You are correct in saying that force has been used to spread Christianity many times. But did this happen as a result of a fundamentalist approach to the Bible? The fact is most of these “crusaders” weren’t really grounded in biblical truth, but in a false, church-centred Christianity.
The ultimate question is, does a fundamentalist (or literal) approach to the Koran promote violence?
]]>Actually, even ancient Jewish leaders engaged in forced conversion back when Judea and Israel were still in existence as Jewish states but again, no signs of that particular tradition continuing today (quite the opposite, actually- conversion to Judaism is difficult, involves extensive study with a rabbi and generally takes anywhere from one to five years). I don’t think the argument that Islam spread through use of force works, because it’s not remotely exclusive to Islam. I would posit that between the Crusades, various pogroms, the Spanish Inquisition and other such historical events, there have been as many killed in the name of Christianity as have been killed in the name of Islam. Of course, Islam is the younger religion, and Christians these days seem to have mostly abandoned such tactics- but to me, the fact that Christians are no longer mounting armies to force conversion at the point of a sword is a good indication that there is also hope for change in the radical elements of Islam.
]]>Fundamentalist Muslims believe that in order to truly live Islam, they have to be living back in the Middle Ages in terms of technology, societally, the whole nine. Is this really what the Qu’ran says? Having read it and the Hadith, I don’t think it is. Mohammed was trying to stop all of the honor killings and blood feuds- why would he want his followers to be continuing to engage in that kind of behavior hundreds of years after his death? Logically, I don’t think it makes sense. Of course, it clearly does to some people, or fundamentalist Islam wouldn’t have the following it does.
]]>There are millions of Muslims living in the Western world, as well as in loads of countries that aren’t the Middle East. If Islam was really as pro-terrorist as you’re implying, we’d be having 9-11s every single day, because every halfway devout Muslim on the planet would be trying to blow up nonbelievers. This isn’t happening. Look at Indonesia, the largest Muslim country on the planet- there were no burnings, riots or other violent protests there in relation to these cartoons. The same holds true for Malaysia, I believe. The issue may have more to do with cultural aspects of the Middle East than it does with Islam- people in that part of the world have been locked in tribal warfare and honor killings and all the rest of it since long before Mohammed showed up.
]]>Re: The Koran. I’ve read too much of it to believe that Islam is a peaceful religion.
]]>Re: The Quran: The more popular interpretation of the word Jihad is “struggle”–as in a personal struggle through life. As in “fighting the good fight of faith.” The Quran can be interpreted to support violence, just like the Bible can. Just ask “Christian” abortion clinic bombers and members of the KKK if they were following the Bible.
]]>