Why does Islam claim to be a religion of peace when it has caused so much trouble in the world?

Peace from submission.

Peace does not require religion.

Actually ISIS believes that by being as evil as they are....They will cause the 12th Imam to come back. 

AKA the Antichrist?

I don't know...I have not been able to get info on that for certain. I have heard someone say that but could not verify with other sources. 

"the 12th Imam to come back" is a Shia belief

Thank you. I didn't know it was specific. But Shia is Muslim, correct?

Shia is a Muslim sect, but IS is Sunni, a different Muslim sect.  More specifically, Salafi Sunni.

Much like Christians, Muslim beliefs vary on eschatology. This post was edited by Bozette at April 23, 2017 10:46 AM MDT

"But Shia is Muslim, correct?" You won't get many non-Shia agreeing that they are. 

One of the problems with "followers" in general is that they get so far behind the leader, they don't know in which direction he's going.

And that's the fault of the followers, not the leader.

Catholics have never been followers of the Prince of Peace. They follow their Bishops and Popes. Record of bloodshed against others greater than that of the apostate Jews. Not as bad in the 20th century as in the past if you get past the Ustase and such during WWII. Just read the whitewashed versions of the murders in the past centuries as published in Catholic Encyclopedias. Still shows their evil intent even after putting a Catholic spin on it.

(Matthew 23:27-31) “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you resemble whitewashed graves, which outwardly indeed appear beautiful but inside are full of dead men’s bones and of every sort of uncleanness. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. 29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you build the graves of the prophets and decorate the tombs of the righteous ones, 30 and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have shared with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 Therefore, you are testifying against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.

It is a truism that those capable of great good are also capable of great evil.  It is also possible that the scale of evil is proportional to the number of followers of that religion, but I find the Jehovah's witnesses to be much more dangerous and deadly to the individuals who lack the kind of Biblical knowledge necessary to throw you off the script with which you proselytize the unknowing and the unsuspecting.

Be sure you know whom Matthew is referring to before you "cast that first stone."---that's always a problem when you quote the bible against another child of God.

Catholics have an obligation to properly form their conscience.  Perhaps because you do not understand Christ's teachings, you think that we do not follow Him.  (That's a problem of your own making and you'll have to solve it on your own.)  And while the magisterium of the Catholic Church is an important resource for me in the formation of my conscience and for other Catholics as well, the Pope has only make 6 pronouncements that have the status of ex cathedra.  And that simply means that you cannot call yourself a Catholic if you disagree with those 6 statements.

But if you would like to understand Catholicism and learn its truth, you are welcome to join the catechumenate program at one of the local Catholic churches.

So now you admit to being Catholic after denying it in another thread? I find it very funny to hear a Catholic referring to others who lack Biblical knowledge.

(Matthew 7:15-20) “Be on the watch for the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? 17 Likewise, every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. 19 Every tree not producing fine fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men.

Please tell me how any of the following has anything to do with "Christ's teachings":

 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

Church legislation on heresy
..
..
This legislation remained in force and with even greater severity in the kingdom formed by the victorious barbarian invaders on the ruins of the Roman Empire in the West. The burning of heretics was first decreed in the eleventh century. The Synod of Verona (1184) imposed on bishops the duty to search out the heretics in their dioceses and to hand them over to the secular power. Other synods, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III, repeated and enforced this decree, especially the Synod of Toulouse (1229), which established inquisitors in every parish (one priest and two laymen). Everyone was bound to denounce heretics, the names of the witnesses were kept secret; after 1243, when Innocent IV sanctioned the laws of Emperor Frederick II and of Louis IXagainst heretics,  torture was applied in trials; the guilty persons were delivered up to the civil authorities and actually burnt at the stake. Paul III (1542) established, and Sixtus V organized, the Roman Congregation of the Inquisition, or Holy Office, a regular court of justice for dealing with heresy and heretics (seeROMAN CONGREGATIONS). The Congregation of the Index, instituted by St. Pius V, has for its province the care of faith and morals in literature; it proceeds against printed matter very much as the Holy Office proceeds against persons (see INDEX OF PROHIBITED BOOKS). The present pope [1909], Pius X, has decreed the establishment in every diocese of a board of censors and of a vigilance committee whose functions are to find out and report on writings and persons tainted with the heresy of Modernism (Encyclical "Pascendi", 8 Sept., 1907). The present-day legislation against heresy has lost nothing of its ancient severity; but the penalties on heretics are now only of the spiritual order; all the punishments which require the intervention of the secular arm have fallen into abeyance. Even in countries where the cleavage between the spiritual and secular powers does not amount to hostility or complete severance, the death penalty, confiscation ofgoods, imprisonment, etc., are no longer inflicted on heretics. The spiritual penalties are of two kinds: latae and ferendae sententiae. The former are incurred by the mere fact of heresy, no judicial sentence being required; the latter are inflicted after trial by an ecclesiastical court, or by a bishop acting ex informata conscientia, that is, on his own certain knowledge, and dispensing with the usual procedure

 

In 1192 bishop Otto of Toul ordered all Waldenses to be delivered up in chains to the episcopal tribunal. In 1194 Alphonso II of Aragon ordered their banishment from his dominion and forbade them shelter or food. The Council of Genoa (1197) affirmed these provisions and ordered death by burning against the Church. 

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06796a.htm  (3^rd paragraph from the bottom)

 

Gregory IX was very severe towards heretics, who in those times were universally looked upon as traitors and punished accordingly. Upon the request of King Louis IX of France, he sent Cardinal Romanus as legate to assist the king in his crusade against the Albigenses. At the synod which the papal legate convened at Toulouse in November, 1229, it was decreed that all heretics and their abettors should be delivered to the nobles and magistrates for their due punishment, which, in case of obstinacy, was usually death. When in 1224 Frederick II ordered that heretics in Lombardy should be burnt at the stake, Gregory IX, who was then papal legate for Lombardy, approved and published the imperial law. During his enforced absence from Rome (1228-1231) the heretics remained unmolested and became very numerous in the city. In February, 1231, therefore, the pope enacted a law for Rome that heretics condemned by an ecclesiastical court should be delivered to the secular power to receive their "due punishment". This "due punishment" was death by fire for the obstinate and imprisonment for life for the penitent.In pursuance of this law a number of Patarini were arrested in Rome in 1231, the obstinate were burned at the stake, the others were imprisoned in theBenedictine monasteries of Monte Cassino and Cava (Ryccardus de S. Germano, ad annum 1231, in Mon. Germ. SS., XIX, 363).It must not be thought, however, that Gregory IX dealt more severely with heretics than other rulers did. Death by fire was the common punishment for heretics and traitors in those times. Up to the time of Gregory IX, the duty of searching out heretics belonged to the bishops in their respective dioceses. The so-called Monastic Inquisition was established by Gregory IX, who in his Bulls of 13, 20, and 22 April, 1233, appointed the Dominicans as the official inquisitors for all dioceses of France (Ripoil and Bremond, "Bullarium Ordinia Fratrum Praedicatorum", Rome, 1729, I, 47).

 

 

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14761a.htm  (2^nd paragraph from the bottom)

With regard to the toleration of Christian heretics and schismatics the reader will do well to consult the article INQUISITION. No very systematic measures of repression seem to have come into practice before the twelfth century. The aggressive attitude adopted in the case of the Priscillianists (q.v.) and Donatists was owing less to the action of the bishops than to that of the emperor. On the other hand, it cannot be disputed thatafter the authority of the popes was firmly established, ecclesiastical campaigns were undertaken against the Cathari, the Waldenses, and Albigenses as well as later on against the followers of Wicklif andHus. Moreover isolated executions for heresy (burning at the stake being commonly employed for this purpose) were known before the twelfth century both in East and West; though at the same time the actual infliction of the punishment, then as after, must be regarded as an act of the civil power rather than that of any ecclesiastical tribunal.But though an Inquisition of heretical practices may be regarded as having been first formally set up, at any rate in embryo, about the second half of the thirteenth century no measures of extreme severity were in the beginning prescribed or generally adopted. The Fourth Council of Lateran in 1215 imposed as a penalty the deprivation of property and civil stakes. Convicted heretics even though repentant, were excluded from public offices and were compelled to wear a badge. If their retractation was insincere they were liable to be confined in a public prison. At the same time it must not be forgotten that all these medieval heresies, as such an historian as Gairdner has noticed (Lollardy, I, 46), struck at the foundations of social order. M. Guiraud's account of the extravagant teaching of the Cathari and Albigenses is conclusive upon the point. It cannot be doubted that the severities which then began to be exercised in the name of religion were prompted by no lust for blood. It seemed rather to orthodox churchmen that the Church was so menaced by these subversive doctrines that her very existence was at stake.

 

Admit---not at all.  Proudly proclaim is the better description.

When you first challenged me to post my religious "affiliation" you did it in such a way so that you could conjure up your spiels against Catholics as you have been so well taught to do.  And your response to my refusal indicated that you did not know what to do next. Perhaps because you are most comfortable attacking truth and have none to proffer.

It is because I am so familiar with you and your tainted fruits (interesting that you should try use that line against me---Sort of like the pharaoh decreeing that the first born of the Jews be slaughtered.  Be careful that your hand does not slip down to the blade of that dagger lest you sever your hand) that I prefer to avoid any discourse with you because it can have no useful outcome.

I am amused (in a tragic way) by the general lack of understanding of the bible as evidenced by the Jehovah's witnesses as a whole.  Your exegetes are not held in high esteem by their peers.

And you would not be wise to assume that I as an individual Catholic lack biblical knowledge.

I commend you to the mercy of the God Who actually exists, but whom you don't recognize. This post was edited by tom jackson at April 20, 2017 3:04 PM MDT

It's not the fault of individual Catholics for having no basic Bible knowledge, after all, your Church used to forbade reading the Bible by the laity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/why-christians-were-denied-access-to-their-bible-for-1000-years_b_3303545.html

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned...”

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to “...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence.” For this “heresy” Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council’s decree “Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River.”

Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.

https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nobible.htm

Or it may  be the fault of following bad doctrine.

You are more than likely right... I am well aware that the bible isn't always a flower garden of peace and kindness, esp the old testament... but when you say that it's Islam's turn .... do you not think.... and bear in mind this is a genuine question as I am not religious, that many of the other religions, e.g. have *evolved* through their violent and hateful stages, well for the most part... and so that's perhaps the difference... that they probably are all fairly open to misinterpretation but most religions have evolved past the strict dogma which causes what we still see in Islam?  I do also think it's perhaps more open to misinterpretation but perhaps it's that the followers of that religion have evolved away from the origins less? 

No.   It's not about misinterpretations.  It's about enlightenments were Abrahamic religion as a whole becomes questioned and it's hold on the lives of it's subjects becomes less and less.  It's from enlightenment that the shackles of the Abrahamic religions lose their control and becomes less and less central to societies  lives and governing.  Logic, discovery, and reason becomes so undeniable that it frees cultures from taking the words at face value. The dogma is a  symptom, not the cause. 

Read the Quran, the "extremists' aren't twisting words, they are taking them at face value.  They are literalists. Just as the Christians who murdered the Pagans of Europe weren't extremists,   they were literalists.  Just as orthodox Jews chopping off baby penises and using their mouths to "clean" it aren't extremists,  they are literalists.

You are more than likely right... I am well aware that the bible isn't always a flower garden of peace and kindness, esp the old testament... but when you say that it's Islam's turn .... do you not think.... and bear in mind this is a genuine question as I am not religious, that many of the other religions, e.g. have *evolved* through their violent and hateful stages, well for the most part... and so that's perhaps the difference... that they probably are all fairly open to misinterpretation but most religions have evolved past the strict dogma which causes what we still see in Islam?  I do also think it's perhaps more open to misinterpretation but perhaps it's that the followers of that religion have evolved away from the origins less? 

Or not.

Thank you for replying.  It was a brilliant and enlightening rebuttal.