US Gen. Petraeus Decries "Burn A Koran Day"

[Darth Hoth]

Maybe we should quantify the amount of scientific papers produced in the African continent, and try to correlate it with certain ethnographical features of peoples dwelling in that continent also?

Splendid idea! Then we can not-so-subtly imply that criticism of Islam is racism, thereby invalidating any and all such criticism through guilt by association!

[Akhlut]

By the way, how do Muslim countries compare to other nations with equally dysfunctional educational systems, nations that like the Muslim world went directly from pre-modern social systems to a long period of colonial exploitation, that like the Muslim world have had to cope with the disruptive aftereffects of being part of someone else's empire... but that have different religions?

How many scientific papers does, say, Christian Ethiopia produce? How about Christian Uganda? Or Buddhist Burma?

Conversely, nations that were not strongly colonized tend to be very advanced technologically and scientifically. For instance, China and Japan are advanced nations with a great deal of scientific output and relatively high standards of living. Hell, even Turkey proper is doing better than the other portions of the Ottoman Empire that were sawed off and made into colonies by Europe (compare Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt to Turkey).

[Kanastrous]

Splendid idea! Then we can not-so-subtly imply that criticism of Islam is racism, thereby invalidating any and all such criticism through guilt by association!

Since many Muslims themselves are happy to point out that people of all races are represented within their religion that seems kind of like a non-starter...

[Darth Hoth]

I must say, I do agree with Ossus: It is indeed perplexing how on this board, with the sheer vitriol and hatred of Christianity that is routinely expressed by reason of that religion's "intolerance," Islam, objectively a more violent, intolerant and retrograde faith in just about every quantifiable way, never lacks its defenders.

[Kanastrous]

Maybe it's a variation upon the the enemy-of-my-enemy-being-my-friend mindset. Instead of recognizing that both are enemies...

[Darth Hoth]

Since many Muslims themselves are happy to point out that people of all races are represented within their religion that seems kind of like a non-starter...

Sadly, many people do actually use that argument as some kind of auto-win, if not quite that clearly spelled out (usually, they keep it down to hints). Even more sadly, it often works. Or at least, here in Sweden it does.

[Akhlut]

I must say, I do agree with Ossus: It is indeed perplexing how on this board, with the sheer vitriol and hatred of Christianity that is routinely expressed by reason of that religion's "intolerance," Islam, objectively a more violent, intolerant and retrograde faith in just about every quantifiable way, never lacks its defenders.

Is that violence inherent to Islam or is it a result of Islam being the faith of a number of nations that have been under colonial oppression? You see the same violence, intolerance, and complete backwardness in Christians, Hindus, animists, and Buddhists in areas that were colonized too. It just so happens that it was Muslim terrorists who flew airplanes into buildings, as opposed to one of any number of other faiths.

[General Zod]

I must say, I do agree with Ossus: It is indeed perplexing how on this board, with the sheer vitriol and hatred of Christianity that is routinely expressed by reason of that religion's "intolerance," Islam, objectively a more violent, intolerant and retrograde faith in just about every quantifiable way, never lacks its defenders.

It's perplexing how people can spout off these sorts of claims about the board's stances without any evidence. I guess poisoning the well is easier.

[Darth Hoth]

Is that violence inherent to Islam or is it a result of Islam being the faith of a number of nations that have been under colonial oppression? You see the same violence, intolerance, and complete backwardness in Christians, Hindus, animists, and Buddhists in areas that were colonized too. It just so happens that it was Muslim terrorists who flew airplanes into buildings, as opposed to one of any number of other faiths.

Who said anything about terrorism? I am talking about the religion of Islam itself, the message of its "holy" writings and their attitude. To restate Ossus's earlier point (which I did not see anyone denying or addressing), the Koran is a much shorter book than the Christian Bible (Old and New Testaments), yet it still contains substantially more intolerance and incitement to violence, counting by passages advocating either. Unlike what some people in this thread are arguing or implying, what a religion's source document says does actually influence how that religion is perceived and acted upon by its adherents.

[Darth Hoth]

It's perplexing how people can spout off these sorts of claims about the board's stances without any evidence.

Reduce it from a claim to a firm opinion, then, since I have no intention to compile a concordance on SDN threads to be able to cite statistics to you.

[General Zod]

It's perplexing how people can spout off these sorts of claims about the board's stances without any evidence.

Reduce it from a claim to a firm opinion, then, since I have no intention to compile a concordance on SDN threads to be able to cite statistics to you.

It seems to me whenever someone whines about people defending Muslims more it's a very convenient case of tunnel-vision.

[Bakustra]

'Race' (a la phenotypical obsessions) doesn't really figure much in ethnography, does it? If at all...?

Read what Shroom said again, please. I'll give you a little space, and a spoiler.

I did read it again, and then I went and re-read (admittedly Wikipedia's) definition of 'ethnography' again, and I still don't see the correlation of 'race' with accomplishment. The definition of 'ethnography' there had to do with environment, customs, practices, etc but made no mention of 'race.' And since a society's customs, practices, habits, superstitions, whatever, etcetera have a big impact upon that society's progress...how is it problematic? You mention 'ethnicity' in the spoiler but the word never appears in said article re: 'ethnography.'

Unless that's not what you're driving at, in which case...sorry, you'll have to make it even simpler.

Shroom was using ethnography differently. His point was that if we look at Africa's scientific contributions to the world, then we see that they are fairly low. Thusly, if we use the Ossus method, then we conclude that there must be something wrong with Africa: ethnicity. This is mockery of the assumption that Islam is inherently anti-scientific, because after all, there are other factors involved that don't lead us to legitimizing bigotry with a shield of "science". Africa is poor overall. Arabic countries tend to be either poor or economically incredibly unequal and dominated by specific industries. I'm willing to bet that poverty and inequality and dominance by single industries is far more indicative of lower scientific contributions than religion or ethnicity. (Or recent freedom from colonial status, which is tied into the other indicators).

I must say, I do agree with Ossus: It is indeed perplexing how on this board, with the sheer vitriol and hatred of Christianity that is routinely expressed by reason of that religion's "intolerance," Islam, objectively a more violent, intolerant and retrograde faith in just about every quantifiable way, never lacks its defenders.

This is done because you are a pinhead. I, not being the sort of person who wishes to make enemies wherever I go, do not expound about how I feel that most "criticism" of Christianity on this board is extraordinarily weak. "Sheer vitriol" is pretty hilarious when you go on to declare how Islam is "objectively more violent, intolerant, and retrograde" without evidence. But let me say that most people here live in Christian-dominated societies, wherein intolerance of Muslims is common. So I don't see why atheistic, agnostic, or liberal Christian individuals must therefore contribute to said intolerance rather than acting to counteract it, especially since they face intolerance as well. I mean, it's kinda like how there's overlap between feminists, anti-racists, and gay rights people. It's almost as if they dislike oppression and inequality for philosophical reasons, rather than pure self-interest.

It's perplexing how people can spout off these sorts of claims about the board's stances without any evidence.

Reduce it from a claim to a firm opinion, then, since I have no intention to compile a concordance on SDN threads to be able to cite statistics to you.

I have a firm opinion that most dislike of Muslims is based on unconscious xenophobia, and that your "high-minded" dislike is pure rationalization.

[Akhlut]

Is that violence inherent to Islam or is it a result of Islam being the faith of a number of nations that have been under colonial oppression? You see the same violence, intolerance, and complete backwardness in Christians, Hindus, animists, and Buddhists in areas that were colonized too. It just so happens that it was Muslim terrorists who flew airplanes into buildings, as opposed to one of any number of other faiths.

Who said anything about terrorism? I am talking about the religion of Islam itself, the message of its "holy" writings and their attitude. To restate Ossus's earlier point (which I did not see anyone denying or addressing), the Koran is a much shorter book than the Christian Bible (Old and New Testaments), yet it still contains substantially more intolerance and incitement to violence, counting by passages advocating either. Unlike what some people in this thread are arguing or implying, what a religion's source document says does actually influence how that religion is perceived and acted upon by its adherents.

Do you have anything to back up the statement "substantially more"? Yes, the Koran has its share of hatred, intolerance, and general jackassery, but so what? So does the Torah, so does the New Testament, and even the Bagavad Gita does as well. Aside from Buddhist texts and possibly Taoist texts, I cannot think of a religion that does not espouse such principles and, furthermore, that isn't necessarily relevent anyway because humans are naturally violent and will rationalize extreme brutality regardless of what their religious texts say. This is why Tibet under the Lamas was a horrific state wherein the Lamas enslaved the populace and utilized facial mutilations against people who disagreed with them, in spite of the fact that Buddhist preaches against such actions.

In short, it's not Islam that's the problem: it's humanity. And it's not Islam making people more violent, it's what they see as the best recourse to their problems. I'll be happy to give a more detailed argument about it in about 7-8 hours when I have access to a book on the subject, but the basic argument goes like this: humans are violent and it takes a great deal of factors going right to keep us from being violent in the first place. Religion of any sort is, on the macro scale, not going to affect this calculation to any large degree because any religion can be used to justify any position because they're goddamn meaningless in the first place.

[Master of Ossus]

The prayer space was to be administrated separately from the community center proper, but now Mr. Rauf has indicated that the center is to contain prayer spaces for a variety of faiths. I suppose that it is now a church, synagogue, and mosque simultaneously?

Yes.

That is ignoring the definition of a mosque, since I doubt that you care about that, and it is immaterial to the fit of sensitivity that has come upon so many.

For me, the definition of a mosque is a facility that is intended to promote Islam. Rauf's own statements have repeatedly confirmed that this is his goal in constructing the building.

Alternately, "mosque" has been defined as "a Muslim house of worship." That is precisely what this place is.

Your psionic ability to distinguish the public aims of Feisal Rauf for Cordoba House/Park51 (a multicultural center to improve interfaith understanding and senses of community) from his real aims (sneak mosque into vague vicinity of Ground Zero for undefined but insensitive aims... or something) is without peer. Tell me, is it congenital, or a learned skill?

Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man who proposed, chairs the Cordoba Initiative, and has consistently endorsed the site and is responsible for its construction, has repeatedly stated that the completion of the building would be a message to Muslims that the US is not persecuting them. How can that be true if the building is anything but a mosque? Why has he described it as an "Islamic center" if it is not a mosque? He has described the place variously as a "Muslim community center," has stated that he plans to be its "religious leader." It's also been stated that they expect to have 1000-2000 Muslims pray there every Friday.

Moreover, other Muslims have identified the project as a mosque, including the Muslim Canadian Congress and Al-Arabiya.

So if I were to show that, say, Italy produced fewer scientific papers, would this make Catholics and Protestants backwards and primitive religions?

If you were to show a study detailing how Europe produced fewer scientific papers, that would be a much stronger argument than singling out a single country.

Your argument that it's solely religious is interesting, since you conflate "Arab" with "Muslim". I was unaware that the two were synonyms. I shall have to inform my Turkish and Indonesian acquaintances that they are no longer Muslims.

Nonsense. I simply didn't have data that's in a form that's so easy to assimilate. Moreover, would you have me conclude that the difference is racial rather than religious?

In other words, you are taking a small selection of heavily Islamic countries and ignoring a great many others, as well as other factors that you will no doubt attribute to Islam (Islam makes you poor! Protestantism is the light!).

But to directly address your criticism, BAM! Islamic countries have 20% of the world's population (and, using modern figures, close to 8% of its total GDP), but produce less than 5% of scientific knowledge "by any measure." The study acknowledges that Islam itself is one of the problems that causes this discrepency, and then cites a lot of others (many of which can be directly traced back to Islam).

Indeed, NO Islamic country spends more than .5% of its GDP on scientific development. In contrast, Europe, Japan, and the US regularly spend over 2% of their GDPs on scientific development.

Islam does not make you poor: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and to a lesser extent Iran and Iraq have pretty good annual median incomes. Islam does make you stupid, though. NO Islamic country pulls its weight in terms of scientific research.

You even misinterpret Yan's statement- which I took to be historical and which he has confirmed is historical. (P. S. Show that technology makes you better. The Amish (and Mennonites) reject specific technologies because they believe them to be disruptive to community life. That is a philosophical point of view, and there are other technologies (modern healthcare, as an example) which they are willing to use as well.)

Oh, please.

[Darth Yan]

Are you saying that it's all Islam that makes those nations poor? Cause that is bigoted.

[Darth Hoth]

Do you have anything to back up the statement "substantially more"?

Ossus quoted statistics listed by the "Skeptic's Annotated" sites comparing the amounts of violence and intolerance in the Bible and the Koran, respectively. The numbers for the Koran, which, as noted, is a much shorter book, were substantially higher.

[Darth Yan]

Ah, but in total verses (not percentage) the bible has more. And muhammed also didn't kill civillians, while the christians did.

[Master of Ossus]

Are you saying that it's all Islam that makes those nations poor? Cause that is bigoted.

For the illiterate:

Islam does not make you poor: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and to a lesser extent Iran and Iraq have pretty good annual median incomes. Islam does make you stupid, though. NO Islamic country pulls its weight in terms of scientific research

Emphasis added.

But even if that were my statement, in what possible way would saying that indicate bigotry? Bigotry is intolerance of other opinions or beliefs. Saying that those beliefs or opinions have effects on other aspects of peoples' lives is not bigoted.

[Darth Yan]

you implied that islam is the sole reason those nations don't do well economically. That is what i was saying.

[Samuel]

Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man who proposed, chairs the Cordoba Initiative, and has consistently endorsed the site and is responsible for its construction, has repeatedly stated that the completion of the building would be a message to Muslims that the US is not persecuting them. How can that be true if the building is anything but a mosque?

Because Americans view it as a mosque and if they attempt to stop it for that reason they are sending a message. It is the American perception and action is that matters for wheter or not it sends a message of persecution.

It would be like people attacking turbaned individuals as an expression of violence against Muslims, even though Sikhs are more likely to wear turbans.

Nonsense. I simply didn't have data that's in a form that's so easy to assimilate. Moreover, would you have me conclude that the difference is racial rather than religious?

Arabs are also culturally more similar to each other than to other ethnic groups. Maybe there is a trend with that?

But to directly address your criticism, BAM! Islamic countries have 20% of the world's population (and, using modern figures, close to 8% of its total GDP), but produce less than 5% of scientific knowledge "by any measure." The study acknowledges that Islam itself is one of the problems that causes this discrepency, and then cites a lot of others (many of which can be directly traced back to Islam).

Indeed, NO Islamic country spends more than .5% of its GDP on scientific development. In contrast, Europe, Japan, and the US regularly spend over 2% of their GDPs on scientific development.

Islam does not make you poor: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and to a lesser extent Iran and Iraq have pretty good annual median incomes. Islam does make you stupid, though. NO Islamic country pulls its weight in terms of scientific research.

Or most islamic countries are poor and the ones that aren't are due to oil which massively distorts their economies. For example Norway spends alot less on research as a percentage of GDP than other Scandanavian countries:
http://www.nortrade.com/index?cmd=show_article&id=545

[Master of Ossus]

Ah, but in total verses (not percentage) the bible has more.

Only if you're talking about intolerance and not violence. Skeptic's Annotated Quran lists 520 instances of cruelty and violence. Skeptic's Annotated Bible lists fewer than 200.

You're right that, in overall number of verses listing intolerance, the Bible is "worse" (Skeptic's Annotated Quran lists 527. Skeptic's Annotated Bible lists 654 instances of intolerance). But in terms of percentage of the book there's just no comparison, and anyone who reads the two texts side-by-side cannot help but come to the conclusion that the Koran is considerably worse.

And muhammed also didn't kill civillians, while the christians did.

Excuse me? What?

[Darth Hoth]

This is done because you are a pinhead.

MIght you have mixed up the pronouns? "You" is the second person. The first person is "I".

I, not being the sort of person who wishes to make enemies wherever I go, do not expound about how I feel that most "criticism" of Christianity on this board is extraordinarily weak. "Sheer vitriol" is pretty hilarious when you go on to declare how Islam is "objectively more violent, intolerant, and retrograde" without evidence.

Funny that evidence has already been posted earlier in this same thread. Or did I miss your refuting it?

But let me say that most people here live in Christian-dominated societies, wherein intolerance of Muslims is common. So I don't see why atheistic, agnostic, or liberal Christian individuals must therefore contribute to said intolerance rather than acting to counteract it, especially since they face intolerance as well. I mean, it's kinda like how there's overlap between feminists, anti-racists, and gay rights people. It's almost as if they dislike oppression and inequality for philosophical reasons, rather than pure self-interest.

. . . So it is a mere matter of a misunderstood "My enemy's enemy," as Kanastrous said. Thank you. I never thought that anyone would admit as much.

I have a firm opinion that most dislike of Muslims is based on unconscious xenophobia, and that your "high-minded" dislike is pure rationalization.

Do feel entitled to it. In the Western world, divergence of opinion is not only tolerated, but celebrated.

[Darth Hoth]

Ah, but in total verses (not percentage) the bible has more.

And the percentage is what matters if we are looking for a fair comparison, so this is largely irrelevant.

And muhammed also didn't kill civillians, while the christians did.

I was not aware that we had historically reliable evidence of much anything about Muhammad's life.

[Bakustra]

Are you saying that it's all Islam that makes those nations poor? Cause that is bigoted.

No, he's saying that Islam makes you stupid. I wonder whether he's actually bothered examining the proportions of Muslims in science, medicine, engineering, and law within the US. That would seem to be an important step.

The prayer space was to be administrated separately from the community center proper, but now Mr. Rauf has indicated that the center is to contain prayer spaces for a variety of faiths. I suppose that it is now a church, synagogue, and mosque simultaneously?

Yes.

So what precisely is the problem, then, since it is now interfaith?

That is ignoring the definition of a mosque, since I doubt that you care about that, and it is immaterial to the fit of sensitivity that has come upon so many.

For me, the definition of a mosque is a facility that is intended to promote Islam. Rauf's own statements have repeatedly confirmed that this is his goal in constructing the building.

Alternately, "mosque" has been defined as "a Muslim house of worship." That is precisely what this place is.

And to me, the word "moron" has your picture next to it in the dictionary. Furthermore, is a YMCA a church, then? After all, it promotes Christianity, and often has spaces for prayer.

Your psionic ability to distinguish the public aims of Feisal Rauf for Cordoba House/Park51 (a multicultural center to improve interfaith understanding and senses of community) from his real aims (sneak mosque into vague vicinity of Ground Zero for undefined but insensitive aims... or something) is without peer. Tell me, is it congenital, or a learned skill?

Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man who proposed, chairs the Cordoba Initiative, and has consistently endorsed the site and is responsible for its construction, has repeatedly stated that the completion of the building would be a message to Muslims that the US is not persecuting them. How can that be true if the building is anything but a mosque? Why has he described it as an "Islamic center" if it is not a mosque? He has described the place variously as a "Muslim community center," has stated that he plans to be its "religious leader." It's also been stated that they expect to have 1000-2000 Muslims pray there every Friday.

Moreover, other Muslims have identified the project as a mosque, including the Muslim Canadian Congress and Al-Arabiya.

Okay. Let me ask you a question. The Engineering building on my university has a nondenominational chapel inside. Does this make it a temple, synagogue, church, mosque, et cetera, or is it a classroom and office building with a chapel inside? For the rest of your drivel, are YMCAs churches?

So if I were to show that, say, Italy produced fewer scientific papers, would this make Catholics and Protestants backwards and primitive religions?

If you were to show a study detailing how Europe produced fewer scientific papers, that would be a much stronger argument than singling out a single country.

Your argument that it's solely religious is interesting, since you conflate "Arab" with "Muslim". I was unaware that the two were synonyms. I shall have to inform my Turkish and Indonesian acquaintances that they are no longer Muslims.

Nonsense. I simply didn't have data that's in a form that's so easy to assimilate. Moreover, would you have me conclude that the difference is racial rather than religious?

Ideally I would have you shut the hell up until you understood the concept of rigor. I shall have to settle for saying that it seems to me that if you can't find truly representative data, you should not pretend that your incomplete data is convincing and maybe you should withdraw a little until you can find reliable data. My first quote was mocking your definition of Muslim as "Arab" and suggesting that therefore we could generalize from Italians into all Rome-descended Christians.

In other words, you are taking a small selection of heavily Islamic countries and ignoring a great many others, as well as other factors that you will no doubt attribute to Islam (Islam makes you poor! Protestantism is the light!).

But to directly address your criticism, BAM! Islamic countries have 20% of the world's population (and, using modern figures, close to 8% of its total GDP), but produce less than 5% of scientific knowledge "by any measure." The study acknowledges that Islam itself is one of the problems that causes this discrepency, and then cites a lot of others (many of which can be directly traced back to Islam).

Indeed, NO Islamic country spends more than .5% of its GDP on scientific development.[/url] In contrast, Europe, Japan, and the US regularly spend over 2% of their GDPs on scientific development.

Islam does not make you poor: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and to a lesser extent Iran and Iraq have pretty good annual median incomes. Islam does make you stupid, though. NO Islamic country pulls its weight in terms of scientific research.

You're taking a study that asserts that Islam is inherently anti-technological and declares that, therefore, the achievements of Muslims in earlier ages were because of other factors (including Christians in their midst). You also use "acknowledges", but it is a study by a Western individual, not a resident of an Islamic nation. It also focuses on discrepancies between the Qu'ran and natural science, which are as applicable to Christians and Jews. I am not convinced, I am afraid.

You also declare that Islam makes you stupid without evidence and use median incomes, rather than examining any potential income inequality, to estimate relative poverty. In fact, Iran is not an Arabic country!

You even misinterpret Yan's statement- which I took to be historical and which he has confirmed is historical. (P. S. Show that technology makes you better. The Amish (and Mennonites) reject specific technologies because they believe them to be disruptive to community life. That is a philosophical point of view, and there are other technologies (modern healthcare, as an example) which they are willing to use as well.)

Oh, please.

Uh oh, somebody called me out on my unthinking religious intolerance! I must dismiss it as irrelevant!

[Darth Yan]

"Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman" (Abu Dawud). "Do not kill the monks in monasteries" or "Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship" (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal).

During a war, the Prophet saw the corpse of a woman lying on the ground and observed: "She was not fighting. How then she came to be killed?" From this statement of the Prophet the exegetists and jurists have drawn the principle that those who are non-combatants should not be killed during or after the war.
If any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people - Quran 5:32

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: Do not desire an encounter with the enemy; but when you encounter them, be firm. - Muslim Book 019, Number 4313

It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that a woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Messenger of Allah . He disapproved of the killing of women and children. - Muslim Book 019, Number 4319

It is narrated by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah forbade the killing of women and children. - Muslim Book 019, Number 4320

In the old testament it was "Kill everyone, be they man woman or child."Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. - Quran 2:190
If any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people. - Quran 5:32
So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives 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; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know. Qu'ran 9:5-6 (Idolaters referred to in this verse is group among Idolaters in Mecca who had made an agreement of mutual protection with Muslims and then later conspired against Muslims, thus breaking the agreement.)
O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in war, never turn your backs to them. Qur'an 8:15
And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevails justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere. But if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do. Qur'an 8:39
When the Believers saw the Confederate forces, they said: "This is what Allah and his Messenger had promised us, and Allah and His Messenger told us what was true." And it only added to their faith and their zeal in obedience. Qur'an 33:22
From the hadith:

"You are neither hard-hearted nor of fierce character, nor one who shouts in the markets. You do not return evil for evil, but excuse and forgive." - Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 362
"Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman" (Abu Dawud).
"Do not kill the monks in monasteries" or "Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship" (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal).

In short, don't kill civillians, try to make peace if possible, and only go hardcore if they prove negotiations won't work. In every old testemant war, it was pretty much the opposite. and that's not even going into Paul's sexism, the occasional racist comment made by jesus, and the end times.

As for the banu quarizya, they technically betrayed the muslims by attacking during a treaty. the punishment was death (they were jews, and jewish law meant death in that particular crime, because of the islamic rule that religions should be judged by their own laws.) the judge commuted the sentence to spare the women and children. Muhammed approved, even though the guy technically broke the rules. The women and children were ultimately freed from slavery after (and the point still stands that he was a lot more leniant then he was obligated to be.)

As said before the old testement was "kill everyone no ifs ands or buts." In terms of warfare, the muslims actually WERE more civilized then their older counterparts.

and if islam makes you stupid, why did the muslims preserve greek knowledge, and make many advances to the scientific community, while christianity actively attacked anyone who went against the official line. I remember watching a documentary where a conservative ayatollah flat out admits that there are legitimate excuses for women to divorce their husbands (i.e. if the husbands lie (they may want to have kids and he leaves out that he's infertile). What's more, stoning and other barbacic customs actually PREDATE islam.

What's more, because the terrorists attacked countries that gave them visas they violated their oaths and as such broke islamic law. don't believe me?
It is not the case that every time they make a covenant, some party among them throws it aside. Nay! The truth is most of them believe not. (Quran, 2:100)

When he enters into a covenant, he proves treacherous. (Sahih al-Bukhari)

"If it happens that a company of Muslims pass through the enemy’s front lines by deceptively pretending to be messengers of the Muslim’s ruler carrying official documents–or if they were just allowed to pass through the enemy lines–they are not allowed to engage in any hostilities with the enemy troops. Neither are they entitled to seize any of their money or properties as long as they are in their area of authority." In the century after the death of muhammed the Islamic classic jurist Muhammad al-Shaybani said this. Ergo, the terrorists who blew up the trade center effectively broke islamic law. How do you explain that?