No, it’s acceptance of history. It’s to acknowledge that the ‘west’ didn’t exist when Islamic terror began. I’ve already noted this.
Muhammad offered terrorism as a legitimate weapon and England, France, Italy, Spain etc weren’t even nations yet.
Latin Christendom certainly existed when Muhammad began Islam, and however post-Christian and even anti-Christian “the West” has become it is generally recognized that it is the continuation of the civilization we identify as “Latin Christendom.”
I don’t deny Napoleon attacked Egypt. This secularist’s actions aren’t therefore a contributor to Christian -v- Islamic animosity. France at that time had thrown out the Catholic church, officially (though of course there continued to be great public affinity with that church).
Both Muslims **and **Christians have seen no distinction between the “Western civilization” that Napoleon represented and “Christianity” or “Christendom” (I personally very much make that distinction).
Are you seriously claiming that aggression upon Muslim lands by Western powers (whether you wish to define them as Christian or not) has not contributed to Muslim animosity against Christians? That Muslims are hostile to Christians only because the Qur’an tells them to be?
So your example is an officially atheist state attacks an Islamic state 1,100 years after Muhammad and this is the cause of, or the start of animosity between ‘the west’ and Islam?
I have indeed. That’s 600 years after Islam’s beginning. Somehow Islam was ‘reacting’ to atrocities that took place 600 years later?
Do I see a pattern here? According to you, modern Christians may claim victimhood on the basis of the first caliphs’ wars of conquest 1400 years ago, while modern Muslims may not claim victimhood on the basis of the Crusades 800 years ago, is that right?
Not that Muslims cannot claim victimhood at the hands of Christians/Westerners on the basis of the history of the past 200 or 20 or 2 years?
And, of course, Muslims have also been victimizing Christians all along - I am not denying that. Christians have also been victimizing Muslims all along as well - I would not want to deny that either.
And, of course, throughout history there have been many cases of Muslims and Christians living in peace together, if not totally as equals (and Christians have not been above imposing their own version of dhimmitude on non-Christians, whether Jews, Muslims, and others as well as on Christians of other sects).
Cite me some examples. Moslems wiped out the Banu Quaresh tribe after they’d surrendered. This was admittedly a Jewish tribe, but it was done under Muhammad’s supervision
I have never defended Muhammad’s actions. All I have wished to do is remind people that Muhammad’s conduct is not at all that different from the conduct that we read attributed to the Old Testament prophets. If Jews and Christians can look to those Old Testament prophets as moral models with all their questionable actions, Muslims can look to Muhammad as a moral model with all of his.
You say this, but you are an apologist WHEN you pretend that what they’re doing is not part of their faith.
So the sum of your argument is to pretend that Moslems aren’t acting Moslem, just ‘horrendous’ and it’s response to the west attacking them centuries after Moslems committed atrocities. That’s an apology for sure!
This is an argument you should be taking up with those many Muslims who condemn extremist terrorism as “not truly part of” Islam.
I would not let a non-Catholic claim he knows more about Catholicism than I, a Catholic, do. I suspect non-extremist Muslims would not appreciate you telling them what their religion teaches.
I do not see any purpose in telling a Muslim who regards the heart of his religion to be peace and compassion and who lives accordingly, who sees it as the force leading him to become a better person, that the essence of his religion is violence. Talk like that and you will be making an enemy where you did not have to have one.
I do not excuse any atrocities Muslims have commited against non-Muslims, but all this demonizing of Islam just looks to me like an elaborate dance of
evading responsibility – Westerners do not want to admit to themselves the part they have played into making the Islamic world the mess that it is.
It is evading responsibility
no different from that engaged in by Muslims who blame their woes entirely on Western colonialism and refuse to look at themselves for reasons for the same mess.
I am glad that our recent Popes have not been pandering to either side’s claims of exclusive victimhood.
