Is Islam a Religion of Violence?

I used to be entirely opposed to the thought, but now that I here the argument over and over, it is starting to make a little more sense. I think the idea is that while most Muslims aren't picking up a gun and bombing embassies, it is the majority of Muslims who believe in the jihadists cause, and the majority of Muslims who sustain the oppressive beliefs. I'm not saying their beliefs are worst than ours, just that they are extremely different and more oppressive, but that is their life to contend with.

Another user, Darth Vitosus, pointed out that the "peaceful" Muslims who believe in democracy and secularism are the real radicals, because they represent the minority, mostly derived from the west. 33% of Muslims believe in violent jihad. That's not the point I'm trying to make. It is the 70% who are sympathetic with violent jihadists and want to live in a society of extreme religious theocracy.

That's the truth. Yes, a lot of Muslims want to just live with their families and go to school each day, and that's there first priority. That doesn't diminish their other beliefs, and while most Muslims just want to be left alone with a "sunni" despot, we must come to terms that the common Muslim doesn't want to live in our type of world, and as long as we intrude on their way of life, they will continue to fight foreign influences, including foreigners ideas, foreigners religion, and foreigners in general.

Blackflag: *hear

Blackflag: Any religion that preaches is potentially one of violence. What source are you using for these claims tho? I'm curious. You reference what is now defined as terrorism, and I think it unfair. Terrorism is no longer acts committed by a state; instead it's now a single person who commits it. America could very well be called a terrorist state, and Christians could be said to lead to the proliferation of acts of terror on other countries. Any religion can be casted as one of violence from the catholic teachers with rulers to the Israelites with fully functioning rockets.

1-up: This the 18 US Code Sec. 2331's definition of "terrorism" to be used in the Chapter 113B titled "ON TERRORISM":

(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

18Karl: This is the International Definition of Terrorism via UN:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them"

So ultimately, they do deal with greater than individual (states) shtuff.

18Karl: Yes that's what I was criticizing.

18Karl: This is just a rehash of a person(s) committing an act of terror.

18Karl: This is the International Definition of Terrorism via UN:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them"

So ultimately, they do deal with greater than individual (states) shtuff.

Blackflag: Let me debunk the facts in this.

33% of Muslims believe in violent jihad

Violent Jihad? That is an undefined term, even in the Islamic Scholarly fields. There has been fatwas issued by Egyptian Sheikhs and IS Sheikhs which totally contradict each other about this term "Jihad". So let us take the Quranist stance for now. The Holy Quran states the following about the Islamic notions of Jihad:

“As for the messenger and those who believed with him, they eagerly strive (jahadu) with their money and their lives. These have deserved all the good things; they are the winners.” Holy Quran 9:88

“Those who believe, and emigrate, and strive (jahadu) in the cause of God with their money and their lives, are far greater in rank in the sight of God. These are the winners.” Holy Quran 9:20

Clearly, their is nothing about fighting. Now, one could have two interpretation of this verse, but I think it is clear that for now, the concept of Jihad is unclear until we further examine the view in later verses. The later verses provide a pacifist version of Islam.

"You shall not kill any person - for God has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. ....." 17:30

"Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. Do you want to force the people to become believers?" 10:99

So clearly, "Jihad" cannot be violent. Jihad is a religious duty of all Muslims; to follow the Holy Quran, to fast, to pray five times a day etc. But, now let us refute your totally unsupported statistics. Across 11 Islamic societies, a majority of them have highly unfavorable view of Al-Qaida, the Taliban and Hamas, all terrorist organizations! 67% of them are concerned about Islamic terrorism, and 27% unconcerned. 51% of all Muslims hold highly unfavorable views of the Taliban. The list goes on forever and ever and ever. I do not think that the 33% statistic has any inkling of evidence at all. I need to see a source.