Muslims

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Proof that people only see what they want to see.

If you are suggesting that I went into my research with the intent of finding out that Islam is violent, you are completely wrong. I went into it without any bias, and without having any views on the subject. I didn't know anything about Islam, and that's why I chose the rise of Islam as the subject for a history paper from the time period I was assigned to write. My research on Islam brought me to the views I currently have regarding Islam.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Here's a topic for study: "Christianity and Nazi Germany".

Yes, and you'll quickly find that Hitler was anything but an Orthodox Christian too. For starters, he didn't believe in the Virgin birth, but believed Jesus was the bastard son of a Roman soldier. To continue after digesting that fact, you'll find that he was deeply immersed in the occult. Plus he hated the guts of the Apostle Paul. And furthermore he never applied to himself any of Jesus' moral teachings anyway. So what connection were you suggesting there was between Hitler and Christianity?

[BeardofPants]

*wants to know if Lief's "research" involved actually reading the Koran ::hmm::

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So what connection were you suggesting there was between Hitler and Christianity?

http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerBible.htm

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yes, and you'll quickly find that Hitler was anything but an Orthodox Christian too. For starters, he didn't believe in the Virgin birth, but believed Jesus was the bastard son of a Roman soldier. To continue after digesting that fact, you'll find that he was deeply immersed in the occult. Plus he hated the guts of the Apostle Paul. And furthermore he never applied to himself any of Jesus' moral teachings anyway. So what connection were you suggesting there was between Hitler and Christianity?

- quoting Hitler himself:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Although Hitler did not practice religion in a churchly sense, he certainly believed in the Bible's God. Raised as Catholic he went to a monastery school and, interestingly, walked everyday past a stone arch which was carved the monastery's coat of arms which included a swastika. As a young boy, Hitler's most ardent goal was to become a priest. Much of his philosophy came from the Bible, and more influentially, from the Christian Social movement. (The German Christian Social movement, remarkably, resembles the Christian Right movement in America today.) Many have questioned Hitler's stand on Christianity. Although he fought against certain Catholic priests who opposed him for political reasons, his belief in God and country never left him. Many Christians throughout history have opposed Christian priests for various reasons; this does not necessarily make one against one's own Christian beliefs. Nor did the Vatican's Pope & bishops ever disown him; in fact they blessed him! As evidence to his claimed Christianity, he said:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)



So, Lief, what was that you were saying about connections between Hitler and Christianity? Hmm?

[Lief Erikson]

Cardinal Pacelli was appointed by Pope Pius XII (the pope accused of blessing Hitler). Pacelli oversaw the writing of the document that allegedly supports Hitler, and he dismissed Hitler's claim that it implied approval for national socialism. Here are his comments on it:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Pacelli, in a two page article in the Vatican influenced L'Osservatore Romano on 26 July and 27 July, dismissed Hitler's assertion that the concordat in any way represented or implied approval for national socialism, much less moral approval of it. He argued that its true purpose had been
"not only the official recognition (by the Reich) of the legislation of the Church (its Code of Canon Law), but the adoption of many provisions of this legislation and the protection of all Church legislation."[14]
Cardinal Faulhaber is reported to have said: "With the concordat we are hanged, without the concordat we are hanged, drawn and quartered."[15]

As a young boy, Hitler's most ardent goal was to become a priest.

This, I'd like to see a citation for. Though perhaps it's true. I do know he had his own highly wierd version of Christianity. None of what you've said invalidates any of the comments I made above.

Much of his philosophy came from the Bible, and more influentially, from the Christian Social movement.

Most high ranking Nazis believed Christianity was incompatable with Third Reich beliefs.

Originally Posted by United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

GERMAN CHURCHES AND THE NAZI STATE


A religious census taken in 1925 revealed that of an overall German population of 65 million, 40 million belonged to the main Protestant (Evangelical Lutheran) church, 21 million to the Roman Catholic church, and 620,000 to various smaller, mostly Protestant denominations. The term "Church Struggle" refers to the strained relationship between church and state in Germany in the 1870s and then again during the Nazi regime. Although Nazi policy at first seemed to tolerate church autonomy, it soon became clear that official tolerance of Christian religious groups would last only as long as the churches accepted synchronization--the alignment of the church, along with other areas of society, with Nazi goals. The Roman Catholic and Protestant churches met the Nazi rise to power with attempts to retain control of their respective institutions and the rights of their brethren to worship freely and openly.

Originally Posted by United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

The Catholic Center party was a pillar of the Weimar Republic. It had in general resisted the Nazi rise to power, although the right wing of the party was led by politicians at least willing to tolerate a Hitler government. Once Hitler became chancellor in January 1933, the Center party supported measures giving him dictatorial power. On July 5, 1933, the Center party--under intense Nazi pressure--dissolved itself (the other remaining political parties had been banned earlier that spring and summer).




The Catholic church in Germany was controlled by the Vatican, under the leadership of Pope Pius XI, and signed a Concordat (Treaty) with the German Reich 15 days later. The Concordat confirmed the dissolution of German Catholicism's trade unions and political organizations, but guaranteed the church traditional rights to cultivate and promote the practice of the Catholic rite, to maintain Catholic schools, and to appoint Catholic clergy. Many provisions of the agreement were promptly violated, however, as the Nazis persecuted Jesuits, Catholic Action (a religious and social movement), and various other Catholic organizations.

After enduring anti-church actions for several years, in 1937 Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge (With Burning Concern). In the encyclical, Pius XI criticized Nazi philosophy and warned the German government to fulfill the terms of the Concordat. The Nazis responded with a wave of priest trials--prosecutions of clergy for various alleged infractions.




THE PROTESTANT CHURCH

In a further attempt to synchronize religious thought with state policy, the Nazis sought, unsuccessfully, to establish a unified national church. Hitler appointed a Reich Bishop, Ludwig Mueller, who led a "German Christian" movement within the church. Mueller sought to synthesize Nazi ideology and Protestant tradition and to agitate for a "people's church" based on "good Aryan blood." This movement had gained 600,000 adherents by the mid-1930s. The Nazi government also attempted to supplant Christian worship with secular Nazi party celebrations which adopted many symbols of religious ritual but instead glorified the party and the Fuehrer. Efforts were also made to dilute clerical influence on religious instruction in the public schools, as well as to curb the activities and influence the curricula of religious schools.




In 1933, a small group of Protestant clergy formed the Pastors' Emergency League. Founded by Martin Niemoeller, the league took a stand against Nazi domination of the church. In 1934, the League's leaders founded the Confessing Church, representing a minority of all Protestant pastors in Germany. Its ideology was to resist Nazi coercion and to expose the moral hollowness of the pro-Nazi "German Christian" movement. The Confessing Church did not, however, protest Nazi racial or social policies. Although a very small number of individual German theologians--such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer--opposed the regime, throughout the Nazi era the vast majority of the Protestant church leadership did not challenge the state's discriminatory legislation and actions.

Both the Catholic and Protestant churches did speak up on behalf of Jews who had converted to Christianity or for Jews married to members of their churches, and thereby saved some lives. In addition, the churches protested strongly against the Nazi Euthanasia Program and succeeded in limiting its scope. While the Nazi regime subsequently halted the visible element of this program, it continued in secret. Nevertheless, the action of the churches on this issue proved that protest could make an impact on Nazi policy. Nonetheless, neither the Catholic leadership nor the Protestant clerical hierarchy officially protested the persecution of Jews or the horrors of the "Final Solution."

OTHER CHRISTIAN SECTS

Sectarian groups were considered politically dangerous because of their adventist, millennial, and international tendencies. Some were banned by the Nazi government and most were subject to constant surveillance by the secret police. The sects were an easier target for the government than the major churches. Nazi policy varied by sect. Some, such as Jehovah's Witnesses (banned in Prussia in 1933) were persecuted and many adherents were incarcerated in concentration camps. Others, such as New Apostolics, Christian Scientists (banned in 1941), and Seventh Day Adventists, experienced intermittent harassment. Finally, some groups, such as the Mormons, were ignored or even viewed with some favor. Virtually all Christian sects were at some point accused of harboring Marxists or other "enemies of Germany."

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php...uleId=10005206
This link is sufficient to prove to you the strongly anti-Christian stance of the Third Reich. Though of course, as Christians were so large in numbers in Germany, it is logical that Hitler would make statements like,
"For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

The comments of the article that "neither the Catholic leadership nor the Protestant clerical hierarchy officially protested the persecution of Jews or the horrors of the "Final Solution"" are sad. They don't imply approval to Nazi policies of course- disapproval of the Nazi murders when under their power would certainly be a very, very freaky stance to take. I wish they had, but not all of us are that brave. Raising no voice on it does not mark approval, however.

And it is plain from the above article that the Nazis persecuted many Christian groups and groups that have similar beliefs to those of Christians.

The German Christian Social movement, remarkably, resembles the Christian Right movement in America today.

This is probably one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. The German Christian Social Movement (which was, again, very small) tried to blend Nazism and anti-Semitism with Christianity. The Christian Right is strongly in favor of Israel. It believes Israel's return to be God's will, predicted by Biblical prophecies and believes that God is blessing Israel and miraculously protecting it from invaders. I've spoken with Christians from the Right before, and I assure you that this is true. You couldn't find anyone less anti-Semitic. They donate heaps of money to Israel, too, in addition to what the US government gives.

Raised as Catholic he went to a monastery school and, interestingly, walked everyday past a stone arch which was carved the monastery's coat of arms which included a swastika.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The use of the swastika was associated by Nazi theorists with their conjecture of Aryan cultural descent of the German people. Following the Nordicist version of the Aryan invasion theory, the Nazis claimed that the early Aryans of India, from whose Vedic tradition the swastika sprang, were the prototypical white invaders.

The swastika was not chosen because of being a Christian symbol- nor is it a Christian symbol. It comes from Hindu mythology and according to Wikipedia, was adopted from India.

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

*wants to know if Lief's "research" involved actually reading the Koran ::hmm::

No, it did not. I was researching for writing a highschool paper on the rise of Islam- one doesn't read the whole Koran in order to do something like that . I read about the rise of Islam from a number of history books though, and from seeing their actions, it becomes dead obvious how the early Muslims interpreted jihad.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerBible.htm

Here's an interesting note he wrote down:

"Purification of the Bible-- what of its spirit remains?"

[Lotesse]

The actions of Hitler and the Nazis were as “Christian� as those of people during the Crusades or the Inquisition. Some leading Nazis preferred a neo-pagan theistic religion over Christianity, but this was never officially endorsed by the Nazi Party or by Adolf Hitler. Christians may not like seeing Nazism as having anything to do with Christianity, but Germany saw itself as a fundamentally Christian nation and millions of Christians in Germany enthusiastically endorsed Hitler and the Nazi Party, in part because they saw both as embodiments of German and Christian ideals.


http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhit...iChristian.htm

[Rían]

I would like to make an announcement.

I am now a Muslim. And I find things about killing people in the Koran. So I'm going to go out and kill people, and that will say bad things about Islam.

Whoops! Now I'm a Christian again. But because I said I was a Muslim and did bad things, that shows how bad Islam is.

[/point]

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

The actions of Hitler and the Nazis were as “Christian� as those of people during the Crusades or the Inquisition.

None of which were very Christian, and comparing them to the Crusades or Inquisition won't make them Christian either.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Some leading Nazis preferred a neo-pagan theistic religion over Christianity, but this was never officially endorsed by the Nazi Party or by Adolf Hitler.

Again, it makes sense that Hitler would endorse Christianity because tens of millions of his people were Christian.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Christians may not like seeing Nazism as having anything to do with Christianity, but Germany saw itself as a fundamentally Christian nation and millions of Christians in Germany enthusiastically endorsed Hitler and the Nazi Party, in part because they saw both as embodiments of German and Christian ideals.

According to the Holocaust Museum of Washington D.C.,

The term "Church Struggle" refers to the strained relationship between church and state in Germany in the 1870s and then again during the Nazi regime. Although Nazi policy at first seemed to tolerate church autonomy, it soon became clear that official tolerance of Christian religious groups would last only as long as the churches accepted synchronization--the alignment of the church, along with other areas of society, with Nazi goals. The Roman Catholic and Protestant churches met the Nazi rise to power with attempts to retain control of their respective institutions and the rights of their brethren to worship freely and openly.

Christians and the Nazis seem to have been broadly opposed to one another in Germany. Hitler's "Christian Movement" was pitifully small in a population which contained millions of Christians. He persecuted the church. Looking at the article I quoted in my previous post shows very strongly that this was true.

Another important point is that Hitler kept his concentration camps under wraps. He did not reveal what he was doing to the Jews to his people. Thus, Christians who "agreed" with him would have been unlikely to know what he was really like. They knew he had reestablished their country's economy. They knew he was bringing anti-Semitism, and I know that that has been strong in the church sometimes (never mind that God called the Jews his "chosen people"). Christians may also have believed his lies about other countries and why they should go to war. But that doesn't mean they knew about his concentration camps or many of the Gestapo's horrors. He kept many of those things very, very under wraps. Hindsight is easier to see with than vision in the present, especially when what one sees is controlled by a totalitarian regime that wants to make itself look good. Anyone, Christian or no, could be deceived under those conditions. It's important to keep in mind our current reference frame.

[Earniel]

The discussion of Hitler and Christianity does not belong in the Muslim thread. There are other threads for that. Please stay on topic.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

The discussion of Hitler and Christianity does not belong in the Muslim thread. There are other threads for that. Please stay on topic.

In this instance it is on topic. Lief has been painting the muslim faith as a belief system which naturally leads to violence and I have been saying that if you look at history, when any religious group attains a position of power it leads to violence. Be it the popes who inspired the holy wars back in the middle ages or the muslim leader's jihads today.

He's also been implying that people who follow the muslim faith are more or less violent by nature and people who follow the christian faith are not. Yet, nazi germany is a perfect example of a nation that was vastly christian (over 95%) and allowed all sorts of violence to exist.

Basically, Lief is saying that muslims are guilty for everything they have ever done wrong throughout history, yet christian shortcomings always have a justification. That kind of attitude is exactly why religions, given enough power, often turn violent.

I will point out, and continue to point out, that no group of people are superior to another, which history proves if you are willing to look at the whole picture.

[Nurvingiel]

I agree with RÃ*an.

[corollary to RÃ*an's point, I think]

I have an announcement too. I am also Muslim. I believe that a jihad is a spiritual battle within oneself, and strive to do good works and live a good life, as servants of Allah should.

But none of this "counts" because I'm "liberal" and therefore not a "real" Muslim.

Actually, you know what, I'd rather be Christian after all. I will continue to do good works and not commit violence toward my fellow human beings, and this says something about Christianity, apparently.

[/corallary]

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

In this instance it is on topic. Lief has been painting the muslim faith as a belief system which naturally leads to violence and I have been saying that if you look at history, when any religious group attains a position of power it leads to violence.

Or any non-religious group.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Be it the popes who inspired the holy wars back in the middle ages or the muslim leader's jihads today.

Again, there is a total difference in scale between the invasions of the Holy Land and the early Islamic invasions caused by Mohammed's closest followers.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

He's also been implying that people who follow the muslim faith are more or less violent by nature and people who follow the christian faith are not. Yet, nazi germany is a perfect example of a nation that was vastly christian (over 95%) and allowed all sorts of violence to exist.

See my last post.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Basically, Lief is saying that muslims are guilty for everything they have ever done wrong throughout history, yet christian shortcomings always have a justification.

I never said the Christian shortcomings have a justification. I am saying the Christians saw what they believed to be an evil and they came against that specific supposed evil. It is not part of their doctrine or practice to invade the entire world, but it is part of conservative Muslim thought that dates back to ancient history, and has been practiced by Mohammed and his earliest supporters. And the warlike jihad is part of the Koran. Many of the Muslim wars were inspired by their religion, while many Christian wars were in spite of their religion. There is a major difference.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I will point out, and continue to point out, that no group of people are superior to another

One set of doctrines is morally superior to another when one calls people to war and the other says "love your enemies." When one says "kill the pagans wherever you find them," and the other details a process of evangelism by peaceful methods and says, "Blessed are the peacemakers."

I know there are peaceful and really good teachings in Islam too. But there also are outright calls for violence. Muslims throughout history have heeded that call, and today's Islamic terrorism is another form of this from that same "larger picture" you say we should pay attention to.

This is another reason why you don't have any equivalent to the Ottoman invasions in Christian history, in scale of attack. As the Nazis persecuted the church in Germany and struggled with church leaders, trying to steal their power, and as most of the Nazi leaders didn't even pretend to be Christian, it is absurd to say that was a Christian movement. I suggest reading this book: Nazi Persecution of the Churches

[Spock]

On the whole, there are MORE tenants about violence to those who do not accept Islam, then there are about peace, in the Qu'ran.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I have an announcement too. I am also Muslim. I believe that a jihad is a spiritual battle within oneself, and strive to do good works and live a good life, as servants of Allah should.

But none of this "counts" because I'm "liberal" and therefore not a "real" Muslim.

It counts as a modern interpretation of an ancient thought, but it is plain from history that this was not how Mohammed or his early followers thought that jihad should be interpreted.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Actually, you know what, I'd rather be Christian after all. I will continue to do good works and not commit violence toward my fellow human beings, and this says something about Christianity, apparently.

[/corallary]

Look at the lives of Jesus and his disciples. Was this how through his actions and through their lives it becomes apparent they intended their doctrines be interpreted, according to all the available evidence? Apparently so. Therefore you are following your religion as it was intended to be followed.

Originally Posted by Spock

On the whole, there are MORE tenants about violence to those who do not accept Islam, then there are about peace, in the Qu'ran.

Do you have a source to back that claim? Just curious .

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Not since Christ .

I'm sorry Lief but I am really confused as to what you are talking about now. Christian, Western nations have a far, far worse record of military aggression and conquest than Islamic nations by any measure (abetted perhaps more by technical capability than inherent hostility). And the more recent the history gets, the worse the imbalance gets.

Clearly, you don't regard the conquest and genocide of the Aztecs, the British colonisation of Australia, Asia and Africa (including the virtual extermination of native populations in North America and Australia), mass extermination of the Jews in Germany (which, whether or not Hitler got on with a few bishops, drew on a very deep-rooted anti-Semitism for support) or even the current Iraq war as being in the same category of "military conquest".

It leads me to believe that the only thing you are looking at is jihad, and you have defined your terms in such a way that it is impossible to draw any other conclusion. Could you please define what you mean by "conquest"?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I'm sorry Lief but I am really confused as to what you are talking about now. Christian, Western nations have a far, far worse record of military aggression and conquest than Islamic nations by any measure (abetted perhaps more by technical capability than inherent hostility).

I disagree, as you know.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Clearly, you don't regard the conquest and genocide of the Aztecs, the British colonisation of Australia, Asia and Africa (including the virtual extermination of native populations in North America and Australia)

Much of the death that was caused was accidental, the result of disease rather than violence. You also forget that there were Christian missionaries who often argued against different oppressions of the European nations. For example, there were Spanish missions that were strongly opposed to the actions of the Spanish government when it crushed and enslaved the natives. The actions of the governments were purely political and economic endeavors, and many missionaries often disagreed with them.

The way the European powers took over in countries was often through trade rather than military power. The British East India Co. took over large parts of India without the government's support. Also, they often took over through trade and economic policy rather than military violence (though there was some of that too). The British East India Co. though, which was highly involved in the conquest of India, was not an official government or religious group. Sometimes the European powers took over through sheer force, but the colonizations sometimes were in spite of, rather than supported by, missionaries.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

, mass extermination of the Jews in Germany (which, whether or not Hitler got on with a few bishops, drew on a very deep-rooted anti-Semitism for support)

I don't think you've read the article I posted from the Holocaust Museum yet, so I'll just wait until you do . The massacre of the Jews was not the responsibility of Christians.

It may interest you that at church I read an account too of a Christian Nazi who was told to work at the concentration camps, and once he got there he sacrificed his life so that a Jewish friend could escape. I know a single example is irrelevant and it's major trends that matter, of course , but just thought you'd be interested. The Nazis hid from their own people the horror they were committing in the concentration camps too, and lied to their people about the causes of the wars. Christians can be deceived, just like anyone else can. Christians nowadays are among the strongest supporters of the Jewish people.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

or even the current Iraq war as being in the same category of "military conquest".

You are too kind. It's true that the US churches are largely in support of the war, and a good thing too, in my opinion. I think you are only too kind to attribute to the churches this effort to liberate the Iraqi people from tyranny and evil, and to preserve our national security, to Christianity. Perhaps it is unfair also, for there are lots of people of other faiths involved, but I am proud of our action in Iraq and that Christians are involved in it.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It leads me to believe that the only thing you are looking at is jihad, and you have defined your terms in such a way that it is impossible to draw any other conclusion. Could you please define what you mean by "conquest"?

I have no problem with your referring to any of the things you just have as conquests. The European imperialism was sometimes in spite of the protests of Christian missionaries rather than by Christians, and many of its worst aspects were the result of disease or freelance trade companies. There was slavery too, of course, but Christians also have been known to lay down their lives to end slavery because of their Christian beliefs (have you ever read President Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address?). European imperialism is rarely a good example of Christian conquest. Though Cortes is, I agree. Though if you know anything about the cruelty of the fiendish slave nation he was destroying, you might find it more reasonable that he looked on them as savages. Columbus also claimed to be Christian and behaved with extraordinary brutality to the natives. His conduct is inexcusable.

My point still stands. Christianity hasn't tried to conquer the world. Islam has. Christianity has no calls for jihad in its holy text. Islam does. Christianity has not been involved in violence on the scale of Islam. We have our Religious Wars- but so do the Muslims, and their religious wars were right after their religion's beginning rather than over a thousand years later. We have our imperialism, but that is also obvious in the form of the Ottomans. In our conquest of India, we also didn't butcher about 80 million Hindus, which is what historian Alexander Durant accuses Islam of doing over a period of 500 years. In his words, "The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history." According to German historian Koenraad Elst, "The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves."

Christians were not behind the Holocaust, and the Holocaust also was nothing on the scale of these invasions. The Ottoman invasions were worse than European imperialism in violence and aggression, and they came before the European imperialism, which took over Ottoman lands often through economics rather than violence. And the Crusades are nothing compared to the Islamic invasions of the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires. There's just no comparison between the two . . . the Muslims have done much worse, and claiming to desire to conquer the world. When Christians conquered territories, they showed willingness to stop somewhere. They attacked often for specific reasons because of something they saw as evil, and then they stopped once they'd accomplished that goal. That is not at all the same as Islam, which has teachings that it is divided between houses of peace (governments controlled by Islam) and houses of war (all countries controlled by non-Islam governments), and there are only houses of truce in between, for Islam must conquer the world. Islamic conquest of the world is also central to Shi'ite theology.

[The Gaffer]

OK, Lief, I will do the reading before replying in depth, but just one quick observation.

You make a distinction between Christian missionaries, many of whom did indeed oppose the oppression of colonised peopes, and their governments. To my mind, that is applying a degree of detail to your own side which you do not afford Islam when you generalise it in such a way.

I think you also made a mistake by putting the ideology before the violence. In my view, the desire to dominate others comes first, and the religion is used to justify it post hoc. Seen from that perspective, "Christian" empires (or, more specificially, "empires rationalised through a Christian world-view") far outstrip Islamic ones in both aggression, geographical ambition and body count.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

You make a distinction between Christian missionaries, many of whom did indeed oppose the oppression of colonised peopes, and their governments. To my mind, that is applying a degree of detail to your own side which you do not afford Islam when you generalise it in such a way.

If you can show large numbers of Muslims who objected to the major Islamic invasions, I may take that into account from now on.

I also have not seen much objection from the major modern Muslim communities to the suicide bombers or al'Qaeda, except in Jordan when a Muslim hotel was destroyed. There have been some objections from some Muslim leaders-and statements of approval from others -but nothing on a massive scale. People in France are protesting all the time in their hundreds of thousands over a new labor law, so why don't the Muslims stage protests of condemnation for Osama Bin Laden's Al'Qaeda or Al'Zarqawi's insurgency? I wish they would. It would put me much more at ease.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I think you also made a mistake by putting the ideology before the violence.

Modern Islamic thought is largely driven by ideology, rather than the desire to dominate others. The early Islamic invasions of the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires also were driven by ideology. Some of the later conquests, like the Ottoman invasions, I am less sure about. There it may well have been the desire to dominate that came first and religion used as a justification. But the early and the modern Islamic violence I am sure was ideology driven aggression (except the destruction of the Qur'ayshe, which I agree was largely Islamic self-defense).

But I think the Ottoman invasions were easier to justify by the Muslim religion than the Christian invasions were, because Islam divides the world into houses of war, houses of truce and houses of peace (the Islam controlled governments). The Muslims can just invade on the pretext that it's a house of war and their religion says they should go in. That's a key pretext Muslim fundamentalists use now.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

In my view, the desire to dominate others comes first, and the religion is used to justify it post hoc.

I think that's often true, but not always true. And some of the exceptions are rather hefty.[/understatement]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Seen from that perspective, "Christian" empires (or, more specificially, "empires rationalised through a Christian world-view") far outstrip Islamic ones in both aggression, geographical ambition and body count.

I don't believe that that's true, even if one judged all the European wars as religious wars. The Islamic invasions were on too grand a scale and with too grand of goals.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If you can show large numbers of Muslims who objected to the major Islamic invasions, I may take that into account from now on.

A couple from a quick search:

CAMP

Welcome to CAMP, Christians and Muslims for Peace. CAMP is a nonprofit organization comprised of Christian and Muslim men and women, dedicated to the promotion of Peace, Justice, and Reconciliation between the world’s two largest religions comprising nearly half of the world population.

IS CAMP NEEDED? Yes, since conflicts involving Christians and Muslims continue all over the world. Hatred and persecution often leading to physical violence by both groups towards one another continues in nearly thirty locations worldwide. Through the presentation of the teachings of Islam and Christianity from their respective Holy books, the Quran and the Bible, Christians and Muslims discover the COMMON GROUND shared by both great religions.

HOW DOES CAMP WORK? CAMP Chapters, comprised of Christian and Muslim believers, work together in their communities to carry out such common teachings as caring for the poor, the homeless, the orphans, ect.

Another primary purpose of CAMP is to illuminate and dispatch the false stereotypes, distortions, and outright propaganda concerning both religions, such as: Islam treats women as mere possessions, Islamic fundamentalists are a threat to Christianity and the West; Christianity is opposed to Islam and Christians consider Muslims unbelievers, etc.

Thank you for logging on to our web site. I hope you will continue to examine the rest of our information. To my Muslim brothers and sisters, I greet you with Assalamu Alaikum! To my Christian brethren, the Peace of God be with you.

William W. Baker, Founder and President

MFP

Whatever act of Violence has just taken place, we deplore it.

On the rest. You can interpret history as you choose, but I don't see any advantage to attempting to classify certain major belief systems as better or worse. They are all a part of the world and will be long after we are all gone. Even you have to admit that all belief systems can lead to evil, and all can lead to good. So better to encourage the good and fight the evil in each then get caught up in which one is "more good" (or "less evil" ).

The thought manifests as the word. The word manifests as the deed. The deed develops into habit. And the habit hardens into character. So watch the thought and its ways with care. And let it spring from love, born out of concern for all beings. ~ Buddha.