While I agree with the others that saying "Islam is a violent religion" is a very incorrect statement, one may be able to make the case that sociocultural factors associated (not directly) with the religion may give off this impression.
Beorning, you may be interested in looking through this Pew Research Survey on Muslims around the world:
There are some interesting statistics there for discussion. Some that I found pretty interesting just through the first couple of pages were:
Few U.S. Muslims voice support for suicide bombing or other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam; 81% say such acts are never justified, while fewer than one-in-ten say violence against civilians either is often justified (1%) or is sometimes justified (7%) to defend Islam. Around the world, most Muslims also reject suicide bombing and other attacks against civilians. However, substantial minorities in several countries say such acts of violence are at least sometimes justified, including 26% of Muslims in Bangladesh, 29% in Egypt, 39% in Afghanistan and 40% in the Palestinian territories.
'Substantial minorities'. There's a politically correct term for you if there ever was one.
There's about 31-32 million people living in Afghanistan. That means about 12,4-12,8 million people are still pro violence in some cases. And according to wikipedia, about 90% of Muslims, which is basically everybody living there, are Sunni muslims. And Sunni is considered to be the most peaceful and liberal school of Islam.http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/afghanistan-population/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Afghanistan
Add about another 27 million something from Bangladesh(151k population, 90% muslim, 26% supporters).
Those minorities make up millions. Not saying they're terrorists. It doesn't really say much. Perhaps they think violence is justified when Muslims are oppressed like they were during Muhammad's time, in which case they'd be doing what Muhammad did, which is completely justified and encouraged by the Quran. Muhammad was the perfect human being and all Muslims strive to be like him. But doesn't that mean that the current extremist Islamists already have a reason to behead and cut fingers since some Muslims in some parts of the world are in fact oppressed one way or another? Comes back to the question- who is to say they're not following their Quran despite being the minority? All the verses I quoted before would become applicable today as soon as some warlords and Imams with lots of followers convinced them that the US and Europe are the devil who seek to oppress Muslims and repeat history, and thus can be killed, lied to, tortured, and so forth.
That's basically those anti-muslim videos on YT in a nutshell that show some Muslim in power agitating his people against the West with a heated speech.
Hypothetically speaking, if the history was to repeat itself, would the violence against non-believers be justified?
Also, concerning history, are there any countries that Muslims conquered until this very day that didn't convert almost wholly to Islam after?
He did have more than 4 wives at the same time , and he does have more privileges. To Muslims , he is the Prophet , and he is more deserving than any other Muslim.
Hypocritical? Indeed. But to us Muslims , every marriage he had contained a moral lesson. And may I add that he also married a Jewish woman.
One thing I'll need to add , I am not here to justify the Prophet's actions or any other person claiming to be a Muslim. I'm just providing facts and answers to mere questions.
Thank you for the clarification. I'm just trying to say that Muhammad could get away with a bit more than your average Muslim. And since he prayed for his own uncle it just struck me as a slight case of nepotism.
But what is the moral lesson behind his marriage with Aisha? Iirc, she was six years old when he married her, and nine when he consummated the marriage. And according to the Quran only two consenting adults can marry.