I actually enjoyed the piece. The comments, however, veered into insinuations I most totally found wanting. As you would imagine, the discussion touched on the apparent relationship between Islam and violence. @Brayo44ki pointed out (in his own way) that Islam is disproportionately linked to violent acts. Fair enough. I believe that’s a pretty accurate observation.
Now for the problem.
These gentlemen: @Sambamba@Wanaruona and @johntez addi gaza msafi purported to rebuttal by bringing in the Catholic-Protestant wars of Ireland as if that tilts the scales. That’s a false equivalent. Islam inspired violence is TOTALLY different from Violence committed by Christians. I know that sound bigoted, but do bear with me,
I’ll illustrate my reasoning. It’s impossible to JUSTIFY violence against your neighbor using orthodox Christian scripture. I know you’ll quote the OT, but let’s be fair to the doctrine. Christianity is a NT phenomenon. They follow, or they should, the NT for moral guidance. Christ, his disciples, and canonical Christian text don’t support violence against your neighbor. You are only violent to your neighbor in violation of Christ’s example.
So, a quick question. Ireland bombers vs meek men who refuse to commit violent acts, who more resembles Christ? Who would you honestly say follows Christ-inspired way of life?
Now to Islam. Sword yielding, murdering, conquering, child-marrying extremists. Who did what they are doing today some odd 1500 years ago?
Answers these two questions honestly and you’ll find that the two ideologies are incomparable. Equating them is intellectually dishonest.
You can justify anything depending on how far back you want to go.Now I’ll not educate you on intra Christian violence but I cited the Irish example as its the most recent case I could think of on top of my head.
Now you don’t know that there was violence against catholics in the, US do you?
The Anglo saxon distrust of the Catholic faith and church.
You’ve also never heard of huguenots and the violence meted out on them by catholics in France, have you?
You missed my logic. For example, we know of democratically elected presidents who proved poisonous to their nations. Is democracy responsible for their evil? Hell NO!
I am not arguing that no one ever committed violence under the guise of Christianity. I mean even Hitler suggested that killing the Jews was a Christian thing to do. What I am saying is that the Christian faith DOESN’T support violence, the ISLAMIC faith does. Christians aspire to be like Christ, that is the doctrine in a nutshell.
How did the Christian doctrine inspire ANY of what you say? With ISLAM it’s unequivocal that the QURAN calls for violence against unbelievers. If any MUSLIM was to live the exact way MUHAMMAD lived 1500 years ago, how do you think they’d fare in the modern world?
You are using very narrow talking points to advance your argument. Even the most radical salafists acknowledge Christians and Jews and don’t advocate killing them. They are people of the book and are not unbelievers.
The same Islam forbids killing and permits only in self defence. There are so many hadiths on this.
The recent terror and violence associated with Muslims is a construct of wahabism that originated in Saudi Arabia in the 18th century.
So, the Historical Muhammad was not a warlord? Brother, that’s a matter of History!
I am not even saying that the Quran doesn’t advocate for peace in some Surahs. What I am saying is that it CALLS FOR CONVERSION BY FORCE. It advocated for the wife battery, and that’s just off the top of my head.
What you should understand is that Muhammad received the Quran in phases. At the start of it all, he was very peaceable and the relevant Surahs reflect that. Towards the end of his life, he was a warlord and the SURAHS and HADITHS reflect that. My brother, I hope you’re not suggesting that there are no QURANIC verses that call for violence! I hope you’re not suggesting that the historical Muhammad was a peaceable dude!
Now back to my argument, there’s not ONE SINGLE new testament scripture that calls for violence against ANYONE. That’s the contrast between ISLAM and CHRISTIANITY.
Quick question, the biblical Christ vs Muhammad, who would pass for a role-model figure (on questions of morality) in today’s world? Answer with reasons.
BTW: Quranic Abrogation says that where there’s a conflict in the SURAHS, those revealed later outweigh earlier revelations. With that, the latter, more violent reading supersedes the earlier verses which were largely peaceful.
True. I think it’s dishonest that we should paint the ideology as peaceable when the founder (who the QURAN exalts as an example for all men) was anything but. That’s not to say that you can’t be MUSLIM and peaceable, I know quite a few. However, the idea that the doctrine and it’s most important messenger are peaceful is historically false.
And yet Kanyari cons people in the name of faith and everyone wants to regulate the Church. No one talks about regulating Mosques even when intolerance and violence are preached. OH THE HYPOCRISY!!!
Both parts of the Bible and the Quran advocate for violence, and their adherents have at one point or another engaged in it.
Look at Kenya for example, when did you last hear of a Christian strapping bombs and slaughtering innocent civilians in a mall.
In this politically correct 21st society we tiptoe around pertinent issues,rather than see through them and evolve.
Both Christianity and the Islam were created to curtail the masses, a form of crowd control if you please.
Which is why both of them have a hell, and a manager in charge.
Actually, the New Testament doesn’t advocate violence. The Old Testament is full of wars and Godly wars, but the NT shuns violence for whatever reason. OT is tooth for tooth, NT is turn the other cheek. Otherwise, any idea that can’t stand scrutiny isn’t worth believing.
Yes I’m aware new testament is a pacifist haven, but the old testament is part and parcel of the bible.
All I’m stating is the presence of a fluidity in religion sponsored violence, and the availability of those who would seek to abuse that presence.
At no point does Buddhism engage in such talks, old testament or new.