Why believe the Bible?

[shunyadragon]

See the Ottoman Empire.

Actually you have a point looking at the history of the Ottomans. the decline of Islam is earlier than the 20th century.

[pancreasman]

I did a little digging, and Karen Armstrong said this “until the 20th century, Islam was a far more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity. The Qur’an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religions as coming from God; and despite the Western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword”.

Yeah, she knows what she's talking about on this one alright.

I do appear to be mistaken on the scientific aspect, that appears to have been someone else that I had her confused with, but she still is shamelessly spouting lies that favor Islam.

Prior to the twentieth century on most of the occasions Islam occupied Jerusalem it was much more open and tolerant of other faith traditions than any other occupying force.

http://www.gojerusalem.com/article_1...oman-Jerusalem

[Cerebrum123]

See the Ottoman Empire.

Maybe you are reading her quote wrong. She is saying that Islam was peaceful and tolerant(according to her more so than Christianity) up until now. This is blatantly false. Islam also DID spread by the sword. It was a "convert or die" method. Mohammed himself engaged in such activity. That verse in the Quran that says "there is no compulsion in religion" was VERY shortly after Mohammed "revealed" it "abrogated" by other verses that advocated killing all non-Muslims. Khaybar, Medina, and several nearby settlements were attacked, and the people there were to either convert, die, or if they were Christian or Jewish, they had the option to become a "dhimmi"(similar to protection money by Mafia types). She supposedly knows what the Quran, and other Islamic teachings say, and this is why it's a lie to say the above.

[pancreasman]

Maybe you are reading her quote wrong. She is saying that Islam was peaceful and tolerant(according to her more so than Christianity) up until now. This is blatantly false. Islam also DID spread by the sword. It was a "convert or die" method. Mohammed himself engaged in such activity. That verse in the Quran that says "there is no compulsion in religion" was VERY shortly after Mohammed "revealed" it "abrogated" by other verses that advocated killing all non-Muslims. Khaybar, Medina, and several nearby settlements were attacked, and the people there were to either convert, die, or if they were Christian or Jewish, they had the option to become a "dhimmi"(similar to protection money by Mafia types). She supposedly knows what the Quran, and other Islamic teachings say, and this is why it's a lie to say the above.

Then you are willing to neglect the evidence of history that shows that just like Christianity, Islam is quite capable of being tolerant as well as militaristic.

[Chrawnus]

Then you are willing to neglect the evidence of history that shows that just like Christianity, Islam is quite capable of being tolerant as well as militaristic.

Or, if you're a bit cynical, you can say that muslims can be quite tolerant, despite their religion.

[Cerebrum123]

Then you are willing to neglect the evidence of history that shows that just like Christianity, Islam is quite capable of being tolerant as well as militaristic.

I never said that Muslims couldn't be tolerant, and that Christians couldn't be militant, but Islam not only started, but thrived under the sword. Also, in Islam, the ONLY way someone of another religion is supposed to be left alone is when they pay the "dhimmi" tax. The main problem is that Muslims being peaceful aren't being consistent with Islamic teachings nor Mohammed's "Sunnah", and Christians using a "convert or die" method are being inconsistent with what Christianity teaches. Do you deny this?

[pancreasman]

Or, if you're a bit cynical, you can say that muslims can be quite tolerant, despite their religion.

If you're cynical you could say that about any religion, or none at all. I've often heard it said that atheists can be good people only if they are inconsistent.

[Chrawnus]

If you're cynical you could say that about any religion, or none at all. I've often heard it said that atheists can be good people only if they are inconsistent.

I wouldn't say that atheists can be good people only if they're inconsistent, I would say that if atheism is true then it wouldn't matter ultimately whether you were good or evil. So I wouldn't view it as inconsistency as much as irrelevancy.

[shunyadragon]

Or, if you're a bit cynical, you can say that muslims can be quite tolerant, despite their religion.

Throughout the crusades and for centuries after Islamic rule was more tolerant than Christianity. When Islam conquered Jeruselum there was no slaughter of the inhabitants. When Christians took Jeruselum every man, woman and child were slaughtered. When Islam ruled Spain they practiced religious tolerance, and had universities. When the Christians took Spain you had the Inquisition and worse. You need to learn your history.

[ZackMartin]

Also, in Islam, the ONLY way someone of another religion is supposed to be left alone is when they pay the "dhimmi" tax.

Isn't the jizya tax meant to make up for non-Muslims not paying zakat? Depending on the level that both zakat and jizya tax were set to, it could leave non-Muslims paying no more than Muslims.

In some European countries, they collect church taxes, which the government then pays to the churches. However, by declaring yourself to not be a member of any government-recognised church, you can generally get out of paying it. What if, however, they then imposed a non-church tax, of the same amount, on those who didn't pay church tax? This is actually what Iceland has done - you must pay church tax, and the government passes it on to the recognised religious group of your choice. If you don't nominate a recognised religious group, the government gives it to the University of Iceland. (Or apparently more recently, it has stopped going to the University of Iceland, and now the government keeps it for itself.)

What about a system where, a certain percentage of the tax you paid the government donated to a charity on your behalf, and you got to pick the charity? Religious people could pick a religious one (e.g. their church), secular people could pick some secular cause?

So, I'm not saying that "church tax" is how zakat/jizya worked in practice, but it would certainly be open to more liberal Muslims to propose it be adopted in a similar way to European church tax systems - Muslims would pay the zakat tax to the Islamic religious authorities, and non-Muslims would pay the same amount as jizya to some secular purpose. Such a system would still discriminate against non-Muslim religions - much as the European church tax systems frequently discriminate against non-state-recognised religions - but a liberal Muslim could advocate that the non-Muslim be allowed to nominate a recognised religion of their church, and then an Islamic state would pay an amount equivalent to the jizya collected to the nominated non-Muslim religious group. You might still say this would discriminate against religions that aren't "People of the Book", like e.g. Hinduism or Buddhism or Paganism or so on - that would quite possibly be true. But the obscure Sabians have served as a useful device throughout Muslim history - since they are officially "People of the Book", but it is unclear who they actually were, tolerant Muslim regimes can basically reclassify any religion they want as Sabians to justify treating that group equally with Jews and Christians. (In actuality they were likely Mandaeans, or maybe a survival of Hellenistic Neo-Platonic Paganism - but the historical record is murky.)

Not that I'm not advocating an Islamic state - why would I, I'm not a Muslim? - but if we consider a liberal version of it, it is hard to see it as being worse than an established church, which many European countries have; of course, more conservative interpretations would be a lot worse than that.

[ZackMartin]

She is saying that Islam was peaceful and tolerant(according to her more so than Christianity) up until now. This is blatantly false. Islam also DID spread by the sword.

Both Christianity and Islam have gone through periods of tolerance and periods of violence and persecution. Both religions have blood on the hands of their followers.

Christianity: Well, we can start out when Christianity became the State Religion of the Roman Empire. You'd think, that after being persecuted by the Roman State for so long, Christians would learn some religious tolerance. They didn't, or maybe they did but the lesson didn't last, and soon the now-Christian Roman state was persecuting Jews and Pagans. The Crusades against the Muslims - and then the Fourth Crusade, they couldn't make it to the Muslims, so they decided to attack their fellow Christians instead, and (temporarily) conquered the capital of the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire. The Crusade against the Albigensians - origin of the famous line "Kill them all, God will know who are his!" Witch trials, inquisitions, burning heretics at the stake. You can't blame it all on Catholics either - John Calvin had Michael Servetus burned at the stake for denying the Trinity. The Catholics martyred Protestants, and Protestants returned the favour by martyring Catholics, and also Protestants that were too Protestant for them. Consider the case of Thomas Aikenhead, a Scottish university student executed in 1697, simply for being an atheist. There are quite a few people on this site, who if they lived in Christian Europe a few centuries ago, would have been executed for their disagreement with religious belief.

If you want to go back to the origins, I'd agree in its origins Islam was more violent than Christianity. Muhammad was a military and political leader. Jesus talks about being one (in the Endtimes), but in his days of wandering around Judea he never was.

But if we move past the origins, to how the religion has actually been practised over the centuries and millennia - the claim that Islam is more violent than Christianity is harder to sustain.

[Cerebrum123]

Both Christianity and Islam have gone through periods of tolerance and periods of violence and persecution. Both religions have blood on the hands of their followers.

Christianity: Well, we can start out when Christianity became the State Religion of the Roman Empire. You'd think, that after being persecuted by the Roman State for so long, Christians would learn some religious tolerance. They didn't, or maybe they did but the lesson didn't last, and soon the now-Christian Roman state was persecuting Jews and Pagans. The Crusades against the Muslims - and then the Fourth Crusade, they couldn't make it to the Muslims, so they decided to attack their fellow Christians instead, and (temporarily) conquered the capital of the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire. The Crusade against the Albigensians - origin of the famous line "Kill them all, God will know who are his!" Witch trials, inquisitions, burning heretics at the stake. You can't blame it all on Catholics either - John Calvin had Michael Servetus burned at the stake for denying the Trinity. The Catholics martyred Protestants, and Protestants returned the favour by martyring Catholics, and also Protestants that were too Protestant for them. Consider the case of Thomas Aikenhead, a Scottish university student executed in 1697, simply for being an atheist. There are quite a few people on this site, who if they lived in Christian Europe a few centuries ago, would have been executed for their disagreement with religious belief.

If you want to go back to the origins, I'd agree in its origins Islam was more violent than Christianity. Muhammad was a military and political leader. Jesus talks about being one (in the Endtimes), but in his days of wandering around Judea he never was.

But if we move past the origins, to how the religion has actually been practised over the centuries and millennia - the claim that Islam is more violent than Christianity is harder to sustain.

For one, Christianity has been around a lot longer than Islam, and another the Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression. Also "jizya" tax is put in place so that they can STAY their own religion. If they don't pay it, then they die. Islam has been converting by the sword since the beginning, or sometimes they would use "stealth jihad", and this involves immigrating, and then growing through population bursts. This one is even seen today in countries like Holland and Denmark. Also, I am talking about the TEACHINGS. The Inquisitions have been greatly exaggerated(don't get me wrong, they were bad, but they weren't any worse than any secular government at the time). The kind of things mentioned above were inconsistent with Christian teachings, but the "convert or die" method is completely consistent with Islamic teachings, as are suicide bombings today(along with child "marriage", legalized prostitution known as "muta"(not all Muslim sects practice this) rape, FGM etc). This is the major point when it comes to Islam and Christianity.

[shunyadragon]

For one, Christianity has been around a lot longer than Islam, and another the Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression. Also "jizya" tax is put in place so that they can STAY their own religion. If they don't pay it, then they die. Islam has been converting by the sword since the beginning, or sometimes they would use "stealth jihad", and this involves immigrating, and then growing through population bursts. This one is even seen today in countries like Holland and Denmark. Also, I am talking about the TEACHINGS. The Inquisitions have been greatly exaggerated(don't get me wrong, they were bad, but they weren't any worse than any secular government at the time). The kind of things mentioned above were inconsistent with Christian teachings, but the "convert or die" method is completely consistent with Islamic teachings, as are suicide bombings today(along with child "marriage", legalized prostitution known as "muta"(not all Muslim sects practice this) rape, FGM etc). This is the major point when it comes to Islam and Christianity.

Despite having some knowledge of Islam, which framed in your strong bias against Islam, your view reflects a rather selective view of history. Being around longer does not help your cause. Both Christianity and Islam have committed atrosities against those who do not believe. Being around longer has just given Christianity longer to commit ethnic cleansing, persecution and forced conversion. Pulling this bloody card from the deck just does not work when all of history is taken into consideration.

[Kane]

If we're simply comparing numbers, Islam, until the 20th century, was responsible for less blood than Christianity. This is not to say that Islam was not violent at times, but if numbers are taken into account, Armstrong is fairly accurate that Islam represents a more peaceful religion until the 20th century.

[lilpixieofterror]

If we're simply comparing numbers, Islam, until the 20th century, was responsible for less blood than Christianity. This is not to say that Islam was not violent at times, but if numbers are taken into account, Armstrong is fairly accurate that Islam represents a more peaceful religion until the 20th century.

How did early Islam spread compaired to early Christianity?