From History
Using history as the indicator, there is little doubt that Christianity has been an extremely violent religion. The expansion by the sword through pagan Europe, the Crusades, the Christian on Christian violence of the Dark Ages and Reformation periods, the genocide of the American Natives, and the forced imperialist rule of most of the world during the “Colonial” Age all testify to this.
Christians often forced compliance to their religion on others. Augustine, one of the must influential people in the development of Christianity, fully supported this practice quoting the Bible passage, “Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full.” This violent fundamentalism has been far too common in Christian history.
Even today, Western armies lead by fundamentalist Christians occupy Muslim countries and support unpopular regimes on the citizens of other Muslim countries.
The Question of Inherency
The question goes further than simply whether Christians have been excessively violent. Obviously, they have. We have to realize though, that every religion has violent followers. The inventors of modern suicide bombing and by far the most prolific practitioner of it, the Tamil Tigers, are a fundamentalist Hindu group. Islam does not have a perfect record either.
But the question is this: Is Christianity inherently violent? That is, is it by its very nature and true practice a violent faith? I am afraid the answer is yes.
A prominent preacher justified the recent unprovoked invasion of Iraq by appealing to the Bible passage, “let him who has no sword, sell his cloak and buy one.” One of the chief political figures in fundamentalist Christianity went on international television to promote violence against Muslims. She said, “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.” Not only was she allowed to do so without legal repercussions (showing support for her ideas reach to the very top leadership), she received virtually no criticism from the wider Christian community at all and remains a key figure and best selling author.
If we merely dismiss these facts as the ravings of a few fanatics, we do so at our great peril. About 10 percent of the 2 billion Christians in the world are fundamentalists. That’s 200 million Christian fanatics worldwide, and they control the most power military in the world - the U.S. armed forces. And all of them are bent upon the exploitation of non-Christian lands.
Liberal Christians
The other 90 percent of Christians are not fundamentalists, but their beliefs are not based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Unfortunately, this majority rarely speaks out against their fundamentalist brothers. By failing to do so, they enable the fundamentalists and will be lumped together with them in the minds of the non-Christian world. This is understandable though given the nature of the Bible. The Bible’s vagueness and frequent contradictions make literal interpretation both difficult and unpleasant.
In any case, to be a non-fundamentalist and non-violent Christian they have to ignore many plain passages of the Bible. Christianity, unlike Islam, has a basic teaching that mandates hatred and abuse of people who follow other religions. Violence is mainstream; it is not just a misguided few. When you read verses from the Bible, you see how it instructs the killing of the infidel, and violence on outsiders.
Such passages from the bible as these:
And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
The LORD is a man of war.
He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
(Note: this means Christians have to kill four billion people alive today).
O thou enemy, destructions are come to a perpetual end: and thou hast destroyed cities; their memorial is perished with them
(Note: Allah as inaccurately pictured in the Bible is particularly bloodthirsty, killing over 32 million people, whereas Allah in the Qur’an killed only 10 people).
For I set all men every one against his neighbor.
David smote them there, and said, The LORD hath broken forth upon mine enemies before me.
Many other examples are possible, but these should suffice.
New Testament
Some Christians like to say that their New Testament overrules all this violence. However, as you can see, this is not the case:
The New Testament upholds the old:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
It does not contradict the crimes of the old; it reaffirms them.
It does this not just in general, but explicitly:
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
It must be admitted that the New Testament does not have any specific commands to commit massacres, but that is simply because Christians at that time had no political or military power. As soon as they achieved some, 1700 years of conquest and prosecution resulted.
Proof of the Peaceful Islamic Faith
In contrast, we know Islam is a religion of peace. To quote the Qur’an, English translation:
Oh mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other (Not that you may despise each other). 49:13
Seest thou not that we have set the evil ones on against the unbelievers to incite them with fury? So make no haste against them, for we but count out to them a (limited) number (of days). 19:83,84
(God has knowledge) of the (Prophet’s) cry, ‘O my Lord! Truly these are a people who will not believe!’ But turn away from them, and say, ‘Peace!’ 43:88,89
“Repel evil with that which is best.” 23:96
You can clearly see that Islam teaches that we should be at peace with those who do not accept Allah’s teachings.
Conclusion
When Christian fundamentalists launch unprovoked attacks that kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians, there will surely be a release of anger aimed at Christians. It will be difficult to be overly concerned about what type of Christian a person is if they have not made it absolutely clear beforehand.
At this very moment, fundamentalist Christian forces occupy several Muslim countries and prop up several other unpopular regimes in other Muslim countries. They have plans to do more. Already the rhetoric against Iran is being turned up, a country they have had a long history of interfering with. We must wake up to this fact and realize that our struggle is not against other countries; it is against fundamentalist Christians, and indeed Christianity and its inherent violence.
Touché
I assume this article is hyperbole and tongue firmly planted in cheek.
This article is intended to demonstrate how a Muslim might make an argument that Christianity is an inherently violent religion if they adopted the arguing technique of some conservative Christians. It’s meant to show how they have not let Muslims have the same latitude in interpreting the Qur’an as they allow themselves to have with the Bible.
This is not to say that I believe the religions to be the same, they are not. Nor should it be taken to mean that I believe the Qur’an and the Bible to equally support violence. It merely points out that some people’s arguments could be easily turned against them. A special thanks to: Hal Lindsey, John MacArthur, Ann Coulter, and Franklin Graham.
Well, I do agree that using the Quran to prove that Islam is inherently violent is a weak argument style. I’d much rather point to the thousands of terrorism sympathizers as ample support.
But really, it’s mostly just a sect of Islam that is extremely violent (kind of like Mormonism in the 19th century).
As for Ms. Coulter, her tongue was definitely planted in her cheek when she made that remark (or for that matter, when she makes any remark).
It’s kinda fun watching the daft media take everything Coulter says at face value. For ticking off the media, I do have to thank her.
This kind of stuff isn’t just academic. There are Muslim apologists preaching this kind of message on TV and radio. I admit I haven’t listened to them or watched them myself. However, I did hear from one missionary who was in Indonesia recently (the last year or two) and saw a TV debate between a Muslim and a Christian. The Muslim guy knew the Bible backwards and forwards, and pulled out lots of quotes to make Christianity appear foolish, contradictory, and violent. The Christian guy was at a disadvantage because the mostly Muslim audience wasn’t familiar with the Bible, so he had a hard time explaining and justifying those passages. He wasn’t able to take similar liberties with the Koran because the Muslim audience was familiar with it and wouldn’t be impressed by a bunch of quotes taken out of context.
And it doesn’t help that America really is occupying Muslim countries.
Personally, I think it is generally a bad idea to attack other peoples’ religions and/or cultures. Islam seems to be the choice religion to attack, no doubt because of 9/11. This is how Christians are representing Jesus? I think this is another proper application of “WWJD”.
We always have to consider the other side in an argument. Always. It is not intellectually honest to simply argue on blind force of will. I am quite familiar with the American evangelical political movement, and I am somewhat familiar with the modern Islamic movement as well (especially now that there is a remote possibility of our living in the middle east). In general, these people are very similar in principles. The radicals are fighting wars (soldiers, insurgents). The mainlines, in general, have some sense of sympathy with their more violent counterparts (supporting wars and nation building, sympathizing with insurgents and rebel forces). The reformist/liberals are calling for peace in each.
Seriously. The principles that the Right-wing evangelicals are using to support their cause are almost identical (in principle, not details, mind). This is the kind of mentality that impedes progress, peace and learning.
I would highly recommend this site:
http://www.sonsofapesandpigs.org
“I would highly recommend this site:
http://www.sonsofapesandpigs.org”
So the Qu’ran calls Christians and Jews, “Sons of apes and pigs”. Does that mean that we should return the favor? Not if you actually follow Jesus - the Bible Jesus, that is.
“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you
-Jesus (Matthew 5:44)
Chris Austere, I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Do you think that Jasen’s article is demeaning or derogatory toward Islam and Muslims?
No. I was responding to Chris’ post with the link to sonsofapesandpigs.com. Its basically an anti-Muslim web site.
OK, I agree with you there. I’m not too impressed with the tone and scholarship on that website. I guess it was your first comment (before Chris posted the link) that made me think you found Jasen’s article derogatory.
I don’t think that’s what Chris Austere is saying… and I generally agree with him. However, if that means being intellectually dishonest about Muslims’ intentions or generally adhered to beliefs, there is where I draw the line. For example, many Muslims believe that Islam should dominate (not merely inform) government and culture. As the linked website repeatedly mentions, there are mullahs, muftis, and Mohammeds all over the world pushing a pretty extreme sharia-based justice system. In many places, this is largely removed from the terrorism strand of Islam (though the two support each other).
I think one can be individually peaceful and loving to Muslims you come in contact with while fighting the corporate rise of radical Islam. Fighting evil is something Christians are commanded to do.
OK, I’m dense, I admit it.
I did not get this article at all.
Jasen, were you writing in jest? Actually, it didn’t seem like your writing in any case. Did you copy if from somewhere? Do you know enough about Muslims to “demonstrate how a Muslim might make an argument that Christianity is an inherently violent religion if they adopted the arguing technique of some conservative Christians.”?
Sorry, I guess I’m too dumb to play this game.
If you want a website with a little more scholarship, littlegreenfootballs.com is the place to go. Very solid website run by a proponent of truth, not bigotry or xenophobia.
Thainamu, I’m pretty sure it’s satire. Obviously, if it were written with the intention of being serious, it has significant holes in its argument. However, as satire, it makes a somewhat valid point.
I once saw a comparative religion website that listed quotes from nearly all religions regarding war and peace. The quotes were seperated by religion and further seperated in to quotes about war and quotes about peace.
I was interested to see that while all religions had many quotes about peace Christianity and the Bah’i Faith seemed to stand out as having inculcated the word of peace significantly. As for quotes regarding war Islam was head and shoulders above all other religions. And though Judaism was a distant second it also was an order of magnitude above all other religions.
“Fighting evil is something Christians are commanded to do.”
The question is: how are Christians commanded to fight evil? This passage in 1 Peter 3 is quite telling.
8Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
9Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
10For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:
You just proved my point… it says to fight evil, but not with evil, but with good. Being PC and ignoring the evil ideology is not “good.” I’m not saying you suggest this, but a lot of people think we have to bow down to radical Muslims.
Darius said: Being PC and ignoring the evil ideology is not “good.” I’m not saying you suggest this, but a lot of people think we have to bow down to radical Muslims.
OK, I agree with that. We shouldn’t refrain from speaking out against wrongdoing just because it might offend Muslims. We should unequivocally proclaim that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, and that Islam is a false religion.
The object of ridicule in Jasen’s article isn’t Islam or Muslims, though. It’s Christianity. Jasen is pointing out how some Christians are intellectually dishonest in their depictions of Islam. We ought to speak the truth boldly, but Christians ought not intentionally misrepresent Islam in order to do so. That calls into question our character.
Jasen, if I’m wrong about the intent of your article, please feel free to correct me.
“We ought to speak the truth boldly, but Christians ought not intentionally misrepresent Islam in order to do so. That calls into question our character.”
Agreed. Islam is no more a peaceful religion than it is a violent religion (except that by being a false religion, it is inherently more likely to be violent). It was spread much more by the sword than was Christianity, but again, those were the adherents doing it. So when speaking of terrorism, I would say that Al Qaeda and the like are a violent sect of Islam and don’t represent mainstream tenets. But when speaking of sharia, dhimmihood, and the forceful spread of Islam, then that is very much representative of mainstream Islamic thought.
Darius,
My point is that if we are talking about what Christians are commanded to do according to scripture, we cannot be speaking about fighting evil by military or ideological means.
I’m not saying the military doesn’t have it’s place. I’m simply saying if we are going to be biblical about it, fighting evil with good involves putting into practice those principles Jesus spoke of in Matthew 5:44, “…Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Peter’s comments on the matter must be interpreted in the same light, because he says, “Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing..” He is reinforcing the same principles Jesus introduced.
I agree. There is a difference between an “enemy” who is directly threatening your life and an “enemy” who is merely ideologically opposed to your nation/group/religion. Christian are not commanded to wage wars of ideology, religion or nation. We are permitted to defend ourselves from direct aggression against our person.
You also have to differentiate between INDIVIDUAL versus CORPORATE. If a Muslim is “evil” toward you personally, you’re supposed to reply with love. But a government should not and COULD NOT reply in the same way. If Islam is fighting an ideological and cultural war against the Western world, the West should stand up for its own ideology and culture, not fold like a house of cards (which is what Europe is currently doing as we speak).
“You also have to differentiate between INDIVIDUAL versus CORPORATE. If a Muslim is “evil” toward you personally, you’re supposed to reply with love. But a government should not and COULD NOT reply in the same way.”
I agree that a distinction must be made. Governments have a particular God-given function to punish evildoers, of course. But if we are talking about what Christians are commanded to do, that is another matter altogether. Are Christians in any instance of evil, individual or corporate, commanded to fight evil in the way you have suggested?
This whole issue becomes much more difficult in today’s modern democratic Western world, where individuals actually have a say in how the government is run. How does one differentiate the Biblical mandate to not repay evil with evil while also supporting the Biblical mandate that governments are supposed to punish evildoers? It was a lot easier living under dictatorships to apply these Biblical ideals.
“Are Christians… commanded to fight evil in the way you have suggested?” Just so we’re clear, what have I suggested?
I’d love to see the biblical justification for this. Someone kills your wife - reply with “love” - but if some people 7,000 miles away don’t like your religion or government in general - bomb the crap out of them while singing “Our God is an Awesome God.”
Yeah, cause THAT’S what I said. Now who’s being hyperbolic????
Colin, it’s amazing how you completely don’t understand the ideological “war” we’re in, nor the ideas behind the creeping sharia. Perhaps you should read a little Steyn…
Jew, you understand correctly.
Thainamu, you’re right that I probably don’t know enough about Muslims to make their argument for them. This article shows the argument of some Christians flipped around. At the simplest, strrike out Bible and put in Qur’an. Alot of the criticism applied to the Qur’an can be leveled at the Bible as well. Especially if you don’t know the elaborate context and theological systems of Christianity.
I did write it, although parts are pretty straightforward parody of Hal Lindsey and Franklin Graham.
John MacArthur and Ann Coulter are the quoted as the prominent preacher and political figure respectively.
BTW, the deaths cause by God stat is true - at least as far as I know I didn’t count myself.
And what I said about the Tamil Tigers and suicide bombing is true. Most of them are Hindus, but it’s not accurate to imply that they are religious motivated terrorists. They are a nationalist/separatist group. This confused by alot of people and isn’t always easy to sort out anyways.
Just so we’re clear, the “buy a sword” verse is in Luke, not Matthew.
And as for MacArthur’s point, when I read it in context (not that you were arguing against it necessarily), I would say I mostly agree with him. He basically was saying that based on what Jesus said, He implied that there was such a thing as a just cause for war. Granted, I think that particular verse was quite possibly more symbolism than literalism, but it’s not a complete stretch to say what he did.
islam teach violence but christianity teach love and peace dont forget mauo stalin hitler three atheist killed more human than all people been killed in history by any body
This author is a complete idiot…Islam was responsible for the deaths of 80 Million Hindus over the span of 1000 years,the largest genocide in history…It was responsible overall for the deaths of 250 million people worldwide…more than all the wars,famines,diseases,etc…this author needs to go to Afghanistan and get gang-banged by some hairy Taliban to knock some sense into him…if he hates Christianity so much lets send him and his famile ona one way ticket to Kabul….u my friend are a pathetic traitor
Hysterically funny. This showed up in my “news items” on Christianity on my blog. The author must be twelve or under to be able to post such drivel. It should read Jasen Tracey, 5th grade or whatever. What is “Zeal for Truth” anyway?
Hey guys, you make yourselves look pretty foolish. Read the comments and learn to read in general. This article was satire. Nothing more.
Thanks to you, you’re proving his point too well.
Dr Jekyll and Mr. Googlebot
Jim, I think I could ask you the same about “moral science.”
Steve is pretty funny. More then all the wars, diseases, disasters…etc? Amazing the intellect that shows up on here sometimes. Also I don’t think Muslims usually “gang-bang”.
Actually, Bryan, on that count, Steve is right. Many Muslim men “gang-bang” their women all the time in the Middle East, precisely because the woman is prosecuted if she reports the rape.
Bravo, Jasen! I have to say when I first read the article yesterday, I didn’t get it. I started to get pretty angry before I realized I had been had. This is the way you get people to think.
So Jasen (and everyone), I just started reading a book last night that is quite applicable to this article. It’s called Show Them No Mercy, and it involves four different theologians’ views on why the God of the Old Testament seems to validate genocide when the God of the New Testament tells us to love our enemies.
Darius - you should review it for this site when you are done! I think we would all benefit from it.
Will do.
Yeah, I’d be interested to hear about the book. I never know quite how to defend the genocide in the Old Testament.
“God hates Canaanites… thankfully, the Israelites wiped them out, so we don’t have to do it today.”
Yeah, I’ll do a 4-part series on it, one part for each view.
Christianity was responsible for the deaths of 100 million Native Americans in 400 years, the largest genocide in history. It’s responsible for an estimated 400 million deaths worldwide during its history. You need to go to Rwanda and get ethically cleansed by one Christian group or another. If you hate Islam so much I’ll give you a one-way ticket to Kigali.
To be fair (and much more historically ACCURATE), most of the “100 million Native Americans” were NOT ethnically cleansed by Christians, but rather the outcome of being the loser in a battle for territory with a different civilization. That a good portion of the invading people were Christians was quite secondary to the fact that they were just people spreading across the earth. Indians were there, so they put up a fight. There was not any particular “Christian” reasoning for killing the Indians, just the natural conclusion of the friction between cultures and people groups. One of us had to die, the Indians weren’t going to just let the Europeans move in and supplant them. The deaths of the Indians were a (don’t read too much into this) necessary evil. Either many of them died or many Europeans died (both actually happened, though more of the former). It was an inescapable tragedy (unless the white man went back to Europe, but that wasn’t going to happen).
Meanwhile, Rwanda WAS an ethnic cleansing, with the intentional (and unnecessary) killing of hundreds of thousands of people.
400 millions deaths attributable to Christianity? This may be true, but if you’re including 100 million Native Americans, then I am willing to bet your source is quite wrong on other counts as well. Many Christians were coming as missionaries to the Indians, not as conquerors. Even many non- or nominal Christians were merely trying to find a place to live in peace from tyranny and had to defend themselves to do so. After all, most Indians were anything but peaceful. Read a book like Captured by the Indians, a compilation of personal accounts of people who survived life as an Indian captive, and you’ll see what I mean.
I assume that the Holocaust isn’t attributed to Christianity in that 400 million number. If so, that would be incorrect.
I made the 400 million number up, just like whoever he got the 250 million number did. The 100 million number is correct (as an estimate), but a majority of that was due to disease which the Europeans can’t be held responsible for (they weren’t aware of it until late in the process).
The warfare in India between Muslims and Hindus was national and tribal warfare much more than religious so a comparison with the Europeans in America is valid.
That comment was just for fun because he made it so easy.
Gotcha. Yeah, he did make it easy.
“Christianity is responsible for every person who’s died since Jesus.” There, now THAT’S hyperbole.
“Many Christians were coming as missionaries to the Indians, not as conquerors.”
The fact that many Christians held to the Western concept of “manifest destiny” makes it impossible to know to what extent the ideals of missionary efforts were corrupted by a mentality that draws a line between the conquerors and the conquered. Many of the early Bureau of Indian Affairs officials placed on the reservations were also ordained ministers, and this was not seen as a conflict of interest.
Christianity was, in many cases, introduced as a means of “killing the Indian to save the man.” It was used as part of a strategy to conquer without military force. That is not to say that most missionaries had ulterior motives, it’s just that the influence of the dominant mindset cannot be underestimated. One of the main “solutions” to the “Indian problem” was coercing parents into giving up their children to be educated at boarding schools. In some cases the children were kidnapped outright to be “civilized” and “Christianized” in these schools. Christianity was just a part of a curriculum designed to forcefully assimilate the indigenous population. The idea was that the remnant of the “dying race” would evolve culturally into darker-skinned white people.
Chris, your ideas are supported in a broader sense by the entire motives behind the creation of the public school system - which was an open attempt to “christianize” Catholics, Indians and other groups.
“Chris, your ideas are supported in a broader sense by the entire motives behind the creation of the public school system - which was an open attempt to “christianize” Catholics, Indians and other groups.”
Yeah, I started to read “Underground History of American Education” by John Taylor Gatto. It chronicles so much about the history of American public education that I had never heard of.
I have not heard of this book. I will investigate it further.
the passages used here to justify the peace of islam (lol) are
abrigated by latter passages and thus become null and void.
True Christianity was violent during the dark ages but developed and grew with the times,unlike islam that’s so great it demands death for leaving.why are they worried about anyone leaving such a great religion of peace?
Follow the money. The overwhelming number of religious conflicts throughout history were more about money and power than religion. 99 times out of 100 religion is just a smokescreen if you read deeply enough. Look around the world today to see this is still as true as ever.
Bob, could not agree more. Yet I got a C in Latin American history for arguing this point about the conquest of the new world.
The Bible also commands death for leaving the faith. It also has second degree killings - that is if you are not willing to kill those who leave the faith than you get killed also.
Jasen, would you provide some chapter/verse references? I’m interested in knowing from what context those passages come.
Note that citing the Koran verses and not the Bible verses is part of the satire (as Christians often follow that practice the other way around). And yes some of the verses are badly ripped from context - the same defensive argument mainline Muslims would make against many accusations by Christians. The whole point is that Christians allow themselves a measure a freedom to interpret their scripture that they often deny to Muslims.
My last comment comes from Deut 13 (though I don’t remember exactly where the 2nd degree thing is).
From my article
OT quotes:
1: EX 32:17
2: NUM 31:17
3: EX 15:3
4: EX 22:20
5: Psalm 9:6
6: Zech 8:10
7: 2 Sam 5:20
NT quotes:
1: Mt 5:17
2: Mt 10:34
3: LK 14:26
colin, several years ago i read the american history textbook used by the university of texas (someone left it and i took it on a business trip out of curiosity). Summary: minorities of any type and unions are without reservation good guys, whites and businesses are universally bad guys. Two thousand pages of textbook with 400 covering the 20th century managed to avoid any mention of the rail, auto, computer, or aviation industries (other than the oppression of noble selfless unions). All of the fighting of ww2 was covered in 5 pages. No mention of any scientific achievements, or of any nobel prize winner. There was however, at least 10 pages devoted to the formation of the united farm workers union in california. Obviously that is at least twice as important as the fighting of ww2.
If this pc revisionist garbage is what is being passed off for history at the university level these days i’m surprised you did as well as a c.
I like how the author
1) pretends there are no violent verses in the Qur’aan
2) quotes Christians quoting violent Bible verses to justify violence, but doesn’t acknowledge that Muslims quote violent Qur’aan verses to justify violence also
3) talks a lot about the violent actions Christians have done, but doesn’t mention at all the violent things Muslims have done. He only quotes from the Qur’aan, very very selectively, but quotes very selectively from the Bible AND talks about Christians’ actions
4) doesn’t discuss the Golden Age idea that a religion was purest in its beginning. Christianity was absolutely peaceful in its first 300 years; on the other hand, in Islam’s first 20 years Muslims violently conquered and began hegemonizing lands from Spain to Afghanistan.
Here’s eye-for-an-eye in the Qur’aan:
Qur’aan Sura 2 “The Cow” verse 194: “The Sacred month for the sacred month and all sacred things are (under the law of) retaliation; whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and be careful (of your duty) to Allah and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).”
Qur’aan Sura 4 “The Women” verse 104: “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain, and you hope from Allah what they do not hope; and Allah is Knowing, Wise.”
Here’s early Muslims led by Companions of the Prophet who personally knew Muhammad committing horrific violence, something that early Christians DIDN’T do:
Recommended as authoritative by a Muslim, Yaser Shamsi:
Arnold, T. W. The Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith. Kessinger Publishing: 2006. Retrieved http://scholar.google.com
“…moreover the people of this country [Central Asia] seem often to have pretended to embrace Islam for a time and then to have thrown off the mask and renounced their allegiance to the caliph as soon as the conquering armies were withdrawn. In Bukhaaraa and Samarqand the opposition to the new faith was so violent and obstinate that none but those who had embraced Islam were allowed to carry arms, and for many years the Muslims dared not appear unarmed in the mosques or other public places while spies had to be set to keep a watch on the new converts. The conquerors made various efforts to gain proselytes, and even tried to encourage attendance at the Friday prayers in the mosques by rewards of money, and allowed the Qur’an to be recited in Persian instead of in Arabic, in order that it might be intelligible to all” (183).
The USA sends $2.6 billion dollars in foreign aid to Israel each year.
I want to know who on earth came up with the idea that killing someone/martyrdom will lead you to paradise with 72 virgins? Is that going to be handy to your soul that goes? (NOT YOUR BODY) What kind of ‘god’ is going to reward a person so violent? Maybe a ‘false one’ with ‘false rewards of torture’ or an ‘evil’ one!
My goodness! What does it take to learn how to love?
All you who read this, non-believers of Jesus Christ the TRUE King, do not rebel. I am warning you because I care and I know that I have found the truth, the ’simple’ truth that has always been there. (you might be saying yeah right, what do you know) BUT I have warned you, I have seen with my own eyes.
God Bless you (especially those that require more attention to go on the right track)
Islam, like Christianity, teaches the bodily resurrection of the dead. Muslims believe you will have a body in the afterlife. But I agree with your main point. The 72 virgins idea is pretty crazy. How many does one need?