US Army teaches hatred of Islam...

I don't hate Muslims but I despise Islam. I do hate the people who attacked us on 9/11 and everyone who helped them or were sympathetic to their cause.

 

Then you are just like the Islamists that despise Christianity. You are both the problem.

 

I put Islamists in the same boat I put Evangelists -- 17th century clowns living in the 21st century.

 

Mea culpa. I also despise Christianity, so don't know where that leaves me...

 

Islam is a hateful and a very brutal religion.

(6) The Quran permits husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives, quite apart from whether they actually are highhanded—as if domestic violence in any form is acceptable.

Sura 4:34 says:

. . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem, emphasis added)

This hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence:

Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" (Bukhari, emphasis added)

This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl-bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr, his right-hand Companion:

"He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain." (Muslim no. 2127)

Dear Muslim emailer, Quran-inspired domestic violence is completely unacceptable to me, and the many links below refute any attempt at whitewashing the darkness of this verse. For me, this is reason enough not to convert to Allah’s religion.

See this article for fuller details on wife-beating. It clarifies many translations of the verse. This article is the shorter version. This article, though long, offers a clear analysis of wife-beating, examining the hadith and other early source documents, as well as refuting modern Muslim polemics. This mid-length article answers a Muslim defense. This article is a superb analysis of the subject, giving various translations of Sura 4:34. It cites the hadith and classical commentaries and refutes modern defenses. Finally, this article is thorough in examining the Quran and hadith and Muslim polemics.

Source: http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/why_no_conversion.htm

 

That's all very well but the fact is you can say that about all the monotheisms. There's lots of agreeable and sensible things in the Qu'ran as well. And when you break down the message to the five pillars for example, it's not so bad. Although the book is not innocent, and neither is the Bible or the Torah, the reasons behind extremism are largely political and we should look further into that before spouting off questionable versus.

repost from elsewhere...

 

It's not hatred. It is reciprocity.

If Islam dishes it out then they have to take it.

 

You act surprised. Throughout history, when has government ever been tolerant of religion?

 

"Islam" dishes out nothing. You are thinking like a Collectivist. Only individuals can "dish" out hatred.

 

So if Islam truly is a misogynistic religion built on a foundation of bloodshed then shouldn't it be hated? If you show love to the people who are imprisoned by such an oppresive religion how is that in any way comparable to the message of hate coming from Islam? Aren't there organization which you hate because you feel they are destructive? The KKK?

 

According to WatcherOfTheGate's faux-humanitarian PC metric, the rejection of any particular ideology constitutes a Thought Crime that makes one "part of the problem".

Now, think as you're told to think. No one is entitled to the fundamental human rights of freedom of thought and conscience...

 

You can't compare Islam to the KKK. That's ridiculous. The Taliban, however, is a different story. There is a fight within Islam between moderates, modernists, and reconciliationists (peaceful types) and fascist, murderous fundamentalists. I don't think there is such a battle within the KKK.

 

The Koran - the code of Islam - demands jihad and forcible conversion, killing, or enslavement of Dar al-Harb.

That's dishing it out. Inasmuch as Moslems believe the Koran, that unifies individual and collective will.

 

Yes but any sane person can brush that off as a sign of the times regarding the Islamic conquests and battles, Jihad means struggle and there are different types of Jihad. We all know all the Holy books contradict themselves. The trick is to interpret it all in a peaceful manner. Ignore the violent versus if needs be, unless you find yourself in a battle etc. That's what all religious types have to do. I mean Jesus if you took the bible a literal word for word historical truth you'd be just as crazy as any fundamental Islamist.

The thing is I do think these books do us more harm than good, it would be easier to reason with people I feel if we did away with them. But that isn't going to happen so we have to find ways of interpreting them for good rather than evil, because of course all three can be used for both.

 

Nor did I, JC. My post specifically addressed the rejection of ideologies, not people.

Well, one should compare apples to apples instead of oranges. Not to say the comparison is necessarily valid, but it would be more precise to compare Islam the ideology to the KKK's ideology, just as it would be more precise to compare the Taliban to the Klan.

Of course, that ideological struggle isn't taking place within the Klan, nor is it taking place within the Taliban.

 

It makes you smart.

 

To pretend like all followers of Islam are out for bloodshed and are misogynists is ridiculous.

 

Funny how leftist will sit and defend one religion...cough cough....Islam, while they bash the other one....cough.....cough...Christianity.

Yep, no hypocrisy there.

 

No, it doesn't...

How (*)(*)(*)(*)in stupid...

 

Yes there is something amiss here, you scold a poster for despising Islam but give credit to one who despises Christianity. Whereas you must surely apply the same logic to both. We have to bear in mind that most followers of religion are peace abiding folks. So if there is anything to be despised we would do right to be a little more specific.

 

I give him credit for disliking both.

 

Of course I never ever suggested that, so you have to change what I say to make some kind of point. The founder and leader of Islam was a misogynistic and bloodthirsty war-monger, but that in no way suggests that all his followers will be the same.

 

This was a single course, by a single instructor. And only in a high level officer education program. And I thought part of the idea of higher levels of education was to disseminate multiple points of view, not just a single one.

This course was through the Joint Forces Staff College, a program generally reserved for Colonels who are expected to move up to eventually have stars on their shoulders. Maybe 1% of officers ever get to attend such a school. Hardly "wide spread".