Could it be true? The Quran is not anti-Trinitarian?

[Tom_Baum]

Ignatian, when you look at the light that shines around you during the day, does that define the sun?

NOBODY on this planet knows and will never know absolutely everything about the sun. It is unapproachable.

Light is an ATTRIBUTE of the sun
Love is an ATTRIBUTE of God

.

Light, physical light, is an attribute of the sun, the created sun, and this attribute comes from the thermonuclear reactions present in any star, of which our sun is, I believe, a mid sized star.

However, you are wrong in saying that “Love is an ATTRIBUTE of God” and I say this because I have met Who Is referred to as God the Father and I “know” that Love Is God’s Very Being, Love is not an attribute of God.

Before meeting God the Father, I could have never said that I “know” that Love Is God’s Very Being as opposed to Love being an attribute of God but now I can.

The sun is created.

He, Who is referred to as the Son of God and the Son of Man, Jesus, God-Incarnate, is both uncreated and created, True God and True Man, this is the very essence of Christianity.

 

[fnr]

To me, the bottom line here is that Muslim arguments against the Trinity are not well-grounded in the Quran. The widely-used Arabic word for trinity during the early 7th century AD does not appear in the Quran at all. “Say not three” does appear in the Quran (Sura 4:171), which corresponds directly to the condemnation of Jacob Baradeus of tritheism present in the Arabian peninsula.

In contrast to their anti-Trinitarian arguments, Muslim arguments against the divinity of Christ are the same as those used by non-Chalcedonian Christians who, while accepting the Trinity, do not accept the Chalcedonian doctrine of the natures of Christ.

Given the inclusion of 7th century Christological conflicts in supposedly-valid Hadith such as that of Ibn Abbas (which Sunnis accept as orthodox) and the inability to reliably trace hadith before (approximately) the reign of Abd Al Malik (ca. 685+), it appears as though Muslim polemic against the Trinity is a product of the later political ascendancy of Arab conquerors. The elevation of Muhammad as the primary focus of Muslim jurisprudence corresponds to the early 8th century or later. The lack of earlier verifiable Hadith (other than those implausibly accepted as validly transmitted along a single unbranched linear isnad reported from the late 7th century) makes the Muslim exegesis of the Quran as anti-Trinitarian anachronistic, reflecting the post-first century AH definition of Islam as a monotheism distinct from Christianity and Judaism. The clear redaction of the Bible, Christian apocrypha, and Rabbinic writings in the Quran reflect that Islam was not originally a distinct religion with clear orthodox and orthopractic norms. Furthermore, there is multiple attestation of the documentary use of the cross in reference to God, including the oldest surviving Arabic papyrus, dated to 22 AH (after Hijra) or 643 AD. This document cannot be called a specifically Muslim document, as it refers to only “muhajir” or “Saracens.” The term Muslim was not widely adopted until later.

While I insert my own interpretation here, these views do not represent radical reconstructionist views like that of Wansbrough, but those like the the oft-quoted middle-of-the-road scholar, Fred Donner. Even Muslim scholar and Hadith expert, Jonathan A.C. Brown acknowledges in that it is impossible to link Hadith back to Muhammad without an assumption of valid transmission (reference: youtu.be/OoOufzd0xVs).

Based on the totality of evidence, the anti-trinitarian views expressed by Muslims today reflect an anachronistic back-projection of later tradition onto Muhammad and the Quran. The Quran itself is not readable as anti-trinitarian without the anachronistic assumptions of later Muslims that represent later development. The cult of Muhammad as prophet did not arise substantially prior to Abd Al Malik and the multiply-attested Hadith prior to the Abbasids. It is impossible to reconstruct how early followers of what later became Islam actually believed.

 

[daler]

To me, the bottom line here is that Muslim arguments against the Trinity are not well-grounded in the Quran. The widely-used Arabic word for trinity during the early 7th century AD does not appear in the Quran at all. “Say not three” does appear in the Quran (Sura 4:171), which corresponds directly to the condemnation of Jacob Baradeus of tritheism present in the Arabian peninsula.
.

. It is all a matter of perspective. When someone is rooted in a tradition, and is molded by the perspective of others, with thoughts shaped by, and limited by, those whose very influence has formed their ideas, the natural outcome is reflective of the bias held.

. It is good to extract ourselves from ourselves in order to find the beliefs that are truly ours, and not merely an echo of previous minds and words. We repeat and parrot, unconscious that we are doing so, motivated by the amenities derived by such processes as feed us, clothe us, honor us, and beckon our adulation.

. We retreat from that which causes fear and approach that which is pleasurable, towards reward and away from pain and punishment. We thus survive in an environment we call “our” culture and beliefs, all the while unconscious of the very spirit which causes our being to arise and worship, thinking that we know, and are in control.

. "Thou beholdest how vast is the number of people who go to Mecca each year on pilgrimage and engage in circumambulation, while He, through the potency of Whose Word the Ka‘bah [the sanctuary in Mecca] hath become the object of adoration, is forsaken in this mountain. He is none other but the Apostle of God Himself, inasmuch as the Revelation of God may be likened to the sun. No matter how innumerable its risings, there is but one sun, and upon it depends the life of all things. It is clear and evident that the object of all preceding Dispensations hath been to pave the way for the advent of Muḥammad, the Apostle of God.

. These, including the Muḥammadan Dispensation, have had, in their turn, as their objective the Revelation proclaimed by the Qá’im. The purpose underlying this Revelation, as well as those that preceded it, has, in like manner, been to announce the advent of the Faith of Him Whom God will make manifest. And this Faith—the Faith of Him Whom God will make manifest—in its turn, together with all the Revelations gone before it, have as their object the Manifestation destined to succeed it. And the latter, no less than all the Revelations preceding it, prepare the way for the Revelation which is yet to follow.

. The process of the rise and setting of the Sun of Truth will thus indefinitely continue—a process that hath had no beginning and will have no end.

. Well is it with him who in every Dispensation recognizeth the Purpose of God for that Dispensation, and is not deprived therefrom by turning his gaze towards the things of the past."

. Selection of the Writings of the Bab, page 136, 7
.

 

[Shia_Muslim]

I can’t say how the Qur’an views Trinitarianism itself , but saying God incarnated into a man is blasphemous for us.

 

[dronald]

I can’t say how the Qur’an views Trinitarianism itself , but saying God incarnated into a man is blasphemous for us.

Would it be blasphemous to say that God could do it though if He wanted to?

 

[josie_L]

What are your reasons for believing that the Qur’an is written by any “god” rather than by Muhammad?

It seems obvious to me that the Qur’an is a very human document. And it seems obvious to me that it’s a shoddy tactic to accept a particularly un-provable Islamic claim (that the Qur’an is of non-human origin) just in order to portray Islam as demonic.

Edwin

What do you think propelled Muhammed to write what he wrote, i.e., what was his motivation for passing off something which he wrote unto Allah?

 

[daler]

What do you think propelled Muhammed to write what he wrote, i.e., what was his motivation for passing off something which he wrote unto Allah?

Muhammad, Praise be unto Him, was not in control of the Revelation He received from the Angel Gabriel, any more than Daniel was when Gabriel appeared to him. Even Jesus said, “These are not “My” words, but Him that sent Me.”

Our perceptions of Who “is” and “is not” a Prophet of God, and why They revealed what They did, is peculiar to the beliefs we tend to inherit.

May I ask how many generations of Catholic ancestors you have inherited your beliefs from, or if you are the first in your family to follow this particular religion?

Please understand that in the manner I phrase my question I mean only to illustrate what is common - that people generally espouse ancestral beliefs without question or inquiry.

For example, when a couple of young Mormon missionaries ride up on their bicycles and talk to people, do they ever consider that had their parents been Hindu, for example, their entire frame of reference would be different.

I mean no insult, for I see nothing but good in so many religious people who truly follow their Faith, in whatever form it takes. Humanity would suffer greatly without religion. To those whom the Holy Quran was given, idolatry was inherited. With the teachings brought by Muhammad, prayer to Allah five times a day was a major improvement in the life of the community as well as the individual souls who turned away from idol worship, submitting to the will of the God of Abraham and the Prophets. Is this not so?
.
.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Muhammad, Praise be unto Him, was not in control of the Revelation He received from the Angel Gabriel, any more than Daniel was when Gabriel appeared to him. Even Jesus said, “These are not “My” words, but Him that sent Me.”

Our perceptions of Who “is” and “is not” a Prophet of God, and why They revealed what They did, is peculiar to the beliefs we tend to inherit.

May I ask how many generations of Catholic ancestors you have inherited your beliefs from, or if you are the first in your family to follow this particular religion?

Please understand that in the manner I phrase my question I mean only to illustrate what is common - that people generally espouse ancestral beliefs without question or inquiry.

For example, when a couple of young Mormon missionaries ride up on their bicycles and talk to people, do they ever consider that had their parents been Hindu, for example, their entire frame of reference would be different.

I mean no insult, for I see nothing but good in so many religious people who truly follow their Faith, in whatever form it takes. Humanity would suffer greatly without religion. To those whom the Holy Quran was given, idolatry was inherited. With the teachings brought by Muhammad, prayer to Allah five times a day was a major improvement in the life of the community as well as the individual souls who turned away from idol worship, submitting to the will of the God of Abraham and the Prophets. Is this not so?
.
.

Who is the God of Abraham and what is his will? You will find we all dissagree on this. It was not the will of the God of Abraham that men should turn from paganism to a false religion called Islam I would argue.

 

[josie_L]

Muhammad, Praise be unto Him, was not in control of the Revelation He received from the Angel Gabriel, any more than Daniel was when Gabriel appeared to him. Even Jesus said, “These are not “My” words, but Him that sent Me.”

Our perceptions of Who “is” and “is not” a Prophet of God, and why They revealed what They did, is peculiar to the beliefs we tend to inherit.

May I ask how many generations of Catholic ancestors you have inherited your beliefs from, or if you are the first in your family to follow this particular religion?

Please understand that in the manner I phrase my question I mean only to illustrate what is common - that people generally espouse ancestral beliefs without question or inquiry.

For example, when a couple of young Mormon missionaries ride up on their bicycles and talk to people, do they ever consider that had their parents been Hindu, for example, their entire frame of reference would be different.

I mean no insult, for I see nothing but good in so many religious people who truly follow their Faith, in whatever form it takes. Humanity would suffer greatly without religion. To those whom the Holy Quran was given, idolatry was inherited. With the teachings brought by Muhammad, prayer to Allah five times a day was a major improvement in the life of the community as well as the individual souls who turned away from idol worship, submitting to the will of the God of Abraham and the Prophets. Is this not so?

But here’s the rub, although some of the converts were idol worshipers, the majority of adherents to Islam (just in the first millenium) came from conquered areas, i.e., it was in their ability to conquer that they were able to grow so fast. So I would say that no it was not a major improvement, in that utilizing the sword/violence was a key element to the rise of Islam. I think Christianity had it had the chance would have eventually converted the idol worshipers at one point or another.

p.s. I mean you no disrespect by saying this, but it is pointless to say we share the same faith when I do not believe that Muhammed was a prophet.

God bless!

 

[AspiringSoul]

The vast majority of the converts to islam were pagan/polythiest. The only exceptions have been members of other abrahimic religions.

It’s true the muslims conquered most of these lands, but it’s false if you think they only converted because they were conquered.

The indian subcontinent which no doubt carries the largest muslim population is a powerful example. Muslim invaders looted, pillaged, even raped the indians…but they were unsuccessful in spreading islam by a long shot especially since the indians would have rather died than accepted the religion by force.

what changed?
the rise of islamic sufism.

islamic sufism has a lot of overlapping concepts with various branches of hinduism. Once the upper classes began converted to islam at the hands of sufis, it was a fast transformation.

This is why sufism is so strong in the indian subcontinent and why people like Sheikh Moinuddin Chishti are world famous 850 years.

The second largest muslim population in in Indonesia and they also converted to islam without conquest.

Even though the vast majority of you here have absolutely no regard for muslim achievements and are only interested in attacking the religion…i’m happy for Christianity because it was a God-inspired religion.

Christianity was successful because the largest empire…Rome, was converted. There were no need for conquests, the Romans had already done that for them aswell as build the necessery infrastructure. Islam began from scratch.

Besides

Isaiah 42
10 Sing to the Lord a new song,
his praise from the ends of the earth,
you who go down to the sea, and all that is in it,
you islands, and all who live in them.
11 Let the wilderness and its towns raise their voices;
let the settlements where Kedar lives rejoice.
Let the people of Sela sing for joy;
let them shout from the mountaintops.
12 Let them give glory to the Lord
and proclaim his praise in the islands.
13 The Lord will march out like a champion,
** like a warrior he will stir up his zeal;
with a shout he will raise the battle cry
and will triumph over his enemies.**

17 But those who trust in idols,
who say to images, ‘You are our gods,’
will be turned back in utter shame.

fulfilled through Islam, this ‘violent’ religion.

By all means, deny it, but it’s as clear as day.

 

[josie_L]

The vast majority of the converts to islam were pagan/polythiest. The only exceptions have been members of other abrahimic religions.

It’s true the muslims conquered most of these lands, but it’s false if you think they only converted because they were conquered.

I mentioned that the rise of Islam happened rapidly due to the fact that Muslims conquered via the sword vast swats of area (North Africa and the Middle East to name a few), and I stand by what I said. Muhammed and his companions did not spread the “word” of Allah peaceably, i.e., unlike the apostles who were exhorted by Christ to evangelize the world by non-violent means. There is much evidence that many Muslim converts did indeed convert out of fear, i.e., it was either fight (and suffer annihilation) or surrender in peace. Here is a poem exhorting violence to attain victory:

Here is a section of a poem that Ka’b b. Malik composed before the Islamic conquest of Al-Ta’if.

If you offer peace we will accept it
And make you partners (with us) in peace and war.
If you refuse we will fight you doggedly. …
We shall fight as long as we live
Till you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge.
We will fight not caring whom we meet
Whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. …
And we cut off their noses and ears
With our fine polished Indian swords,
Driving them violently before us to the command of God and Islam,
Until religion is established, just and straight. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, pp. 587-588)

answering-islam.org/Green/spread.htm

Muhammed’s attempts at spreading the “word” through the sword were inimical, and contradicted Jesus’s exhortations to his own apostles and followers to spread the good news out of love.

 

[josie_L]

Christianity was successful because the largest empire…Rome, was converted. There were no need for conquests, the Romans had already done that for them aswell as build the necessery infrastructure. Islam began from scratch.

It took three hundred years of Roman/pagan persecution before Christianity or rather Christians could practice their faith overtly/freely within the empire, so even though massive amounts of Christian blood was shed (prior to the edict of Milan) this did not prevent Christianity from growing. It’s a testament of God’s love/truth and the Christians who took Him at His Word that Christianity succeeded. Christianity had no need to conquer per se because it was understood that converting by conquest, i.e., the sword, was not the way in which Christians were exhorted to spread the Word.

Muhammad said that he was commanded by Allah to spread Islam this way:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: 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 all that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.” (Bukhari: vol. 1, bk. 2, no. 24, Khan)

Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden – such men as practise not the religion of truth … It is He who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may uplift it above every religion, though the unbelievers be averse. (Qur’an 9:29-33, Arberry)

It was easy to become Muhammad’s enemy. If you did not acknowledge him as your ruler and prophet then you were his enemy. Those who joined Muhammad joined the fight against those who did not accept Muhammad’s religion:

Surad Ibn `Abd Allah al-Azdi arrived with about thirteen to nineteen members of his people in a deputation to the Apostle of Allah … The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, appointed him (Surad) amir of those of his people who had embraced Islam, and enjoined him to wage war against the polytheists of the tribe of Yaman, who were living in the adjoining territories. He set out and alighted at Jurash which was a strongly fortified city and where the tribes of Yaman had taken shelter. He (Surad) invited them to embrace Islam but they declined. He besieged them for a month and used to raid their animals and seize them. Then he retreated to a mountain, called Shakar. They thought that he had fled, and came out to pursue him. He arrayed his forces, and attacked them. Muslims put them to the sword as they liked. They seized twenty of their horses and fought them all day long. The people of Jurash had sent two men to the Apostle of Allah, who were waiting for an opportunity to meet him. The Apostle of Allah, Allah bless him, informed them of this combat and the victory of Surad. The two men came to their people and informed them of the circumstances, along with other incidents. So a deputation of them set out, and they waited on the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, and embraced Islam. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, vol. 1, pp. 397-398)

 

[AspiringSoul]

You wrote
*It took three hundred years of Roman/pagan persecution before Christianity or rather Christians could practice their faith overtly/freely within the empire, so even though massive amounts of Christian blood was shed (prior to the edict of Milan) this did not prevent Christianity from growing. It’s a testament of God’s love/truth and the Christians who took Him at His Word that Christianity succeeded. Christianity had no need to conquer per se because it was understood that converting by conquest, i.e., the sword, was not the way in which Christians were exhorted to spread the Word. *

Did I not already say this

*Even though the vast majority of you here have absolutely no regard for muslim achievements and are only interested in attacking the religion….i’m happy for Christianity because it was a God-inspired religion. *

you seem like one of many Christians on here who are blind to what people like me write, you ignore it out of sheer spite because i’m a muslim? Even if i praised Christianity you would ignore it. Good job.

The Isaiah prophecies, the examples of people like Cyrus or the destruction of entire races at the hands of the Israelites,. All of these examples suggest God approves of violence when it’s done against people He considers deserve it. But when it’s done by muslims you wish to cry about it?

The hypocrisy is huge, I hope any honest truth seeker sees this in people like you
*
Isaiah 42
13 The Lord will go forth like a warrior,
He will arouse His zeal like a man of war.
He will utter a shout, yes, He will raise a war cry.
He will prevail against His enemies.*

7 They will be turned back and be utterly put to shame,
Who trust in [f]idols,
Who say to molten images,
“You are our gods

The early Christians were authentic believers, as I’ve mentioned already in a previous post the Quran mentions the Sleepers of the Cave
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sleepers

So you do not need to try and sell your religion to me.

Now can you explain how Christianity reached the Americas, Australasia, Central Africa, East Asia?
Wasn’t it through colonialism?

FYI I do not have a problem with this, this is highlighted for your own sake. Colonialism was part of prophecy, God’s Will.

the 4 Horsemen
The 1st horseman was the age of colonialism. It comes as no surprise the colonialists were Christian nations.
The 2nd horseman represents the Wars which were fought between colonial nations, aided by their colonial subjects. World Wars
The 3rd represents Capitalism which btw is based on the Rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer…this is the whole point of
“Two pounds[a] of wheat for a day’s wages,* and six pounds[c] of barley for a day’s wages,[d] and do not damage the oil and the wine!”**
You know what springs to mind? Far East slave labour. You should read the books of John Pilger, a great man.

of course 1 and 3 are major reasons for the spread of Christianity and western culture.*

 

[josie_L]

Even though the vast majority of you here have absolutely no regard for muslim achievements and are only interested in attacking the religion….i’m happy for Christianity because it was a God-inspired religion.

It cannot be a God-inspired religion if you do not believe the Bible in its entirety, i.e., every aspect of what was written and transcribed by those closest to Jesus is revelation, i.e., our Christianity rests on the knowledge that Christ claimed to be the Son of God, i.e., divine, and that He died for our sins and resurrected. You take away this and there is nothing left, no Christianity, nothing which can be regarded as God-inspired.

you seem like one of many Christians on here who are blind to what people like me write, you ignore it out of sheer spite because i’m a muslim? Even if i praised Christianity you would ignore it. Good job.

No, it is not my intent to ignore your sincere statements, moreover, I don’t blame you or any other Muslim for events that happened more than 1000 years ago (although some of your compatriots are intent on keeping this violence alive). I am only trying to show you that there are major differences in our beginnings because of who we rely on for truth.

The Isaiah prophecies, the examples of people like Cyrus or the destruction of entire races at the hands of the Israelites,. All of these examples suggest God approves of violence when it’s done against people He considers deserve it. But when it’s done by muslims you wish to cry about it?

Actually, the Israelites attacked because they were on the defensive, i.e., God gave them the means to protect themselves from armies that were intent on destroying them (the Bible is at times figurative and hyperbolic in it’s description of events, i.e., it’s not likely that entire races were destroyed). You must also remember that by the time Jesus came, a new covenant was created between God and all of humanity, which was to be the last covenant, i.e., it is a covenant that reconciled us to God through His love and mercy, i.e., we were to be reflections of that love and mercy when preaching the good news.

The hypocrisy is huge, I hope any honest truth seeker sees this in people like you

You think it’s hypocritical because you have probably never read the New Testament in its entirety.

Now can you explain how Christianity reached the Americas, Australasia, Central Africa, East Asia? Wasn’t it through colonialism?

I never said that Christians did not use violence in the course of our history, so in that respect we have failed to live up to our Christian ideals. There is another side to this story, however, one that is very little mentioned. Those who were exhorting or using violence were taken to task by other Christians, and in this process was International law created and reforms produced for the protection and inherent dignity of all peoples. Moreover, colonialism wasn’t necessarily a bad thing per se, i.e., it was bad only because indigenous people were treated less than humanely by some Christian Settlers. There was good and bad with regard to colonialism in the Americas and elsewhere (remember some of the societies which they encountered were very evil, i.e., practicing sacrificial rituals by the tens of thousands and cannibalism).

FYI I do not have a problem with this, this is highlighted for your own sake. Colonialism was part of prophecy, God’s Will.

I think He allowed history to take its course, for good and for bad, i.e., allowing us to make mistakes but in the process guiding humanity to make the right choices through those willing to listen to Him.

p.s. I am sorry I did not mean to hurt you, I think you are a good person trying to seek truth. God bless!

 

[daler]

It cannot be a God-inspired religion if you do not believe the Bible in its entirety, i.e., every aspect of what was written and transcribed by those closest to Jesus is revelation, i.e., our Christianity rests on the knowledge that Christ claimed to be the Son of God, i.e., divine, and that He died for our sins and resurrected. You take away this and there is nothing left, no Christianity, nothing which can be regarded as God-inspired.

No, it is not my intent to ignore your sincere statements, moreover, I don’t blame you or any other Muslim for events that happened more than 1000 years ago (although some of your compatriots are intent on keeping this violence alive). I am only trying to show you that there are major differences in our beginnings because of who we rely on for truth.

Actually, the Israelites attacked because they were on the defensive, i.e., God gave them the means to protect themselves from armies that were intent on destroying them (the Bible is at times figurative and hyperbolic in it’s description of events, i.e., it’s not likely that entire races were destroyed). You must also remember that by the time Jesus came, a new covenant was created between God and all of humanity, which was to be the last covenant, i.e., it is a covenant that reconciled us to God through His love and mercy, i.e., we were to be reflections of that love and mercy when preaching the good news.

You think it’s hypocritical because you have probably never read the New Testament in its entirety.

I never said that Christians did not use violence in the course of our history, so in that respect we have failed to live up to our Christian ideals. There is another side to this story, however, one that is very little mentioned. Those who were exhorting or using violence were taken to task by other Christians, and in this process was International law created and reforms produced for the protection and inherent dignity of all peoples. Moreover, colonialism wasn’t necessarily a bad thing per se, i.e., it was bad only because indigenous people were treated less than humanely by some Christian Settlers. There was good and bad with regard to colonialism in the Americas and elsewhere (remember some of the societies which they encountered were very evil, i.e., practicing sacrificial rituals by the tens of thousands and cannibalism).

I think He allowed history to take its course, for good and for bad, i.e., allowing us to make mistakes but in the process guiding humanity to make the right choices through those willing to listen to Him.

p.s. I am sorry I did not mean to hurt you, I think you are a good person trying to seek truth. God bless!

Having read human history, there are very bloody hands and broken treaties "and brutal treatment of minorities in every portion of the planet where ever Christian contact was made. From the entire Atlantic to the Pacific Cost, hundreds of thousands of “heathers” were killed, some estimate millions. Several hundred treaties all signed "in the year of our Lord 1868 at FT Laramie, etc, etc, etc were all broken. Centuries of slavery and death at the hands of so called "Christians, land theft, massacres, extensive use of germ warfare, fire and destruction of villagers, selling babies from mothers, splitting families. not to mention the endless religious wars of Europe in the name of Catholic and Protestants “in the name of Jesus” And the conquest of the entire planet, from the 1/4 million Taino Indians killed by Columbus, to the trail of tears.
I dare any Christian to demonstrait anything comparable on the part of Islam that could compete with the well documented Christian atrocities against their own fellow believers in Christ, from ancient times to the nuclear warfare initiated by the Americans in WWII.
To focus on a few radical fanatics of modern Islam and ignore the Ku Klux Klan as a reperesentative of the love of Christ exposes ignorance on the part of the viewer.