Is Islam Inherently Violent?

[kiwimac]

From my understanding the one that is universally agreed to have abrogated earlier peaceful passages is surah 9:5 (Ayat al-Sayf or the Verse of the Sword).

There are differing opinions on this, I post one below with it's source.

Source

See also

[rogue06]

There are differing opinions on this, I post one below with it's source.



Source

See also

I'll re-post something I wrote earlier dealing with this

Surah 2:256, like the other passages that called for peace and tolerance, were later abrogated (superseded or repealed) by surah 9:5 (Ayat al-Sayf or the Verse of the Sword).

The doctrine of abrogation is stated in the Qur'an itself (2:106): "Such of our revelation as we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof." So a later statement that contradicts an earlier one is thought to be better and abrogates the earlier statement^[1][verse] of the sword."

Today, the conservative Muhammad Saalih Al-Munajjid^[3], who's fatawas (edicts or rulings) circulate throughout the Islamic world and are taken very seriously, in discussing surah 2:256 ("Let there be no compulsion in religion"), quoted Surahs 8:39, 9:29 along with 9:5 and declared "these and similar verses abrogate those saying there is no compulsion to become Muslim."

So warfare against non-Muslims until they were converted or utterly oppressed was mandated by Muhammad.

This is confirmed by what we read in the Hadiths including the ones venerated as being authoritative like the Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Bukhari:

Sahih Muslim 1:33: The Messenger of Allah said: "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay zakat."

Sahih al-Bukhari 2:24: "Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

Sahih al-Bukhari 8:387: "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.'"

Sahih al-Bukhari 60:80: "The Verse:--'You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.' means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam."

Aside from the Hadiths, Ibn Ishaq (704-767/8, regarded as the earliest and most thorough of Islam's historians), who wrote the Sīrat Rasūl Allāh ("Life of the Messenger of God") relates that,

The text makes clear that the al-Harith^[2] were only taught about Islam afterTafsir al-Tabari and his historical chronicle Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk ("History of the Prophets and Kings") recounts in volume 9 of his History

In volume 10 Tabari quotes Al-Hubab ibn al-Mundhir ibn Zayd (an advisor of Muhammad and who participated during in the meeting at saqifah during the Succession to Muhammad), who was supporting one group of Muslims in their quest for leadership after Muhammad's death, as saying:

"For you are more deserving of this authority than they are, as it was by your swords that those who were not yet converted came to obey this religion."

Finally, I'll cite Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik^[4]. It has something to say about jihad and forced conversion that is relevant to this discussion:

And the hadith reported by Muslim,

1. AFAICT, without exception, all Islamic religious scholars state that abrogation not only included the abolishing, dropping or replacing of a verse by another (often contradictory) verse, but it also includes abolishing a provision of a verse without eliminating its wording or text from the Qur'an. So the verses that were later repealed and replaced remain in the Qur'an but are no longer in effect

2. Actually the Ghassanids with Al-Harith ibn Jabalah being their king.

3. Popularly known for his attacks on Mickey Mouse, calling women who drive prostitutes and blaming the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami on immorality.

4. He is still so widely esteemed and revered that Jabhat al-Nusra (a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria) demolished his tomb earlier this year because they viewed it as sacrilegious.

[Cerebrum123]

Do feel free to show us where Wikipedia is incorrect.

Going to the page you cite shows that you very selectively citing it for a conclusion you already hold.

Source: Wikipedia

The Quran contains two "verses of abrogation",[4][5][24] which establish the principle in Islam that an older verse may be abrogated and substituted with a new verse,[4][5][25] a principle that has been historically accepted and applied by vast majority of Islamic jurists on both the Quran and the Sunnah.[4][5][26]

© Copyright Original Source

You grabbing the small handful of people who don't accept it from that page is just cherry picking.

The page is also rather misleading on what the rule about breastfeeding was used for. It was for making adults "mahram", and not targeted at children. Although it probably applied to them as well.

Sahih Muslim

Book 008, Number 3424:

' A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, I see on the face of Abu Hudhaifa (signs of disgust) on entering of Salim (who is an ally) into (our house), whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Suckle him. She said: How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man? She ordered her sister, Umm Kulthum bint Abi Bakr as-Siddiq and the daughters of her brother to give milk to whichever men she wanted to be able to come in to see her. The rest of the wives of the Prophet refused to let anyone come in to them by such nursing. They said, "No, by Allah! We think that what the Messenger of Allah ordered Sahla bint Suhayl to do was only by an indulgence concerning the nursing of Salim alone. No, by Allah! No-one will come in upon us by such nursing!"



Seems Mohammed's wives, other than Aisha, and Sahla realized that breastfeeding adult men isn't exactly a good idea for their situation. It's also really disgusting.

[Christian3]

No more more nor less than Judaism and Christianity in history.

The difference is that Christianity does not teach violence and Islam does.

[Christian3]

Have you ever read the Qur'an or the Hadiths? Do you realize that the earlier passages calling for peace were later abrogated by those calling for conversion by the sword?

This is true.

[kiwimac]

No, actually it is not. What IS true is that there are differing opinions about the abrogation of verses among those scholars who study these things. If we want to understand Islam we get nowhere by insisting that Islam is some kind of monolithic whole which is marching in lock-step.

[rogue06]

Muslims have a long record of being deceitful towards those they regard as kafir (unbelievers/infidels) and will tell them all sorts of nonsense like when they pretend that Islam means peace (false, it means "submission" or "surrender"), act bewildered about the concept of abrogation, lie about the meaning of jihad and tell the gullible that taqqiya or idtirar is an intra-Muslim insult (the former is the Shiite term while the later is the Sunni).

Let's stick with the last one (taqqiya/idtirar) for a minute since it is pertinent to this discussion. It allows Muslims to lie about their religion.

It started out as a way for Muslims to deny their faith in order to avoid persecution by lying (contrast to early Christian martyrs) and is mentioned in both the Qur'an and Hadiths^[1]

Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of other [countries] so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world ... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured [by the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Quranic] psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.

^[2].

But since he was a Shiite, let's throw in a Sunni, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, who was the Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia and Imam of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, who delivered a sermon on the history of jihad as recorded by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan of the Islamic University of Medina, where he said that for Muslims, fighting (with weapons, that is) is "obligatory" against "all those who worship others along with Allah." That includes Christians and Jews. "The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fires of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures."

I wrote more about this in a response to lao a few years back that seems germane

The verses urging peaceful co-existence were written when Islam was still weak and vulnerable and were later abrogated when they felt they were strong enough to wage jihad and forcibly convert others to their religion (and enslave or kill those who resisted). This is not some heretical belief only maintained by radical extremists as they assure non-Muslims (remember taqqiya/idtirar), but is a constant element of mainstream Islamic thought. For instance, this is explicitly taught by all four primary schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence: the Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafi'i schools.

And FWIU the Shiites are even more hardline about it (see Khomeini's angry denunciation above)







1.

Source: Surah An-Nahl [16:106

- Al-Qur'an al-Kareem]
Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a great punishment;

Source (Here as well)

© Copyright Original Source

2. It should be noted that Shaul Bakhash, an Iranian born Jew who is a noted Middle Eastern historian has said he doubts the authenticity of the quote but AFAICT has never given any reason for why he has doubts. It may be due to the fact that one of those who has cited it, Amir Taheri, does have a history of providing quotes that cannot be substantiated but FWIU he is not the only source (though the most frequently cited one).

[JonathanL]

No more more nor less than Judaism and Christianity in history.

The difference between Islam and Judaism/Christianity is that while there are instances where God orders the Israelites to go to war against other people in the OT and violence and injustice has undoubtedly been perpetrated by people calling themselves Christians there are nothing comparable to the command(s?) in the Koran to spread the faith to unbelievers through coercion/violence in either the OT or NT.

[kiwimac]

Muslims have a long record of being deceitful towards those they regard as kafir (unbelievers/infidels) and will tell them all sorts of nonsense like when they pretend that Islam means peace (false, it means "submission" or "surrender"), act bewildered about the concept of abrogation, lie about the meaning of jihad and tell the gullible that taqqiya or idtirar is an intra-Muslim insult (the former is the Shiite term while the later is the Sunni).

Let's stick with the last one (taqqiya/idtirar) for a minute since it is pertinent to this discussion. It allows Muslims to lie about their religion.

It started out as a way for Muslims to deny their faith in order to avoid persecution by lying (contrast to early Christian martyrs) and is mentioned in both the Qur'an and Hadiths^[1]

Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of other [countries] so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world ... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured [by the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Quranic] psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.

^[2].

But since he was a Shiite, let's throw in a Sunni, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, who was the Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia and Imam of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, who delivered a sermon on the history of jihad as recorded by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan of the Islamic University of Medina, where he said that for Muslims, fighting (with weapons, that is) is "obligatory" against "all those who worship others along with Allah." That includes Christians and Jews. "The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fires of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures."

I wrote more about this in a response to lao a few years back that seems germane

The verses urging peaceful co-existence were written when Islam was still weak and vulnerable and were later abrogated when they felt they were strong enough to wage jihad and forcibly convert others to their religion (and enslave or kill those who resisted). This is not some heretical belief only maintained by radical extremists as they assure non-Muslims (remember taqqiya/idtirar), but is a constant element of mainstream Islamic thought. For instance, this is explicitly taught by all four primary schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence: the Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafi'i schools.

And FWIU the Shiites are even more hardline about it (see Khomeini's angry denunciation above)







1.

Source: Surah An-Nahl [16:106

- Al-Qur'an al-Kareem]
Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a great punishment;

Source (Here as well)

© Copyright Original Source

2. It should be noted that Shaul Bakhash, an Iranian born Jew who is a noted Middle Eastern historian has said he doubts the authenticity of the quote but AFAICT has never given any reason for why he has doubts. It may be due to the fact that one of those who has cited it, Amir Taheri, does have a history of providing quotes that cannot be substantiated but FWIU he is not the only source (though the most frequently cited one).

I can quote from equally valid authorities saying exactly the opposite. The fact is that Islam, like all religion, is interpreted by humans who can make it say pretty much anything they want. This is not, btw, an argument against divine revelation but to quote Lao Tzu, "Great Tao is very straight but the people love byways."

[Cerebrum123]

I can quote from equally valid authorities saying exactly the opposite. The fact is that Islam, like all religion, is interpreted by humans who can make it say pretty much anything they want. This is not, btw, an argument against divine revelation but to quote Lao Tzu, "Great Tao is very straight but the people love byways."

The OP asked whether Islam, not Muslims, was inherently violent. A look at the teachings themselves answers that question. rogue has given that info in spades, you have given a historically minority opinion.

[rogue06]

I can quote from equally valid authorities saying exactly the opposite. The fact is that Islam, like all religion, is interpreted by humans who can make it say pretty much anything they want. This is not, btw, an argument against divine revelation but to quote Lao Tzu, "Great Tao is very straight but the people love byways."

^[1] but is as Farid Eseck, a visiting Professor at Auburn Theological Seminary declared, all about things like protecting women's rights (as they have a long and illustrious history of defending them ). Another example could be seen a couple years ago on the websites put up in English as compared to the one for Arabic with completely different messages. In the former it was all about "peace" and "freedom" with a picture of a young girl in a white hijab whereas on the site in Arabic, the one for their fellow Muslims, this was nowhere to be seen but instead featured crossed swords with the words "Make Ready" underneath. "Make ready" is a reference to Surah Al-Anfal [8:60]:

Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

Give the gullible infidels a message of peace and freedom while telling your fellow Muslims to prepare for battle against them.

Further, often when they admit that jihad means Holy War they insist that is the "lesser" meaning and that "the greater Jihad" is all about an internal, spiritual struggle citing a passage from a hadith

Upon his return from battle Muhammad said, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad (i.e. the struggle against the evil of one's soul).

But what they don't say is that this is a later saying and not only is not found in the Hadiths considered sahih ("reliable")^[2] but this source is considered at best suspect and generally viewed as spurious if not outright fraudulent (a Maudu^[3] rejected it outright saying

This hadith has no source, nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic Knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind

For more see Silsilah Ahaadeeth ad Da'ifah wal-Mawdu'ah written by 'Abdu l-Lah Ibnu Mani' Ar-Rooqi.

Moreover, if Jihad primarily means inner struggle, then why does the Qur'an exempt the disabled (or injured) from jihad in Surah An-Nisa [4:95-96]? Obviously if it means inner struggle then the disabled would have no difficulty participating, but if jihad refers to Holy War (combat) then excusing them is perfectly understandable.

The fact is that Muhammad calls the highest Jihad to be the spilling of blood fighting the unbelievers, not some inner struggle. This is attested to multiple times by the sahih Hadiths. For instance the two most trusted of them Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih al-Muslim both contain the following passage:

I asked the Prophet, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and to fight for His Cause."

They both also declare

The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it.

As well as:

Allah's Apostle said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords."

Sahih al-Bukhari reports the following and later reiterates it:

Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

Sahih al-Muslim confirms this reporting the following and later reiterates it:

It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.

The Hadith Abu Dawud also confirms it stating:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle, face our qiblah (direction of prayer), eat what we slaughter, and pray like us. When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them. They will have the same rights as the Muslims have, and have the same responsibilities as the Muslims have.

And the Sahih al-Muslim declares that:

It has been reported on the authority of Jabir that a man said: Messenger of Allah, where shall I be if I am killed? He replied: In Paradise. The man threw away the dates he had in his hand and fought until he was killed (i. e. he did not wait until he could finish the dates).

And while not a Hadith, Musnad Ahmed, a celebrated collection of hadith sayings, written by Imām Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the founder of the Hanbali school which is one of the four traditional Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence (fiqh) and called "True Shaykh of Islam," "Proof of the Faith," and "Seal of the Mujtahid Imams," as well as being described as "the most significant exponent of the traditionalist approach in Sunni Islam," contains the following:

A man asked [the prophet]: "..and what is Jihad?" He replied: "You fight against the disbelievers when you meet them (on the battlefield)." He asked again: "What kind of Jihad is the highest?" He replied: "The person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood."

So much for jihad as Holy War being the lesser jihad.

I'll finish by citing someone more modern, Abul A'la Maududi, a Pakistani Muslim philosopher, jurist and imām, founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami, the then largest Islamic organisation in Asia and instrumental in the foundation of Pakistan, in his Al Jihad fil-Islam ("Jihad in Islam") (2006) in which he instructed followers to employ force in pursuit of a Shari'a-based order:

These [Muslim] men who propagate religion are not mere preachers or missionaries, but the functionaries of God [so that they may be witnesses for the people], and it is their duty to wipe out oppression, mischief, strife, immorality, high handedness, and unlawful exploitation from the world by force of arms.

And









1.2. Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Sughra, Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah with the first two having the highest status

3. while unpopular during his time and the centuries after for his condemnation of the practice of ziyara (pilgrimages to tomb-shrines of family members or close associates of Muhammad) has become one of the most influential medieval writers in contemporary Islam

[Terraceth]

I suggest you look into what the Muslims say to each other and what they teach as opposed to the message that they present to non-Muslims. Over the years the Israelis have done a splendid job translating radio and TV broadcasts that they picked up that were meant for internal consumption. The differences between them and the messages provided to outsiders are stark and unsettling.

But can they be demonstrated to be the same Muslims in both cases?

[rogue06]

But can they be demonstrated to be the same Muslims in both cases?

Look at the example in post #26 (forgot to mention that was from the Muslim Brotherhood):

Another example could be seen a couple years ago on the websites put up in English as compared to the one for Arabic with completely different messages. In the former it was all about "peace" and "freedom" with a picture of a young girl in a white hijab whereas on the site in Arabic, the one for their fellow Muslims, this was nowhere to be seen but instead featured crossed swords with the words "Make Ready" underneath. "Make ready" is a reference to Surah Al-Anfal [8:60]:

Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

Give the gullible infidels a message of peace and freedom while telling your fellow Muslims to prepare for battle against them.

Another one was when of the supporters of the "Ground Zero Mosque" went to Egypt he delivered a speech where he mocked his and other's claims that it would be a symbol of religious unity and cooperation pretty much saying it was amazing that the idiot infidels had fallen for that line (I posted about this in a pre-crash thread and am looking for the info again).

[rogue06]

Surah Al-Anfal [8:12]

[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

Or more clearly stated in the Shakir translation (same source)

When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

And there is also Surah Muhammad [47:4]

So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them

This time the Muhammad Sarwar translation is clearer

If you encounter the disbelievers in a battle, strike-off their heads.

Sīratu Rasūli l-Lāh ("Life of the Messenger of God")

The apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.

Al-Tabarani, widely considered the most important hadith scholar of the 10th century states that between 600 to 900 were executed.

So Mohammad himself over saw mass decapitations and puts the lie to the explanation sometimes offered of the quranic verses that it was only a reference to fighting in battle since what happened to the Jews was after they had surrendered.

And a couple decades after Muhammad's death, when various factions started fighting (resulting in the Sunni-Shiite split), Muhammad's favorite grandson, Husayn ibn Ali, had his head chopped off after the battle of Karbala^[1] in central Iraq (along with most of his family and companions, including Husayn's six month old son), at the behest of the caliph Yazid I. The head of Husayn and the 71 others also decapitated were first sent to Allah ibn Ziyad the Governor of Basra and Kufa at the latter location and subsequently Husayn's was placed upon a silver platter and sent to Yazid in Damascus, and finally sent to Cairo for inspection by the Governor of Egypt.

Nope. No tradition of decapitations in Muslim tradition.

And it is one that has continued into modern times and not just by terrorist groups. In 1992, the Iranian government sent a "specialist" to assassinate Shapour Bakhtiar, the shah's last prime minister, in Suresnes, a suburb of Paris. While most news reports simply state that he was killed with kitchen knives, he was decapitated with them. When the news broke, Hashemi Rafsanjani, then president of the Islamic Republic, publicly thanked Allah for having allowed "the severing of the head of the snake."









1. Shiite Muslims commemorate the battle during a 10-day period of mourning often marked by such things as self-flagellation

[shunyadragon]

The difference is that Christianity does not teach violence and Islam does.

Whitewash!! Indeed in history Christianity did teach violence against others in particular Jews.


For example: [cite=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies]

On the Jews and Their Lies