You are forgetting one thing. Most,if not all, of the terror groups you list are committing crimes in their own countries and the level and number of terror activities relatively speaking are low.
Did you forget to mention that part?
Relatively low? Are you kidding? South American and African terrorism have killed more people than Islamic terrorism ever will already.
Well talking about South America, one must remember the existance of atheistic regimes that commit acts of terror against their own people, atheistic rebels who have no regard for human life, as well as pagan guerillas who place little value on human life.
You mean unlike the secular regimes that torture and oppress people in the middle east???
This is not true. And the only proof people offer are some out of context Quran quotes. In fact, this thread was started by a Muslim to show that Islam condemns terrorism.
You keep avoiding saying anything about Islam.
Huh? I’ve said it numerous times. Islam does not condone terrorism.
You got mixed up. Christian Emperors forced conversion. Muslims did not. You’re backwards on your history there. There has never been a policy of forced conversion in Muslim lands.
Claiming that x percent of terrorism is done by Muslims requires talking about other groups.
Now there isnt a single Historian who would honestly say that Islam was not spread by the sword. Forced conversions have existed in the Muslim faith, and it was largely through force in the early period that it was spread.
Okay, find me one historian who documents the forced conversions. Imperial expansion by force, yes, but the subjects were not forced to convert (and they didn’t-there are still millions of non Muslims in the former Muslim imperial lands.)
The policy of forced conversion wherever Christians had a firm hold is uniform. I don’t think you can find a single example of a pre-enlightenment Christian society that did not have a policy of forced conversion.
Are you denying that Islam is a violent religion?
Now I’m starting to wonder if you’re reading the same thread I am. Of course I’m denying it’s violent. Hello, I said so explicitly.
No. I am denying that he advocated using the sword to force conversion. He forbade the practice.
Yes. Not even Al Qaeda has this goal. People who claim this is the goal of the terrorists usually haven’t actually read many or even one of the documents the terrorists produce.
Just the threat of beheading, massacre, rape/mutilation, killing, slaughtering of yourself and/or your family if you convert to anything BUT Islam while on Muslim land… hmm… ok, if that isn’t the very definition of terrorism, I must be an idiot.
One must first understand Medevial Times looked through the lens of today’s society will give a very inacurate understanding of what was actually happening.
That’s not true at all. Each religion was able to apply its own law to its people, meaning, if a Christian wanted to become a Jew…Christian law on the subject applied.Just the threat of beheading, massacre, rape/mutilation, killing, slaughtering of yourself and/or your family if you convert to anything BUT Islam while on Muslim land… hmm… ok, if that isn’t the very definition of terrorism, I must be an idiot.
The vast majority of conversions to Christianity were by force. Nearly all of Europe, South America, and North America were converted by force.
That’s one theory, but hardly proven. It’s much more likely that they began because Europe regained the strength to make itself an imperial power.
Destabilized the region? Huh? Heavily persecuting Christians?
Right, and that’s when the Church finally lost the power to punish heretics and declare religious law, something it had done for the entirety of its history before that.
Now you are mixing up what the Church did and what the State did in the name of the Church before the Enlightenment. Missionaries have been murdered by the State for opposing violent measures practised on the natives. You abviously have ZERO understanding about the development of the Church through 2,000 years. The Church did not in any way start of with any secular power at all. Furthermore that the Western Church slowly began to take on administrative functions was a product of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. The Eastern Church did not have the same experience. As for the suppression of heretics, the State was more involved in it because heresy destabalised the State.
You know that’s not true… then and now.
I agree 100%!You guys are still giving Pro a forum for his moslem propaganda. If you quit playing his game, he will go away.