Scholar my foot -2

Submitted by Kevin Graham (Brazil), Nov 29, 2005 at 20:21

John Bastile asked,

== I quote Quran and Sunnah and you quote wikipedia?

Would you expect anything less from a "Scholar"?

== Lisa thinks the crusaders were politically right, but did not do things exactly as they should have! So, basically she endorses religious wars and forced conversion, because that was basically what they stood for!

Not if "forced conversion" is what Lisa thinks was what they "did not do exactly as they should have." The Crusades were not about forced conversions in the first place, as any "scholar" worth his salt would already know. Islam had been slaughtering throughout the Byzantine empire for centuries, essentially wiping out previous cultures and religions, by the sword. The King appealed to the Pope for help, but since there was never such a thing as a "Christian Army" the Pope had to ask for a pilgrimage of volunteers. The purpose was to rescue the sacred Judeo-Christian city, Jerusalem, from the Muslims.

== Anyway, since the start of Christianity, there were always people like this who believed that they should forcefully convert the pagans and savages of the world.

But unlike Islam, there is no "Christian Law" comparable to the sharia, which requires violence. Christianity's first three centuries involved virtually zero violence by the followers. It spread like wildfire through peaceful means. It wasn't until the fourth century, when the Roman Empire decided to make Christianity the state religion; this is when "Christendom" was formed. Roman emperors enforcing tyranny while carrying the cross, symbol of the state religion, was an unfortunate backlash to Christian acceptance by the state. But these atrocities were committed in spite of Christian doctrine, not because of it. The same can hardly be said of Islam, whose founder was a child molester, a rapist, a theif and a mass murderer. Everything Jesus wasn't.

Whatever crimes the crusaders committed, they were contrary to what they were asked to do. Slaughtering Jews was not part of the calling, and Catholic authorities were upset when they found out some of the things they did. It was a stupid move to call tens of thousands of complete strangers together and expect them to wage war in an organized manner.

== Let me remind you with what Pope Urban II said in 1095 to the crusaders while they were going to war "All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested." Sounds familiar, right?

So? Christians were going to heaven anyway. Why get killed to accomplish something like this? It is superfluous. The crsaders, for the most part, were acting in the cause of love and selflessness.

== Apart from the section about the pope granting this to the men, It seems that the voice of fundamentalism sounds the same at all times!

Oh give us a break. There is a huge difference here because Islam's guarantee of paradise via martyrdom is an eternal rule. It always applies. It's examples span 14 centuries while your quasi-parallel with Pope Urban's statement is just a unique moment in time that has never repeated itself. The world will forever be divided up into two realms in Islamic Law: House of Islam and House of War. The latter will always exist and Muslims will always have a way to heaven by fighting in Chechnya, Iraq, the borders of India, etc. Martyrdom is in fact the only certainty any Muslim could have for attaining paradise.

== Before Islam reached this part of the world, it was ruled by one of the most oppressive and barbaric states that ever existed, the Roman/Byzantine state! A state that not only oppressed other religions, but even oppressed other Christians solely because they did not share the same beliefs.

This is true to some extent, but so what? You're comparing a system of tyrannical government with a system of tyrannical religion, and choosing the lesser evil.

== But still, Lisa and John believe that these were the rightful owners of this part of the world. People who came from Rome should rule over the middle east by the right of the cross, true? Well, the tolerance of the crusaders towards other religions was far from exemplary. The day they entered Jerusalem, they massacred Muslims, Christians and Jews alike, a great start, isn't it?

Problem is, you jumped through a thousand years of Christian history in order to find something to complain about. Further, if Muslims hadn't swept through Christian lands, slaughtering entire populations to begin with, there wouldn't have been a need fo a crusade to begin with. The crusades were a belated attempt to reclaim by the sword what Islam had snuck through the back door and claimed by the sword. But Christians then sucked at war. Muslims were much more experienced at it, and it is integral to Islamic faith.

== I introduced before a quote from Wikipedia stating that the existence of minorities in Islamic states is a proof of Islam's tolerance to other religions, unlike the intolerance of Christianity towards everybody who did not share the same exact beliefs! Do you need examples?

Apples and oranges again. Byzantine rulers were not puppets of the Pope. The clergy had to obey the kings. The fact is official Christian statements from the Church show that "Christianity" not Christendom, was more tolerant of Jews. It was just that sometimes the Byzantine rulers didn't allow for it. For instance, Christianity allowed Jews to celebrate their faith in public- this was forbidden under Islamic rule. Under Islamic rule, polytheists had to be killed and Christians and Jews had to be humiliated. Yet, polytheists lived in Byzantine lands, sometimes unbothered. It all depended on the particular ruler and what his level of tolerance was. Jews were persecuted, but the persecution was not sanctioned by Christian holy writ. Intolerance towards Jews is grounded in the Quran, which is why Muslims are the most anti-Jewish people on the planet.

== John and Lisa have decided to reinvent history and teach us that only a few Christians were bad and only a few Muslims are good, well, John then introduced the five pillars of Islam and I could not find anything bad about them, or maybe he does not like the fact that we have to pay 2.5% of our wealth to the poor!!

I haven't been keeping up with what they've said, but let me ask you this. Where is the Golden Rule in Islam to be found? It exists in virtually all world religions, but remains absent in the Quran or Hadith. That pretty much says it all for me. Non-Muslims are to be hated as infidels, because Allah hates them.

== It is people like this who justified the enslavement of millions of "savage" Africans and their forced transportation to the "new world"

Who were sold my Muslim slave owners right? Give us a break again. Slavery is sanctioned by Islam, which is why it exists today on in Muslim countries. Leave it up to Judeo-Christian societies to abolish it. You guys still accept it as a God-given right. Slaves are property just as women are. Muhammed himself sanctioned the taking of and even the regulations of raping female slaves.

== and people like this who justified "Imperialism", justified racial discrimination

You're a Muslim and you have the audacity to whine about racial discrimination? Where are all the Jews in Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Afghanistan? It is easy to recreate ancient history to your liking, but the fact is the Jews were persecuted so badly in Arab lands that they were flooding out of them during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Christiand and Jews are not even allowed to live in Saudi Arabia, and this is because of Muhammed's declaration that no two religions should exist on the Arab penninsula.

== While you were able to justify atrocities in the name of Jesus (a great and peaceful Prophet according to our religion),

Give us a break. You totally reject the only history of Jesus that exists. Muslims never read the Bible because they say it is too corrupt with errors. So you accept whatever the Quran says, which flies in the face of historical fact. You deny Jesus everything he said he came to do. According to Islam, Jesus did not die for the sins of humanity. Heck, you even rob him of his cricifixion and come up with this cockamamy story about how he escaped it. All of this is substantiated in NOTHING. Muhammed was so ignorant of Christianity that he thought the Trinity was the Father/Son/Mary. He was an idiot who scared people into following him. He did so by having his "enemies" - those who refused to support his claims - assassinated in the night. Those who followed him he paid off with booty he had stolen from caravan raids.

== we were only asked to defend ourselves against aggressors and oppressors!

Uh huh. Right. And when a million people were slaughtered in India throughout Islam's conquests, who were the Indians "oppressing" Muslims at that time? Muslims are constanty groveling in their obsession with victimhood. Self-loathing, incessant whining and creating conspiracy theories- "a Zionist did it!" Cry me a river.

== The funny things is that we still do not think that Christianity is responsible for the atrocities committed against humanity

Fact: Genocide occurs regulary only in Muslims countries (Sudan, Rwanda etc) and Muslims say nothing in protest. Why? Well since there are no Palestinians in these countries, it makes it too difficult to blame Jews.

== but that certain people are, while you just love to jump at any opportunity to prove that Islam is to blame for anything!

You're the ones who insist sharia should be implemented everytime Muslims form clusters in "Christian" lands. We don't need to invent anything or create any "phobias" because your own sharia spells it out clearly for anyone who wants to read it. Stop with this nonsensical moral equivalency rhetoric and deal with fixing Islam's anti-tolerance elements first. Play victim later if absolutely must.

---

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".