Is it really Islam's teachings that make Musllims violent?

[ronburgundy]

I partly agree. The Koran and Islam are not unique in enabling intolerance and violence, the Bible and real Christian belief in it do the same (as does Judaism),
but these qualities enabled by religion and particularly to the core features of Abrahamic monotheism that these religions share

I think it's beyond question that Islamic terrorism really is a thing and it's a problem? My question is:

Is Islam really more violent than other religions and is it really the philosophy/theology of Islam that is the problem?


I've read the Koran (and the Bible). I think the Koran and the Bible are interchangeable. If the Koran manages to make Muslims violent, then surely the Bible should make Christians just as violent?

The Bible does make Christians violent. The difference is that most "Christians" don't actually read, know anything about, or believe in the Bible. Those that do are the fundamentalists, and they are significantly more likely to superficial "Christians" and especially non-believers to support authoritarianism, greater use of force, death penalty, war, etc. They are also more bigoted, sexist, racist, and generally intolerant of things and groups they don't personally identify with.
There are no modern societies where the large majority of true believers in the Bible (other than perhaps Israel which is extremely violent). Thus, true Christians that actually turn to and use Biblical ideas are a minority within a less violent secular culture, which forces them to temper their own violence. A better comparison to current Islamic countries would be the Christian dominated societies of the Dark ages, you know the one's that led the Inquisition which was as violent and murderous and "terrorist" as anything in today's Muslim world.

Baghavad Ghita has got even more war in it. It's partly pro-war propaganda IMHO. Why aren't Hindus murdering fashion designers who print the face of gods on sandals?

Hinduism is not monotheistic with an unquestionable singular authority from which all goodness derives but who is also highly intolerant and violent. That makes a huge difference in how easily their beliefs can be used to fuel the sorts of aggression and violence that to most decent people would seem indefensible otherwise. Monotheism more readily allows believers to ignore their own internal/natural sense of empathy and decency in authoritarian deference to a God that "knows best and must be obeyed". It is a deflection of personal responsibility for bad behavior and thus better enables more extreme bad behavior.

Here's the case I'm making; it's not the teachings of Islam that is the problem, it's the economic and political situation of the people who live in "the Muslim world". If religions would switch around between continents I'm convinced whatever religion they had in the Middle-East would be the problem child. Whatever it says in those religious texts, they would have been picked apart and twisted to justify suicide bombing.

The problem is that nothing needs to be cherry picked or twisted in the Bible or Koran to support violence and intolerance. It presents their God as infallible and the source of all goodness, and also as an intolerant, violent, and genocidal authority that must be obeyed without question. That inherently equates intolerance, violence, and authoritarianism with infallible goodness. In addition, all these religions promoted the epistemology of faith, which itself is an enabler of evil because it inherently suppressed honest reasoned thought which tends to aid the progress of ethical systems, weeding out practices justified upon absurd notions and that lack coherence with more broadly defensible ethical principles. Note, moral objectivism is impossible, but reason can and should be applied to rationalizations for actions and the coherence of ethical systems.

 

[TSwizzle]

Here's the case I'm making; it's not the teachings of Islam that is the problem,

The teachings of islam are a huge problem just in general, particularly if you are not of that faith. Whether islam is a significant contributing factor for muslims becoming violent, it's hard to tell. Some are obviously moved enough by its teachings and the reverence placed on its "prophet" to do despicable things.

 

[funinspace]

The Bible does make Christians violent. The difference is that most "Christians" don't actually read, know anything about, or believe in the Bible. Those that do are the fundamentalists, and they are significantly more likely to superficial "Christians" and especially non-believers to support authoritarianism, greater use of force, death penalty, war, etc. They are also more bigoted, sexist, racist, and generally intolerant of things and groups they don't personally identify with.
There are no modern societies where the large majority of true believers in the Bible (other than perhaps Israel which is extremely violent). Thus, true Christians that actually turn to and use Biblical ideas are a minority within a less violent secular culture, which forces them to temper their own violence.

Wow…so many problems…so little time. First there is no such animal as a “true Christian”. You are borrowing dogma from the True Believers^TM. Sure evangelicals/fundamentalists/conservative Christians (fundagelicals) have strongly supported an aggressive US military posture for a long time. However, they aren’t the majority of Christians. Fundagelicals only make up about 25% of the US Christian community. Most of the Mennonites I know, have a very good understanding of the Bible, and they are largely pacifists. In my 2 decades of being part of several liberal protestant churches and also several evangelical churches, I would have a hard time claiming one group was better read on the Bible.

 

[funinspace]

I think it's beyond question that Islamic terrorism really is a thing and it's a problem? My question is:

Is Islam really more violent than other religions and is it really the philosophy/theology of Islam that is the problem?


I've read the Koran (and the Bible). I think the Koran and the Bible are interchangeable. If the Koran manages to make Muslims violent, then surely the Bible should make Christians just as violent? Baghavad Ghita has got even more war in it. It's partly pro-war propaganda IMHO. Why aren't Hindus murdering fashion designers who print the face of gods on sandals?

Unfortunately, I haven't read enough of the Koran to have much of an opinion. I do think a balanced reading of the Bible (especially the NT), does not support violence by people, other than having to obey one's government if it calls you to war. I think one could argue that their God's wrath will one day be horrific.

Here's the case I'm making; it's not the teachings of Islam that is the problem, it's the economic and political situation of the people who live in "the Muslim world". If religions would switch around between continents I'm convinced whatever religion they had in the Middle-East would be the problem child. Whatever it says in those religious texts, they would have been picked apart and twisted to justify suicide bombing. Case in point. First recorded use of a worn suicide bomb was by Christians (fighting Muslims) in Gozo 1551.

I would generally agree. Here is one great example of absolute barbarism by Vasco da Gamma, a reported devout Christian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Portuguese_India_Armada_(Gama,_1502)#Massacre_of_the_Pilgrim_Ship

September 29, 1502 - After prowling around Mt. d'Eli for nearly a month with little success (they captured only one minor ship), captain Gil Matoso (on the São Gabriel), spots a large merchant ship carrying Muslim pilgrims returning from Mecca (or going to it, chronicles contradict). The ship, the Miri, is identified as belonging to a certain al-Fanqi, one of wealthier men of Calicut and said by some to be the Meccan factor in Calicut. Matoso chases the pilgrim ship down, which surrenders rather quickly, probably imagining that its master had enough money to ransom it off. But Vasco da Gama shrugs off all the offers. As the Portuguese crew plunder the ship and transfer its cargo, it quickly becomes evident that Gama intends to burn the ship with all its passengers - men, women and children - on board. When Gama proves deaf to their pleas for mercy, the passengers frantically attack the Portuguese men-at-arms with their bare hands. To no avail.

October 3, 1502 - a day, eyewitness Thomé Lopes states, "I will never forget for the rest of my days". The pilgrim ship thoroughly plundered, on Gama's orders, the passengers are locked in the hold and the ship burnt and sunk by artillery. It takes several days to finally go down completely. Portuguese soldiers row around the waters on longboats mercilessly spearing survivors.
<snip>
Estimates of those killed on the Miri hover around 300.[84] Portuguese chroniclers are eager to report that 20 children were spared this fate, and brought back by the 4th Armada to Lisbon, where they will be baptized and raised as friars…

Others have already mentioned the impact of colonialism, which I consider a significant factor. The west has played power games from North Africa to Afghanistan over the last century, and that has helped shape the dynamics. If one goes back to the 19th century, I think one would be hard pressed to make the case that the Ottoman Empire was any more barbaric than the European powers of the same time. Yet, each have the same base religion they have today. People/groups have agendas, goals, et.al. and they will use religion, fear, or whatever to push social dynamics towards those ends.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How different would the world be if Islam was a liberal religion of tolerance and pacifism?

 

[Medicine Man]

Sure evangelicals/fundamentalists/conservative Christians (fundagelicals) have strongly supported an aggressive US military posture for a long time. However, they aren’t the majority of Christians. Fundagelicals only make up about 25% of the US Christian community.

.....And, their pool of new "recruits" is.....​

....Slowly Evaporating.
November 14, 2014

*​

"The graph shows the stark decline of young self-identified evangelicals and the sharp rise of the “nones.” The lines suggest these groups are like ships passing, and as they pass, more and more young Americans are jumping from the Evangelical ship to the Unaffiliated; leaving the familiar but increasingly stale waters of evangelicalism for the adventurous waters of a more postmodern and more socially and theologically progressive faith. Granted, this single, simple graph doesn’t spell out the details of the whys and wherefores. But when you take a look around at other statistics reflecting the decline in fundamentalist biblical literalism, the rise (mostly) among younger Americans in progressive politics, theology and morality, and the general disaffection with Christianity (for lots of reasons), it’s not difficult to connect the dots."

 

[Nexus]

When discussing the impact a religion has on a populace its not simply what's written in the holy texts. Its also what's taught in the pulpit. Since these holy books are so large, often contradictory, and use nebulous poetic language, its what they are taught by their leaders that counts.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

How different would the world be if Islam was a liberal religion of tolerance and pacifism?

Why single out Islam? I'd phrase it, "How different would the world be if _____________ was of tolerance and pacifism?" Lots of things fit nicely in that blank.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How different would the world be if Islam was a liberal religion of tolerance and pacifism?

Why single out Islam?

Because this thread is about Islam.

 

[untermensche]

When discussing the impact a religion has on a populace its not simply what's written in the holy texts. Its also what's taught in the pulpit. Since these holy books are so large, often contradictory, and use nebulous poetic language, its what they are taught by their leaders that counts.

The leaders incite people to violence, and not just leaders in the pulpit. And this is usually the root cause of the violence.

People generally are not sitting at home and reading the Koran on their own and then running out and killing people.

But once people have been incited and are inclined to carry out acts of violence they can act on their own against any perceived threat anywhere. Even against cartoonists.

 

[Wiploc]

It's going to be very hard to get past this initial assumption to anything useful.

Good point. I changed the question formulation. I agree. I'm not so sure my assumption really is true. So I removed it.

Okay, the formulation is changed, but I'd still like to respond to the old formulation:

Point one:

Cheney admitted that he didn't think Iraq was behind 9/11. He said he just wanted to strike out, to show the world that we were dangerous to attack.

In other words, the fundamental purpose of the US conquest of Iraq was terrorism.


Point two:

The 9/11 attackers dropped two buildings, killed a few thousand people.

Our response to cut off the electricity of a great city during a 140 degree summer. Surely that tortured more than a few thousand people to death. Then there are the people we killed with weapons, the people we starved to death or forced to grow up malnourished with our economic sanctions, the people we got killed by destabilizing their society.


Conclusion: It is easy to argue that our terrorism is more violent than theirs, and that our terrorism is, at least in part, religiously based. (People hoping to spread Christianity in the wake of the conquest were significant supporters of the invasion.)

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Koran goes on and on about the importance to forgive instead of taking revenge.

You forget that it only applies to fellow Muslims.

I checked the Koran. There's no qualifiers. None I could find. I don't think that's true. In fact, Christians and Jews are to be treated with the same level of respect as if they were Muslims. Technically, within Islam, they are. They are what the Koran says are "people of the book".

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book"

According to the article, this was later extended to "Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Mandeans, Hindus and Buddhists". Which I don't think sounds too bad. It's pretty much everybody who ever came to be conquered by Muslims. The higher taxes for Dhimmis (non-Muslims living in Muslim countries) was just intended to compensate for Muslims compulsory giving of Zakat. The reason given was to make it more fair. Anyhoo... sounds perfectly reasonable IMHO.

 

[ronburgundy]

The Bible does make Christians violent. The difference is that most "Christians" don't actually read, know anything about, or believe in the Bible. Those that do are the fundamentalists, and they are significantly more likely to superficial "Christians" and especially non-believers to support authoritarianism, greater use of force, death penalty, war, etc. They are also more bigoted, sexist, racist, and generally intolerant of things and groups they don't personally identify with.
There are no modern societies where the large majority of true believers in the Bible (other than perhaps Israel which is extremely violent). Thus, true Christians that actually turn to and use Biblical ideas are a minority within a less violent secular culture, which forces them to temper their own violence.

Wow…so many problems…so little time. First there is no such animal as a “true Christian”. You are borrowing dogma from the True Believers^TM.

Nonsense. either the label Christian is an utterly meaningless string of letters uttered randomly or it refers to a defined construct that can be accurately and inaccurately applied, no different than the label "dog", or "rock". All meaning of words arises from its defining properties that determine to whom/what the word truely applies and to whom it doesn't. If you want to claim that Christian means "any person who for any reason utters the phrase "I am Christian", then it is a concept with zero relevance to any discussion of human thought, belief, behavior, and psychology. In fact, under that useless definition there is no good reason not to count a parrot trained to say that phrase as a "Christian". Reasonable people who want to think about or discuss human actions and beliefs, define the term with reference to the actual actions and beliefs of the person. Many people that utter the phrase are identical to agnostics and atheists and nothing like people who actually think Christ was the son of God and like that God, infallible. Thus, they are not merely different types of Christian, they are completely different ontological categories where their self-labeling is at best unrelated to and often in conflict with the actual contents of their ideas, beliefs, and actions (which are the variables of relevance to the present discussion and really any meaningful discussion about religion and its causes and effects.
I am defining "true Chistians" as the people who see "Christian" as their most defining quality/identity and for whom their belief in God is strongest, and the importance they place upon the Bible is highest. IOW, I am defining it much in the same way as an sensible person would define what it means to be a football player. Someone who says "I like football" or attends games, or plays a pick up game once a year is not a football player.
Bottom line is that like virtually every person that claims it fallacious to claim "no true Scottsman", you are misusing and abusing that idea.

Sure evangelicals/fundamentalists/conservative Christians (fundagelicals) have strongly supported an aggressive US military posture for a long time. However, they aren’t the majority of Christians. Fundagelicals only make up about 25% of the US Christian community.

Only, if you include any person who utters that phrase "I am a Christian". Fundamentalists are the ones with the strongest confidence in the belief in God, the importance of the Bible, and the importance of basing everyday decisions and beliefs upon their religion. IOW, they act, think, and feel as someone for whom their religious beliefs are the central defining aspects of them. They are the people on whom the ideas inherent to the Bible have the largest impact. They are to the "moderate Christian" what an professional football player is to someone that never relates to football except for 1 annual informal family game on Thanksgiving. The former is clearly a football player akin to a Christian, to call the latter a football player, even if they personally say they are is just silly and undermines any conceptual meaning and utility of the term.

In my 2 decades of being part of several liberal protestant churches and also several evangelical churches, I would have a hard time claiming one group was better read on the Bible.

There is plenty of research showing that liberal "Christians" know much less about the Bible, but the core issue isn't just awareness but belief in and adherence to and actually using the Bible's words to determine and justify one's actions on a daily basis. They are the one's who most reveal what the impact of Biblical and defining "Christian" beliefs are because they allow the Bible to have a primary influence on their life and are actually deeply convinced in those beliefs.
Most of the "Christians" you want to claim are just as "true Christian" are only Christian in the sense that a person who read Huck Finn and thinks its just one of countless great fictional books is a "Finnian". Fundamentalists are more like a person who thinks Finn is the actual word of God and that its ideas are to be used to shape every aspect of society and one's own life. For them, the label "Finnian" would make sense and accurately relate to the psychology. Basically to label a person in relation to a text and/or set of ideas is nonsensical, unless they are in fact fanatical and doubtlessly committed to that text, its characters, and ideas.

 

[Axulus]

I think it's beyond question that Islamic terrorism really is a thing and it's a problem? My question is:

Is Islam really more violent than other religions and is it really the philosophy/theology of Islam that is the problem?


I've read the Koran (and the Bible). I think the Koran and the Bible are interchangeable. If the Koran manages to make Muslims violent, then surely the Bible should make Christians just as violent? Baghavad Ghita has got even more war in it. It's partly pro-war propaganda IMHO. Why aren't Hindus murdering fashion designers who print the face of gods on sandals?

Here's the case I'm making; it's not the teachings of Islam that is the problem, it's the economic and political situation of the people who live in "the Muslim world". If religions would switch around between continents I'm convinced whatever religion they had in the Middle-East would be the problem child. Whatever it says in those religious texts, they would have been picked apart and twisted to justify suicide bombing. Case in point. First recorded use of a worn suicide bomb was by Christians (fighting Muslims) in Gozo 1551.

If you disagree and you think that it is the content of the Koran that is the problem, why?

Do you think there is any difference in the amount of violence and the justification for that violence displayed in Jesus vs. Muhammad, the two most revered figures in Christianity and Islam, and the role model those who follow those religions claim to want to emulate? Would you feel more at ease with someone who said that they try to do what Jesus would do in any particular situation, or someone who said they would try to do what Muhammad would do in any particular situation?

Furthermore, I'd say it's a problem of a combination of a violent religion being used to justify violence in response to the economic and political situation of the people in the Muslim world. It's an influencing factor in the decision to use violence and an influencing factor in the specific details of Sharia law.

 

[Axulus]

I think it is both. I dont believe that the religion alone creates terrorism. You need the history, power imbalance, etc. But it sure would help if the Quran wasnt so easily read as a primer for hatred and violence, and it also sure would help if the Quran had some friendlier bits like the sermon on the mount. Jesus was a rabble rouser but Mohammed was a warlord. They are orders of magnitude different.

The Koran goes on and on about the importance to forgive instead of taking revenge. I think the only Sura that really goes overboard is the bit about killing is the only on Arab peninsula Pagans. But that's a demographic that is since long wiped out.

I'm not really in a good spot here to search. But I remember reading the bit about adultery. Both parties should be stoned to death unless they repent, apologise and promise not to do it again, in which case they're let off free with zero punishment. The Sharia interprets this as = death always. Which is the exact opposite of what the text actually reads.

Both the Koran and the Bible is very explicit on the fact that humans shouldn't pass judgement on other humans. This is for God to do. Which effectively should put all terrorists out of business. Also, Jihad is mainly about building communal public works. Not war. There's so much in the Koran that is simply ignored by violent Muslims.

Does the Koran say to forgive the infidels and those who blaspheme the prophet?

 

[Axulus]

Another question to consider: if any of the words in the Koran or the Hadith were different (less violent, for example), would it in any way change the behavior of any of the 1.5 billion Muslims? What if the Koran and the Hadith were substantially less violent or had at the core of the texts themes of pacifism. Would that change the behavior of any of the 1.5 billion Muslims? What about the reverse scenario? What if every page of the text reminded followers to stone the homosexuals to death, that it was the most important commandment? Would that change the behavior and attitudes towards homosexuals of any of the 1.5 billion Muslims?

 

[Trausti]

The Koran goes on and on about the importance to forgive instead of taking revenge. I think the only Sura that really goes overboard is the bit about killing is the only on Arab peninsula Pagans. But that's a demographic that is since long wiped out.

I'm not really in a good spot here to search. But I remember reading the bit about adultery. Both parties should be stoned to death unless they repent, apologise and promise not to do it again, in which case they're let off free with zero punishment. The Sharia interprets this as = death always. Which is the exact opposite of what the text actually reads.

Both the Koran and the Bible is very explicit on the fact that humans shouldn't pass judgement on other humans. This is for God to do. Which effectively should put all terrorists out of business. Also, Jihad is mainly about building communal public works. Not war. There's so much in the Koran that is simply ignored by violent Muslims.

Does the Koran say to forgive the infidels and those who blaspheme the prophet?

Or to turn the other cheek? Love thy neighbor?

 

[Axulus]

Islamic leaders can drive followers to violence.

Just as US leaders drive it's mercenary army to violence.

Young humans are easily driven to violence by so-called leaders. It is a problem with the species, not any religion.

But mainly Islamic leaders are driving young followers to violence for political ends, not religious.

And Nazi leaders can drive followers to violence. Young humans are easily driven to violence by so-called leaders. It is a problem with the species, not any political philosophy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Thanks DrZoidberg to getting to the heart of the two other current threads. IMO, the Quran and Hadith themselves are violent but the Geopolitics has intensified this violence. There have been times where Islam has been relatively peaceful with neighbors and times where it has been a conquering force. I can't pretend to understand why.

However, the point that is being ignored is the lack of integration of Muslim immigrants in Europe and how that is leading to radicalization. How much of it is from Europeans not liking muslims and how much from Muslims being too serious about Islam for a modern society?

The other question is how much immigration is actually happening and how long can it maintain the current pace until there are massive and intractable Muslim enclaves demanding and getting autonomy with Sharia? They won't need to be terrorists to get their demands met. The irony is that they will use the Western liberal concepts of autonomy to get Sharia and then inflict rigid and heinous rules on their own people.

The other difference about Islamic immigrants (ignoring the Sunni/Shia split) is that no matter which country they come from they will come together. Vietnamese and Filipino immigrants would not come together in this way.

I will come right out and say that I think that Islam will act like a Fifth Column in these European countries if immigration continues unchecked. Even though a large majority of Muslims there currently couldn't imagine or desire this to happen. The moderates and casuals will fall in line if the radicals take control.

Well, I can only talk about how it is in Sweden. But the problem doesn't look like an unwillingness to integrate into society. It seems to be more of a problem of Swedish racism. I've worked as a manager with teams of people distributed over the world, so I have a bit of a privileged perch from where to compare cultures. Swedes are so culturally stupid, that they just take whatever is Swedish and assume that is normal, and then negatively judge those who can't figure out all the tacit rules and subtle cues. This, btw, is not a problem in... let's say USA or England. It's countries much more used to multi-cultural integration. So people in the work force in those countries are a hell of a lot more flexible when it comes to speaking cross-culturally. They are at least aware that it's a potential problem. Swedes rarely are. I'm only talking well educated academics here. It's the only kind of people I've worked with. Anyway... as I can see it, this is probably the engine driving Swedish Muslims (born to immigrants) toward radicalisation. Rather than any unwillingness to integrate.

I've a Swedish businessman friend, who is black, who has travelled all over the globe. He's so wealthy that he has the luxury of being able to move, pretty much, anywhere on the planet. His theory is that it's cities that have a long history as trading hubs who have the least racist cultures. So he's moved his entire family to Singapore. He seems happy there. He felt he had to leave Sweden due to it being so incredibly racist. He's not talking about open in-your-face racism. He's talking about society being organised in such a way that it becomes structurally racist. Swedes actively behave in a way to make it harder for immigrants to get jobs. And they're not even aware they're doing it. And to top it all off, we blame the immigrants for their failure to integrate, as if they alone are responsible.

I suspect there's similar mechanics at play all over Europe. I really only know the Swedish situation well. But we're not doing this out of malice. We just don't know better.

 

[ronburgundy]

You forget that it only applies to fellow Muslims.

I checked the Koran. There's no qualifiers. None I could find. I don't think that's true. In fact, Christians and Jews are to be treated with the same level of respect as if they were Muslims. Technically, within Islam, they are. They are what the Koran says are "people of the book".

The Koran and the Bible promote "forgiveness" in the same way that homophobes promote love of homosexuals when they claim "Love the sinner, hate the sin".

The Koran has 10 promotions of hate and violence for every promotion of forgiveness, and is crystal clear about who violence-worthy all idolators and non-believers are. Thus, any statement of forgiveness implicitly only would apply to those within the faith, unless explicitly stated to apply more broadly.
Below is a very short list of the tiny fraction of intolerant, pro-violent sentiment of the Koran. Bear in mind that since the Koran and the Bible promote God as an infallible authority from which all that is righteous flows, anything God does is an ethical endorsement of those actions and anyone painted as an enemy of God must be treated as one's own enemy by believers. This is the theological and doctrinal context in which particular phrases must be understood and which have a more fundamental impact upon ethics and societal values than any isolated phrase. Liberal apologists for religion ironically claim that fundamentalists cherry pick to promote hate, but it is just the opposite. The core features of God himself are inherently authoritarian and authoritarianism inherently promotes intolerance and aggression. In addition, the entire point of a sanctifying a prophet (who had nothing original to say) is to villanize those who don't follow that specific prophet. It is a tactic of social exclusion to justify not treating others with the decency that you treat your inner circle. These intolerance promoting core features of Abrahamic religion, resonate with and thus heighten the impact of particular intolerant passages while running counter to and thus undercutting the occassional
"but also be nice" sentiments. Only by determining ones ethics before hand with secular ethics as almost all "liberal Christians" do, could one go to the Bible and cherry pick to isolated positive sentiments, ignoring the core theological nature of God and his prophets, and then claim the Bible or Koran is on whole a promotion of tolerance, forgiveness, and open-mindedness.
[P]
“This Book is not to be doubted…. As for the unbelievers, it is the same whether or not you forewarn them; they will not have faith. God has set a seal upon their hearts and ears; their sight is dimmed and grievous punishment awaits them.” Quran 2:1/2:6-2:10

“God’s curse be upon the infidels! Evil is that for which they have bartered away their souls. To deny God’s own revelation, grudging that He should reveal His bounty to whom He chooses from among His servants! They have incurred God’s most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits the unbelievers.” Quran 2:89-2:90

“Lord…Give us victory over the unbelievers.” Quran 2:286

“Lord…give us victory over the unbelievers.” Quran 3:147

“I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.” Quran 8:12

“Let not the unbelievers think they will ever get away. They have not the power so to do. Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy…” Quran 8:59-60

“When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” Quran 9:5[/P]