Christian hostility to Islam?

[Ontheway]

Dear tata,

First, allow me a question. In your first post you claim to be a Catholic. Since all of your posts consist of stock Islamic attacks on Christianity and/or equally standard arguments in defense of Islam, I have to ask which type of Christianity do you adhere to?

Regarding violence and Islam: the history of Islamic expansion, roughly the first 1000 years are a history of violence and conquest. If violence is not part of the Islamic doctrine, then how do you explain that history. Surely, people of other faiths did not invade the saudi peninsula from the 600’s until the 1700’s, forcing all the peace loving Muslims to conquer half of the world in self defense? History tells us that it was just the opposite. Your claim that Islam is violent only when in defense is simply false.

You also refer to Christian violence and cite the crusades and the inquisition.

Let’s start with the first. Christian lands in the middle east were conquered and subjugated by Muslims in the 7-8 centuries. (you know that very well) When the Christian knights of Europe went on a crusade, it was to defend the Christian holy places which were located in the lands occupied my Islam. (and you know this very well) Muslim invasions were acts of unprovoked aggression.

Such is the case in the Ibrian peninsula, where the Muslims conqured Christian lands and occupied them for centuries. When Christianity began to reassert itself it began to reclaim its territories. Initially, there were no Arabas in Spain, or present day Turkey, and other Christian kingdoms of the Middle East.

You of course know all this very well, but choose to present a picture of mutual hostility and aggression.

 

[Darryl1958]

It is true that non-believers are taxed more heavily than believers. Nonetheless they are sufficiently tolerated.

“Sufficient” toleration has led to the greater part of the ME becoming in effect Judenfrien, and more and more Christian free.
That is the bottom line for a measure of tolerance—how well a minority population is capable of thriving and growing. Countries that were once fully Christian are now fully Muslim. This does not speak of a high degree of tolerance.

In its earlier time many Sultans even openly debated with Christians and Jews in regard to doctrines. St. Francis himself was allowed to preach the Gospel without further persecution after he performed miracles to the sultans.

Some were more tolerant than others. Performing miracles can have the effect of even softening a pharoah’s heart, for a time at least.

Meanwhile in Europe non-Christians are openly persecuted, especially at the rise of the Inquisition, countless Jews and Muslims were exiled out of the country.

Vatican II and the apologies of JPII fully acknowledge these kind of things. Repentance is a central theme in Christianity. It allows for moral growth, rather than replicating medeival seventh century understanding into an eternal society.

If given the choice, would you rather be ruled by one who simply taxes you heavier, or openly expelled out of the country of your birth?

Given the choices available today, neither of course.

The lessons of history are available to us all in a globalized world. Systems have been developed and adopted in diverse places and cultures around the globe where rights and responsibilities and equity are not dependent on ones ethnicity or belief.

Like the laws of Jewish torah, Islamic laws, though intended as universal law since Islam is a universal religion, is intended for only Islamic societies.

People of the book are compelled to feel humiliated and subdued, according to Islamic teaching.

And the ultimate goal of Islam is to subdue the whole world.

In early Islamic history Jewish and Christian societies are free to operate their societies according to their laws and customs.

Likewise, blacks were free to operate their own societies under the Jim Crowe laws. as long as they carried out in a sufficiently subdued and humiliated matter

You said that violence was never meant to be how things are done in the Old Testament. Yet it seems for every crime from adultery to disobedience to parents the only consequence has been death by stoning. How is this any different to Islamic teachings?

the main diference, I think, is that Jews and Christians today are not building societies with such violence front and centre in their ideals of the perfect society.

 

[Azygos]

Anyone who truly adheres to the teachings of Christ is going to be a Saint. Anyone that truly adheres to the teachings of Muhammad is either a potential terrorist or a full-blown terrorist. I recommend reading this link below which was clearly written by a Catholic (which is a bonus). It exposes the lies… Well done.

bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm

Something else to take into consideration. The Muslim teaching is that if any verse contradicts another verse the one that comes later takes precedence. So when real followers of Muhammad tell you that they are a Religion of Peace and cite Quran verses what they don’t tell you is that they are obsolete because the verses of violence take precedence. (Lying is fully enforced by the Great Makrr, the Deceiver God - Allah, especially when it comes to protecting the Religion is Islam)

Here are the verses that talk about violence.

thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

Here is a good video on the dangers of Islam (Educate Yourselves)
Skip to the 6 minute mark and save yourself some time.
youtube.com/watch?v=W9rgcMT0Z4A