[katana]

If you were to read and understand anything of the history of Europe and (what is now called) the Middle East of the past two thousand years, you would know that the point you tried to make is hogwash. Christianity was not spread throughout the old Roman Empire by force. On the contrary, it was in spite of massive forceful resistance by the Roman state, and later on by the barbarians who took their place, that the conversion of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East was accomplished.

Five hundred years later, a religion with war and forced conversion as its heart burst out of the Arabian peninsula and pushed Christian Europe to the brink of collapse. That was Islam (the name means "submit !" in Arabic / Muslim is just the Arabic word derived from the same root meaning "he who submits"). The only significant periods when Christianity was forced on people with the edge of a sword were during the Crusades that occurred several hundred years after the Islamic conquest, conversion of Jews and muslims during the Spanish Reconquista (see Queen Isabel and King Ferdinand) and the forced conversion of native peoples in North and South America by the Spanish. If anything, more Christians were killed by other Christians during the wars between Catholics and Protestants than any pagans, muslims, etc. during the religion's two thousand year history.

Islam, on the other hand, has never made any pretense of "peaceful" conversion. The most tolerant of their lot were the Ottomans. But even in their case, the constant need for slaves not born as muslims to serve the sultan as soldiers, government workers, concubines, etc. required thousands of young Christians to be taken from their villages, circumcised, and converted to Islam by force (the system of "Devshirme") every year for the several hundred year history of that empire.

Next time you feel the need to compare Islam's bloody history to Christianity, try and get your facts straight. A lot of blood has been spilled in the name of both religions, but in one case the bloodshed is anathema to the philosophy of the faith. In the other, forcing people to convert with a knife at their throat is the norm and is specifically supported by parts of their scripture.

[thefactor]

I never once in my post mentioned any sort of violence whatsoever. Zip, zero, nada. Whatever religious guilt you feel the need to justify/wash your hands of, go ahead. I am well aware of Islam's history of bloodshed. And I by no means support it. I was merely likening this situation to Christianity's history of conversion to the "savages" in the New World and Africa. Just because something happened 500 years ago does not mean it isn't relevant. The people there really didn't have a choice. All I am saying is that when another religion tries to build a house of worship, it's a different story. That's it.

[RobbyS]

The most tolerant of their lot were the Ottomans. The Seljuks were less tolerant. They made Anatolia Turkish by ethnic-cleansing: kill the killing the Christian elites and taking the women.