Who Needs Islam?

https://pjmedia.com/aj-christopher/2026/08/22/who-needs-islam-n4956418

Hamas Harry aka Sam Losery loves Islam

He takes up for it all the time

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

I love trolling

I do it all the time

---

Duly noted.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

Hamas Harry aka Sam Losery loves Islam

He takes up for it all the time

---

Yeah, I do

---

I didn't need validation bro. I was stating a fact.

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "It was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged the Muslim's authority were sinners, that it was their right & duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoner." pic.twitter.com/hc2PnmkBnJ

— The Conservative Alternative (@OldeWorldOrder) September 2, 2026

And Muslims still act that way. Today, in 2026, Muslims own slaves. It's a real thing that not enough people talk about.

What caused the underdevelopment of Muslim countries? @prof_ahmetkuru says neither colonialism nor orientalism is to blame.https://t.co/Y2AvGZDMpD pic.twitter.com/nhqWFhYYqs

— Matthew Schmitz (@matthewschmitz) October 16, 2026

In his 1938 work The Great Heresies, Hilaire Belloc devoted a chapter to Islam:

"Millions of modern people of the white civilization—that is, the civilization of Europe and America—have forgotten all about Islam. They have never come in contact with it. They take for granted… https://t.co/s9cEskUr46 pic.twitter.com/ENZWGA4XlG

— Humble Flow (@HumbleFlow) October 16, 2026

If you really wish to learn about a religion, learn from its adherents.

If you just want to justify your bigotry, stick with the internet.

fubar said:

---

If you really wish to learn about a religion, learn from its adherents.

If you just want to justify your bigotry, stick with the internet.

---

It's a good point

What does the 14 centuries of mass violence, discrimination against others, and sanctioned holy war waged by this religion's adherents teach us?



[History clearly shows how Islam was spread by the sword from its very beginning.

Even in the Rashidun era, the 4 Caliphs exactly after Muhammad, war and violence remained a policy through all of their existence. And still went on during the Umayyad & Abbasid eras of Islamic expansion.
Violence existed since the birth of the faith to this day.
When we read the Medinan verses which abrogate the Meccan ones, we can see that disbelief in Allah and Muhammad as his prophet already constitutes an offence. This literal reading is also confirmed by the hadith (Bukhari & Muslim) of the related verse.
Syeikh Omar Abdel Rahman once said in a lecture "Quran has a surah called spoils of war. But it does not have a surah called peace. If you take Jihad & killing out of Islam, you are cutting its head off."
A common apologist defense of the radicals are that they are only a tiny minority of the ummah, and they have misunderstood the text won't cut it. Has Islam been misunderstood for 14 centuries then?]

Redbrickbear said:

---

In his 1938 work The Great Heresies, Hilaire Belloc devoted a chapter to Islam:

"Millions of modern people of the white civilization—that is, the civilization of Europe and America—have forgotten all about Islam. They have never come in contact with it. They take for granted… https://t.co/s9cEskUr46 pic.twitter.com/ENZWGA4XlG

— Humble Flow (@HumbleFlow) October 16, 2026

---

Does Marine Le Pen think that's why North Africa and Syria are still under French rule?

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

In his 1938 work The Great Heresies, Hilaire Belloc devoted a chapter to Islam:

"Millions of modern people of the white civilization—that is, the civilization of Europe and America—have forgotten all about Islam. They have never come in contact with it. They take for granted… https://t.co/s9cEskUr46 pic.twitter.com/ENZWGA4XlG

— Humble Flow (@HumbleFlow) October 16, 2026

---

Does Marine Le Pen think that's why North Africa and Syria are still under French rule?

---

She is post-religious and does not give it much deep thought I think

She is a cultural French nationalist…and thinks French culture (divorced from any religious foundation) can still "conquer all" and over come all new comers…provided they come in small enough numbers

It's an interesting idea….we will see if it works long term.

It also shows that even the modern French "right wing" is actually fundamentally pretty progressive/liberal in many fundamental ways

fubar said:

---

If you really wish to learn about a religion, learn from its adherents.

If you just want to justify your bigotry, stick with the internet.

---

Would that include the 20%-30% of the Islamic population that strongly believe in radical Islam and jihadist principles?

The elephant in the room here is a fundamentalist Christian doesn't want you dead for your beliefs. A very significant portion of the Muslim world does. And well more than half of them strongly, disagree with western freedom, and principles

Redbrickbear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

In his 1938 work The Great Heresies, Hilaire Belloc devoted a chapter to Islam:

"Millions of modern people of the white civilization—that is, the civilization of Europe and America—have forgotten all about Islam. They have never come in contact with it. They take for granted… https://t.co/s9cEskUr46 pic.twitter.com/ENZWGA4XlG

— Humble Flow (@HumbleFlow) October 16, 2026

---

Does Marine Le Pen think that's why North Africa and Syria are still under French rule?

---

She is post-religious and does not give it much deep thought I think

She is a cultural French nationalist…and thinks French culture (divorced from any religious foundation) can still "conquer all" and over come all new comers…provided they come in small enough numbers

It's an interesting idea….we will see if it works long term.

It also shows that even the modern French "right wing" is actually fundamentally pretty progressive/liberal in many fundamental ways

---

Without large scale revivalism it's difficult to see how France or anywhere in the west can survive. Half baked efforts that compromise on the most fundamental issues might gain some success but it will be only temporary.

Mothra said:

---

fubar said:

---

If you really wish to learn about a religion, learn from its adherents.

If you just want to justify your bigotry, stick with the internet.

---

Would that include the 20%-30% of the Islamic population that strongly believe in radical Islam and jihadist principles?

The elephant in the room here is a fundamentalist Christian doesn't want you dead for your beliefs. A very significant portion of the Muslim world does. And well more than half of them strongly, disagree with western freedom, and principles

---

And a significant number of those dangerous radicals live here in the US, including significant numbers in Texas.

🚨🇬🇧 In the UK, a child at a primary school was branded a racist for refusing to take part in Ramadan

The child said - "Why do we have to do that? I'm not doing that. Do I have to? If I don't will you make me?"

The school responded - "This will be added to your child's… pic.twitter.com/0GZw6cn592

— MAGA Storm 47 (@MAGAStorm47) October 18, 2026

Redbrickbear said:

---

fubar said:

---

If you really wish to learn about a religion, learn from its adherents.

If you just want to justify your bigotry, stick with the internet.

---

It's a good point

What does the 14 centuries of mass violence, discrimination against others, and sanctioned holy war waged by this religion's adherents teach us?



[History clearly shows how Islam was spread by the sword from its very beginning.

Even in the Rashidun era, the 4 Caliphs exactly after Muhammad, war and violence remained a policy through all of their existence. And still went on during the Umayyad & Abbasid eras of Islamic expansion.
Violence existed since the birth of the faith to this day.
When we read the Medinan verses which abrogate the Meccan ones, we can see that disbelief in Allah and Muhammad as his prophet already constitutes an offence. This literal reading is also confirmed by the hadith (Bukhari & Muslim) of the related verse.
Syeikh Omar Abdel Rahman once said in a lecture "Quran has a surah called spoils of war. But it does not have a surah called peace. If you take Jihad & killing out of Islam, you are cutting its head off."
A common apologist defense of the radicals are that they are only a tiny minority of the ummah, and they have misunderstood the text won't cut it. Has Islam been misunderstood for 14 centuries then?]

---

So, basically not too different from Protestantism. Both have a history of violence and crudely literal exegesis, but that doesn't necessarily mean coexistence is impossible.

Redbrickbear said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 In the UK, a child at a primary school was branded a racist for refusing to take part in Ramadan

The child said - "Why do we have to do that? I'm not doing that. Do I have to? If I don't will you make me?"

The school responded - "This will be added to your child's… pic.twitter.com/0GZw6cn592

— MAGA Storm 47 (@MAGAStorm47) October 18, 2026

---

Islam has a history of forced conversions. This looks like that

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

fubar said:

---

If you really wish to learn about a religion, learn from its adherents.

If you just want to justify your bigotry, stick with the internet.

---

It's a good point

What does the 14 centuries of mass violence, discrimination against others, and sanctioned holy war waged by this religion's adherents teach us?



[History clearly shows how Islam was spread by the sword from its very beginning.

Even in the Rashidun era, the 4 Caliphs exactly after Muhammad, war and violence remained a policy through all of their existence. And still went on during the Umayyad & Abbasid eras of Islamic expansion.
Violence existed since the birth of the faith to this day.
When we read the Medinan verses which abrogate the Meccan ones, we can see that disbelief in Allah and Muhammad as his prophet already constitutes an offence. This literal reading is also confirmed by the hadith (Bukhari & Muslim) of the related verse.
Syeikh Omar Abdel Rahman once said in a lecture "Quran has a surah called spoils of war. But it does not have a surah called peace. If you take Jihad & killing out of Islam, you are cutting its head off."
A common apologist defense of the radicals are that they are only a tiny minority of the ummah, and they have misunderstood the text won't cut it. Has Islam been misunderstood for 14 centuries then?]

---

So, basically not too different from Protestantism. Both have a history of violence and crudely literal exegesis, but that doesn't necessarily mean coexistence is impossible.

---

Does not mean coexistence is likely

And even if we accept your premise…Protestantism does not have 14 centuries of continuous historical record of violence and conquest…Islam does

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

fubar said:

---

If you really wish to learn about a religion, learn from its adherents.

If you just want to justify your bigotry, stick with the internet.

---

It's a good point

What does the 14 centuries of mass violence, discrimination against others, and sanctioned holy war waged by this religion's adherents teach us?



[History clearly shows how Islam was spread by the sword from its very beginning.

Even in the Rashidun era, the 4 Caliphs exactly after Muhammad, war and violence remained a policy through all of their existence. And still went on during the Umayyad & Abbasid eras of Islamic expansion.
Violence existed since the birth of the faith to this day.
When we read the Medinan verses which abrogate the Meccan ones, we can see that disbelief in Allah and Muhammad as his prophet already constitutes an offence. This literal reading is also confirmed by the hadith (Bukhari & Muslim) of the related verse.
Syeikh Omar Abdel Rahman once said in a lecture "Quran has a surah called spoils of war. But it does not have a surah called peace. If you take Jihad & killing out of Islam, you are cutting its head off."
A common apologist defense of the radicals are that they are only a tiny minority of the ummah, and they have misunderstood the text won't cut it. Has Islam been misunderstood for 14 centuries then?]

---

So, basically not too different from Protestantism. Both have a history of violence and crudely literal exegesis, but that doesn't necessarily mean coexistence is impossible.

---

Does not mean coexistence is likely

And even if we accept your premise…Protestantism does not have 14 centuries of continuous historical record of violence and conquest…Islam does

---

That's not really true. There are plenty of examples of Muslims living in peace with their neighbors.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

I love trolling

I do it all the time

---

Duly noted.

---

Are you surprised?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

fubar said:

---

If you really wish to learn about a religion, learn from its adherents.

If you just want to justify your bigotry, stick with the internet.

---

It's a good point

What does the 14 centuries of mass violence, discrimination against others, and sanctioned holy war waged by this religion's adherents teach us?



[History clearly shows how Islam was spread by the sword from its very beginning.

Even in the Rashidun era, the 4 Caliphs exactly after Muhammad, war and violence remained a policy through all of their existence. And still went on during the Umayyad & Abbasid eras of Islamic expansion.
Violence existed since the birth of the faith to this day.
When we read the Medinan verses which abrogate the Meccan ones, we can see that disbelief in Allah and Muhammad as his prophet already constitutes an offence. This literal reading is also confirmed by the hadith (Bukhari & Muslim) of the related verse.
Syeikh Omar Abdel Rahman once said in a lecture "Quran has a surah called spoils of war. But it does not have a surah called peace. If you take Jihad & killing out of Islam, you are cutting its head off."
A common apologist defense of the radicals are that they are only a tiny minority of the ummah, and they have misunderstood the text won't cut it. Has Islam been misunderstood for 14 centuries then?]

---

So, basically not too different from Protestantism. Both have a history of violence and crudely literal exegesis, but that doesn't necessarily mean coexistence is impossible.

---

Does not mean coexistence is likely

And even if we accept your premise…Protestantism does not have 14 centuries of continuous historical record of violence and conquest…Islam does

---

That's not really true. There are plenty of examples of Muslims living in peace with their neighbors.

---

Historical there are not

Subject peoples who were not Muslims were always under a heavy burden of oppression and discrimination

The myth of al-Andalus has distorted the West’s understanding of its own history.

In my latest for @RestoringWest, I set the record straight. https://t.co/7rvc2OrCcm

— Ayaan Hirsi Ali (@Ayaan) October 18, 2026

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

fubar said:

---

If you really wish to learn about a religion, learn from its adherents.

If you just want to justify your bigotry, stick with the internet.

---

It's a good point

What does the 14 centuries of mass violence, discrimination against others, and sanctioned holy war waged by this religion's adherents teach us?



[History clearly shows how Islam was spread by the sword from its very beginning.

Even in the Rashidun era, the 4 Caliphs exactly after Muhammad, war and violence remained a policy through all of their existence. And still went on during the Umayyad & Abbasid eras of Islamic expansion.
Violence existed since the birth of the faith to this day.
When we read the Medinan verses which abrogate the Meccan ones, we can see that disbelief in Allah and Muhammad as his prophet already constitutes an offence. This literal reading is also confirmed by the hadith (Bukhari & Muslim) of the related verse.
Syeikh Omar Abdel Rahman once said in a lecture "Quran has a surah called spoils of war. But it does not have a surah called peace. If you take Jihad & killing out of Islam, you are cutting its head off."
A common apologist defense of the radicals are that they are only a tiny minority of the ummah, and they have misunderstood the text won't cut it. Has Islam been misunderstood for 14 centuries then?]

---

So, basically not too different from Protestantism. Both have a history of violence and crudely literal exegesis, but that doesn't necessarily mean coexistence is impossible.

---

Does not mean coexistence is likely

And even if we accept your premise…Protestantism does not have 14 centuries of continuous historical record of violence and conquest…Islam does

---

He must be a Catholic. Catholics have more of a history of violence than Protestants, mainly because they've been around about as long as Islam while Martin Luther startled the Reformation in 1517. Over the past 500 years, Christian's in general have about the same levels of violence.

Important point: Christians engaging in violence are rarely following the teachings of Christ who taught love not hatred.

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

fubar said:

---

If you really wish to learn about a religion, learn from its adherents.

If you just want to justify your bigotry, stick with the internet.

---

It's a good point

What does the 14 centuries of mass violence, discrimination against others, and sanctioned holy war waged by this religion's adherents teach us?



[History clearly shows how Islam was spread by the sword from its very beginning.

Even in the Rashidun era, the 4 Caliphs exactly after Muhammad, war and violence remained a policy through all of their existence. And still went on during the Umayyad & Abbasid eras of Islamic expansion.
Violence existed since the birth of the faith to this day.
When we read the Medinan verses which abrogate the Meccan ones, we can see that disbelief in Allah and Muhammad as his prophet already constitutes an offence. This literal reading is also confirmed by the hadith (Bukhari & Muslim) of the related verse.
Syeikh Omar Abdel Rahman once said in a lecture "Quran has a surah called spoils of war. But it does not have a surah called peace. If you take Jihad & killing out of Islam, you are cutting its head off."
A common apologist defense of the radicals are that they are only a tiny minority of the ummah, and they have misunderstood the text won't cut it. Has Islam been misunderstood for 14 centuries then?]

---

So, basically not too different from Protestantism. Both have a history of violence and crudely literal exegesis, but that doesn't necessarily mean coexistence is impossible.

---

Does not mean coexistence is likely

And even if we accept your premise…Protestantism does not have 14 centuries of continuous historical record of violence and conquest…Islam does

---

He must be a Catholic. Catholics have more of a history of violence than Protestants, mainly because they've been around about as long as Islam while Martin Luther startled the Reformation in 1517. Over the past 500 years, Christian's in general have about the same levels of violence.

Important point: Christians engaging in violence are rarely following the teachings of Christ who taught love not hatred.

---

A good point

Its fairly easy to point out the ways that violent Christians are not following the example of Christ

Its very hard to point out the ways that violent Muslims are not in fact following the example of Muhammed (a Arabian tribal warlord who established is rule and religion over Mecca through conquest)

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

fubar said:

---

If you really wish to learn about a religion, learn from its adherents.

If you just want to justify your bigotry, stick with the internet.

---

It's a good point

What does the 14 centuries of mass violence, discrimination against others, and sanctioned holy war waged by this religion's adherents teach us?



[History clearly shows how Islam was spread by the sword from its very beginning.

Even in the Rashidun era, the 4 Caliphs exactly after Muhammad, war and violence remained a policy through all of their existence. And still went on during the Umayyad & Abbasid eras of Islamic expansion.
Violence existed since the birth of the faith to this day.
When we read the Medinan verses which abrogate the Meccan ones, we can see that disbelief in Allah and Muhammad as his prophet already constitutes an offence. This literal reading is also confirmed by the hadith (Bukhari & Muslim) of the related verse.
Syeikh Omar Abdel Rahman once said in a lecture "Quran has a surah called spoils of war. But it does not have a surah called peace. If you take Jihad & killing out of Islam, you are cutting its head off."
A common apologist defense of the radicals are that they are only a tiny minority of the ummah, and they have misunderstood the text won't cut it. Has Islam been misunderstood for 14 centuries then?]

---

So, basically not too different from Protestantism. Both have a history of violence and crudely literal exegesis, but that doesn't necessarily mean coexistence is impossible.

---

Does not mean coexistence is likely

And even if we accept your premise…Protestantism does not have 14 centuries of continuous historical record of violence and conquest…Islam does

---

That's not really true. There are plenty of examples of Muslims living in peace with their neighbors.

---

Historical there are not

Subject peoples who were not Muslims were always under a heavy burden of oppression and discrimination

---

That's a different question, but there are historical examples both of Muslims living in peace with neighboring countries and with their own subjects.

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

fubar said:

---

If you really wish to learn about a religion, learn from its adherents.

If you just want to justify your bigotry, stick with the internet.

---

It's a good point

What does the 14 centuries of mass violence, discrimination against others, and sanctioned holy war waged by this religion's adherents teach us?



[History clearly shows how Islam was spread by the sword from its very beginning.

Even in the Rashidun era, the 4 Caliphs exactly after Muhammad, war and violence remained a policy through all of their existence. And still went on during the Umayyad & Abbasid eras of Islamic expansion.
Violence existed since the birth of the faith to this day.
When we read the Medinan verses which abrogate the Meccan ones, we can see that disbelief in Allah and Muhammad as his prophet already constitutes an offence. This literal reading is also confirmed by the hadith (Bukhari & Muslim) of the related verse.
Syeikh Omar Abdel Rahman once said in a lecture "Quran has a surah called spoils of war. But it does not have a surah called peace. If you take Jihad & killing out of Islam, you are cutting its head off."
A common apologist defense of the radicals are that they are only a tiny minority of the ummah, and they have misunderstood the text won't cut it. Has Islam been misunderstood for 14 centuries then?]

---

So, basically not too different from Protestantism. Both have a history of violence and crudely literal exegesis, but that doesn't necessarily mean coexistence is impossible.

---

Does not mean coexistence is likely

And even if we accept your premise…Protestantism does not have 14 centuries of continuous historical record of violence and conquest…Islam does

---

He must be a Catholic. Catholics have more of a history of violence than Protestants, mainly because they've been around about as long as Islam while Martin Luther startled the Reformation in 1517. Over the past 500 years, Christian's in general have about the same levels of violence.

---

Protestants more than made up for lost time. The Reformation was as much a violent revolution as a religious movement.

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

fubar said:

---

If you really wish to learn about a religion, learn from its adherents.

If you just want to justify your bigotry, stick with the internet.

---

It's a good point

What does the 14 centuries of mass violence, discrimination against others, and sanctioned holy war waged by this religion's adherents teach us?



[History clearly shows how Islam was spread by the sword from its very beginning.

Even in the Rashidun era, the 4 Caliphs exactly after Muhammad, war and violence remained a policy through all of their existence. And still went on during the Umayyad & Abbasid eras of Islamic expansion.
Violence existed since the birth of the faith to this day.
When we read the Medinan verses which abrogate the Meccan ones, we can see that disbelief in Allah and Muhammad as his prophet already constitutes an offence. This literal reading is also confirmed by the hadith (Bukhari & Muslim) of the related verse.
Syeikh Omar Abdel Rahman once said in a lecture "Quran has a surah called spoils of war. But it does not have a surah called peace. If you take Jihad & killing out of Islam, you are cutting its head off."
A common apologist defense of the radicals are that they are only a tiny minority of the ummah, and they have misunderstood the text won't cut it. Has Islam been misunderstood for 14 centuries then?]

---

So, basically not too different from Protestantism. Both have a history of violence and crudely literal exegesis, but that doesn't necessarily mean coexistence is impossible.

---

Does not mean coexistence is likely

And even if we accept your premise…Protestantism does not have 14 centuries of continuous historical record of violence and conquest…Islam does

---

He must be a Catholic. Catholics have more of a history of violence than Protestants, mainly because they've been around about as long as Islam while Martin Luther startled the Reformation in 1517. Over the past 500 years, Christian's in general have about the same levels of violence.

Important point: Christians engaging in violence are rarely following the teachings of Christ who taught love not hatred.

---

A good point

Its fairly easy to point out the ways that violent Christians are not following the example of Christ

Its very hard to point out the ways that violent Muslims are not in fact following the example of Muhammed (a Arabian tribal warlord who established is rule and religion over Mecca through conquest)

---

Muslims are commanded to live in peace with their neighbors whenever possible.

True, but the violence was on both sides. Decades of religious wars culminated in the Thirty Years War. Catholics massacred large numbers of Protestants, such as the Huguenots in France and "Bloody" Mary in England.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

fubar said:

---

If you really wish to learn about a religion, learn from its adherents.

If you just want to justify your bigotry, stick with the internet.

---

It's a good point

What does the 14 centuries of mass violence, discrimination against others, and sanctioned holy war waged by this religion's adherents teach us?



[History clearly shows how Islam was spread by the sword from its very beginning.

Even in the Rashidun era, the 4 Caliphs exactly after Muhammad, war and violence remained a policy through all of their existence. And still went on during the Umayyad & Abbasid eras of Islamic expansion.
Violence existed since the birth of the faith to this day.
When we read the Medinan verses which abrogate the Meccan ones, we can see that disbelief in Allah and Muhammad as his prophet already constitutes an offence. This literal reading is also confirmed by the hadith (Bukhari & Muslim) of the related verse.
Syeikh Omar Abdel Rahman once said in a lecture "Quran has a surah called spoils of war. But it does not have a surah called peace. If you take Jihad & killing out of Islam, you are cutting its head off."
A common apologist defense of the radicals are that they are only a tiny minority of the ummah, and they have misunderstood the text won't cut it. Has Islam been misunderstood for 14 centuries then?]

---

So, basically not too different from Protestantism. Both have a history of violence and crudely literal exegesis, but that doesn't necessarily mean coexistence is impossible.

---

Does not mean coexistence is likely

And even if we accept your premise…Protestantism does not have 14 centuries of continuous historical record of violence and conquest…Islam does

---

He must be a Catholic. Catholics have more of a history of violence than Protestants, mainly because they've been around about as long as Islam while Martin Luther startled the Reformation in 1517. Over the past 500 years, Christian's in general have about the same levels of violence.

Important point: Christians engaging in violence are rarely following the teachings of Christ who taught love not hatred.

---

A good point

Its fairly easy to point out the ways that violent Christians are not following the example of Christ

Its very hard to point out the ways that violent Muslims are not in fact following the example of Muhammed (a Arabian tribal warlord who established is rule and religion over Mecca through conquest)

---

Muslims are commanded to live in peace with their neighbors whenever possible.

---

You are leaving out the very important qualifier

These protections for non-Muslim neighbors only count if they live as 2nd class citizens under Muslim rule and pay the Islamic tax

[dhimmi comes from dhimmah, which means a covenant, trust, or responsibility of protection. Under this contract, the Islamic state was legally obligated to protect the non-Muslim citizen's life, property, honor, and freedom to practice their religion]

[non-Muslim residents were expected to respect the public order of the state, which included refraining from mocking the Prophet or openly proselytizing to Muslims. In return, their public safety remained guaranteed]

[Critics point out that the system was fundamentally hierarchical, placing Muslims at the top of the social and legal structure.
Legal Discrimination: In traditional Sharia courts, the testimony of a non-Muslim was often not given equal weight to that of a Muslim, making it incredibly difficult for non-Muslims to seek legal justice against Muslims.
Restrictions on Leadership: Non-Muslims were generally barred from holding high-ranking political or military leadership positions, as the state was explicitly Islamic in its governance.
Social Degradation and Humiliation:
While the core framework guaranteed safety, the specific rules applied to Dhimmis varied wildly depending on the time period, ruler, and region. At various points in history (such as under the Pact of Umar), discriminatory social restrictions were enforced to emphasize the supremacy of Islam.
Sumptuary Laws: Non-Muslims were sometimes forced to wear distinct clothing or badges (the origin of the yellow badge for Jews) to distinguish them from Muslims.
Public Constraints: Dhimmis were often prohibited from riding horses (restricted to donkeys), building their houses higher than Muslim houses, or displaying religious symbols (like crosses) prominently in public.
Worship Restrictions: While existing churches and synagogues were protected, the construction of new non-Muslim houses of worship was frequently banned or strictly regulated.]

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

fubar said:

---

If you really wish to learn about a religion, learn from its adherents.

If you just want to justify your bigotry, stick with the internet.

---

It's a good point

What does the 14 centuries of mass violence, discrimination against others, and sanctioned holy war waged by this religion's adherents teach us?



[History clearly shows how Islam was spread by the sword from its very beginning.

Even in the Rashidun era, the 4 Caliphs exactly after Muhammad, war and violence remained a policy through all of their existence. And still went on during the Umayyad & Abbasid eras of Islamic expansion.
Violence existed since the birth of the faith to this day.
When we read the Medinan verses which abrogate the Meccan ones, we can see that disbelief in Allah and Muhammad as his prophet already constitutes an offence. This literal reading is also confirmed by the hadith (Bukhari & Muslim) of the related verse.
Syeikh Omar Abdel Rahman once said in a lecture "Quran has a surah called spoils of war. But it does not have a surah called peace. If you take Jihad & killing out of Islam, you are cutting its head off."
A common apologist defense of the radicals are that they are only a tiny minority of the ummah, and they have misunderstood the text won't cut it. Has Islam been misunderstood for 14 centuries then?]

---

So, basically not too different from Protestantism. Both have a history of violence and crudely literal exegesis, but that doesn't necessarily mean coexistence is impossible.

---

Does not mean coexistence is likely

And even if we accept your premise…Protestantism does not have 14 centuries of continuous historical record of violence and conquest…Islam does

---

He must be a Catholic. Catholics have more of a history of violence than Protestants, mainly because they've been around about as long as Islam while Martin Luther startled the Reformation in 1517. Over the past 500 years, Christian's in general have about the same levels of violence.

Important point: Christians engaging in violence are rarely following the teachings of Christ who taught love not hatred.

---

A good point

Its fairly easy to point out the ways that violent Christians are not following the example of Christ

Its very hard to point out the ways that violent Muslims are not in fact following the example of Muhammed (a Arabian tribal warlord who established is rule and religion over Mecca through conquest)

---

Muslims are commanded to live in peace with their neighbors whenever possible.

---

You are leaving out the very important qualifier

These protections for non-Muslim neighbors only count if they live as 2nd class citizens under Muslim rule and pay the Islamic tax

---

Not so. It applies to distant countries as well.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

fubar said:

---

If you really wish to learn about a religion, learn from its adherents.

If you just want to justify your bigotry, stick with the internet.

---

It's a good point

What does the 14 centuries of mass violence, discrimination against others, and sanctioned holy war waged by this religion's adherents teach us?



[History clearly shows how Islam was spread by the sword from its very beginning.

Even in the Rashidun era, the 4 Caliphs exactly after Muhammad, war and violence remained a policy through all of their existence. And still went on during the Umayyad & Abbasid eras of Islamic expansion.
Violence existed since the birth of the faith to this day.
When we read the Medinan verses which abrogate the Meccan ones, we can see that disbelief in Allah and Muhammad as his prophet already constitutes an offence. This literal reading is also confirmed by the hadith (Bukhari & Muslim) of the related verse.
Syeikh Omar Abdel Rahman once said in a lecture "Quran has a surah called spoils of war. But it does not have a surah called peace. If you take Jihad & killing out of Islam, you are cutting its head off."
A common apologist defense of the radicals are that they are only a tiny minority of the ummah, and they have misunderstood the text won't cut it. Has Islam been misunderstood for 14 centuries then?]

---

So, basically not too different from Protestantism. Both have a history of violence and crudely literal exegesis, but that doesn't necessarily mean coexistence is impossible.

---

Does not mean coexistence is likely

And even if we accept your premise…Protestantism does not have 14 centuries of continuous historical record of violence and conquest…Islam does

---

He must be a Catholic. Catholics have more of a history of violence than Protestants, mainly because they've been around about as long as Islam while Martin Luther startled the Reformation in 1517. Over the past 500 years, Christian's in general have about the same levels of violence.

Important point: Christians engaging in violence are rarely following the teachings of Christ who taught love not hatred.

---

A good point

Its fairly easy to point out the ways that violent Christians are not following the example of Christ

Its very hard to point out the ways that violent Muslims are not in fact following the example of Muhammed (a Arabian tribal warlord who established is rule and religion over Mecca through conquest)

---

Muslims are commanded to live in peace with their neighbors whenever possible.

---

You are leaving out the very important qualifier

These protections for non-Muslim neighbors only count if they live as 2nd class citizens under Muslim rule and pay the Islamic tax

---

Not so. It applies to distant countries as well.

---

Areas where non-Muslims live…and not under Islamic control…these areas Islam allows Muslims to attack and make war against.

That is not very "neighborly" behavior

[Classical Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) divided the world into two main geopolitical domains: Dar al-Islam (the "Abode of Islam," where Muslim governance and Sharia prevail) and Dar al-Harb (the "Abode of War," non-Muslim lands outside Islamic rule),

Dar al-Islam: Territories where Muslim rulers hold sovereignty and Muslims can practice their faith freely under Islamic law, which also offers protected legal status (dhimmi) to non-Muslim minorities.

Dar al-Harb: Lands governed by non-Muslims that did not have a treaty with the Islamic state. In classical theory, this was viewed as a sphere of potential or active military conflict until brought under Muslim rule.]

The Quran is nothing more than the work of a 7th-century Bedouin, a man whose idea of paradise was shaped by the material desires of a desert warrior.

If the Quran were truly from God, it would reflect eternal, spiritual truths, not a Bedouin’s fantasy of luxury filled with… https://t.co/O5IamKRGL1

— Dan Burmawi (@DanBurmawy) October 21, 2026

It's an accurate description of the false promises of Islam.

The plain facts are simple: anyone who does not worship the one true God is worshipping Satan, regardless of what label is used. And those who reject Jesus are doomed to an eternity in hell.