Olak
New member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2010
- Messages
- 34
- Reaction score
- 16
- Location
- Chelsea, NYC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
As a secularist sure, why not say it's evil.
It's a religion, ergo it forbids men to use their brains for independent thought, ergo, it's evil. Islam was spread by the sword, and hasn't abandoned the concept of jihad, ergo, it's a religion of war.
Being spread BY war is not the same as being a religion OF war. Christianity was spread by war on many occasions, the most severe being the Spanish conquests in the Americas, Crusades, etc. People hi-jacking a religion, even its founder, does not make it anything different than the majority of those practicing it, and that majority is for peace.
Islam did at times spread through war and conquest. What? You think it is the only religion who did so?
Islam is not inherently evil or a religion of war. It's a religion, the same as any other we have. Invented by man for purposes of man, it has the same benefits and pitfalls as any other religion in this world. How it is used isn't so much by the demands of the religion as much as it is actions of man.
Every religion is a religion of war.
Surely you know the practitioners of a religion typically do not follow closely the tenets of their religion. In the case of Christianity straying from the path is a bad thing, with Islam it is a good thing because Islam advocates oppression and war thus straying from it means being more tolerant and peaceful.
Also, the difference between the situations you mention is that the first Crusades were purely defensive in nature. In the Spanish conquests of the Americas Christianity was not so much spread by war as by colonization itself. Most of the population of the former Spanish colonies are either dominantly Spanish or mixed. As such it is only natural for Christianity to be the dominant belief system there.
more to the point religion was not tied up with the Spanish invasion as much as it was with the Arab invasions.
In this its purposes were those of a conqueror. Honestly, now, there's no need to be politically-correct about history. Islam was established by a conqueror and has been spread almost entirely through conquest. To call it a religion of war is acknowledging its history. I do not think this makes it inherently evil, but calling it a religion of peace is just bull**** honestly.
That is a nice opinionated statement.
All of the eight crusades were offensive as they were launched from Europe to the M.E. and designed to take back Jerusalem from the Muslims.
The Spanish conquests were not entirely religious, but due to their relgious beliefs, they felt empowered to do and take what they wanted from the heathen natives. Christianity is the dominate religion because it was forced on the natives.
Not at all... it was simply not as overt.
A religion is what the people of it are... if they are peaceful then it is a religion of peace. A religion is not a stagnant entity, it can and does evolve just like the US Constitution can and does. Islam began by a warlord, true. Also irrelevant. It spread by fighters attempting to conquer, as did Christianity in the New World. This issue needs perspective, in all honesty.
There are few converts to Islam in the Western world, it is almost entirely immigration that contributes to the growing Muslim population. Immigration from countries or areas that had long ago been converted by conquest.
I don't agree with that sort of distinction. A religion is defined by those teachings that constitute its central tenets. Christianity is defined first and foremost by the teachings of Jesus Christ just as Buddhism is defined first and foremost by the teachings of Buddha. Islam is defined first and foremost by the teachings of Muhammad. Muslims would have to reject substantial parts of Muhammad's teachings to reconcile any support of a peaceful and tolerant Islamic faith. That to me says all that needs to be said about how one should characterize Islam.
I would say it is only opinionated if you think "turn the other cheek" is bad or that "kill the idolaters wherever you find them" is good.
Aside from the fact not all of the Crusades even targeted Muslims it was only offensive in the sense that it was a counter-offensive. Muslim armies kept advancing and this was responsible for the first three crusades. After the fourth crusade, which did not target Muslims, they were offensive, but they were also failures for the most part.
Not really. As I said most people in Latin America are either of primarily Spanish heritage or a mixture of native and Spanish. The U.S. and Canada are primarily Christian, but not because we converted the natives.
Religion wasn't really relevant to it at all. The Spanish were looking for land and riches.
I don't agree with that sort of distinction. A religion is defined by those teachings that constitute its central tenets. Christianity is defined first and foremost by the teachings of Jesus Christ just as Buddhism is defined first and foremost by the teachings of Buddha. Islam is defined first and foremost by the teachings of Muhammad. Muslims would have to reject substantial parts of Muhammad's teachings to reconcile any support of a peaceful and tolerant Islamic faith. That to me says all that needs to be said about how one should characterize Islam.
I'm shocked at the results of this poll...truly. Forget the fact that those who view Islam as an evil religion is deeply mistaken to begin with, but thinking realistically, that couldn't be possible. Islam has 1.5 billion followers. If this religion truly was evil, and truly was dedicated to war and expansionism, we wouldn't be here right now. :shrug:
Few converts eh?
Any source for that claim?
And so? I still don't see the big deal Islam spread some through war, get over it. I'm sure the victims 2,000 years ago are very grateful over the concern you express ....:roll:
Islam is defined by the holy text. That is what makes up alot of what is Islam and always will.
Prophet Mohammed is just one more Prophet in a line of Messengers of God.
Jesus is more important by role in Islam than Prophet Mohammed ever will be :doh
Okay... I'll counter with:
Christianity:
Jeremiah 50:21 (NIV)
"Attack the land of Merathaim and those who live in Pekod. Pursue, kill and completely destroy them," declares the LORD. "Do everything I have commanded you."
Deuteronomy 2:32-34
Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.
Political reasons may change, but the original intent of the Crusades was religious, this is a non-debatable fact.
They are of Spanish heritage because they were conquered and murdered into submission, how is this not obvious?
And the Muslims were looking for land and riches as well, what's your point?
I'm shocked at the results of this poll...truly. Forget the fact that those who view Islam as an evil religion is deeply mistaken to begin with, but thinking realistically, that couldn't be possible. Islam has 1.5 billion followers. If this religion truly was evil, and truly was dedicated to war and expansionism, we wouldn't be here right now. :shrug:
I figured someone would foolishly counter with Old Testament verses. Were these the teachings of Christ? No. His were all in the New Testament, specifically the Gospels.
Actually, it is quite debateable
That doesn't even make sense. Spanish heritage means they got down and dirty with some Spaniards or are Spaniards. Either way it does not translate to forcing conversion. I am not saying people weren't forced, but most of the population has at least some Spanish ancestry meaning they would likely be Christian either way.
My point is the Spanish were not motivated by religion at all, while Muslim empires were.
Whatever one says about Islam most people are not evil or dedicated to war.