You are not logged in.

Any German speakers want to do the honors of translating for us?
Interesting development if true.
Aqualung, I am not even going to argue with you. It is about as useful as arguing with someone about the sum of 2+2.
Just look at this quick data about the number of divisions of the German army by front. If this doesn't convince you that the war was decided on the East Front, I honestly don't know what to tell you. Just a summary, the Germans had twice as many divisions on the Eastern front as on all oher fronts for most of the war.
http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations … rld-war-ii
All those battles you mentioned were completely irrelevant. Even without the American involvement in Italy and France, the war wouldn't have taken much longer. The war was already decided long before D-Day, and all that was left was for the game to play out. Do you actually think that the U.S. could hold a chance against Germany if Germany didn't have 170 divisions tied up on the Eastern Front? The U.S. would have been completely spanked.
I suspect that you are unable to accept any other narrative besides the one you hold because it feeds your national pride.
Alek - I appreciate the vast majority of your positions/arguments on this thread and have used some of them to challenge my own hypotheses so thank you. As an aside, your arguments would be more effective without unnecessarily labeling those that don't agree with you drunk, stupid, etc.
I believe I can be convinced that the Soviets would have emerged victorious on the Eastern front with or without US involvement at the West. The questions that follow are:
How much longer would it have taken?
At what cost? Human capital and the genocidal concentration camps?
I have to disagree on two things (though I am still open-minded to being convinced otherwise):
1. That the US bombing campaigns were merely "supportive" and to "soften-up" targets. It is my understanding that "strategic bombing" as it was called was crucial to victory over Hitler's war machine.
2. The significance of Normandy/D-Day and subsequent operations. Using your own sources, it appears Hitler began shifting significant divisions over to the Western front to deal with the incursions there in 1944-1945.
Some other points of significance:
http://www.history.com/news/history-lis … tern-front
Additionally, do you dismiss the significance of the Pacific Ocean Theater vis-a-vis the Tripartite pact?
moon' wrote:@tuia
This makes you anti-semetic, homophobic and racist. Which makes you a nazihe should be proud then
And there goes your credibility.
The Americans and British were completely useless in the European Theatre, they basically only had support roles such as lend-lease and also softening Germany with bombs.
Normandy? Battle of the Bulge? Market Garden (yes, failed - but nonetheless)? Brest? Dragoon? Nancy? Hurtgen Forest? Aachen? Nordwind? Colmar Pocket?
Not to mention Sicily? Salerno? Monte Cassino? Anzio? Yes, the Italian campaign (and Middle-Eastern campaign) were vital to victory over the Nazi war machine).
they basically only had support roles such as lend-lease and also softening Germany with bombs.
When did strategic bombing become a "support role"? Someone forgot to tell the rest of us...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic … rld_War_II
Let's not forget the US's 17,000 paratroopers on D-Day.
Was the US late to enter the conflict? Yes. But once they entered it was the game-changer and everyone knew/knows it.
From Wikipedia:
Although the majority of German military deaths occurred on the Eastern Front, German losses on the Western Front were almost irreplaceable, because most of Germany's resources were being allocated to the Eastern Front. This meant that, while losses there could be replaced to some extent, very few replacements or reinforcements were being sent to the west to stop the advance of the Western Allies. The Normandy landings were a psychological blow to the German military and its leaders, who had feared a repetition of the two-front war of World War I.
All the real fighting was done by the Soviets and 8 out of 10 German casualties were achieved by the Soviets.
I already acknowledged the Soviet role (as you noted), albeit for less than honorable reasons. Let's not forget that the Soviets were also responsible for much of the havoc and destruction of WWII in it's early phases. As I am sure you are aware, Stalin only fought against Germany because Hitler betrayed him (remember the non-Aggression pact), initially Stalin was more than eager to join the Axis Pact.
Consider this... what if Hitler had not been so greedy and Operation Barbarossa never happened?
From Wikipedia:
"Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939, and Joseph Stalin ordered his own invasion of Poland on 17 September. Part of southeastern (Karelia) and Salla region in Finland were annexed by the Soviet Union after the Winter War. This was followed by Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and parts of Romania (Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and the Hertza region). It was only in 1989 that the Soviet Union admitted the existence of the secret protocol of the Nazi-Soviet pact regarding the planned divisions of these territories."
Soviets captures Berlin and were the ones to defeat Hitler's army. The only reason why USA had any success on the ground was because the vast majority of Germany's strength was on the Eastern Front.
As I understand it, there was an agreement at Yalta which allowed the Soviets to take East Germany and Berlin. Stalin, in typical form, set out two competing Soviet generals who both wanted to be the first to reach and take Berlin, no matter the cost. Roosevelt severely underestimated and failed to understand Stalin's territorial ambitions and thus did not oppose or compete in this race, even though by several accounts Eisenhower's forces could have done so but chose to let the Soviets do the honors of !@#$ing up half that country and much of the region.
From Wikipedia:
The western Allies' decision to leave eastern Germany and the city of Berlin to the Red Army - honoring the agreement they made with the Soviet Union at Yalta - eventually had serious repercussions as the Cold War emerged and expanded in the post-war era.
Indeed. One of the main reasons why we take our 1st Amendment rights so seriously and are fully willing to fight to the death to defend those rights with our 2nd Amendment rights.
Nah hes the boss-man, he takes over there servers and make them his bitches.
It is shameful that many watching/commenting on this thread have sat on the sidelines while totally baseless hatred and bigotry have been on full display. Some have spoken out which is a solid reflection on their character. So what if the bigot is an admin? I don't give a !@#$ if you are the goddamn king of the world - I will never stand idly by while shamefully vile and unsubstantiated bigotry is aired - I would like to see others grow and/or locate their testicles (or inner woman-power, if it so be) and show some goddamn courage and integrity too.
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don’t have integrity, nothing else matters."
~ Alan Simpson
"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance."
~ George Bernard Shaw
Yes, yes - please do go on demonstrating your baseless hatred and bigotry - it may help serve your reputation on these forums with the other haters but it serves more to demonstrate your sheer and childish ignorance of historical facts, not to mention current events.
Far be it from me to wish harm unto another human being but when you speak the way you do, you remove yourself from amongst the human race. Perhaps when the Islamic invasion hits your hometown (and believe me it's coming) they start with people like you.
It is necessary to fight for your home whatever the consequences may be.
Yes - this will ALWAYS be the case for countries and peoples whose survival depend on it and the should make no apologies for it.
Same goes for countries who are not permanently plagued with stain of European cowardice in the face of danger - think WWII and how easily so many European countries surrendered to the Nazi's without so much as a complaint, let alone putting up a fight. Tell me, do they not raise brave and courageous men in European countries? Only sissies that like to talk bravado but then run away whenever danger strikes?
The only countries with REAL MEN and REAL SOLDIERS who showed REAL BRAVERY and stood up to evil of the Nazis (and Japanese and Italians) are the same ones that still do today - The United States of America (may God continue to bless her), The UK, and more selfishly, the USSR.
I only remember one Jew criticizing Europe for no doing anything and just watching...
So you personally spoke to all 15,000,000 Jews? Why else would you make such a stupid comment that only reflects on your baseless bigotry? But even so, make sure you understand your history before making such ignorant comments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o … Background
Background
In 1940, there were approximately 14,000 Jews in Bosnia and Herzegovina,[4] with 10,000 in Sarajevo.
With the invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941 by the Nazis and their Allies, Bosnia and Herzegovina came under the control of the Independent State of Croatia, a Nazi puppet-state. The Independent State of Croatia was headed by the notoriously anti-Semitic Ustaše, and they wasted little time in persecuting non-Croats such as Serbs, Jews and Gypsies.
Deportation and murder
Concentration camps in Yugoslavia in World War II.
On 22 July 1941, Mile Budak – a senior Minister in the Croatian government and one of the chief ideologists of the Ustaše movement[9] – declared that the goal of the Ustaše was the extermination of "foreign elements" from the Independent State of Croatia. His message was simple: "The basis for the Ustasha movement is religion. For minorities such as Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies, we have three million bullets."[10] In 1941, Ante Pavelić – leader of the Ustaše movement – declared that "the Jews will be liquidated in a very short time".[10]
In September 1941 deportations of Jews began, with most Bosnian Jews being deported to Auschwitz or to concentration camps in Croatia. The Ustaše set up concentration camps at Kerestinac, Jadovna, Metajna and Slana. The most notorious, where cruelty of unimaginable proportions was perpetrated against Jewish and Serbian prisoners were at Pag and Jasenovac. At Jasenovac alone, hundreds of thousands of people were murdered (mostly Serbs), including 20,000 Jews.[11]
By War's end, the Ustaše had murdered more than 500,000 Serbs, approximately 40,000 Roma (Gypsies) and 32,000 Jews.[12] Among Bosnian Jews, 10,000 of the pre-War Jewish population of 14,000 had been murdered.[1] Most of the 4,000 who had survived did so by fighting with the Yugoslav, Jewish or Soviet Partisans[13] or by escaping to the Italian controlled zone[10] (approximately 1,600 had escaped to the Italian controlled zone on the Dalmatian coast[14]).
So you see, the historically weak and cowardly Bosnia and Herzegovina (to go along with the weak and cowardly Europeans - who mostly like to talk a lot but surrender at the first sign of blood) surrendered themselves to the domination of Nazi Germany (via the equally cowardly Nazi puppet regime of Croatia) and were more than happy to carry out persecutions of Serbs, Jews, Gypsies and others.
This is all about race. The plan is to create a mongrel race in Europe, through race mixing and more 3rd world invaders. Sweden and Germany are under fierce attack. This is not exclusive to Europe, but all nations with white majority people, such as USA, Canada and Australia.
It's not about race Tula, it's about a political death cult masquerading itself as a religion with only ONE goal in mind - Total Islamic supremacism and domination of the world.
A side bar to this is a totally unrelated economic migration that is currently also taking place. Of course if I lived in an Islamic shithole country (take your pick, 50-60 to choose from) I would also want to get the hell out and migrate to some sucker European country to mooch off the stupidity of their "welfare nanny state" bureaucracies. Why do you think they all want to go to Germany? Germany is known to have the best hand-outs and welfare nanny state policies, specifically for migrants.
What does Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Uber-wealthy gulf Arab Muslim states have to say about all of this? Did they take in a SINGLE REFAUXGEE? Nope. They DID offer to build 200 new Mosques in Germany though to serve the new refauxgees - someone has to help move this Islamic trojan horse invasion along...
If you can't/won't study history and understand why this is all happening, and you are simply looking for a scapegoat, then by all means - I hope you enjoy the firepit of Islamic violence, terrorism and murder which will continue to engulf your defenseless populations. Oh, and you can thank your local politicians for ALL of it.
It is an invasion
http://i.imgur.com/aEaZy9l.jpg
Here is an example of what you can look forward too. Hope you leaders wake up and you don't let the lefty hacks be in charge like we have.
It is an invasion all right - anyone who can't/won't see it is either willfully ignorant or just plain stupid.
I am not worried about the US at all, we will be just fine. So many of us belong to heavily fortified and well-trained militias and the vast majority of Americans are armed to the teeth - the kind of bullshit plaguing defenseless Europeans simply will not be tolerated here.
Just accept that Muslims and Jews are both equally annoying and have no place in Europe because we have a rather good thing going and it would be a shame to spoil it with Sharia Law or Muh Shekels.
You have a rather good thing going, do you now? As history recalls, you had another "rather good thing going" In 1933 as well, how did that lovely piece of persecution work out for ya?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War … n_of_Serbs
Europeans (Serbs included) should be KISSING THE BOOTS of the American and British forces who sacrificed life and limb to save your sorry asses from the steamroller of Hitler's Nazi war machine. Had it not been for our brave men (and women) you would all be tasty bars of German soap today.
Europeans would do well to reflect on history and their unabashed complicity with the Nazis (cowards that they were). Too bad Hitler didn't give a fuck about any of you and conquered most of your sorry asses anyway. The only people with the right to speak are the Russians, the only cowards that didn't run away from Hitler like a bunch of pansies with their tails tucked between their legs - And God knows the Russians committed their own fair share of atrocities during that period and after too so they are not exactly saints.
Take 5 seconds and look at 0:40
Notice that EXACTLY ZERO of these Islamic refauxgees were taken in by their fellow wealthy Muslim Arab gulf states? Only the Europeans are suckers enough to fall for this Trojan Horse operation, the Arab states know better which is why they said "No thanks!".
ATF_SurrenderMonkey wrote:many many references in wikipedia and other sources...here's one:
Antisemitism and the New Testament:
And where in the world today can we find Christians acting on these verses IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY? Oh, what's that? Not a single place you say? Next!
More brotherly love and Kumbaya singing from the religion of perpetual violence:
Perhaps this is more clear for you?
Aqualung wrote:There is no proof for any relation between the celebration and the 9/11 attacks, but I've got something interesting for you:
http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150914/cl4ykxws.png
Full story: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1
Yes, nice try:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.asp
Origins: No, CNN did not air decade-old footage of Palestinians dancing in the streets. Eason Jordan, CNN's Chief News Executive, confirmed that the video used on CNN was in fact shot on Tuesday, 11 September 2001, in East Jerusalem by a Reuters TV crew, not during the Persian Gulf conflict of 1990-91 — a fact proved by its inclusion of comments from a Palestinian praising Osama Bin Laden (whose name was unlikely to have come up ten years earlier in connection with the invasion and liberation of Kuwait) as well as the appearance in the video of post-1991 automobiles. The person who made the claim quoted above has since recanted.
(The argument that the footage CNN used could not possibly be real because it showed Palestinians in broad daylight not long after the attack — even though Palestinian territory is several time zones ahead of New York — is not valid. Eastern Daylight Time in the United States is six hours behind the area of the Middle East referred to as Palestine. Thus, when the first attack occurred in New York just before 9:00 A.M., Palestine time would have been 3:00 P.M., and the area would still have been bathed in plenty of mid-afternoon sunlight.)
Any more conspiracy theories?
Aqualung wrote:Sunshine wrote:In the lame part of my state down in troll land there is a place called Dearborn and part of it is called Dearbornistan. If places that get all those refugees turn into a place like that... run away.
European cities have been "Dearbornistans" for a while now. This is a general model for the cultural Jihad. Those countries are now sadly lost causes. Barring an unlikely mass-deportation, European countries will mostly become Islamic countries, governed by Sharia law (see Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc for examples), by 2050 or so, without even a single shot fired - thanks mostly to the high birthrate in Muslim families.
There are two methods of creating Islamic supremacy in the world. One is through violent jihad. The other method is through al-hijra, or the Islamic doctrine of immigration. It’s a much quieter method, takes a bit longer, but under the guise of “humanitarianism” is very effective.
Sweden is in stiff competition with France and Germany to see who can commit cultural suicide first. It's a very tight race but I predict Sweden will be the first victim of suicide to the cultural Jihad.
You are so pessimistic.
Factual evidence tends to have that effect on some people.
You mean this same Al-Aqsa?
In the lame part of my state down in troll land there is a place called Dearborn and part of it is called Dearbornistan. If places that get all those refugees turn into a place like that... run away.
European cities have been "Dearbornistans" for a while now. This is a general model for the cultural Jihad. Those countries are now sadly lost causes. Barring an unlikely mass-deportation, European countries will mostly become Islamic countries, governed by Sharia law (see Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc for examples), by 2050 or so, without even a single shot fired - thanks mostly to the high birthrate in Muslim families.
There are two methods of creating Islamic supremacy in the world. One is through violent jihad. The other method is through al-hijra, or the Islamic doctrine of immigration. It’s a much quieter method, takes a bit longer, but under the guise of “humanitarianism” is very effective.
Sweden is in stiff competition with France and Germany to see who can commit cultural suicide first. It's a very tight race but I predict Sweden will be the first victim of suicide to the cultural Jihad.
14 years and 2 days ago - We will NEVER forget.
went to get a sandwich.
wife calls, where are you honey?
i'm here waiting
....whats taking soo long?
there is a long line...but not for the sandwiches...
http://i.imgur.com/TQKf57a.jpg
I only got to play galaga...but i'll be back!!!
Them were the days... Them were the days...
Muslims are almost as bad as Jews. Only Gypsies are worse. And maybe Republicans.
Sorry, this is an adults-only conversation.
Nice BM, thanks for letting us know. Let me know if you need any Linux help, I am an expert.
firstly Islam is a religion of peace that teach people to respect eachother and love but some assholes that pretend to be islam and hurting others to ruin the religion , if someone is christian and he kills homo and black people or sacrifice virgins you people don't say shit , also if you read the bible or the quran you realise christianity and islam share common origin in the Middle East and are Abrahamic religions . Religion is not evil , people are . DONT BE ASSHOLES
Question:
Does the Quran really contain dozens of verses promoting violence?
Summary Answer:
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.
The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God; however this works both ways. Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.
Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.
The Quran:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.
Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward " This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle). According to the verse, Allah will allow the disabled into Paradise, but will provide a larger reward to those who are able to kill others in his cause.
Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."
Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals."
Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."
Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."
Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."
Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."
Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.
Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "healing" the hearts of Muslims.
Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war.
Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has charted them to make Islam "superior over all religions." This chapter was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.
Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).
Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.
Quran (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."
Quran (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme." How does the Quran define a true believer?
Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is "utter destruction." (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).
Quran (18:65-81) - This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with "special knowledge" who does things which don't seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would "grieve" his parents by "disobedience and ingratitude." He was killed so that Allah could provide them a 'better' son. (Note: This is one reason why honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.1-2).)
Quran (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"
Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.
Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter." This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered "merciless" and "horrible murder" in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to "fight in the way of Allah" (3:167) and hence don't act as Muslims should), those with "diseased hearts" (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and "alarmists" or "agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad's biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today's terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah's eternal word to Muslim generations.
Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." Those who reject Allah are to be killed in Jihad. The wounded are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test.
Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"
Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.
Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. This verse tells Muslims that there are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for 'hard' or 'ruthless' in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as 'painful' or severe' to describe Hell in over 25 other verses including 65:10, 40:46 and 50:26..
Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to "battle array" meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.
Quran (61:10-12) - "O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn - Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success." This verse refers to physical battle in order to make Islam victorious over other religions (see above). It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.
Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.
Other verses calling Muslims to Jihad can be found here at AnsweringIslam.org
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.
Bukhari (52:65) - The Prophet said, 'He who fights that Allah's Word, Islam, should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause. Muhammad's words are the basis for offensive Jihad - spreading Islam by force. This is how it was understood by his companions, and by the terrorists of today.
Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'
Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)
Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious
Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah
Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."
Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."
Bukhari (52:73) - "Allah's Apostle said, 'Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords'."
Bukhari (11:626) - [Muhammad said:] "I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes."
Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..."
Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!"
Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.'"
Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)."
Muslim (19:4294) - "When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him... He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them."
Bukhari 1:35 "The person who participates in (Holy Battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty ( if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise ( if he is killed)."
Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.
Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.
Tabari 17:187 "'By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.' And they returned to their former religion." The words of a group of Christians who had converted to Islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of Allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali.
Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 484: - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 990: - Lest anyone think that cutting off someone's head while screaming 'Allah Akbar!' is a modern creation, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.
Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid.
Saifur Rahman, The Sealed Nectar p.227-228 - "Embrace Islam... If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if your refuse my Call, you’ve got to remember that all of your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship." One of several letters from Muhammad to rulers of other countries. The significance is that the recipients were not making war or threatening Muslims. Their subsequent defeat and subjugation by Muhammad's armies was justified merely on the basis of their unbelief.
Additional Notes:
Other than the fact that Muslims haven't killed every non-Muslim under their domain, there is very little else that they can point to as proof that theirs is a peaceful, tolerant religion. Where Islam is dominant (as in the Middle East and Pakistan) religious minorities suffer brutal persecution with little resistance. Where Islam is in the minority (as in Thailand, the Philippines and Europe) there is the threat of violence if Muslim demands are not met. Either situation seems to provide a justification for religious terrorism, which is persistent and endemic to Islamic fundamentalism.
The reasons are obvious and begin with the Quran. Few verses of Islam's most sacred text can be construed to fit the contemporary virtues of religious tolerance and universal brotherhood. Those that do are earlier "Meccan" verses which are obviously abrogated by later ones. The example of Muhammad is that Islam is a religion of peace when Muslims do not have the power and numbers on their side. Once they do, then things change.
Many Muslims are peaceful and do not want to believe what the Quran really says. They reach for "textual context" across different suras to subjectively mitigate harsher passages with others so that the message fits their personal moral preferences. Although the Quran itself claims to be clear and complete, these apologists speak of the "risks" of trying to interpret verses without their "assistance."
The violent verses of the Quran have played a key role in very real massacre and genocide. This includes the brutal slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus for five centuries beginning around 1000 AD with Mahmud of Ghazni's bloody conquest. Both he and the later Tamerlane (Islam's Genghis Khan) slaughtered an untold number merely for defending their temples from destruction. Buddhism was very nearly wiped off the Indian subcontinent. Judaism and Christianity met the same fate (albeit more slowly) in areas conquered by Muslim armies, including the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe, including today's Turkey. Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of a proud Persian people is despised by Muslims and barely survives in modern Iran.
So ingrained is violence in the religion that Islam has never really stopped being at war, either with other religions or with itself.
Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He actually inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered.
It is important to emphasize that, for the most part, Muslim armies waged aggressive campaigns, and the religion's most dramatic military conquests were made by the actual companions of Muhammad in the decades following his death. The early Islamic principle of warfare was that the civilian population of a town was to be destroyed (ie. men executed, women and children taken as slaves) if they defended themselves and resisted Islam. Although modern apologists often claim that Muslims are only supposed to attack in self-defense, this is an oxymoron that is flatly contradicted by the accounts of Islamic historians and others that go back to the time of Muhammad.
Some modern-day scholars are more candid than others. One of the most respected Sunni theologians is al-Qaradawi, who justifies terror attacks against Western targets by noting that there is no such thing as a civilian population in a time of war:
"It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al—Harb [ie. non-Muslim people who resist Islamic conquest] is not protected... In modern war, all of society, with all its classes and ethnic groups, is mobilized to participate in the war, to aid its continuation, and to provide it with the material and human fuel required for it to assure the victory of the state fighting its enemies. Every citizen in society must take upon himself a role in the effort to provide for the battle. The entire domestic front, including professionals, laborers, and industrialists, stands behind the fighting army, even if it does not bear arms."
Consider the example of the Qurayza Jews, who were completely obliterated only five years after Muhammad arrived in Medina. Their leader opted to stay neutral when their town was besieged by a Meccan army that was sent to take revenge for Muhammad's deadly caravan raids. The tribe killed no one from either side and even surrendered peacefully to Muhammad after the Meccans had been turned back. Yet the prophet of Islam had every male member of the Qurayza beheaded, and every woman and child enslaved, even raping one of the captives himself (what Muslim apologists might refer to as "same day marriage").
One of Islam's most revered modern scholars, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly sanctions offensive Jihad: "In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way." Elsewhere, he notes: "Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the 'homeland of Islam' diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life."
The widely respected Dictionary of Islam defines Jihad as "A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur'an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims…[Quoting from the Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2:140, 141.], "The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect."
Dr. Salah al-Sawy, the chief member of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, stated in 2009 that "the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time," tacitly affirming the legitimacy of violence for the cause of Islamic rule - bound only by the capacity for success. (source)
Muhammad's failure to leave a clear line of succession resulted in perpetual internal war following his death. Those who knew him best first fought to keep remote tribes from leaving Islam and reverting to their preferred religion (the Ridda or 'Apostasy wars'). Then, within the closer community, early Meccan converts battled later ones. Hostility developed between those immigrants who had traveled with Muhammad to Mecca and the Ansar at Medina who had helped them settle in. Finally there was a violent struggle within Muhammad's own family between his favorite wife and favorite daughter - a jagged schism that has left Shias and Sunnis at each others' throats to this day.
The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a Religion of Peace. If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, misogyny, sexual repression, warfare...) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be devastating. Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress. It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed. It is convinced of its own perfection, yet brutally shuns self-examination and represses criticism.
This is what makes the Quran's verses of violence so dangerous. They are given the weight of divine command. While Muslim terrorists take them as literally as anything else in their holy book, and understand that Islam is incomplete without Jihad, moderates offer little to contradict them - outside of opinion. Indeed, what do they have? Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of Islam's holiest book either speaks to Allah's hatred for non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it's little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community - even if most Muslims personally prefer not to interpret their religion in this way.
Although scholars like Ibn Khaldun, one of Islam's most respected philosophers, understood that "the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force", many other Muslims are either unaware or willfully ignorant of the Quran's near absence of verses that preach universal non-violence. Their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. In the West, it is typical for believers to think that their religion must be like Christianity - preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance - because Muslims are taught that Islam is supposed to be superior in every way. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to find that this is contradicted by the Quran and the bloody history of Islam's genesis.
Others simply accept the violence. In 1991, a Palestinian couple in America was convicted of stabbing their daughter to death for being too Westernized. A family friend came to their defense, excoriating the jury for not understanding the "culture", claiming that the father was merely following "the religion" and saying that the couple had to "discipline their daughter or lose respect." (source). In 2011, unrepentant Palestinian terrorists, responsible for the brutal murders of civilians, women and children explicitly in the name of Allah were treated to a luxurious "holy pilgrimage" to Mecca by the Saudi king - without a single Muslim voice raised in protest.
For their part, Western liberals would do well not to sacrifice critical thinking to the god of political correctness, or look for reasons to bring other religion down to the level of Islam merely to avoid the existential truth that this it is both different and dangerous.
There are just too many Muslims who take the Quran literally... and too many others who couldn't care less about the violence done in the name of Islam.
are you making me Terror now?
Who said that? There are many Muslims (almost a majority) who are peaceful and tolerant - and that is a wonderful thing. It is also, sadly, largely irrelevant as I will demonstrate below.
The religion itself is EXTREMELY intolerant and chock full of commands to commit unspeakable violence against non-believers. Even with that, we could dismiss all the commands to bloody gore and violence if we didn't have millions of blood-thirsty savages running amok in the world TODAY implementing these very sick and twisted ideologial commands. And here is the key, they are doing so IN THE NAME OF THEIR GOD and RELIGION - and they have perfect justification in the verses/sources to back up each of their brutal and savage acts. So no, it's not that "all religions are evil", it is specifically Islam that is a problem TODAY.
The vast majority of Germans were peaceful - it was totally irrelevant to the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany.
The vast majority of Russians were peaceful - yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people.
The vast majority of Chinese were peaceful - but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The vast majority of Japanese prior to World War II was not a war-mongering sadist - Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians - most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet.
The "fanatics" and "extremists" are the ones that write the course of history - they are therefore the most important ones to pay attention to. In the case of Islam, the number of so-called "fanatics" clearly willing to act out their horrific worldview is staggeringly high. The "peaceful majority" are sadly, as usual, ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT.
"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. The Mohammedan religion (Islam) would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?
Then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism (Islam), that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so."
~ Adolf Hitler