Why exactly are Muslim extremists killing Muslims in Iraq?

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Aimster
lack of education.

I am revolted to be agreeing with you, but I've been screaming that off the top of my lungs for ages now.

The blame for Islamic Terrorism can be put squarely on the shoulders of the leaders of Arab countries... because when they're faced with real social problems, it's just too easy to pass up the opportunity to blame anyone but themselves, and get away with it.

If someone forced two generations of these kids to get a real education, their greed would become the vehicle of their hostility, just like for the people in the western world.

Those leaders are supported by the USA.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Aimster
lack of education.

I am revolted to be agreeing with you, but I've been screaming that off the top of my lungs for ages now.

The blame for Islamic Terrorism can be put squarely on the shoulders of the leaders of Arab countries... because when they're faced with real social problems, it's just too easy to pass up the opportunity to blame anyone but themselves, and get away with it.

If someone forced two generations of these kids to get a real education, their greed would become the vehicle of their hostility, just like for the people in the western world.

Those leaders are supported by the USA.

Oy, don't even get me started on that.

/sigh

This whole Israeli-Palestinian, Iraq-Iran, Islam-Christianity fiasco is a result of the USSR and USA fighting over spheres of influence in the Middle East.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Aimster
lack of education.

I am revolted to be agreeing with you, but I've been screaming that off the top of my lungs for ages now.

The blame for Islamic Terrorism can be put squarely on the shoulders of the leaders of Arab countries... because when they're faced with real social problems, it's just too easy to pass up the opportunity to blame anyone but themselves, and get away with it.

If someone forced two generations of these kids to get a real education, their greed would become the vehicle of their hostility, just like for the people in the western world.

Those leaders are supported by the USA.

Oy, don't even get me started on that.

/sigh

This whole Israeli-Palestinian, Iraq-Iran, Islam-Christianity fiasco is a result of the USSR and USA fighting over spheres of influence in the Middle East.

I think its mostly due to the intolerance of Islam.

Right now it isn't just Islam vs. Christianity.

Its Islam vs. Buddhism in Thailand and India

Its Islam vs. Judaism in Israel

Its Islam vs. Hinduism in India

Its Islam vs. Christianity in New York, Washington, Europe and Iraq

Its Islam vs. Sikhism in India

Notice a pattern?

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Aimster
lack of education.

I am revolted to be agreeing with you, but I've been screaming that off the top of my lungs for ages now.

The blame for Islamic Terrorism can be put squarely on the shoulders of the leaders of Arab countries... because when they're faced with real social problems, it's just too easy to pass up the opportunity to blame anyone but themselves, and get away with it.

If someone forced two generations of these kids to get a real education, their greed would become the vehicle of their hostility, just like for the people in the western world.

Those leaders are supported by the USA.

Oy, don't even get me started on that.

/sigh

This whole Israeli-Palestinian, Iraq-Iran, Islam-Christianity fiasco is a result of the USSR and USA fighting over spheres of influence in the Middle East.

I think its mostly due to the intolerance of Islam.

Right now it isn't just Islam vs. Christianity.

Its Islam vs. Buddhism in Thailand and India

Its Islam vs. Judaism in Israel

Its Islam vs. Hinduism in India

Its Islam vs. Christianity in New York, Washington, Europe and Iraq

Its Islam vs. Sikhism in India

Notice a pattern?

Yes, that Islam is under attack.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Aimster
lack of education.

I am revolted to be agreeing with you, but I've been screaming that off the top of my lungs for ages now.

The blame for Islamic Terrorism can be put squarely on the shoulders of the leaders of Arab countries... because when they're faced with real social problems, it's just too easy to pass up the opportunity to blame anyone but themselves, and get away with it.

If someone forced two generations of these kids to get a real education, their greed would become the vehicle of their hostility, just like for the people in the western world.

Those leaders are supported by the USA.

Oy, don't even get me started on that.

/sigh

This whole Israeli-Palestinian, Iraq-Iran, Islam-Christianity fiasco is a result of the USSR and USA fighting over spheres of influence in the Middle East.

I think its mostly due to the intolerance of Islam.

Right now it isn't just Islam vs. Christianity.

Its Islam vs. Buddhism in Thailand and India

Its Islam vs. Judaism in Israel

Its Islam vs. Hinduism in India

Its Islam vs. Christianity in New York, Washington, Europe and Iraq

Its Islam vs. Sikhism in India

Notice a pattern?

Yes, that Islam is under attack.

Islam is under attack in traditionally Christian, multicultural centers such as Europe, New York and Washington?

Islam is under attack in traditionnaly multireligious countries such as India, Thailand and Indonesia?

Islam is under sttack? No. Is Islam on the attack? Yes. And this attack is based on the compassion of other men. Hindus, Jews, Christians etc won't unleash their full potential with respect for the global ideal of human rights. These Islamists have no respect for such things. They will attack anywhere and anyone.

Children getting candy from US forces in Iraq, children and women getting food and warm clothes in India. Slaughtered in the name of Jihad.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Aimster
lack of education.

I am revolted to be agreeing with you, but I've been screaming that off the top of my lungs for ages now.

The blame for Islamic Terrorism can be put squarely on the shoulders of the leaders of Arab countries... because when they're faced with real social problems, it's just too easy to pass up the opportunity to blame anyone but themselves, and get away with it.

If someone forced two generations of these kids to get a real education, their greed would become the vehicle of their hostility, just like for the people in the western world.

Those leaders are supported by the USA.

Oy, don't even get me started on that.

/sigh

This whole Israeli-Palestinian, Iraq-Iran, Islam-Christianity fiasco is a result of the USSR and USA fighting over spheres of influence in the Middle East.

I think its mostly due to the intolerance of Islam.

Right now it isn't just Islam vs. Christianity.

Its Islam vs. Buddhism in Thailand and India

Its Islam vs. Judaism in Israel

Its Islam vs. Hinduism in India

Its Islam vs. Christianity in New York, Washington, Europe and Iraq

Its Islam vs. Sikhism in India

Notice a pattern?

Yes, that Islam is under attack.

Islam is under attack in traditionally Christian, multicultural centers such as Europe, New York and Washington?

Islam is under attack in traditionnaly multireligious countries such as India, Thailand and Indonesia?

Islam is under sttack? No. Is Islam on the attack? Yes. And this attack is based on the compassion of other men. Hindus, Jews, Christians etc won't unleash their full potential with respect for the global ideal of human rights. These Islamists have no respect for such things. They will attack anywhere and anyone.

Children getting candy from US forces in Iraq, children and women getting food and warm clothes in India. Slaughtered in the name of Jihad.

Yeah the hindus are such nice pacificsts with no hint of extremism, just ask the 1000+ Muslims they killed in Gujarat a few years back. I'm looking outside my window and I see the hordes of Islamic Iraqi troops about to kick down my door and blow up my neighborhoods..oh wait. :roll:

Link: Hindu pacifism :roll:

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Aimster
lack of education.

I am revolted to be agreeing with you, but I've been screaming that off the top of my lungs for ages now.

The blame for Islamic Terrorism can be put squarely on the shoulders of the leaders of Arab countries... because when they're faced with real social problems, it's just too easy to pass up the opportunity to blame anyone but themselves, and get away with it.

If someone forced two generations of these kids to get a real education, their greed would become the vehicle of their hostility, just like for the people in the western world.

Those leaders are supported by the USA.

Oy, don't even get me started on that.

/sigh

This whole Israeli-Palestinian, Iraq-Iran, Islam-Christianity fiasco is a result of the USSR and USA fighting over spheres of influence in the Middle East.

I think its mostly due to the intolerance of Islam.

Right now it isn't just Islam vs. Christianity.

Its Islam vs. Buddhism in Thailand and India

Its Islam vs. Judaism in Israel

Its Islam vs. Hinduism in India

Its Islam vs. Christianity in New York, Washington, Europe and Iraq

Its Islam vs. Sikhism in India

Notice a pattern?

Yes, that Islam is under attack.

Islam is under attack in traditionally Christian, multicultural centers such as Europe, New York and Washington?

Islam is under attack in traditionnaly multireligious countries such as India, Thailand and Indonesia?

Islam is under sttack? No. Is Islam on the attack? Yes. And this attack is based on the compassion of other men. Hindus, Jews, Christians etc won't unleash their full potential with respect for the global ideal of human rights. These Islamists have no respect for such things. They will attack anywhere and anyone.

Children getting candy from US forces in Iraq, children and women getting food and warm clothes in India. Slaughtered in the name of Jihad.

Yeah the hindus are such nice pacificsts with no hint of extremism, just ask the 1000+ Muslims they killed in hyderabad a few years back. I'm looking outside my window and I see the hordes of Islamic Iraqi troops about to kick down my door and blow up my neighborhoods..oh wait. :roll:

Hyderabad? WTF are you talking about? Gujurat? There was a lot of killing both sides.

Learn your damn geography genious.

Oh and ask the millions of Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs killed by Islamic imperialists what they think.

Modern liberals are cowards. You don't believe in anything global. You just attach yourselves to one idea and follow throught with it. You're almost conservative. Narrow-minded to the tee.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Aimster
lack of education.

I am revolted to be agreeing with you, but I've been screaming that off the top of my lungs for ages now.

The blame for Islamic Terrorism can be put squarely on the shoulders of the leaders of Arab countries... because when they're faced with real social problems, it's just too easy to pass up the opportunity to blame anyone but themselves, and get away with it.

If someone forced two generations of these kids to get a real education, their greed would become the vehicle of their hostility, just like for the people in the western world.

Those leaders are supported by the USA.

Oy, don't even get me started on that.

/sigh

This whole Israeli-Palestinian, Iraq-Iran, Islam-Christianity fiasco is a result of the USSR and USA fighting over spheres of influence in the Middle East.

I think its mostly due to the intolerance of Islam.

Right now it isn't just Islam vs. Christianity.

Its Islam vs. Buddhism in Thailand and India

Its Islam vs. Judaism in Israel

Its Islam vs. Hinduism in India

Its Islam vs. Christianity in New York, Washington, Europe and Iraq

Its Islam vs. Sikhism in India

Notice a pattern?

Yes, that Islam is under attack.

Islam is under attack in traditionally Christian, multicultural centers such as Europe, New York and Washington?

Islam is under attack in traditionnaly multireligious countries such as India, Thailand and Indonesia?

Islam is under sttack? No. Is Islam on the attack? Yes. And this attack is based on the compassion of other men. Hindus, Jews, Christians etc won't unleash their full potential with respect for the global ideal of human rights. These Islamists have no respect for such things. They will attack anywhere and anyone.

Children getting candy from US forces in Iraq, children and women getting food and warm clothes in India. Slaughtered in the name of Jihad.

Yeah the hindus are such nice pacificsts with no hint of extremism, just ask the 1000+ Muslims they killed in hyderabad a few years back. I'm looking outside my window and I see the hordes of Islamic Iraqi troops about to kick down my door and blow up my neighborhoods..oh wait. :roll:

Hyderabad? WTF are you talking about? Gujurat? There was a lot of killing both sides.

Learn your damn geography genious.

Oh and ask the millions of Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs killed by Islamic imperialists what they think.

Modern liberals are cowards. You don't believe in anything global. You just attach yourselves to one idea and follow throught with it. You're almost conservative.

Yeah big deal I edited it about 1 min after posting it. Go read my edit and there is no proof whatsoever besides hindu propaganda that Islamic invaders hundreds of years ago ever killed hindus/sikhs on a large scale. Lets stick to modern history since your implication was tha Islam is currently attacking everyone rather than being under attack like I asserted.

 

[TRUMPHENT]

My take on this is as follows. This is occuring in a muslim region. The invasion has set loose the forces that will shape the future of Iraq and region. These events have always generated a wave of violence Ask yourself why Americans were killing Americans during the American Civil War.

Factions in Iraq are predominately muslim of one denomination or another. Add the complexity of tribal culture, vendetta, etc. to the total seizure of the the country and you have a fertile field for muslim killing muslim. I doubt that even a well informed and educated Iraqi could accurately illustrate all the players and motivations. What chance does Bush, Bremer, Franks, Casey, Sanchez, etc. have or had?

In addition, add the influence of yet another invasion by western foreigners. Many of the killed muslims were deemed to be collaborators with the western invaders.

Go visit the Katyn Forest. Russians murdered Polish army members, Churchill wanted to blame the Germans, the Red Cross confirmed that England's ally Russia, had murdered Slavs. Propaganda win goes to Nazi Germany.



Wars have a way of making things happen that no one predicted possible. Hence, the wisdom of avoiding them if at all possible.

There are so many different groups, rivalries, hatreds, interests and outsiders now at work in Iraq that I doubt anyone can put it all into focus and see a workable plan.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Aimster
lack of education.

I am revolted to be agreeing with you, but I've been screaming that off the top of my lungs for ages now.

The blame for Islamic Terrorism can be put squarely on the shoulders of the leaders of Arab countries... because when they're faced with real social problems, it's just too easy to pass up the opportunity to blame anyone but themselves, and get away with it.

If someone forced two generations of these kids to get a real education, their greed would become the vehicle of their hostility, just like for the people in the western world.

Heh, yeah, that's like saying American killing American during the Civil War is caused by lack of education.

Dude, you may think Muslims are all the same, but they are not. There are Sunni Muslim, there are Shiite Muslim, and there are the Kurds. There are Muslim from the Arab, from Iran, from Syria having different political agenda. There are Muslims fighting American, there are Muslim trying to gain political influence in Iraq, and there are Muslim trying to make some money during this chaos.

What do you think is gonna happen when you take out a country's established miltary, government, and instead put in a foreign power to act as the peace keeper? Like it or not, under Saddam Hussein, there was a balance of power, a result of his brutal rule maybe, but at least there was a balance. When American took him and his government out, and when there is chaos after that, don't try and blame something/someone else for the mess.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Aimster
lack of education.

I am revolted to be agreeing with you, but I've been screaming that off the top of my lungs for ages now.

The blame for Islamic Terrorism can be put squarely on the shoulders of the leaders of Arab countries... because when they're faced with real social problems, it's just too easy to pass up the opportunity to blame anyone but themselves, and get away with it.

If someone forced two generations of these kids to get a real education, their greed would become the vehicle of their hostility, just like for the people in the western world.

Those leaders are supported by the USA.

Oy, don't even get me started on that.

/sigh

This whole Israeli-Palestinian, Iraq-Iran, Islam-Christianity fiasco is a result of the USSR and USA fighting over spheres of influence in the Middle East.

I think its mostly due to the intolerance of Islam.

Right now it isn't just Islam vs. Christianity.

Its Islam vs. Buddhism in Thailand and India

Its Islam vs. Judaism in Israel

Its Islam vs. Hinduism in India

Its Islam vs. Christianity in New York, Washington, Europe and Iraq

Its Islam vs. Sikhism in India

Notice a pattern?

Yes, that Islam is under attack.

Islam is under attack in traditionally Christian, multicultural centers such as Europe, New York and Washington?

Islam is under attack in traditionnaly multireligious countries such as India, Thailand and Indonesia?

Islam is under sttack? No. Is Islam on the attack? Yes. And this attack is based on the compassion of other men. Hindus, Jews, Christians etc won't unleash their full potential with respect for the global ideal of human rights. These Islamists have no respect for such things. They will attack anywhere and anyone.

Children getting candy from US forces in Iraq, children and women getting food and warm clothes in India. Slaughtered in the name of Jihad.

Yeah the hindus are such nice pacificsts with no hint of extremism, just ask the 1000+ Muslims they killed in hyderabad a few years back. I'm looking outside my window and I see the hordes of Islamic Iraqi troops about to kick down my door and blow up my neighborhoods..oh wait. :roll:

Hyderabad? WTF are you talking about? Gujurat? There was a lot of killing both sides.

Learn your damn geography genious.

Oh and ask the millions of Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs killed by Islamic imperialists what they think.

Modern liberals are cowards. You don't believe in anything global. You just attach yourselves to one idea and follow throught with it. You're almost conservative.

Yeah big deal I edited it about 1 min after posting it. Go read my edit and there is no proof whatsoever besides hindu propaganda that Islamic invaders hundreds of years ago ever killed hindus/sikhs on a large scale. Lets stick to modern history since your implication was tha Islam is currently attacking everyone rather than being under attack like I asserted.

Over one million Hindus and Sikhs were in Kashmir. What happened to all of them?

Most were killed. You don't call that a genocide?

As for propaganda 20,000 Hindus are buried underneath the Taj Mahal itself.

BTW you're on a Hindu site.

genocides in history

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Aimster
lack of education.

I am revolted to be agreeing with you, but I've been screaming that off the top of my lungs for ages now.

The blame for Islamic Terrorism can be put squarely on the shoulders of the leaders of Arab countries... because when they're faced with real social problems, it's just too easy to pass up the opportunity to blame anyone but themselves, and get away with it.

If someone forced two generations of these kids to get a real education, their greed would become the vehicle of their hostility, just like for the people in the western world.

Those leaders are supported by the USA.

Oy, don't even get me started on that.

/sigh

This whole Israeli-Palestinian, Iraq-Iran, Islam-Christianity fiasco is a result of the USSR and USA fighting over spheres of influence in the Middle East.

I think its mostly due to the intolerance of Islam.

Right now it isn't just Islam vs. Christianity.

Its Islam vs. Buddhism in Thailand and India

Its Islam vs. Judaism in Israel

Its Islam vs. Hinduism in India

Its Islam vs. Christianity in New York, Washington, Europe and Iraq

Its Islam vs. Sikhism in India

Notice a pattern?

Yes, that Islam is under attack.

Islam is under attack in traditionally Christian, multicultural centers such as Europe, New York and Washington?

Islam is under attack in traditionnaly multireligious countries such as India, Thailand and Indonesia?

Islam is under sttack? No. Is Islam on the attack? Yes. And this attack is based on the compassion of other men. Hindus, Jews, Christians etc won't unleash their full potential with respect for the global ideal of human rights. These Islamists have no respect for such things. They will attack anywhere and anyone.

Children getting candy from US forces in Iraq, children and women getting food and warm clothes in India. Slaughtered in the name of Jihad.

Yeah the hindus are such nice pacificsts with no hint of extremism, just ask the 1000+ Muslims they killed in hyderabad a few years back. I'm looking outside my window and I see the hordes of Islamic Iraqi troops about to kick down my door and blow up my neighborhoods..oh wait. :roll:

Hyderabad? WTF are you talking about? Gujurat? There was a lot of killing both sides.

Learn your damn geography genious.

Oh and ask the millions of Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs killed by Islamic imperialists what they think.

Modern liberals are cowards. You don't believe in anything global. You just attach yourselves to one idea and follow throught with it. You're almost conservative.

Yeah big deal I edited it about 1 min after posting it. Go read my edit and there is no proof whatsoever besides hindu propaganda that Islamic invaders hundreds of years ago ever killed hindus/sikhs on a large scale. Lets stick to modern history since your implication was tha Islam is currently attacking everyone rather than being under attack like I asserted.

Over one million Hindus and Sikhs were in Kashmir. What happened to all of them?

Most were killed. You don't call that a genocide?

As for propaganda 20,000 Hindus are buried underneath the Taj Mahal itself.

BTW you're on a Hindu site.

genocides in history

Again, I said give me some proof of your assertion. All you linked to was a disputed article on Wikipedia that could have been written by anyone. :roll: What relevance does this being a "hindu" site have with this discussion? You truly are a moron.

P.S. Even the Wikipedia article notes this:

Many Hindus, Buddhists and Jains were killed during the Islamic conquest of South Asia. Sometimes this was on the basis of their religion depending on the who reigned. The worst killings were committed during the reign of Mahmud of Ghazni, Mohammed Ghori and later the Delhi Sultanate. Some say that whilst many of these rulers claimed to rule by Islam, they broke their own moral laws, and thus, cannot be truly described as Islamic. Rather, this seemed to be a continuation of the medieval traditions of battle at that time.

Like I said, you have no proof of millions of hindus/sikhs being killed by Islam hundreds of years ago. Furthermore, you've deviated from your claim that Islam is an aggressor in modern times and gone off on a tangent - as usual. You're not very bright are you?

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Aimster
lack of education.

I am revolted to be agreeing with you, but I've been screaming that off the top of my lungs for ages now.

The blame for Islamic Terrorism can be put squarely on the shoulders of the leaders of Arab countries... because when they're faced with real social problems, it's just too easy to pass up the opportunity to blame anyone but themselves, and get away with it.

If someone forced two generations of these kids to get a real education, their greed would become the vehicle of their hostility, just like for the people in the western world.

Those leaders are supported by the USA.

Oy, don't even get me started on that.

/sigh

This whole Israeli-Palestinian, Iraq-Iran, Islam-Christianity fiasco is a result of the USSR and USA fighting over spheres of influence in the Middle East.

I think its mostly due to the intolerance of Islam.

Right now it isn't just Islam vs. Christianity.

Its Islam vs. Buddhism in Thailand and India

Its Islam vs. Judaism in Israel

Its Islam vs. Hinduism in India

Its Islam vs. Christianity in New York, Washington, Europe and Iraq

Its Islam vs. Sikhism in India

Notice a pattern?

Yes, that Islam is under attack.

Islam is under attack in traditionally Christian, multicultural centers such as Europe, New York and Washington?

Islam is under attack in traditionnaly multireligious countries such as India, Thailand and Indonesia?

Islam is under sttack? No. Is Islam on the attack? Yes. And this attack is based on the compassion of other men. Hindus, Jews, Christians etc won't unleash their full potential with respect for the global ideal of human rights. These Islamists have no respect for such things. They will attack anywhere and anyone.

Children getting candy from US forces in Iraq, children and women getting food and warm clothes in India. Slaughtered in the name of Jihad.

Yeah the hindus are such nice pacificsts with no hint of extremism, just ask the 1000+ Muslims they killed in hyderabad a few years back. I'm looking outside my window and I see the hordes of Islamic Iraqi troops about to kick down my door and blow up my neighborhoods..oh wait. :roll:

Hyderabad? WTF are you talking about? Gujurat? There was a lot of killing both sides.

Learn your damn geography genious.

Oh and ask the millions of Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs killed by Islamic imperialists what they think.

Modern liberals are cowards. You don't believe in anything global. You just attach yourselves to one idea and follow throught with it. You're almost conservative.

Yeah big deal I edited it about 1 min after posting it. Go read my edit and there is no proof whatsoever besides hindu propaganda that Islamic invaders hundreds of years ago ever killed hindus/sikhs on a large scale. Lets stick to modern history since your implication was tha Islam is currently attacking everyone rather than being under attack like I asserted.

Over one million Hindus and Sikhs were in Kashmir. What happened to all of them?

Most were killed. You don't call that a genocide?

As for propaganda 20,000 Hindus are buried underneath the Taj Mahal itself.

BTW you're on a Hindu site.

genocides in history

Again, I said give me some proof of your assertion. All you linked to was a disputed article on Wikipedia that could have been written by anyone. ;roll; What relevance does this being a "hindu" site have with this discussion? You truly are a moron.

:roll:

Typical...

Mankind must be continually reminded of holocausts or weak men forget.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Oy, don't even get me started on that.

/sigh

This whole Israeli-Palestinian, Iraq-Iran, Islam-Christianity fiasco is a result of the USSR and USA fighting over spheres of influence in the Middle East.

I think its mostly due to the intolerance of Islam.

Right now it isn't just Islam vs. Christianity.

Its Islam vs. Buddhism in Thailand and India

Its Islam vs. Judaism in Israel

Its Islam vs. Hinduism in India

Its Islam vs. Christianity in New York, Washington, Europe and Iraq

Its Islam vs. Sikhism in India

Notice a pattern?
[/quote]


Causation does not imply correlation.

In Thailand it is actually the Thai government oppressing Muslims.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63714-2004Oct26.html

At least 78 Muslim men suffocated or were crushed to death in southern Thailand on Monday as they were being taken to military barracks in packed army trucks after a demonstration, Thai officials said Tuesday.

The government has seemed to love to keep oppressing Muslims there. The people get extremist, and you complain about it?

In Isreal, it is not Judaism vs Muslims, it is Zionists vs Arabs. If it is really Judaism vs Muslims tell it to the 15% Christian Palestinian population who are living among their Muslim brethern.

In India, it is largely an extremist issue. Muslims and Hindus have lived among one another for a VERRRRY long time with little to no problems, and to ignore that is to take a tunnel view of history. Even "unofficial" agreements have existed, where Muslims can eat beef but do it quietly behind the Hindu majority backs.

=How the heck is it "Islam vs. Christianity in New York" and the other places you are listing! You are just making things up now~ For Islam vs Sikhism I suggest you read what I wrote earlier.

Again causation does not imply correlation (The FIRST thing they teach you in any form of statistics) and your evidence is weak as best. If you still beleive that, I suggest you read about the decline of pirates versus the increase in natural disasters.
When you provide real proof, more than just comments, then we will discuss and take a look at it.



One of the things that bothers me the most is that regardless of how much you debate with people who think Islam is evil, Islam is the problem...they never seem to read much of what you say. The only reason threads about Islam go on FOREEEVER is that erroneous points are brought up repeatedly by the same people OVER AND OVER again. I have learned much about many things that I previously disagreed with. I still may disagree with things, but I won't bring up false or erroneous peices of informatin that have been repeated over and over again.


EDIT:

To answer the original topic. Why exactly have Christians killed many Christians in Europe, and America, and South America throughout history? It is the same answer. They have their own agenda and use anything, including religion, to push that.

 

[sandorski]

Iraq is in a state of Civil War. It is somewhat a low state, being held back by the presence of US and Coalition troops, but even this low state is very destructive.

 

[MegaWorks]

Well Wahhabie barbarians and baathist who hate the Shiite majority in Iraq are behind these acts.

Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations
See main article: Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations

Shi'a and Sunni historians record that many Shia's have been persecuted, intimidated, and killed, starting with the Abu Bakr coming into power, through the coup d'état of Alis caliphate, in the Shi'a view . In the past, most leading Sunni scholars are known to have openly considered the Shi'a as "Kafir" (disbelievers). This was mainly fueled by misunderstanding Shi'a concepts such as Taqiyya, Muta, and the Shi'a point of view regarding Ali, Umar, and other companions.

However, many scholars of recent history have become more tolerant towards Shi'a and some have promoted unity, others have not. Yet within Shiism, it has always been stressed to seek unity among the majority. Organizations such as the Shi'a Lebanese Hezbollah have increased popularity of Shi'a among Sunnis and are seen as a credible organization and in many cases praised by both ideological parties.

Modern mainstream Sunni have also become less confrontational. The renowned al-Azhar Theological school in Egypt, for example, one of the main centers of Sunni scholarship in the world, announced the al-Azhar Shia Fatwa on July 6, 1959:

"The Shi'a is a school of thought that is religiously correct to follow in worship as are other Sunni schools of thought."
Today, both Shi'a and Sunni students graduate and study at the Al-Azhar university.

However, some extremist Sunni groups such as Salafi, Taliban or Al Qaeda have continued to persecute Shi'a as heretics. Salafis still consider Shias as apostates and openly advocate their killing.

Misconceptions about the Shi'a

Introduction

Bias against the Shia is quite evident in many Islamic academic institutions. This official letter from Malaysia illustrates an example.There are numerous books on history, literature, bibliography, etc - by both early and contemporary writers - that undermine the scholastic, literary, social, and cultural rights of the Shia. In cases where such works intend to discuss the works and virtues of the Shi'a, they fail in doing so and leave the facts about Shi'a and its intellectual legacy relatively untouched and unknown.8


Researchers must be cautious in believing the contents of such works before careful scrunity. These works were mostly written by certain individuals motivated by their ambitions or bigotry, which result in fabrication, perversion, and calumny, therefore rendering their works unrelaible. The late religious authority of Egypt and president of Al-Azhar University, Sheikh Mahmud Shaltut, who declared the Shi'a as a legitimate Islamic school of thought, also remarked:

"Most of those who have written on Islamic denominations, have been influenced by the vicious spirit of prejudice."
"Therefore anyone who cares about equity and fairness and wishes to study various Islamic denominations, should not base his opinions on such works, but instead must consult with the main books and sources of those denominations in order to approximate the truth and avoid mistakes."
It is an undeniable fact that the attention paid by Sunni muslims to familiarize the world with Islam has been more than that of Shias. Sunnis retain many commendable achievements for this cause. However some of them have been affected by sectarian prejudice, thus portraying the Shi'a in a distorted way.

On the other hand, a phenomenon called orientalism and "Islamology" has existed for some time, the vanguards of which were individuals who were immediately assisted and collaborated by the agents of politics. The numerous extant distorted references and fabricated statements provided these people, in addition to their own ill intentions, to write anything they pleased. In the words of renowned philosopher Seyyed Hosein Nasr:

"Although western scholars have done extensive studies about various aspects of Islam and Islamic civilization in the past century, most of their works of full of bias and vicious intentions and distortive efforts are visible throughout them."[1]
Among the different groups, the Shi'a have in particular been harmed more than any other Islamic denomination due to lack of sufficient reliable references that are readily available to foreign researchers. In the words of Edward Browne, "we still have no access to any detailed, sufficient, and reliable works on the Shi'i school of thought in any of the European languages."[2]

This article intends to address just that, and is written from the perspective of the Shi'a, since Shi'as contend and dispute the standard image portrayed for them by some, if not the majority, of western academic and Sunni sources.1

[edit]
Current sources on the Shi'a
Of the hundreds of contemporary academic sources that address matters pertaining to the Shi'a, "almost all resources used by Europeans in their studies about Islam are Sunni works".1 Whenever the Quran, hadith, history of Mohammad's life, fiqh, and kalam are touched on, it is the opinion of Sunni muslims exclusively that is often taken as the standard version. It comes thus as no surprise that western scholars describe Sunni'ism as orthodox Islam and Shi'ism as a heretical sect. Sunni historians have always tried to, in the words of M.G.S. Hodgson, "show that all other schools of thought other than their own were not only false but, if possible, less than truly Muslim. Their work described innumerable firqahs in terms which readily misled modern scholars into supposing they were referring to so many heretical sects."7, p66-67

On the other hand, what is often found on the Shi'a in some encyclopedias are full of errors, baseless accusations, and superficial confused statements. Unfortunately, when these works are translated into Arabic, often by Sunni writers, they rarely add any footnotes pointing to these mistakes or shortcomings. This results in the spread of erroneous information that ultimately finds its way into even more sources, albeit inauthentic.

Furthermore, publications by Shi'i scholars remain comparably at unacceptably low levels. To see this in a more visible light, it is educational to observe Dr. Abul-Jawad Falaturi's statements in this reagrd:

"If we count all books and articles that have been published during the past 25 years in different European languages about Islam and Muslim countries--a task I performed based on Abstracta Islamica which listed all books published about Islam since 1943-- we can easily reach the conclusion that out of every 100 writings on Islam, only two relate to groups other than Sunni ones. Among this small number, one out of every seven work addresses The Twelver Shi'a. This means that out of every 350 books and articles, only one is specifically related to the Twelver Shi'a, a number even far less than The Zaidi or Ismaili Shia."8
Perhaps the historical background of the west is the major reason behind this blemish. The west had major direct contact with the Sunni form of Islam on almost all occasions, from Andalusia in the west to the Ottoman Turks in the east. Contacts with the Shi'a were confined to rather secret and rather limited relations with some Ismaili territories in Palestine during the crusades, but the west generally did not have any contact with the Shi'a world before the modern era. Islamic Iran, for example, only came to be known for the first time through the cultural acquaintance of India.

The result of such uneven contacts by opinionated orientalists can be observed in the writings of the likes of historians such as the Jesuit Henri Lammens (1862-1937), the Jewish Ignaz Goldziher, and Joseph Schacht (1902-1969), who made no effort to conceal their mockery and judgemental views of history. For example, Lammens' paper for the Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 3 reads:

Writes "Ali was the least intelligent" and intellectually "incapable".
Writes of how Ali was "ugly".
Writes about how Ali was "fat".
Mocks how Allah wished to keep his representative Muhammad in poverty.
Writes of Muhammad "kicking Fatima brutally" and telling her to "shut up".
Writes: "Fatima screamed: You are marrying me off to a beggar" (Ali).
claims Muhammad's wealth came from "plundering the Jews".
Doubts the existence of Al Muhsin.
Accuses Ali of having extramarital affairs and betraying her wife Fatima.
So biased and opinionated are these writings that Maxime Rodinson, a contemporary of Lammens, and a biographer of Muhammad, characterized Lammens as "filled with a holy contempt for Islam, for its 'delusive glory', and 'lascivious' prophet." 4

Yet modern authors readily admit that such attacks by Lammens have yet to be refuted 5, while other modern historians continue to even recycle such works into their latest publications.6

[edit]
Misconceptions about the Shi'a
Whatever the reasons for this scarcity of relaible sources, the result is the following incorrect misconceptions about the Shia:

The Shi'a are a political sect.
Shi'as apply the ancient Persian idea of royal inheritance to Muhammad's progeny and merely replace royal inheritance with Imamah.
The Shi'a believe in the distortion of the Qur'an.
The Shi'a believe their Imams as equals to the prophet.
Influenced by Christian mentality, the Shi'a believe in the sacrifice of a sacred person by the name Husayn ibn Ali, to save the Ummah from their sins.
The Shi'a are some sort of presumptive Sufi sect.
Such allegations have encouraged various orientalists and their mimics such as Ahmad Amin to viciously attack the Shi'a in their writings. Even the Encyclopedia of Islam has not been immune for these attacks. One can find biased statements from the Belgian Henri Lammens (1862-1937) and the Hungarian Ignaz Goldziher (1850-1921) in this encyclopedia against the Shi'a and their sanctities. According to Nasr, most parts of the two or three other books and discourses that exist in English are the products of the minds of several Christian missionaries "who have spent their lives trying to annihilate and refute the Shi'i thought".1

The very opinion of orientalists of the past century that considered the Shi'a form of deviation and heresy from true Islam (bid'ah) has thus come to be accepted in most western circles today. There are those that even consider the Shi'a as an "invention" by some particular groups.

Wikipedia

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: MegaWorks
Well Wahhabie barbarians and baathist who hate the Shiite majority in Iraq are behind these acts.

Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations
See main article: Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations

Shi'a and Sunni historians record that many Shia's have been persecuted, intimidated, and killed, starting with the Abu Bakr coming into power, through the coup d'état of Alis caliphate, in the Shi'a view . In the past, most leading Sunni scholars are known to have openly considered the Shi'a as "Kafir" (disbelievers). This was mainly fueled by misunderstanding Shi'a concepts such as Taqiyya, Muta, and the Shi'a point of view regarding Ali, Umar, and other companions.

However, many scholars of recent history have become more tolerant towards Shi'a and some have promoted unity, others have not. Yet within Shiism, it has always been stressed to seek unity among the majority. Organizations such as the Shi'a Lebanese Hezbollah have increased popularity of Shi'a among Sunnis and are seen as a credible organization and in many cases praised by both ideological parties.

Modern mainstream Sunni have also become less confrontational. The renowned al-Azhar Theological school in Egypt, for example, one of the main centers of Sunni scholarship in the world, announced the al-Azhar Shia Fatwa on July 6, 1959:

"The Shi'a is a school of thought that is religiously correct to follow in worship as are other Sunni schools of thought."
Today, both Shi'a and Sunni students graduate and study at the Al-Azhar university.

However, some extremist Sunni groups such as Salafi, Taliban or Al Qaeda have continued to persecute Shi'a as heretics. Salafis still consider Shias as apostates and openly advocate their killing.

Misconceptions about the Shi'a

Introduction

Bias against the Shia is quite evident in many Islamic academic institutions. This official letter from Malaysia illustrates an example.There are numerous books on history, literature, bibliography, etc - by both early and contemporary writers - that undermine the scholastic, literary, social, and cultural rights of the Shia. In cases where such works intend to discuss the works and virtues of the Shi'a, they fail in doing so and leave the facts about Shi'a and its intellectual legacy relatively untouched and unknown.8


Researchers must be cautious in believing the contents of such works before careful scrunity. These works were mostly written by certain individuals motivated by their ambitions or bigotry, which result in fabrication, perversion, and calumny, therefore rendering their works unrelaible. The late religious authority of Egypt and president of Al-Azhar University, Sheikh Mahmud Shaltut, who declared the Shi'a as a legitimate Islamic school of thought, also remarked:

"Most of those who have written on Islamic denominations, have been influenced by the vicious spirit of prejudice."
"Therefore anyone who cares about equity and fairness and wishes to study various Islamic denominations, should not base his opinions on such works, but instead must consult with the main books and sources of those denominations in order to approximate the truth and avoid mistakes."
It is an undeniable fact that the attention paid by Sunni muslims to familiarize the world with Islam has been more than that of Shias. Sunnis retain many commendable achievements for this cause. However some of them have been affected by sectarian prejudice, thus portraying the Shi'a in a distorted way.

On the other hand, a phenomenon called orientalism and "Islamology" has existed for some time, the vanguards of which were individuals who were immediately assisted and collaborated by the agents of politics. The numerous extant distorted references and fabricated statements provided these people, in addition to their own ill intentions, to write anything they pleased. In the words of renowned philosopher Seyyed Hosein Nasr:

"Although western scholars have done extensive studies about various aspects of Islam and Islamic civilization in the past century, most of their works of full of bias and vicious intentions and distortive efforts are visible throughout them."[1]
Among the different groups, the Shi'a have in particular been harmed more than any other Islamic denomination due to lack of sufficient reliable references that are readily available to foreign researchers. In the words of Edward Browne, "we still have no access to any detailed, sufficient, and reliable works on the Shi'i school of thought in any of the European languages."[2]

This article intends to address just that, and is written from the perspective of the Shi'a, since Shi'as contend and dispute the standard image portrayed for them by some, if not the majority, of western academic and Sunni sources.1

[edit]
Current sources on the Shi'a
Of the hundreds of contemporary academic sources that address matters pertaining to the Shi'a, "almost all resources used by Europeans in their studies about Islam are Sunni works".1 Whenever the Quran, hadith, history of Mohammad's life, fiqh, and kalam are touched on, it is the opinion of Sunni muslims exclusively that is often taken as the standard version. It comes thus as no surprise that western scholars describe Sunni'ism as orthodox Islam and Shi'ism as a heretical sect. Sunni historians have always tried to, in the words of M.G.S. Hodgson, "show that all other schools of thought other than their own were not only false but, if possible, less than truly Muslim. Their work described innumerable firqahs in terms which readily misled modern scholars into supposing they were referring to so many heretical sects."7, p66-67

On the other hand, what is often found on the Shi'a in some encyclopedias are full of errors, baseless accusations, and superficial confused statements. Unfortunately, when these works are translated into Arabic, often by Sunni writers, they rarely add any footnotes pointing to these mistakes or shortcomings. This results in the spread of erroneous information that ultimately finds its way into even more sources, albeit inauthentic.

Furthermore, publications by Shi'i scholars remain comparably at unacceptably low levels. To see this in a more visible light, it is educational to observe Dr. Abul-Jawad Falaturi's statements in this reagrd:

"If we count all books and articles that have been published during the past 25 years in different European languages about Islam and Muslim countries--a task I performed based on Abstracta Islamica which listed all books published about Islam since 1943-- we can easily reach the conclusion that out of every 100 writings on Islam, only two relate to groups other than Sunni ones. Among this small number, one out of every seven work addresses The Twelver Shi'a. This means that out of every 350 books and articles, only one is specifically related to the Twelver Shi'a, a number even far less than The Zaidi or Ismaili Shia."8
Perhaps the historical background of the west is the major reason behind this blemish. The west had major direct contact with the Sunni form of Islam on almost all occasions, from Andalusia in the west to the Ottoman Turks in the east. Contacts with the Shi'a were confined to rather secret and rather limited relations with some Ismaili territories in Palestine during the crusades, but the west generally did not have any contact with the Shi'a world before the modern era. Islamic Iran, for example, only came to be known for the first time through the cultural acquaintance of India.

The result of such uneven contacts by opinionated orientalists can be observed in the writings of the likes of historians such as the Jesuit Henri Lammens (1862-1937), the Jewish Ignaz Goldziher, and Joseph Schacht (1902-1969), who made no effort to conceal their mockery and judgemental views of history. For example, Lammens' paper for the Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 3 reads:

Writes "Ali was the least intelligent" and intellectually "incapable".
Writes of how Ali was "ugly".
Writes about how Ali was "fat".
Mocks how Allah wished to keep his representative Muhammad in poverty.
Writes of Muhammad "kicking Fatima brutally" and telling her to "shut up".
Writes: "Fatima screamed: You are marrying me off to a beggar" (Ali).
claims Muhammad's wealth came from "plundering the Jews".
Doubts the existence of Al Muhsin.
Accuses Ali of having extramarital affairs and betraying her wife Fatima.
So biased and opinionated are these writings that Maxime Rodinson, a contemporary of Lammens, and a biographer of Muhammad, characterized Lammens as "filled with a holy contempt for Islam, for its 'delusive glory', and 'lascivious' prophet." 4

Yet modern authors readily admit that such attacks by Lammens have yet to be refuted 5, while other modern historians continue to even recycle such works into their latest publications.6

[edit]
Misconceptions about the Shi'a
Whatever the reasons for this scarcity of relaible sources, the result is the following incorrect misconceptions about the Shia:

The Shi'a are a political sect.
Shi'as apply the ancient Persian idea of royal inheritance to Muhammad's progeny and merely replace royal inheritance with Imamah.
The Shi'a believe in the distortion of the Qur'an.
The Shi'a believe their Imams as equals to the prophet.
Influenced by Christian mentality, the Shi'a believe in the sacrifice of a sacred person by the name Husayn ibn Ali, to save the Ummah from their sins.
The Shi'a are some sort of presumptive Sufi sect.
Such allegations have encouraged various orientalists and their mimics such as Ahmad Amin to viciously attack the Shi'a in their writings. Even the Encyclopedia of Islam has not been immune for these attacks. One can find biased statements from the Belgian Henri Lammens (1862-1937) and the Hungarian Ignaz Goldziher (1850-1921) in this encyclopedia against the Shi'a and their sanctities. According to Nasr, most parts of the two or three other books and discourses that exist in English are the products of the minds of several Christian missionaries "who have spent their lives trying to annihilate and refute the Shi'i thought".1

The very opinion of orientalists of the past century that considered the Shi'a form of deviation and heresy from true Islam (bid'ah) has thus come to be accepted in most western circles today. There are those that even consider the Shi'a as an "invention" by some particular groups.

Wikipedia

That seems like an exceptionally pro-Shiite piece from Wikipedia, not exactly a great font of knowledge and understanding IMHO.

 

[MegaWorks]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

That seems like an exceptionally pro-Shiite piece from Wikipedia, not exactly a great font of knowledge and understanding IMHO.

😕

 

[WiseOldDude]

What part of the word "extremist" don't you yet understand?

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Suicide Bombings in Iraq are primarily the cause of outsiders (Saudis, etc.).

Those outsiders are still Muslim fanatics, which is what he asked about.

Because they're fanatic savages twisted with racial and religious bigotry, consumed by hate, and brainwashed by an archaic religion which provides a convenient excuse for indiscriminate bloodshed. Sure, infidels are the stated target, but if you're a little Muslim girl who happens to get in the way, too fvcking bad. Allah wills it.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: Aimster
Suicide Bombings in Iraq are primarily the cause of outsiders (Saudis, etc.).

Bingo.

Its partly our fault.

Speak for yourself. Its not my fault. I take responsibility for my own actions. Muslim fanatics oughta try it, maybe then they'd actually develop real countries with viable economies, and find hobbies other than Jew-hatin'.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: Aimster
Suicide Bombings in Iraq are primarily the cause of outsiders (Saudis, etc.).

Bingo.

Its partly our fault.

Speak for yourself. Its not my fault. I take responsibility for my own actions. Muslim fanatics oughta try it, maybe then they'd actually develop real countries with viable economies, and find hobbies other than Jew-hatin'.

🙂

 

[piasabird]

This is a stupid question. The object of Muslim Terrorists is to take over the world. They are all idiot meglomaniacs; dare I say it, "Just like Hitler!" Al-Qaeda is running around the world trying to interfere with every country they can. Why do they do this? They want to take over the world and force their religion on me you and the rest of the world. That is what they do!

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think the term Muslim extremists is misleading to some people. You hear the term, and you get an image of people who are fanatically devoted to their religion. Perhaps a strange, twisted version of Islam, but Islam all the same. We look at their religion for signs of why they are so screwed up, some of us suggest that it means there is something wrong with Islam, and some of us wonder why they aren't fanatical about the parts of the Islamic faith that prohibit the kinds of things they do.

We're missing the point. They aren't Muslim extremists so much as they are extremists who happen to be Muslim. Faith is not the reason, it is the excuse. Killing someone in the name of your God feels a lot better than just killing them because you are pissed off. The parts of their faith that would suggest more moderate behavior, even something as obvious as not killing their fellow Muslims, is simply ignored. Because following their faith is clearly NOT the goal, any more than it has been the goal of most religious extremists in history. It's about choosing what path to follow, and then trying to use faith to justify it. History is filled with examples of this. Anyone who is even remotely faithful to the Christian God and who follows the teachings of Jesus would not think torturing the unfaithful to death is an ok thing to do. It wasn't that Christianity had a problem during the Inquisition, it was that a group of evil men where simply looking for a reason to do what they wanted to do anyways.

QFT. :thumbsup:

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: asadasif

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think the term Muslim extremists is misleading to some people. You hear the term, and you get an image of people who are fanatically devoted to their religion. Perhaps a strange, twisted version of Islam, but Islam all the same. We look at their religion for signs of why they are so screwed up, some of us suggest that it means there is something wrong with Islam, and some of us wonder why they aren't fanatical about the parts of the Islamic faith that prohibit the kinds of things they do.

We're missing the point. They aren't Muslim extremists so much as they are extremists who happen to be Muslim. Faith is not the reason, it is the excuse. Killing someone in the name of your God feels a lot better than just killing them because you are pissed off. The parts of their faith that would suggest more moderate behavior, even something as obvious as not killing their fellow Muslims, is simply ignored. Because following their faith is clearly NOT the goal, any more than it has been the goal of most religious extremists in history. It's about choosing what path to follow, and then trying to use faith to justify it. History is filled with examples of this. Anyone who is even remotely faithful to the Christian God and who follows the teachings of Jesus would not think torturing the unfaithful to death is an ok thing to do. It wasn't that Christianity had a problem during the Inquisition, it was that a group of evil men where simply looking for a reason to do what they wanted to do anyways.

QFT. :thumbsup: