Who killed vs. who is killing now.

Submitted by Prashant (United States), Mar 5, 2013 at 14:16

Dear Dr Pipes,

your reader Faruq Shaikh from India asks us to look at the study the dark ages and WW1 and WWII when, according to his implication, there was a lot of violence in the Christian world. Can Islamic apologists stop responding to this line of argumentation? What is Faruq Shaikh's implication? Does he want to say that if Christians could be wrong decades and centuries ago, Muslims have a right to be wrong today? That does not stand to logic.

Does Shaikh want to imply that Christians were bad and have reformed now? In that case when is a reform movement starting among Muslims of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Bangladesh, etc. etc. Does Shaikh want to imply that because Christians did bad things decades and centuries ago, Muslims have a right to revenge? Wait a second! Isn't the whole purpose of religions is to make revenge unnecessary.

No matter how we dissect the 'christians did bad things during the dark ages', violence in the Islamic countries cannot be justified. So this argument should be discarded for good.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".