Islam was a very aggressive and expansionistic religion, particularly in the century and a half immediately following the death of Mohammed. On the other hand, it is equally true that moslem leaders such as Saladin were far more tolerant of people of other faiths than were Christians. Jews and Christians were generally treated very well and tolerated within those moslem empires. Do you dispute that?
Christians, on the other hand, were busy engaging in pograms against each other, and were horribly intolerant of other religions. Try reading up on the sack of Jerusalem by the Crusaders, or the Albigensian crusade, or the Inquisition. Heck, Christians were burning each other at the stake. The history of Christendom is a pretty bloody one. But does that mean that Christianity as a religion was fundamentally violent and evil, or just that there were some violent and evil people who claimed to be acting in the name of Christianity?
The fact is that there are more than a billion moslems in the world. The overwhelming majority are peaceful people who live their own lives, worship their god, and are no more violent than the average Christian. That's self-evidently true. Because if they weren't, the amount of bloodshead and terror there would have been not only now but through the last few centuries would be mindboggling. I lived overseas for a bit in a culture in which islam dominated, and was never treated other than in a friendly and courteous manner. So there's no way in hell you're going to ever convince me that all moslems are evil.
I'd agree that there is a malignant subculture within islam that needs to be eradicated. But the blanket condemnation you issue can only be due to either ignorance or irrational bigotry. You pick which.
The Roman empire was Christianized. Besides, which civilization was better, the Holy Roman Empire or barbarian "civilization"?
In fact, almost all of human history has been a succession of various empires and peoples trying to expand. Islam isn't unique in that regard.
It's unique as far as religions go. The head of state is the caliph/ the caliph is the head of state. It's the very essence of Mohammedan society.
On the other hand, it is equally true that moslem leaders such as Saladin were far more tolerant of people of other faiths than were Christians. Jews and Christians were generally treated very well and tolerated within those moslem empires. Do you dispute that?
One leader in 1300 years of history otherwise typified by brutal repression or extermination of minority religions.
In matters political Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad. The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him. The rights of non-Moslem subjects are of the vaguest and most limited kind, and a religious war is a sacred duty whenever there is a chance of success against the "Infidel". Medieval and modern Mohammedan, especially Turkish, persecutions of both Jews and Christians are perhaps the best illustration of this fanatical religious and political spirit.
Christians, on the other hand, were busy engaging in pograms against each other, and were horribly intolerant of other religions. Try reading up on the sack of Jerusalem by the Crusaders, or the Albigensian crusade, or the Inquisition.
That's it. In 2000 years of history. You judge Christianity by the sack of Jerusalem (who overran Jerusalem to begin with?), the Inquisition (which was a tool used in driving Mohammedans out of Europe resulting in the deaths of 3000 people over several hundred years) and the Albigensian crusade. I'll even throw in the Catharist Inquisition and the sack of Constantinople.
Yet you accept the tolerance of Saladin as typifying Mohammedan rule, 1300 years of aggression and repression notwithstanding.
And before you laugh off the Inquisition, let me remind you of the importance of religious belief. The glories of Nazism and communism would never have occurred in a Catholic country, would they? Nor would this country slaughter 1.5 million unborn children if this were a Catholic country.
Heck, Christians were burning each other at the stake. The history of Christendom is a pretty bloody one. But does that mean that Christianity as a religion was fundamentally violent and evil, or just that there were some violent and evil people who claimed to be acting in the name of Christianity?
Significant intra-Christian war began after the Protestant revolution. Regardless, is the history of Christianity typified by violence or peace? Besides, the justification for war was wholly different in principle. The Catholic Church developed "Just War" theory. It is a duty for Mohammedans to engage in aggression against non-Mohammedans whenever they have a chance of success.
The fact is that there are more than a billion moslems in the world. The overwhelming majority are peaceful people who live their own lives, worship their god, and are no more violent than the average Christian.
Bull. Do you hear any Mohammedans here or abroad speaking out against terrorism? I've heard only a handful. What I've mostly heard is excuses for the inexcusable.
So there's no way in hell you're going to ever convince me that all moslems are evil.
The religion is false and evil. People are not the religion. The majority of people living under Nazi rule were pretty peaceful too.
I'd agree that there is a malignant subculture within islam that needs to be eradicated. But the blanket condemnation you issue can only be due to either ignorance or irrational bigotry.
Subculture? The caliph of Egypt is on the record supporting suicide bombings. His attitude isn't abnormal. Explain to me the ecclesiastical structure of Mohammedanism. Should the state be secular or theocratic? Should a Mohammedan state be ruled by sharia law? Do Mohammedans describe the world as the "world of peace" and the "world of war"? Where are all of the world's trouble spots? The perimeter of the Mohammedan world is ringed with war. Is this a coincidence?