In 1999 eBay was under heavy fire for allowing the sale of Nazi memorabilia. Their policy approach at the time mirrors almost exactly what Facebook is doing now with Holocaust denial groups, namely banning behavior in certain countries to comply with local laws, but allowing it everywhere else.
From a 1999 New York Times article: “eBay…said that the company already prohibited the sale of such items in Germany because they are outlawed there. But he said it generally polices the sales of banned items only after receiving complaints from users”
From a PCMag article in May 2009 on Facebook: “We have recently begun to block content by IP in countries where that content is illegal, including Nazi-related and Holocaust denial content in certain European countries,” the Facebook spokesman said. “The groups in question have been blocked in the appropriate countries.”
By 2001, though, eBay had changed its policies to ban all sales of Nazi memorabilia across its sites. The ban includes sales of Holocaust denial items. The current policy is here.
Part of the balancing act eBay uses when making a decision on a listing is to ban items which “lack substantial social, artistic, or political value.” It goes on to state “this includes items that may be deemed inappropriate or insensitive to victims of natural disasters or human tragedies.”
Facebook doesn’t want to be the last reasonable entity standing on the wrong side of the Holocaust denial issue. But it’s sure looking like that’s how this is going to play out.
Oh boy, You really have it in for Facebook. I didn’t know holocaust deniers existed until I saw your first post and did some research.
if only you could see the behind the scenes communication between me and FB right now. I’d say “pissed off” is an understatement on both sides.
I definitely think Holocaust deniers should go.. I also think the Palestine deniers should go as well. How come no one talks about them? Example below:
http://www.face...?gid=2204508302
If they are going to get rid of hate groups, they should ban them all…
Do some proper research before stating that.
While debatable, Palestine does not exist as a known fact. There is very little documentation stating such, while the Holocaust is the most documented event in history.
What the hell does “the most documented event in history” even mean? How can you quantify documentation?
Ben, funny that you say that about Palestine.
My grandparents have the deeds to the land that they LEGALLY OWNED and to the others they should have inherited had they not fled and been allowed to live in my home town and not exterminated like the the rest of my town’s people who didn’t flee and had to face the Israeli militias (the Haganah). My great grandmother had the key to the house she fled fearing to be killed by Israeli militias. My ID and traveling documents say that I am a Palestinian refugee along with all of the people who are related to me and much much more people that are not related to me in many Arab countries.
My great grandparents who were Palestinians existed before the State of Israel. If because there were people who benefited from ignoring their existence (the UN at that time) and called that place the State of Israel that doesn’t mean that it is right. When you have the power to destroy people’s lives and call it a law you are usually described as being “Adolf Hitler”.
As for the “the most documented event in history”, well all the Palestinians around the word still have the deeds to their lands, myself included. What is stranger is that you do know about something called Palestine and that people called Palestinians exist but you don’t seem to ever wonder where all these Palestinians came from. I exist and so many millions more exist. Many died of natural causes or accidents and many died deliberately due to Israeli attacks. If papers are what you need to prove Palestine exists then I have them. If people’s existence is what you need then I am them. Do some proper research.
Oh and shame on you for denying Palestine. Do you want those holocaust denial groups to be banned?
Ben, really do your research.
This TIME magazine archive from 1947 clearly mentions a place called Palestine.
Ben, really do your research.
This TIME magazine archive from 1947 clearly mentions a place called Palestine.
http://www.time...,793641,00.html
Well maybe you two could put the dick-measuring rulers down and let us read some tech news : )
This isn’t a serious debate. Its a farce.
Then why not let us see it? It can add a whole new dimension to the debate.
Michael when are you going to cover all the rest of the denial groups on facebook? You have written two consecutive posts about the Jewish holocaust during the Nazi regime but not about anybody else. Does that mean the rest of the world is irrelevant.
Note: I am going to http://www.some...istory-site.com to read about tech news.
Thanks Michael.
Yes, Thank Michael.
TechCrunch and Facebook will eliminate these hate groups. It is cool these groups will no longer exist since they dont have facebook accounts. The can’t email each other, the can’t twitter each other, they can’t do anything ever again.
Though I am sure at least few hundred people who never heard of hate groups at facebook are now new members at facebook and met up with lots of other hate people.
But since they no longer have facebook pages, the groups can’t exist any where in the world.
Thats the ticket.
Ya Think?
TechCrunch and Facebook will let these hate groups exist. It is cool, these groups won’t really have any growth on facebook since people will immediately be able to tell they’re bad. They can email each other, the can twitter each other, they can just keep growing more and more since we will idly stand by and watch them.
Though I am sure at least few hundred people who have heard of hate groups at facebook won’t be convinced to join these hate groups.
But even though we let them have fecebook pages, the groups won’t really grow at all.
Thats the ticket.
Ya Think?
Don’t be an idiot. The first step towards eliminating this kind of thinking is doing away with their ‘nexus’ points – places where they can meet and GROW. Hurt their growth and you’ve hurt their very existence.
(~1990) If you are not in the yellowpages nobody knows how to contact your business
(~2001) If you are not on ebay you can not sell your wares in the largest online market place
(~2004) If you are not in the Google index you virtually do not exist to most of the web surfing public.
(~2009) If you are not on facebook you can not leverage its platform to easily access the 200+ million people who use it.
The dates are roundabouts but you get when I’m saying here. There will always be a new medium for spreading whatever it is you want to spread. Yet hate will always remain a constant. Just because you can not block it in all venues does not mean you should throw your hands up and give up. People who peddle hate will always go where their message will be heard by the most people.
The Holocaust happened. It is an immutable fact.
So why are we bitching about banning these things from facebook and ebay yet not saying anything about the fact that they show up in the Google index?
This is a ridiculous article. Freedom of speech is not convenient. You’re discriminating against people based on their beliefs. Is it any more rational to believe in an omnipotent god than it is to believe that the holocaust is not real? Religion is the most destructive social construct in the history of the world. Certainly there’s more justification for banning all christian groups.
Why can’t we? You are usually pretty transparent…What’s the downside of sharing some of that?
i need to have an open channel of communication that’s off record. But the language is…colorful.
Are you really helping Mike? You suddenly made these groups famous? Why is everyone so concerned about the Holocaust? We haven’t learned anything from it. We still stand by and watch genocide happen all the time. You want to take a stand maybe focus on something that matters like Dufar… this is just silly. Such groups are made and run by trolls.. the worst thing you can do a troll is acknowledge they exist. All you are giving them what they want.
Anyone with half a brain knows the Holocaust happen…
I know it is a touchy subject… but it just seems like we spend all this time fighting about stuff like this and not preventing the same events from happening again. If we really wanted to honor those who died in the holocaust wouldn’t we do everything in our power to stop such events from happening again… but we don’t… we fight about groups on Facebook… seems silly
pt. well taken
it’s not a zero-sum game, however
and it’s well to work w/in one’s sphere of most influence to effect change there 1st
To my knowledge, there wasn’t a second holocaust. Looks like we’re doing okay there. Let’s keep defending free speech.
Do you know how many people were murdered, raped and tortured in Darfur?
The mainstream media barley mentions it, because apparently nobody cares when Arabs Muslims murders 800,000 Africans Muslims.
I knew somebody would bring up a different genocide. There’s a difference between that and the holocaust, especially in the motivations of the evildoers. Clearly.
After this debacle, I think it would be best if you stopped identifying yourself as a libertarian…
Being libertarian’s not an alibi for abetting mass murder and genocide–which is what you do when you deny it.
“Being libertarian’s not an alibi for abetting mass murder and genocide–which is what you do when you deny it.”
What?
Nobody’s telling Arrington to deny the Holocaust.
And while people who consider themselves libertarians disagree on a number of issues, the freedom to express unpopular beliefs is pretty fundamental.
The nice touch about this whole tiresome series of posts is Arrington engaging in the sort of demagoguery that would make the Führer himself proud.
Libertarians don’t support bans on “hate speech” because it violates the first amendment.
You, on the other hand, violate the principles of common sense.
lol.
Seriously. I usually love Mike’s posts, but this nazi shit is a joke.
Free speech is a two way street folks. We can ‘t ban something just because it is stupid, intolerant or we don’t like it. Remember that free speech also allows us to tell the rest of the world what clowns these people are.
Unless you are the Dixie chicks…lol
That’s the great thing about it; it allows you to say what may seem blasphemous to others, whether it’s “the holocaust didn’t happen” or “the earth revolves around the sun.”
The willingness on the part of certain European countries to make such speech illegal is definitely a step backwards. Somebody make a time machine and take those lawmakers back to the Dark Ages where they belong.
“The willingness on the part of certain European countries to make such speech illegal is definitely a step backwards. Somebody make a time machine and take those lawmakers back to the Dark Ages where they belong.”
Oh, so you suggest putting the Americans in a time machine to send them back to the Dark Ages?
What an intriguing idea! Maybe they’ll learn their history lessons first hand by reliving it instead of skipping their history classes in school.
I am sick and tired of those double standards of certain Americans, forcing on the one hand certain laws on countries in order for them to gain back their independency and then on the other hand, going back to their own country and allowing there what they forbid in other countries, patting themselves on the shoulder, priding themselves of what a great country they are with their oh so great freedom and pointing at others who they feel are not as liberal.
I am disgusted by such ignorance!
The few incidents you refer to were indeed wrongdoing. Now, what does that have to do with European lawmakers independently imposing free speech restrictions?
I decide to take your advice and build a time machine, and this is what I learned. On May 15th 1955 the USSR, UK, Northern Ireland, France and the United States all sat down with Austria to discus the State Treaty for the re-establishment of an independent and democratic Austria.
Article 9 of the State Treaty http://untreaty...16/00010771.pdf
DISSOLUTION OF NAZI ORGANIZATIONS
1. Austria shall complete the measures, already begun by the enactment of
appropriate legislation approved by the Allied Commission for Austria, to
destroy the National Socialist Party and its affiliated and supervised organizations,
including political, military and para-military organizations, on Austrian terri
tory. Austria shall also continue the efforts to eliminate from Austrian political,
economic and cultural life all traces of Nazism, to ensure that the above-men
tioned organizations are not revived in any form, and to prevent all Nazi and
militarist activity and propaganda in Austria.
2. Austria undertakes to dissolve all Fascist-type organizations existing
on its territory, political, military and para-military, and likewise any other
organizations carrying on activities hostile to any United Nation or which intend
to deprive the people of their democratic rights.
Austria undertakes not to permit, under threat of penal punishment which
shall be immediately determined in accordance with procedures established by
Austrian Law, the existence and the activity on Austrian territory of the above-
mentioned organizations.
Those are some of the rules the US imposed on Austria in 1955, yet at this time in the US African-American Civil Rights Movement had just started. Even today Americans wont let Gay’s marry. My suggestion to you is that you check your historical facts before you use them to try and make your point.
See above.
“Lou Natick – See above.”
What is that for a response?
Any new laws will be still based around the State Treaty of 1955 it applies to Austria.
“Lou Natick – European lawmakers independently imposing free speech restrictions?”
Do you have a list of the European lawmakers that voted for it? I ask because you sound like some of the people I spoke to at the Amsterdam airport that wanted to ask me why did I put GW back in the White House, when I did not vote for him. My point is, please verify your fax before you start passing them out like candy.
so, it’s not against the law, but holier-than-thou arrington thinks it should be banned because…because…because he says so!
this temper-tantrum you’re throwing has drawn about a billion times more attention to these idiots than just calling them idiots and moving along would have.
nice going.
You’re ruining this site with your nonsense.
TechCrunch is just like a pitbull; when it bites, it can’t let go…
first iPhone then Twitter and now… Nazi’s (guess which one doesn’t belong there)
no freedom of speech? , its kinda ironic to see that muslims are being torched when they protest their prophet being drawn by the dutch artists.
makes you think i guess.
I think that FaceBook is on the right side.
Lots of things will be always debatable.
So why prevent this issue and not the other debates?
.. Just give me one solid reason!
And please, don’t just tell me that if we let this debate go on the Jews will be wiped out!.
And what about other tragedies?
Will the people in Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia, and others, have these privileges?
I don’t thinks so ..
.. not if you don’t have enough pressure groups!
Let’s just make it clear what the names of these group are that we’re talking about.
Quoting here: http://www.pcwo...ial_groups.html
“Facebook has removed two Holocaust denial groups claiming they violated Facebook’s Terms of Service by promoting hate. The two groups in question, “Holocaust is a Holohoax” and “Based on the facts…there was no Holocaust,” were removed from the site because messages from members posted on the group’s Walls were found to be promoting hate speech.
Despite Facebook’s decision to eliminate two Holocaust Denial groups, numerous others remain on Facebook. These groups have names like “Holocaust: A Series of Lies,” “Holocaust is a Myth,” “the holocaust that the Jewish believe in is very big lie,” “Holocaust denial & Anti-Zionism,” three different groups named “F–K Israel And Their Holocaust Bulls–t,” and “1,000,000 for the TRUTH about the Holocaust.”
Is there debate about Blacks being forced into slavery in the United States?
Is there debate about Native American’s being killed, moved from place to place and having their land stolen here in the US?
Is there a debate that we dropped Nuclear Weapons on Japan?
Intolerance, ignorance and hate have to be stopped. Using some veil of academic debate to cover racist nonsense is a sad commentary on social networks.
I don’t see where’s the intolerance in discussing the Holocaust.
People can debate about the numbers of the nuclear bomb victims, or how much native americans were killed, why can’t they debate the holocaust numbers?!
and about the your examples ..
I don’t know if such debates are there, but here’s what i found:
“i hate arab terrorists”
“f**k the muslims!”
“I Hate Cheap Arabs”
“Fuck Darfur, Save America”
Nice work Mike. aE
Mr. Arrington, what do you think about wikipedia refusing to remove pictures of Prophet Mohammed from entry despite 90,000+ signatures on an online petition?
just curious….
Why should an online encyclopedia have to play by the rules of a religion? If you don’t want to see a picture of the prophet, don’t go to the page. Or don’t load images on the page. You don’t have the right to alter everyone else’s experience on the site just because you have a petition.
You are negating the point of this article. If the remedy to not being offended online is to not visit a particular site then there is no problem for eBay, MySpace, and facebook. The problem is created by the visitors because they are visiting the offending material. However the author disagrees. He specifically promotes that holocaust denying groups and Nazi groups be censored, yet he fails to mention all the other offending groups that lurk online in all services that connect people.
If two people of the some kind of group send hate email to each other about another group that they don’t belong to, should that be censored?
Gotta post a comment of support here.
Mike, please don’t stop reporting this until you win. Really win. No compromise.
I agree w/ Ben. Keep it up Mike; you have my support.
Look, the issue is controversial. I’d rather the effort be put into “legalizing” breast-feeding than to shutting the other group down. Two wrongs don’t make a right, as they say.
I support this guy’s pro-free speech, pro-boobs platform.
I keep seeing those in favor of FB claiming that they do so in defense of free speech.
FB already made the decision to RESTRICT free speech when, using their internal ethics, they decided naked breasts were harmful and should thus be restricted.
And yes, I know it is a picture and not words, but as Larry Flint showed in his legal cases, pictures fall under free speech protection. Facebook opted NOT to honor those protections. But whether you agree with them or not, they are a private company and have that right. A right they opted to exercise, I suppose, to protect the ‘moral’ character of Facebook.
That they decide viewing naked breasts is IMMORAL, but antisemitism via the veil of holocaust denial is morally acceptable for Facebook is quite a statement.
And as to the argument that it is ‘just talk’ or ‘just trying to refine the numbers’ and isn’t violence in and of itself, how about you read up on Eugenics and see how harmless ‘just talk’ by a bunch of ‘learned scientist’ can be.
Mike,
What is the difference between FB allowing these groups and Google allowing sites like ‘JewWatch’ to appear as the third result from a search of the word ‘Jew’? Would you want Google to also start filtering?
That Google doesn’t censor anything at all (unless forced to by local governments – Of which I also have a lot of criticism) while Facebook already has policies which go against ‘free speech’ (e.g. nudity, for example). It’s a walled garden, they get to choose what speech they want to see on their site, why choose to allow hate speech..?
Arrington, you are a fear and hate monger.
You are like that monkey with a sword… it is unfortunate that an idiot like you is abusing the power of blogs to spread hate under the banner of preventing it.
Through your series of hate-laden posts and actions, you have shown everyone the kind of maniacal, twisted in the mind, extremist you are. I see no difference between you and any other religious extremist. You are as much of a terrorist as the ones you are fake-fighting.
LAME.
Hey Michael. I love what you’re doing and I am very glad that you’re getting the ball rolling on this. With Facebook so receptive to changing their policies at the behest of their users, I am sure that they will smarten up and pay attention to what you’re posting on here. Thanks for informing us!
It was always a pleasure to read tech news that had an open personal spin to it, instead of the typical drone reporting.
However, this persistent effort to get another service to follow your personal beliefs, I believe takes TechCrunch a notch lower.
There is no shortage of hate. It seems it’s even more prevalent today, but the better ones are simply a lot more savvy than the group you keep attacking. The ones that concern me have well-funded lobbying, and have their terrorist activities either not reported, or spun into things like “in defense”.
There are a lot bigger fish to fry.
This website officially sucks now and I’ve been a subscriber for 3 years. Major bummer.
Hey Arrington, in case you forgot, there’s a world outside of the internet where people can deny the holocaust despite being banned from facebook. Banishing what you don’t like sounds an awful lot like the Nazi M.O. to me. You aren’t helping, you’re hating. Guess what, you’re a fascist, too.
You can’t BAN ignorance, but you can educate people. You want to do a public service? Then make sure children are literate and stay in school.
Volunteer. Spread some kindness. Donate to a good cause. Sitting at your computer being an asshole isn’t helpful.
[disclaimer: i'm french and in france the denial of holocaust is illegal. I'm fully supporting this fact]
About the so called freedom of speech, and laws “violating” it:
Those laws are here because the negationnism is one of the instruments used by the perpetrators to occult the existence itself of those they want to exterminate : it is not enough for them to kill those which they hold for culprits, nor to kill the whole population, innocents included, it is necessary that they even never existed.
The negationnism is not the simple camouflage of the historical facts with an aim of protecting its intellectual guides, or with an aim of discrediting its adversaries. It is not a simple lie. It is a unquestionable component of the act of genocide. There is no genocide without negationnism.
It is also a means to insult the survivors and the memory of the deads. In short, to carry on the sufferings, even once the morbid task ended. To keep going at the ones which one hates. To torture.
From where its prohibition, and the prohibition of the messages calling for hatred, for example. One bridles a freedom to avoid misdeeds which one considers even more important – this is the definition of the majority of the laws.
Now, it is certain that this law would be much less useful if each one had the bases minima in logics and culture sufficient to laugh to the nose of the negationnists, and that an significant effort must thus be given to this end… As always, prevention rather than repression.
But it should not either be denied that there are today still idiots and ignorants to believe this kind of talk, and that if ignorance is looked after rather well, the stupidity is on the other hand a pugnacious enemy.
You’re starting to make me nervous. Not because you’re wrong, but because you’re being unfair. Why are you only protesting against this hate group and not all hate groups? This says a lot about you. I’m disappointed because I get some of my tech news from this blog.
What I don’t understand is why is it that Mike is not engaging in the discussions taking place here. I’m not expecting him to reply to every single comment, but there are good points being raised that question his logic/opinion.
With over 300 comments in his previous post I was expecting him to be part of that conversation rather than pumping out another post to reiterate his points without addressing any of the valid arguments being discussed. The easiest thing to do is to hit and run.
Michael, why did you open this can of worms?
If I wanted a pointless flame war about Nazis I would go to a Fark story with infinite comments and scroll down a little.
Can we please go back to worshipping Twitter and the iPhone?
THE 800 POUND GORILLA IN THE ROOM IS THAT IF YOU VISIT THESE FACEBOOK SITES (WHICH HAVE 21MILLION PEOPLE) THE FACTS THEY PRESENT CANNOT BE REFUTED, IF THEY COULD JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS WOULDNT HAVE TO STIFLE AND CRIMINALIZE THIS DEBATE………THEY SAY MOST DOCUMENTED UNTIL SOMEONE ASKS FOR DOCUMENTATION THEN THE STORY CHANGES TO “THE NAZIS DESTROYED ALL INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE”……..AS AN INTELLIGENT PERSON I SAY THE 6 MILLION NUMBER IS LAUGHABLE,AS ARE GAS CHAMBERS
these groups post facts, instead of hollywood propaganda
You all seem to miss the point. This IS a tech article, because it deals with Terms of Service (TOS) violations. Everyone famously knows that if you want to terminate your Facebook account, you seem to never be able to. But get a TOS, and that sucker is irrevocably terminated.
There is a major inequity in the administering of TOS violations, as has been compared and discussed here.
This is not a religious war and it isn’t a war on the constitution of the US (of which many of the beneficiaries aren’t from the US anyways apparently).
What it is, is an attempt to get Facebook to be equitable and smart about policing groups that do in fact violate the TOS. While the people who are highlighting the fact that Holocaust Denier groups which seem to have some traction on the site are a problem, there is no doubt that other groups with similar messages about other groups don’t belong there either.
Remember the tech angle here is Private websites that do selective enforcement of their TOS. And by enabling some groups within to operate once they are aware of the content, then they become responsible for that content, and quite possibly liable.
Ban the sex offenders, ban the hate groups! Ban everything!
I fail to see why in this age of technical non-annonanimty we are doing such a thing, as the profiling of all theses people/groups is well worth letting them play on.
Speak you mind on the Internet? Where does that put you now? On who’s target list? Trapped by what algorithm?
This is the day and age of “enough rope to hang yourself”, everyone is cookied, tracked, profiled, data correlated and then mined for any and all about you. So go ahead, speak your mind. They want to know exactly where you stand. lmao
I would think that the Qu’ran, as a holy book of a recognised religion, is not something which can be banned from a service without upsetting a lot of people.
Imagine a site where you weren’t allowed any freedom: where everything had to conform to a long list of guidelines so that it couldn’t possibly offend anyone. Would anyone use it? COULD anyone use it?
Banning everything is for heavy-handed forum moderators and I like those about as much as having a flat tire.
let’s say you and I start a religion tomorrow, and we write a Holy book , 10% of it calls for the killing all Black people. Sounds crazy , right?
No, it isn’t. It is the subject matter of 1 Billion people worldwide every day, just regarding the Jews.
And that is before reading the Hadit (Holy Muslim literature) , Sharia, etc.
If it is insane, then let’s call it by name. The only reason the Quran is permitted is that billion people believe in it. If it was 1,000 people, they were all behind bars.
I heard this many times, yet no one really mentioned a quote from the Quran where it tells Muslims to kill Jews.
Could you mention some of it here, Ben?
Yeah ben, please do…..
There’s the famous comparison to pigs and monkeys.
The truth is that you should Google it.
http://www.eret...uranhadith.html
Come on Ben!
You know that this doesn’t answer my question (about your claim).
Comparing to pigs and monkeys (which i didn’t find either!) is very different from Killing!
Just put a quote which tells the Muslims to kill Jews, it’s as simple as that.
It doesn’t seem a very hard job, especially that the Quran (accordind to you!) is 10.6 about Jew hatred!
My pleasure:
The Quran orders Muslims to either enslave or kill those who refuse to worship Allah. The Muslim holy book does not teach love, but hate. Faithful Muslims are directed to kill the ‘infidels.’ In the terminology of Islam, infidels are Jews, Christians and non-Muslims in general
The following are a few of the violent passages found within the Quran:
“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you.” (Sura 9:122)
“make war on the leaders of unbelief…” (Sura 9:12)
“Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]…until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.” (Surah 9:27-)
“Slay them wherever you find them…Idolatry is worse than carnage…Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme.” (Surah 2:190-)
“Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it.” (Surah 2:216)
“Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends.” (Surah 5:51)
“Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme.” (Surah 8:36-)
And let’s not forget the Hadith which says: “And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: ‘O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!”
still Ben, not enough
Most of these are about the “fight” to spread Islamic law at that time, like the “fight” to spread democratic values or the fight to end slavery.
It’s different than killing a non-muslim because he’s non-muslim! (which is actually a big crime in Islam).
And some are taken out of context, like this one (Surah 2:190-), where you “forgot” to mention that it came just after this passage:
[190] Fight in the cause of Allah “those who fight you”, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
Are you actually trying to claim that there isn’t a (large enough to be significant) faction of Islam that believes infidels should be killed?
If that’s your claim, you’re clearly an apologist for terrorists. There are plenty of moderate Muslim scholars who have openly acknowledged that their fanatical brethren take the Qu’ran literally and believe that non-believers can be righteously killed – specifically, by beheading. To claim otherwise, as you seem to be doing, is a huge red flag.
I’m not quite sure where you got the information, but it’s quite wrong. There isn’t a single verse in the Quran that says go out and kill jews. And Islam is quite tolerant towards other religions (just checkout how islam treated jews in jerusalem, versus how christianity treated jews during the spanish inquisition).
And just for the record, Christians and Jews are not considered infidels in Islam. They are referenced as “People of The Book”, because islam states that those are divine religions with divine holy books.
Unfortunately, the only muslims getting any camera time are the ones that do not follow the teachings of islam. Killing civilians is explicitly forbidden in islam, but Osama Bin Laden does it in the name of isalm. Go figure how that one works.
No, Nick ..
Not a large faction, nor a small faction!
If you you’re talking about the terrorists, they have different “justifications” for their actions, not one of them that those are “infidels” and should be killed! (even the terrorists know that’s prohibited!), and actually, some of them might kill Muslims if they meet their standards.