A response to 'Muslim' barrage of accusations.

Submitted by not a muslim (United Kingdom), Mar 4, 2007 at 12:06

'Muslim' gives a perfect example of typical Islamic selective historical amnesia, cherry picking lists of totally unrelated, supposedly Christian indiscretions through history and throwing them in an orgy of desperate mud slinging. I'll do my best to deal with them in turn.

Firstly Hitler was not a Christian, he famously declared 'you can either be a Christian or a German', Christianity as far as he was concerned was quasi-Jewish dogma which he spent much of his time trying to quietly strangle out of existence. What 'Muslim' really means is he was white and all Christians are white therefore they are one and the same.

Yes, it was a secular Christian America which bombed Japan, but Japan was a country which committed thousands of atrocities and the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbour.

I accept the Vietnam accusation, but I would argue that it was more greed, paranoid McArthryism and the red-scare which caused that war, it certainly was not some kind of overtly Christian crusade sent to convert the inhabitants to Christianity by the sword.

The slave trade accusation is an absolute gift. Yes, Muslims had been directly involved in the slave trade in Africa for almost seven centuries previous to Europeans. Slavery is still present in some Islamic countries such as Sudan, where there is currently a systematic racist campaign of genocide against the blacks of that country. Having said that yes the European involvement in the slave trade was despicable, but it was not Christians who started that practice, it was however Christians like Wilberforce and Lincoln who stopped it.

The Crusades were sent by Christian nations in response to centuries of Islamic aggression on the part of the Ottoman Turks and others (who ironically enslaved and sold off thousands of Europeans). 'Muslim' doesn't quite understand that it takes two sides to fight a war , to suggest that the Crusades were unprovoked is just narrow minded and partisan.

'Muslim' is right to point out the genocide committed by Christians against the native populations of North America and Australasia. Their under developed status was taken advantage of and they were destroyed by a naked and despicable greed for land and resources. Again however i take issue with the idea that it was something done in the name of Christianity specifically, there is no way that these people were treated in a manner remotely compatible with the message given in the New Testament Bible.

I like to think that broadly Christians, or rather Westerners, the two are synonymous for 'Muslim', have come to terms with their past and have a balanced view of it. Yes Christians have been responsible for some bad things, but Islam's historical closet is not exactly immaculate either. What I hate more than anything though, is when people take and distort history to score points in the present, it is nothing more than bold faced lying and deception, which have, I'm sorry to see, become systemic among Muslims.

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".