fights.

Oh, I think you knew what to expect when you went into a thread and accused another religion of religious terrorism, while proclaiming (against all evidence!) your own to be free of the same. You simply can't be this naive.

The original position of the thread, the christian terrorism versus islamic terrorism is that there is a fundamental difference between the two, in that christian terrorism tends to be perpetrated by righteous white men in government from behind of their desks, as they send soldiers invading small defenseless countries and shooting them up and bombing them back into the stone age at the behest of Big Oil and the military-industrial complex.

Whereas islamic terrorism is more personal and more desperate (not having a large military machine to fall back upon.) It's mostly small groups, armed mainly with kalashnikovs and the like, and perhaps Toyota pickup trucks. The difference in scope is huge.

 

[mms]

Religions are just words on a page; all the violence a "holy" book can exert is if it somehow was to fall on top of your head. It's what humans do in their religion's name that defines if they're evil or not. People have made the same arguments many times about Nazism. "Oh no, it's not inherently evil! It was the bad people who did the evil things, they were wrong, they did not follow the teachings", blah blah blah.


Nice. Nothing beats a good ole heaping of hypocrisy in a religious fight! lol


Oh, I think you knew what to expect when you went into a thread and accused another religion of religious terrorism, while proclaiming (against all evidence!) your own to be free of the same. You simply can't be this naive.

The original position of the thread, the christian terrorism versus islamic terrorism is that there is a fundamental difference between the two, in that christian terrorism tends to be perpetrated by righteous white men in government from behind of their desks, as they send soldiers invading small defenseless countries and shooting them up and bombing them back into the stone age at the behest of Big Oil and the military-industrial complex.

Whereas islamic terrorism is more personal and more desperate (not having a large military machine to fall back upon.) It's mostly small groups, armed mainly with kalashnikovs and the like, and perhaps Toyota pickup trucks. The difference in scope is huge.

And again another answer with no refrences.
Let's start by dictionary " Terrorism the use of violent action in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to act"
Now according to this definition I guess you even misunderstood the word.
Now let's go to experts

Robert Pape compiled the first complete database of every documented suicide bombing from 1980–2003. He argues that the news reports about suicide attacks are profoundly misleading – "There is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions". After studying 315 suicide attacks carried out over the last two decades, he concludes that suicide bombers' actions stem from political conflict, not religion.[12]
Michael A. Sheehan stated in 2000, "A number of terrorist groups have portrayed their causes in religious and cultural terms. This is often a transparent tactic designed to conceal political goals, generate popular support and silence opposition."[15]

Now let's apply those criteria on both Islamic and Christian killings and compare
1- No Islamic benefit happens to the religion and the attacks are not to gain political matters.
2- All medieval age wars by Christians were for religous benefits including the crusades.
I hope as an athiest who believes in logical thinking you start continuing based on evidences and logic not scattered words accusation.

 

[FaaR]

And again another answer with no refrences.

References to what?

Examples of islamic terrorism? What would be the point, you've already pre-emptively declared ALL of them fake news! But okay, pretty much anything done by Al Quaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, ISIS and bunches more. Hamas launching rockets into Israel, and shooting or blowing shit up in Israel. Same with Hezbollah in Lebanon. A lot of the shit Iran has gotten up to, both domestically and internationally since the fall of the Shah. The Black September olympic hostage situation back in '72... I could fucking go on all week listing references for you!

Let's start by dictionary " Terrorism the use of violent action in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to act"

That's a very dry, textbooky definition of terrorism, it doesn't even touch upon the very cornerstone of the word, ie, TERROR. Terrorism as it is typically used in the west today, IE, to promote fear and wreak havoc, typically does not strive to achieve any direct political aims, that typically takes a lot more than merely shooting up a joint or setting off a bomb. The mass shooting at the Charlie Hebdo magazine newsroom for example did not have any political repercussions - other than French politicians and people collectively standing up for the magazine in a massive manifestation.

One could argue (and some have, for years now) that the sept. 11th attacks - carried out by fanatical muslims btw - on the United States was to provoke the west in general and the U.S. in particular into wrecking its own democratic systems as we saw happen with the creation of the dep't of Homeland Security and the whole "war on terror" machinery, including secret mass surveillance (Nine Eyes, etc) on an unbelievable scale. If so, that one single act of terror was massively successful, as the U.S. has spent trillions of $$$s on spying and wars and related things, and still accomplished remarkably little.

...Such a claim would be unsupported by actual evidence though. It is just speculation. We don't know for sure if there were any greater goals with the attack than to simply punish "the great satan" in as brutal a way as possible.

Now according to this definition I guess you even misunderstood the word.

Ha! Terrorism is not something one "misunderstands". But one can certainly lean on the definition of a word to try and achieve some sort of propagandistic goal - like you are doing now when you claim islamic terrorism is something which simply does not exist.

Now let's go to experts

Appeal to authority fallacy. Confirmation bias fallacy.

One can come to most any conclusion one wants by simply curating their material to be examined.

Now let's apply those criteria on both Islamic and Christian killings and compare
1- No Islamic benefit happens to the religion and the attacks are not to gain political matters.

You're not an objective judge of that. 😉 I hope you understand why...

2- All medieval age wars by Christians were for religous benefits including the crusades.

Oh, no no no... lol! Lots of European wars were for the quite ordinary reasons of greed and lust for power. Like, invading neighbors for their territory, or for an usurper to try and topple an existing ruler. We had SO many wars of that kind. It was absolutely not all about religion, and many of those wars were christians killing each other over how one should worship to be a "proper" christian anyhow.

 

[blackangst1]

Christians are required to crusade to the holy land by the pope to recapture the holy land.

Also, per the church, the inquisition is there to help fight heresy!

These are terrorism, they may be distant past, but, if you are going to "go there" and compare the barbarism of one religion to another, you can't ignore 2000 years of worldwide terror on a scale only rivaled by hitler or stalin.

You Christians often ignore large portions of your holy book (the old testament) ... why not then let the Muslim believers choose what parts are literal or what parts are symbolic in their holy books?

The problem is FUNDAMENTALISM. Religions are being exploited for personal gain.

You apparently dont understand old testament vs new.

 

[blackangst1]

I have a hard time figuring out why anyone would kill someone else in the name of religion. It's all fucking bullshit anyway.

I agree.

 

[mms]

References to what?

Examples of islamic terrorism? What would be the point, you've already pre-emptively declared ALL of them fake news! But okay, pretty much anything done by Al Quaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, ISIS and bunches more. Hamas launching rockets into Israel, and shooting or blowing shit up in Israel. Same with Hezbollah in Lebanon. A lot of the shit Iran has gotten up to, both domestically and internationally since the fall of the Shah. The Black September olympic hostage situation back in '72... I could fucking go on all week listing references for you!


That's a very dry, textbooky definition of terrorism, it doesn't even touch upon the very cornerstone of the word, ie, TERROR. Terrorism as it is typically used in the west today, IE, to promote fear and wreak havoc, typically does not strive to achieve any direct political aims, that typically takes a lot more than merely shooting up a joint or setting off a bomb. The mass shooting at the Charlie Hebdo magazine newsroom for example did not have any political repercussions - other than French politicians and people collectively standing up for the magazine in a massive manifestation.

One could argue (and some have, for years now) that the sept. 11th attacks - carried out by fanatical muslims btw - on the United States was to provoke the west in general and the U.S. in particular into wrecking its own democratic systems as we saw happen with the creation of the dep't of Homeland Security and the whole "war on terror" machinery, including secret mass surveillance (Nine Eyes, etc) on an unbelievable scale. If so, that one single act of terror was massively successful, as the U.S. has spent trillions of $$$s on spying and wars and related things, and still accomplished remarkably little.

...Such a claim would be unsupported by actual evidence though. It is just speculation. We don't know for sure if there were any greater goals with the attack than to simply punish "the great satan" in as brutal a way as possible.


Ha! Terrorism is not something one "misunderstands". But one can certainly lean on the definition of a word to try and achieve some sort of propagandistic goal - like you are doing now when you claim islamic terrorism is something which simply does not exist.


Appeal to authority fallacy. Confirmation bias fallacy.

One can come to most any conclusion one wants by simply curating their material to be examined.


You're not an objective judge of that. 😉 I hope you understand why...


Oh, no no no... lol! Lots of European wars were for the quite ordinary reasons of greed and lust for power. Like, invading neighbors for their territory, or for an usurper to try and topple an existing ruler. We had SO many wars of that kind. It was absolutely not all about religion, and many of those wars were christians killing each other over how one should worship to be a "proper" christian anyhow.

You made claims that destroyed your own logic in one sentence either you speak another language than English or you need to find another word to describe yourself.
The meaning of terrorism was derived from 2 dictionaries advanced for academics.
Oxford and cambridge were the dictionaries, claiming you are better than both well I will let others to judge about it.
You said that your claims are not supported by actual evidence yet you try to convince me with your opinion I though you are a rational person. Not going to argue those claims until you bring an actual evidence
You called me biased while you didnt challenge my claims which shows that my claims are real and you have no evidence to prove your point.
Again destroying your own logic and proving further my words you said that the wars didnt have the religion involved but yet you continued that religion was the main reason well I will let you read your words again and give you a chance to do real thinking again other than scattered words

 

[brycejones]

You made claims that destroyed your own logic in one sentence either you speak another language than English or you need to find another word to describe yourself.
The meaning of terrorism was derived from 2 dictionaries advanced for academics.
Oxford and cambridge were the dictionaries, claiming you are better than both well I will let others to judge about it.
You said that your claims are not supported by actual evidence yet you try to convince me with your opinion I though you are a rational person. Not going to argue those claims until you bring an actual evidence
You called me biased while you didnt challenge my claims which shows that my claims are real and you have no evidence to prove your point.
Again destroying your own logic and proving further my words you said that the wars didnt have the religion involved but yet you continued that religion was the main reason well I will let you read your words again and give you a chance to do real thinking again other than scattered words

Yawn, plonk.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Christians are required to crusade to the holy land by the pope to recapture the holy land.

Also, per the church, the inquisition is there to help fight heresy!

These are terrorism, they may be distant past, but, if you are going to "go there" and compare the barbarism of one religion to another, you can't ignore 2000 years of worldwide terror on a scale only rivaled by hitler or stalin.

You Christians often ignore large portions of your holy book (the old testament) ... why not then let the Muslim believers choose what parts are literal or what parts are symbolic in their holy books?

The problem is FUNDAMENTALISM. Religions are being exploited for personal gain.

No! The problem is people like you who do not know the difference between the new and old testament!

 

[mms]

No! The problem is people like you who do not know the difference between the new and old testament!

And now either you are saying the old testament is not part of Christian believes which will demolish christianity entirely since the original sin was described in the old testament. Or you accept everything in the old testament which will result in accepting all the verses.
My problem with Christianity is not the religion itself but the people claimed to have the words of Jesus "which are unknown" and the old manuscripts which reveal huge discrepancies. Its enough to read the preface of the revised standard version to see how bad the situation is

Yet the King James version has grave defects

If Christian scholars think that the bible had "GRAVE DEFECTS" how are you actually depending on such a book ?
As I know Jesus didn't order to forget the old testament but said he came to complete it according to the new testament.

 

[JEDIYoda]

And now either you are saying the old testament is not part of Christian believes which will demolish christianity entirely since the original sin was described in the old testament. Or you accept everything in the old testament which will result in accepting all the verses.
My problem with Christianity is not the religion itself but the people claimed to have the words of Jesus "which are unknown" and the old manuscripts which reveal huge discrepancies. Its enough to read the preface of the revised standard version to see how bad the situation is

If Christian scholars think that the bible had "GRAVE DEFECTS" how are you actually depending on such a book ?
As I know Jesus didn't order to forget the old testament but said he came to complete it according to the new testament.

First of all you have not shown anybody that you understand the Bible!
But ther short answer,,,,,according to Bible Scholars there is a difference between the Old and new testament......here is a link -- enjoy -- https://www.gotquestions.org/difference-old-new-testaments.html

 

[mms]

First of all you have not shown anybody that you understand the Bible!
But ther short answer,,,,,according to Bible Scholars there is a difference between the Old and new testament......here is a link -- enjoy -- https://www.gotquestions.org/difference-old-new-testaments.html

Do I have to provide certification to join a discussion about certain topic ?!
Although 99% of people in this topic has no knowledge about the Islamic literature they claimed that it supports terrorism.
all the people spoke about ISIS ignored the fact that the Islamic world and the Islamic scholars are against their action and if we are going to calculate the percentage of extremists "calling themselves Muslim" to the percentage of extremists "supported directly by the church" through the history well it's not 1 to 100 even.
The post you shared confirmed my first claim that the old testament is complementary to the new testament and taking the whole text is necessary to understand the religion now we are agreeing to one point. The Question here can you prove that the bible is the teachings of Jesus ?! And in return if yes then the terroristic acts made by Christians were based on jesus teachings ( which I dont think so) or the answer would be no then the bible is only a normal book that was written to describe the teachings of Jesus and then there is nothing called Christian terrorism and church got misled by old writings that no one should follow.

 

[Pohemi]

You made claims that destroyed your own logic in one sentence either you speak another language than English or you need to find another word to describe yourself.
The meaning of terrorism was derived from 2 dictionaries advanced for academics.
Oxford and cambridge were the dictionaries, claiming you are better than both well I will let others to judge about it.
You said that your claims are not supported by actual evidence yet you try to convince me with your opinion I though you are a rational person. Not going to argue those claims until you bring an actual evidence
You called me biased while you didnt challenge my claims which shows that my claims are real and you have no evidence to prove your point.
Again destroying your own logic and proving further my words you said that the wars didnt have the religion involved but yet you continued that religion was the main reason well I will let you read your words again and give you a chance to do real thinking again other than scattered words

Run-on, stream-of-thought, unstructured paragraphs with rambling ideas are not logic, or facts, or evidence of anything. Your arguments are meritless.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Do I have to provide certification to join a discussion about certain topic ?!
Although 99% of people in this topic has no knowledge about the Islamic literature they claimed that it supports terrorism.
all the people spoke about ISIS ignored the fact that the Islamic world and the Islamic scholars are against their action and if we are going to calculate the percentage of extremists "calling themselves Muslim" to the percentage of extremists "supported directly by the church" through the history well it's not 1 to 100 even.
The post you shared confirmed my first claim that the old testament is complementary to the new testament and taking the whole text is necessary to understand the religion now we are agreeing to one point. The Question here can you prove that the bible is the teachings of Jesus ?! And in return if yes then the terroristic acts made by Christians were based on jesus teachings ( which I dont think so) or the answer would be no then the bible is only a normal book that was written to describe the teachings of Jesus and then there is nothing called Christian terrorism and church got misled by old writings that no one should follow.

In this case YES!! You are the one to attempt to resurrect a 7 year old thread!
Not a good way to start.......
Plus you didn1t read the link.....so i am out!

 

[FaaR]

I though you are a rational person. Not going to argue those claims until you bring an actual evidence

You called me biased while you didnt challenge my claims which shows that my claims are real

How can your claims be real when you made them up? There's lots of islamic terrorism out there. I provided you multiple examples (only a tiny fraction of all of them), and as I predicted, you ignored and rejected them out of hand. That's clearly bias.

And as for who's rational, I'm not the one claiming something which is very real (islamic terrorism), is not real.

Again destroying your own logic and proving further my words you said that the wars didnt have the religion involved but yet you continued that religion was the main reason

I said NOT ALL european wars were over religion. Which is true. And then I said some of those wars which were about religion were christians fighting other flavors of christianity - which is also true. A little reading comprehension, maybe?

well I will let you read your words again and give you a chance to do real thinking again other than scattered words

lol Your arrogance is not helping your case, mate...

 

[mms]

How can your claims be real when you made them up? There's lots of islamic terrorism out there. I provided you multiple examples (only a tiny fraction of all of them), and as I predicted, you ignored and rejected them out of hand. That's clearly bias.

And as for who's rational, I'm not the one claiming something which is very real (islamic terrorism), is not real.


I said NOT ALL european wars were over religion. Which is true. And then I said some of those wars which were about religion were christians fighting other flavors of christianity - which is also true. A little reading comprehension, maybe?



lol Your arrogance is not helping your case, mate...

Ok I will help you let's start another English lesson since the first one wasn't sufficient.
It's not acceptable to understand any word in the English language only from its structure
Taking for example communism, indeed you wont say it means helping the community which is lack of understanding the language.
So first you need to know what is terrorism.
Second you need to apply the definition over the real actions you have mentioned ( which shows no connection between the claiming to be muslims and the real muslims and Islam and add to this no political gain was made).
Third if they apply with no problem you have given me examples of unquestionable Islamic terrorism.

many of those wars were christians killing each other over how one should worship to be a "proper" christian anyhow.

Unless many seems like a big portion of those fights then denying your own words is not useful.
Most of, if not all the wars happened in Europe were happening to either spread Christianity by force (political gain) or fighting the other Faiths (also a political gain).
The difference is Chirstian priests blessed all the wars and supported it and also the community and on the other hand all muslim scholars condemned the action of killing civilians or harming others for no reason.

 

[mms]

Run-on, stream-of-thought, unstructured paragraphs with rambling ideas are not logic, or facts, or evidence of anything. Your arguments are meritless.

I'm not waiting for my claim to have merit I'm waiting for my claims to be answered

 

[zinfamous]

some old guy just discovered the internet.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You apparently dont understand old testament vs new.

It'd be nice if Christians did too.

 

[Moonbeam]

Ok I need a learned Christian to tell me first is Christianity the religion of peace ? And if yes do you mean action or words ? I hope you can bring the best out of your bible and the best out of history.
Comparing Islam to christianity is like comparing Fine Gold to Dust.
I dare anyone in this forum to submit one statement from Quran that tells Muslims to be terroristic. In contrast I can bring more than one verse from the bible to show you what you dont read
Furthermore for those loving to say muslims spread by sword you really have no knowledge of history and barely read about it you are just replying others.
" Luke 19:27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ ”
"1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
Now let's go to actions of course killing the japanese with nuclear bomb is not terrorism? Nor killing millions through the history by Christians and if we take the Visigoths only as an Example we would have a reserve for every killing in history 30,000 were butchered claiming the "holy land"
Read about killing people believing in "Arianism"
Tell me about the killing of pagans and compare it when prophet Muhammad came back to mecca and said " go you are free "
Tell me about hitler was he muslim ?!
Tell me about the KKK and Christian lynchers
No text. Not a single one in Islamic believes allows terrorism even wars have rules in Islam so dont be ignorant of all the facts and look at psychos calling themselves muslims

I am not a learned Christian and not even a Christian so I can't help you. But perhaps you can help me. I spoke with some Muslims in London some years back and was told that there were just a few things I needed to believe to be a Muslim. Some were was a belief in God, that Mohamed was his Prophet and the last of them, but I am not sure of the rest of if the five things, I think it was 5, are the only requirements to qualify. Is that factual or is that just a Muslim sect thingi? None of the five in the context they suggested are things I don't believe which they felt qualified me as a Muslim too. Does that make any sense to you? Can you tell me what the 5 were again if they are the fundamentals of Muslim faith? I salute your love of the good.

 

[mms]

I am not a learned Christian and not even a Christian so I can't help you. But perhaps you can help me. I spoke with some Muslims in London some years back and was told that there were just a few things I needed to believe to be a Muslim. Some were was a belief in God, that Mohamed was his Prophet and the last of them, but I am not sure of the rest of if the five things, I think it was 5, are the only requirements to qualify. Is that factual or is that just a Muslim sect thingi? None of the five in the context they suggested are things I don't believe which they felt qualified me as a Muslim too. Does that make any sense to you? Can you tell me what the 5 were again if they are the fundamentals of Muslim faith? I salute your love of the good.

"بني الإسلام على خمس: شهادة أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمداً رسول الله، وإقام الصلاة، وإيتاء الزكاة، وصوم رمضان، وحج البيت من استطاع إليه سبيلاً"
Islam built upon 5 :
1- Witnessing that there is no god but allah and prophet Muhammad is his messenger.
2- Doing the prayers (prayers are different from normal supplications).
3- Giving zakah (2.5 percent each year and 2 bowls of rice "or equivilant" at the end of Ramadan.
4- Fasting the month of Ramadan.
5- Pilgrimage to mecca if possible (only for capable people)
Those are the pillars not the only rules to follow though ( not the structure ) so missing one like prayers can disqualify you from being a Muslim.

 

[Moonbeam]

"بني الإسلام على خمس: شهادة أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمداً رسول الله، وإقام الصلاة، وإيتاء الزكاة، وصوم رمضان، وحج البيت من استطاع إليه سبيلاً"
Islam built upon 5 :
1- Witnessing that there is no god but allah and prophet Muhammad is his messenger.
2- Doing the prayers (prayers are different from normal supplications).
3- Giving zakah (2.5 percent each year and 2 bowls of rice "or equivilant" at the end of Ramadan.
4- Fasting the month of Ramadan.
5- Pilgrimage to mecca if possible (only for capable people)
Those are the pillars not the only rules to follow though ( not the structure ) so missing one like prayers can disqualify you from being a Muslim.

Ah, perhaps then a sect thing or I was just being fooled. Those were not the five I was told. Only the first was the same. Thank you for responding.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol
Guys, Islamic terrorism isn’t Islamic because the perpetrators weren’t real Muslims. By that token, Christian terrorism isn’t really Christian terrorism because the perpetrators weren’t real Christians.

If you haven’t figured it out guy, the true practitioners of “insert name of religion here” are arbitrary and decided by who is the most fanatic. Hence the reason most older religions have factions that all claim to be true “insert name of religious practitioners”.

 

[cytg111]

"بني الإسلام على خمس: شهادة أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمداً رسول الله، وإقام الصلاة، وإيتاء الزكاة، وصوم رمضان، وحج البيت من استطاع إليه سبيلاً"
Islam built upon 5 :
1- Witnessing that there is no god but allah and prophet Muhammad is his messenger.
2- Doing the prayers (prayers are different from normal supplications).
3- Giving zakah (2.5 percent each year and 2 bowls of rice "or equivilant" at the end of Ramadan.
4- Fasting the month of Ramadan.
5- Pilgrimage to mecca if possible (only for capable people)
Those are the pillars not the only rules to follow though ( not the structure ) so missing one like prayers can disqualify you from being a Muslim.

I am pretty sure that is Scientology as well, although that may be 100% not 2.5

 

[Moonbeam]

"بني الإسلام على خمس: شهادة أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمداً رسول الله، وإقام الصلاة، وإيتاء الزكاة، وصوم رمضان، وحج البيت من استطاع إليه سبيلاً"
Islam built upon 5 :
1- Witnessing that there is no god but allah and prophet Muhammad is his messenger.
2- Doing the prayers (prayers are different from normal supplications).
3- Giving zakah (2.5 percent each year and 2 bowls of rice "or equivilant" at the end of Ramadan.
4- Fasting the month of Ramadan.
5- Pilgrimage to mecca if possible (only for capable people)
Those are the pillars not the only rules to follow though ( not the structure ) so missing one like prayers can disqualify you from being a Muslim.

I looked for myself and this is more like what I remember. May have got the number wrong:

Muslims have six major beliefs:

• Belief in one God (Allah)
• Belief in the Angels
• Belief in the holy books sent to all the prophets including Torah that was revealed to the prophet Moses, Bible that was revealed to the prophet Jesus, and Qur'an (Koran) that was revealed to the prophet Muhammad
• Belief in all the prophets sent by God including Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. Although Muslims believe in Isa or Jesus they don't think of Jesus as the Son of God the way Christians do.
• Belief in the Day of Judgment and life after death. The best reward for performing good deeds is getting closer to God.
• Belief in divine decree. This means that God is all-powerful and nothing can happen without His permission, however, he has given human beings freedom to choose whether to be good or bad. In the end, everyone will be questioned about how they lived in this life.
  
  I believe these 6 refer to things that are essentially true even if I may understand them differently than other believers. And I believe that peace comes from surrender. I also believe that no believer of any real faith can be a terrorist.