What causes muslims to be violent

[seeds]

In Paradise if we make it there, God willing, the pleasures are tremendous indeed as described by the messengers of God, the Almighty.

Averroes, you seem to be quite knowledgeable and adept at pointing out the questionable features of Christianity (and that’s fine with me, because I do the same myself).

In which case, it seems only fair that you should be willing to address some of the questionable features of Islam.

However, when I asked you the following question:

Do you believe that Islamic male martyrs will each receive 72 virgin maidens (houri) in paradise as a reward for their sacrifice?

...you either missed the post, or you chose to ignore it. And if you chose to ignore it, then please explain why?

The point is that if you are unwilling to explain or defend that particular feature of Islamic dogma, then you have no business picking apart and criticizing Christian dogma.

Now while you are deciding whether or not to defend (or sidestep) my 72 virgin question, let me ask you something that pertains to this statement:

The greater one's level of piety in this world, the greater the reward in the Hereafter, there is no doubt about it.

In light of that assertion, what does Islam have to say about a person who hasn’t lived long enough on earth to develop or display any level of piety whatsoever?

In other words, according to Islam, what happens to a person who dies in early childhood or infancy?
_______

[Belinda]

Averroes wrote:

The Unitarians, like Newton, believe that only the Father is the only true God and only the Father is to be worshipped and no one else. And they say they rightly draw their belief from the NT itself.
_____________________

I was a Unitarian for twenty or so years. What you say of Unitarians is historically a founding principle, and I'd bet there are few Unitarians who are also Trinitarians. However in fact about obout third of Unitarians are church going Humanists, and about a third are cradle Unitarians, and about a third believe in a supernatural Creator and Protector i.e. Father God.Over all most Unitarians are not theologists or philosophers at all, and many are church going socialists.

[Averroes]

[You are misguided.

No, I'm right. But unlike what you say, I'm not referring to the KJV.

You are wrong. You clearly referred to the KJV. If now you don't want to refer to the KJV then you can still choose not to mention it or withdraw its previous mention. I am fine with both. If you want to quote yet another English translation, then please go ahead, and let us discuss. Whatever the English translation that you will take, I already covered all in my previous post. But bring others if you need to. This is all I am asking: that we discuss respectfully, God willing.

The manuscripts in the Bible are in Greek, and I was referring to them. I have them right here, if you ever want to talk about the Greek. But the KJV was only composed in 1611, and by then there were already many Bible manuscripts in existence, even in English. And since then, the Greek has been retranslated into English in even better translations than the KJV.

So don't rest your judgment on the KJV. It's but one step in the proper translation of the original languages into English.

If you want to go to the "original languages" as you say, then we should not go to the Greek language as that would still be a translation! You should know Bible history. The corrupted Jewish Bible is in the Hebrew language and the real Prophet Jesus(pbuh) spoke in Aramaic. So let's go to the original languages, ie Hebrew and Aramaic. I have no problem with that God willing.

John 3:16 affirms the unique relation of Son as belonging to Jesus Christ.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

No, it doesn't.

1. John 8:58 ESV: Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

That statement clearly does not say that Jesus was God.

Yeah, actually, it does. And you can see that the Jewish authorities knew it does too, because as the passage says, they immediately took up stones to stone him for blasphemy. They were quite familiar with the use of the words "I AM" as a name of God.

The problem here is that biblical Jesus didn't say his name was "I AM", he just said at the time the statement was made that Abraham had already passed away whereas he exists. Now, a man saying that he exists is obviously saying something true! This is obvious! The question now is why would biblical Jesus say something so obviously true?

Let us read the verses before John 8:58 to understand why biblical Jesus made such an obvious statement. There is something profound here for those who understand!

• 39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.
  
  “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[c] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”
  42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”[John 8:39-47]

In that passage, biblical Jesus was telling some Jews that they were looking to kill him for telling the truth. And he also explained that this was because they followed the accursed devil and thus they didn't understand what he was saying. The accursed devil misguides whoever follows him. After he made this speech, biblical Jesus proved what he had just said previously by saying something evidently true (ie before Abraham existed and now he(Jesus) exists), and what happened next is exactly that: they wanted to kill him! So his point was proved for whoever could understand his speech!

What is also very interesting in that long passage is that through and through biblical Jesus was clearly saying that he was sent by God (ie he was a messenger of God) and he also made it abundantly clear that he was not God. Yet Trinitarian Christians don't understand that and they think of him as God Himself. They too didn't and still don't understand him, same like some Jews who wanted to stone him.

The saddening part (for me at least), however, is that the one to whom this message is addressed won't understand this either! But only those who truly believes in Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) as a mighty messenger of God, the Almighty will understand if they have not already!

There's no value in an "it-says-that / no-it-doesn't" kind of exchange, and frankly, my time's too short to bother

If you don't want to address such an important question anymore, I won't hold you any longer. If you change your mind, however, I will be here God willing. I thank you for taking the time to exchange with me. It was a respectful exchange. Have a nice day.

[Immanuel Can]

[You are misguided.

No, I'm right. But unlike what you say, I'm not referring to the KJV.

You are wrong.

I've watched you operate for a bit now, Averroes. And I've learned some things about you.

One obvious one is that you don't want to deal with the topics the OP contains; you want to change the topic. I noticed you changed the heading. So I changed it back to the OP, just to see what you would do. You changed it back again, repeatedly. Interesting.

Then there was the whole business of pretending you didn't know how to do a Google search to find information on passages of the Bible that deal with the deity of Christ. And then the assertion that passages that are relevant and clear are not. And the rejoinders are exactly the same sort of fodder I've seen for a long time in defensive Islamic apologetics writings...nothing new, nothing original, nothing personal, it seems.

And then I watched how you handled the questions of others...particularly those that presented to you an uncomfortable truth about Islam. You weren't responsive to all of those, and deflected others. And all the time, you worked to turn defence into attack, to put the discussion on a footing attacking Christianity instead of one inquiring into the nature of the relation between Islam and violence.

The "politeness" of your dismissals also doesn't deceive. The substance is that you are not looking to stay on topic. You're looking to protect Islam from real examination at all costs. And I understand that move perfectly: Islam has a horrible record, since Mohammed's time, actually, of violence, anti-semitism, cruelty, slavery, abuse of women, and tyranny towards dissent. I wouldn't want to have to answer for that either, were I a Muslim. Personally, I've tried to "go easy" on Islam. For example, I did not accuse Islam of being a major source of wars, when others did. I could have mentioned all these things, but didn't. Still, you were so earnest to reroute the discussion, you didn't notice I was giving you an opportunity to modify your position -- not attacking you or Islam.

The name Averroes, which you so proudly take, is the name of somebody that was attacked viciously, his books were burned, and he was exiled by the conservatives of his day, for the "sin" of trying to bring Greek thought into the Islamic world and becoming too liberal. If you want to walk in his footsteps, you'll have to stop defending Islam at all costs. You can disassociate yourself from the conservatives like ISIS and the 9-11 terrorists IF you are prepared to admit the errors Islam has made in the past, condemn them, and become more open yourself. But retrenchment in the aggressive, taqquiya-rich practices of the conservative Islamists is never going to make people believe you aren't secretly sympathetic to them.

Let people say what they have to say about Islam. There's no use hiding the record: it's too well known, and too obvious even in the headlines of today. Explain to them why it's only true of the conservative Islamists, and doesn't have to be true of many, and is not of you. My recommendation would be that you take a new angle: condemn the evil Islamists without apology -- their record is too grim to defend --and associate yourself with the reformers instead, like Averroes did.

That's my advice. But whether or not you think it's good advice is, of course, going to be up to you.

Be well.

[uwot]

... I watched how you handled the questions of others...particularly those that presented to you an uncomfortable truth about Islam. You weren't responsive to all of those, and deflected others.

Indeed Mr Can, isn't it obvious when it is other people doing it?

And all the time, you worked to turn defence into attack, to put the discussion on a footing attacking Christianity instead of one inquiring into the nature of the relation between Islam and violence.

As you do to atheism.

The "politeness" of your dismissals also doesn't deceive.

Do you think your own "politeness" fools anyone?

The substance is that you are not looking to stay on topic. You're looking to protect Islam from real examination at all costs. And I understand that move perfectly....

Of course you do.

...Islam has a horrible record, since Mohammed's time, actually, of violence, anti-semitism, cruelty, slavery, abuse of women, and tyranny towards dissent.

As does christianity.

I wouldn't want to have to answer for that either, were I a Muslim.

Why is this privilege that allows you to dismiss any christian whose behaviour you disapprove of as not a christian exclusive to christianity?

My recommendation would be that you take a new angle: condemn the evil Islamists without apology -- their record is too grim to defend --and associate yourself with the reformers instead, like Averroes did.

That's my advice. But whether or not you think it's good advice is, of course, going to be up to you.

Mr Can, you remind us from time to time that you are not a catholic. Why must Averroes apologise for the behaviour of all muslims any more than you must for all christians?

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, I'm right. But unlike what you say, I'm not referring to the KJV.

You are wrong.

I've watched you operate for a bit now, Averroes. And I've learned some things about you.

One obvious one is that you don't want to deal with the topics the OP contains; you want to change the topic. I noticed you changed the heading. So I changed it back to the OP, just to see what you would do. You changed it back again, repeatedly. Interesting.

Then there was the whole business of pretending you didn't know how to do a Google search to find information on passages of the Bible that deal with the deity of Christ. And then the assertion that passages that are relevant and clear are not. And the rejoinders are exactly the same sort of fodder I've seen for a long time in defensive Islamic apologetics writings...nothing new, nothing original, nothing personal, it seems.

And then I watched how you handled the questions of others...particularly those that presented to you an uncomfortable truth about Islam. You weren't responsive to all of those, and deflected others. And all the time, you worked to turn defence into attack, to put the discussion on a footing attacking Christianity instead of one inquiring into the nature of the relation between Islam and violence.

The "politeness" of your dismissals also doesn't deceive. The substance is that you are not looking to stay on topic. You're looking to protect Islam from real examination at all costs. And I understand that move perfectly: Islam has a horrible record, since Mohammed's time, actually, of violence, anti-semitism, cruelty, slavery, abuse of women, and tyranny towards dissent. I wouldn't want to have to answer for that either, were I a Muslim. Personally, I've tried to "go easy" on Islam. For example, I did not accuse Islam of being a major source of wars, when others did. I could have mentioned all these things, but didn't. Still, you were so earnest to reroute the discussion, you didn't notice I was giving you an opportunity to modify your position -- not attacking you or Islam.

The name Averroes, which you so proudly take, is the name of somebody that was attacked viciously, his books were burned, and he was exiled by the conservatives of his day, for the "sin" of trying to bring Greek thought into the Islamic world and becoming too liberal. If you want to walk in his footsteps, you'll have to stop defending Islam at all costs. You can disassociate yourself from the conservatives like ISIS and the 9-11 terrorists IF you are prepared to admit the errors Islam has made in the past, condemn them, and become more open yourself. But retrenchment in the aggressive, taqquiya-rich practices of the conservative Islamists is never going to make people believe you aren't secretly sympathetic to them.

Let people say what they have to say about Islam. There's no use hiding the record: it's too well known, and too obvious even in the headlines of today. Explain to them why it's only true of the conservative Islamists, and doesn't have to be true of many, and is not of you. My recommendation would be that you take a new angle: condemn the evil Islamists without apology -- their record is too grim to defend --and associate yourself with the reformers instead, like Averroes did.

That's my advice. But whether or not you think it's good advice is, of course, going to be up to you.

Be well.

The above is very well-justified and well-said [albeit we do not agree in many other topics].

The answer to the OP is Islam is inherently evil [justified with research] which catalyzes the natural occurring inherent percentile [best guess = 20%] of evil prone people in any large group to commit terrible evils and violence in the name of Islam, Allah and Muhammad. The proofs, tests and results of the above are so evident.

The latest trend of a bombshell to Islam is the expose that Islam is not a genuine [thus a bullsh;t] religion for the Quran is not perfect as the Quran claimed for itself.
Note this trending topic:

There are holes in the narrative of the Quran.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V73m8RPIIg

For centuries, Islamic scholars had made all Muslims believed that the Quran they are reading on hand is absolute perfect as claimed in the Quran; the Quran is as perfect in every word as the days it was revealed to Muhammad and transcribed verbatim without errors to the present.

Now it is discovered that are more than 40-45 different [Qirat] Quran around the world and there are more than 30,000++ differences [major and minor] between them. These evidences smash the claims there is only one true perfect verbatim Quran from Allah.

The above proved the Quran and Islam is man-made [never from a God]. Worst of all, the compilation of Quran was contaminated and corrupted by self-interested men who were evil prone and thus imbuing elements of evil into the Quran.
Why TROP is a Threat to Humanity
This is why "Averroes" will resort to all sorts of dirty tricks to deflect others from the inherent evil and false religion of Islam he is clinging and grasping onto.

In contrast, Christianity [based on the Gospel] is implanted solidly with an overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all' including one's enemies, thus indicating Christianity-by-itself in essence cannot be evil in condoning violence and killing. It is the same with all other religions which are basically and fundamentally pacifist intrinsically.

[Immanuel Can]

The above is very well-justified and well-said [albeit we do not agree in many other topics].

Almost none, it seems.

And that, in itself is a remarkable fact. Why would we, who are on opposite sides of almost everything, agree on this one thing? The easiest, most Occam-like answer is "Because they both see it's true, despite their profound differences of perspective."

The answer to the OP is Islam is inherently evil

Perhaps. But even if that turns out to be the case, I'm trying to give Averroes the opportunity to explain to us why the obvious and public evils done in the name of Mohammed and Islam (such as 9-11, hacking the head off a soldier in London, stabbing a politician in Holland, shooting up Charlie Hebdo, the Caliphate, ISIS...all the way back to the 72 "virgins" and the Islamic Crusades against the west from the 7th Century to the present) are not genuine expressions of Islam, or of the kind of Islam Averroes wants to represent. And I'm supposing that he WANTS to disassociate himself from these things, and that giving him an opportunity to explain is fair.

I think it's okay for us to see what he does with that opportunity. Everybody deserves a chance to defend their position.

[Averroes]

No, I'm right.  But unlike what you say, I'm not referring to the KJV.

You are wrong.

I've watched you operate for a bit now, Averroes.  And I've learned some things about you.

That sounds good to me, as we are both learning about each other. On my side, I too have learned some things about you. For example, I learned that when the going gets tough for you, you quit as you tried to do several times during the course of our exchanges on the various threads of the forum. But that's okay, I understand you are having great difficulties with explaining how your fundamental Trinitarian Christian belief is founded in your Bible due to inadequate knowledge and argument on your part. Then I ask: why do you as a Trinitarian still hold on to something that barely makes intellectual sense to you? What makes you still hold on to such type of evident misguidance? If not you, as you don't seem knowledgeable enough, then may be someone else may answer those.

One obvious one is that you don't want to deal with the topics the OP contains; you want to change the topic.  I noticed you changed the heading.  So I changed it back to the OP, just to see what you would do.  You changed it back again, repeatedly.  Interesting.

Then there was the whole business of pretending you didn't know how to do a Google search to find information on passages of the Bible that deal with the deity of Christ.  And then the assertion that passages that are relevant and clear are not.

I am glad you brought up again the mention of your fundamental Trinitarian Christian belief. You had previously said your time was too short for you to bother, consequently I was not expecting you would honor me with such a discussion again. I am glad you changed your mind as you are mentioning that to me again.

However, it is here important that we remember that we were discussing on the following thread before you decided to transfer it on the present thread when the going was getting tough for you there: viewtopic.php?p=474759#p474759

If you now think that the present thread in no longer appropriate to discuss what we(you and me) have been discussing for nearly a week now, then I can retransfer my answer on an appropriate thread as you had done previously. The thread Trinity would do here :viewtopic.php?p=475508#p475508

However, I can find another thread or two if you don't like the previous proposal for any reason.

There won't be any concern of topic deflection on that thread or some other, God willing, provided that you don't try to quit the discussion again when the going gets tough for you. If, however, you were to decline that great opportunity to discuss that important subject again due to your limited understanding of it, as you have been constantly differing that responsibility to some other irrelevant websites then I hope someone more able and knowledgeable than you might take it. I don't blame you though for not understanding and knowing little yourself about your fundamental belief, because even Christian scholars themselves are at great pains to bring an adequate explanation that makes sense. That's one of the main reasons Trinitarian Christianity is in decline. So, that's fine with me.

Anyway, God willing, I am going to repost an abridged version of my previous answer on the aforementioned thread as well, just in case you (or someone else) might want to further explore the subject but are feeling constrained by the possibility of it being off topic here (which I don't think is the case, as I already explained). And, God willing, we (me, you or anyone else interested) can continue there the interesting discussion that you initiated on this thread.

Thank you for your well wishing. I return the same to you.

PS: Don't worry about the other aspect of this thread that we both are interested in. I still have things to say on that later, God willing. Remember that we still have some statistics in your history book the "Encyclopedia of War" to look into. All very interesting subjects indeed. One thing at a time though. I thought you had forgone that discussion too had you not insisted now as you said you didn't want to converse with me anymore pretexting that your time was too short to bother. I am glad you changed your mind though.

[Immanuel Can]

I've watched you operate for a bit now, Averroes.  And I've learned some things about you.

That sounds good to me...

I doubt it does. You completely ignored what I actually asked you, and reverted again to trying to change the subject so as to make it about Christianity again. But at least this time you didn't change the OP.

Well, you can "lead a horse to water," as the old saying goes, "but you can't make him drink."

[Averroes]

Well, you can "lead a horse to water," as the old saying goes, "but you can't make him drink."

I am glad for your new found occupation. Philosophy was just not for you anyway. Moreover, taking care of horses is a very decent and honorable occupation. I just hope you don't quit that too when the going gets tough.

[attofishpi]

In Paradise if we make it there, God willing, the pleasures are tremendous indeed as described by the messengers of God, the Almighty.

What is paradise to you Averroes?

The greater one's level of piety in this world, the greater the reward in the Hereafter, there is no doubt about it.

Why are you so self assured that the more you suck up to the teachings of a paedophile warlord and his corruption of the Judaic and Christian faith that you will have this 'paradise' ? <- a quest_ion.


For me, you are merely spinning a pair_of_dice...not paradise...you will continue to be reincarnated into ISLAM, seeking hatred domination and subjugation of those that don't comply to your misguided faith.

In Islam, Christ was just a prophet. A prophet that went to his death to insist we ALL respect each other and lied about being the Sun Of God - the light?

Mohamed was a merciless PROFIT...not a prophet...that corrupted the Judaic root and Truth of God.

It's ALL in the common protocol of the English lan_gauge God's final language.... - I_slam the door on false profits, Muzzle_em.

...ya, and I don't have gnosis!

[seeds]

In Paradise if we make it there, God willing, the pleasures are tremendous indeed as described by the messengers of God, the Almighty.

What is paradise to you Averroes?

The greater one's level of piety in this world, the greater the reward in the Hereafter, there is no doubt about it.

The bizarre and extreme irony of Averroes’ statement about the need to practice proper piety here on earth in order to earn a greater reward in the Hereafter, is that one of the main rewards that Muslim males are hoping to receive in the Hereafter...

(unrestrained sexual freedom)

...is precisely what their proper piety forbids them to have here on earth. So much so that it drives them to violently force females to walk around in big black sacks for fear that the sight of a calf or an ankle will evoke impious thoughts.



I mean, why in the world would something that is considered to be an impious activity here on earth (again, unrestrained sexual freedom), suddenly be viewed as a pious activity (taken to exponential degrees) in heaven?

Very strange.

Furthermore, the reason why I keep pressing Averroes on the question of the “72 virgins” business, is because the Muslim males who (justifiably) make such a big deal out of the need to show extreme reverence and respect toward Allah, just cannot seem to understand that the 72 virgin nonsense is actually an insult to Allah.

Why?

Because it implies that the Creator and living foundation of the unfathomable order of this universe is nothing more than some kind of “COSMIC PIMP” who has nothing better to do than to supply a bunch of lecherous Muslim males with 72 houri (whores?)...



...who will be at the beck and call (for eternity, no less) of their master’s “perpetual erection.” (See quote** from WikiIslam at the bottom of this post).

The point is,...

(and assuming that these allegedly “perpetual virgins” aren’t simply some kind of advanced versions of adult store blow-up dolls with zombie brains and replaceable vaginas)

...does Allah not give one hoot about the feelings and aspirations of these females, and only cares about the wants and perverse desires of Muslim males?

Clearly, this Muslim male attitude concerning the second class status of females in the Hereafter is a reflection of their attitude towards females here on earth, and is precisely the reason (or at least one of the reasons) why the “old paradigm religions” need to be abandoned.

**According to WikiIslam in regards to the 72 virgins:

“...they are graphically described by Qur'anic commentator and polymath, Al-Suyuti (died 1505), who, echoing a Sahih hadith from Ibn Majah, wrote that the perpetual virgins will all "have appetizing vaginas", and that the "penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal.”

Pure and utter nonsense!
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

In Paradise if we make it there, God willing, the pleasures are tremendous indeed as described by the messengers of God, the Almighty.

What is paradise to you Averroes?

The greater one's level of piety in this world, the greater the reward in the Hereafter, there is no doubt about it.

The bizarre and extreme irony of Averroes’ statement about the need to practice proper piety here on earth in order to earn a greater reward in the Hereafter, is that one of the main rewards that Muslim males are hoping to receive in the Hereafter...

(unrestrained sexual freedom)

...is precisely what their proper piety forbids them to have here on earth. So much so that it drives them to violently force females to walk around in big black sacks for fear that the sight of a calf or an ankle will evoke impious thoughts.



I mean, why in the world would something that is considered to be an impious activity here on earth (again, unrestrained sexual freedom), suddenly be viewed as a pious activity (taken to exponential degrees) in heaven?

Very strange.

Furthermore, the reason why I keep pressing Averroes on the question of the “72 virgins” business, is because the Muslim males who (justifiably) make such a big deal out of the need to show extreme reverence and respect toward Allah, just cannot seem to understand that the 72 virgin nonsense is actually an insult to Allah.

Why?

Because it implies that the Creator and living foundation of the unfathomable order of this universe is nothing more than some kind of “COSMIC PIMP” who has nothing better to do than to supply a bunch of lecherous Muslim males with 72 houri (whores?)...



...who will be at the beck and call (for eternity, no less) of their master’s “perpetual erection.” (See quote** from WikiIslam at the bottom of this post).

The point is,...

(and assuming that these allegedly “perpetual virgins” aren’t simply some kind of advanced versions of adult store blow-up dolls with zombie brains and replaceable vaginas)

...does Allah not give one hoot about the feelings and aspirations of these females, and only cares about the wants and perverse desires of Muslim males?

Clearly, this Muslim male attitude concerning the second class status of females in the Hereafter is a reflection of their attitude towards females here on earth, and is precisely the reason (or at least one of the reasons) why the “old paradigm religions” need to be abandoned.

**According to WikiIslam in regards to the 72 virgins:

“...they are graphically described by Qur'anic commentator and polymath, Al-Suyuti (died 1505), who, echoing a Sahih hadith from Ibn Majah, wrote that the perpetual virgins will all "have appetizing vaginas", and that the "penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal.”

Pure and utter nonsense!
_______

It is not utter nonsense to the Muslims.

A Muslim is one who had entered into a divine contract [covenant - ميثق "mithaq" root, Waw-Tha-Qaf ] with Allah who promises eternal life in paradise, eternal erection, 72 virgins, and all other goods.
The obligation of the Muslim within the 'signed' contract is to submit/believe and be a slave to Allah and accept Muhammad is the final messenger and thus have to comply with all the terms of the contract, i.e. all commands of Allah in the Quran and the authentic Ahadiths.

One of the most critical terms of the contract and Muslims obligation is his duty to kill non-Muslims if there is the slightest threat [fasadin] to the religion of Islam. This is why even the drawing of cartoons is perceived as threats to Islam and cartooners are killed .

In addition those Muslims who strive [jihad] to kill non-Muslims and are killed to protect Islam will be rewarded many folds than ordinary Muslims when they reach paradise after Judgment Day.

Therefore as long as the contract [mithaq] is effective, there will be Muslims looking forward to their eternal life and 72 virgins and any threats to such promises will dealt with deaths to non-Muslims. Since Islam is so sensitive to anything negative [even cartoons] as a threat to Islam, there will be terrible killings, violence and evil targeted at non-Muslims. This is so evident since the emergent of Islam 1400+ years ago.

Thus rational and logical the most effective solutions to deal with the terrible evils from Islam is to get rid and suppress the ideology of Islam so that there are no contracted-Muslims who are obligated with a duty to kill non-Muslim in the name of a religion.

At present, the majority of people cannot survive sanely and reasonably without a religion as a psychological crutch, thus existing Muslims deprived of their religion of Islam should be encouraged to covert to Christianity and other religions which are overridingly pacifist.

[Belinda]

Most Muslims are, like most other religionists, not theologians and not even very well educated.

I expect some Muslims have had a post-enlightenment education, as have many Christians.

It's true that Muslims tend to be poorer ethnic groups, and ethnic groups are attached to their own religious practices; therefore post-enlightenment education is withheld from many of the poorer Muslims who have to attend religious schools where the Holy book is taken for granted.

Promises of rewards after death in Heaven or Paradise affect only simple people who are not enjoying life for reasons of enslavement, bereavement, poverty, disease, or natural disasters. These are common experiences to all who are not idiots and therefore authority figures such as Muhammad, Caesar, Ayatollah, or Pope can persuade their flocks the rewards are true for obedient individuals and nations.

[attofishpi]

Yep.