Anonymous writes:

The Most Violent Face of the Christian Faith: the Forgotten History of Forced Conversions in Pagan Europe:


If you want to make criticism, then, you must pick out certain topics or events or incidents to expand on. You just cant brandish arguments that are not centred on any acts worthy of criticism. Or make claims based on what Christian missionaries have formulated as convenient half truths to proselytize and market their faith. For example, in our time, when it comes to Iran, yes, I sympathize with Iran, not because Iran is the power base of Shia Islam, but for reasons that any left leaning liberal westerner would or might also use to defend Iran. That is not to say I don't have things I disagree with Iran on.


Like any country or system, the Islamic Republic has its advantages and its disadvantages for different people. But when it comes to the West, and particularly the unjustified ill treatment the US administrations over the centuries have meted on Iran and the Iranian people, I must sympathize with Iran, even if only for the sake of our shared humanity. And the very things any liberal wouldn't like on the details of Iranian government policies - like telling people what haircut to style their hair and previously telling women not to attend football matches until that prohibition was recently rescinded- are not the reasons the US is placing crippling and inhumane sanctions on Iran. Those issues are not enough to even beat the drums of war against Iran. There are countries with worse human rights records and more backward and unjust and even inhumane and oppressive regimes with acts like head chopping and public executions, but the US doesn't see anything wrong with them. They are even allies. So this is the hypocrisy that would make any person with an atom of humanity to sympathize with the Iranians. It becomes evident that the US problem with Iran is not religion, or even human rights. Rather, it is economic interests and dominance. The Iranians dont want to buy hundreds of billions of American weapons like some other countries and doesn't want to compromise on its sovereignty by housing foreign soldiers on its soil.


When it comes to religion, there is the text and there are the acts. Missionaries have not only criticized Sunni Muslim rulers, who I also criticize, but also, they want to prove that Islam is inherently violent, and evil and promotes violence through its texts, and in fact, their crafty ones have gone as far as stating that Islam was established by a terrorist prophet.


Islam makes it beyond doubt that it isn’t a pacifist religion and it is not a violent religion at the same time. Islam is a religion of justice and mercy at the same time. That means self defense in the face of oppression and bullying is sacred. Resorting to or the use of force in the Quran was not indiscriminate and it even had a starting point through the revelation of the permission to fight Quran verse. In that verse (Quran 22:39-40), even the conditions of when to fight back are listed. Then in verses 2:193-194, the use of force is only limited against enemy combatants and not against enemy civilians. Further, Muslims are told to embrace non Muslims who haven't caused us harm or hurt and we should show them justice and kindness through Quran verse 60:8.

...cont.

On the other hand, while the missionary might concede that Christian rulers were also bloody, they dont want to see that even when we examine the ills of the Sunni Muslims caliphs, their ills were far less. Only Christianity, with the consent of the early church fathers, converted all of pagan Europe mostly by the sword. The Battle of Frigidus, fought between a Pagan army resisting Christianity and a Christian army, was the decisive battle that cemented Christian dominance over paganism in Europe. Often times, when Muslims want to hit back with facts, they are blind to the fact that Europe, which became the centre of Christianity, was once entirely pagan. How did an entire continent of paganism adopt a Middle Eastern religion called Christianity if not through persecution and brutality? Quick web search of on Christianization of pagan Europe, the persecution of the pagans under the Roman Empire after the adoption of Christianity by Constantine (one ruler who changed the course of history) and forced conversion in pagan Europe would yield links that contain shocking historical facts which expose how mercilessly Christianity was spread in pagan Europe. An entire country of Spain was cleansed, some centuries later, by the use of force and Christianity was imposed. The Philippines and Mozambique had a similar case. Muslims were wiped out and Christianity was imposed.


Then, while Christian apologists pretend Christianity is a very peaceful religion, not just in actions but also on texts, we find violence in Christian scripture. It is only in the Christian New Testament we find verse of the sword (Luke 22:36-38) and verse of killing (Luke 19:27) while the word "sword" doesn’t appear once in the Quran. Then, we read a verse in Luke 14:23 promoting compulsion in religion. While the Quran unequivocally states that "let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256); "Let those who will believe, and those who will disbelieve" (18:29); "To you your religion and to me mine" (109:6). A whole Christian saint, St. Augustine even used Luke 14:23 to justify the use of force to spread Christianity. When normally Muslims use the genocide, wars and crimes from the OT, Christians would object in a programmed way that the Old Testament does not concern their faith. The Muslim, in a bid to counter is most times unaware of what has been concealed from Christian history. When we dig into history, we see that the continent from which Christianity later spread to rest of the world had its own very nations and tribes forcefully converted into a Middle Eastern religion through the sword. Roman emperor, Mr Constantine experienced, what can be understood as a shooting star in the sky, which he took for a sign and he thought he was inspired and that led to his conversion to Christianity (a conversion which historians doubt its sincerity or sincere motives) and therefore he imposed his newly found Christian faith on his empire and subjects wholesale; and then his successors converted an entire continent of pagan Europe, largely through brute force. So I am only left to believe that in word and in deed, Christianity is way more violent than Islam.


While Islam limits use of force to self defense as evident in the verse of permission to fight, Luke 14:23 promotes compelling others to the faith. In fact, there is no comparison. I am not even talking about other instances of colonization, the Transatlantic slave trade, the conquistadors, and the bloody sectarian wars among Catholics and protestants across Europe in the Middle Ages. I'm not even referring to two world wars fought by Christian nations among themselves and countless American bombings, use of nuclear weapons on Japan and invasions and occupations of other nations.

...cont

Then there is the Christian hobby of character assassination against the Prophet Muhammad. When you pinpoint the fact that Christian rulers used violence, they would deny or absolve Christianity. The normal reply has been that Christianity spread peacefully within the Levant, its birthplace, even if it later on spread to Europe and elsewhere through forced conversions. But that doesn’t negate the fact that Christianity obtained its majority status, first, because Constantine adopted the faith and imposed it on his subjects throughout the Roman Empire. And then, his successors spread it further into pagan Europe, again through brute force and destroying pagan temples and criminalizing pagan rituals. Upon closer examination, we observe that the Prophet of Islam preached in Makkah, his birthplace for 13 years without the use of force. He succeeded in gaining thousands of followers through preaching despite the fact that he was persecuted. The pagan elites were alarmed since the idols kept in the holy Kaabah were a source of revenue for them and pilgrims from far and wide came for that purpose. Therefore the preaching of the Prophet of Islam against idol worship threatened their economic status. He was physically harmed, insulted and they went as petty as placing animal intestines on his back while he prostrated in prayers and throwing garbage on his path. He then fled from Makkah after they plotted to assassinate him, in his birthplace to Yathrib.

The people of Yathrib peacefully converted to Islam, wholesale and embraced the Prophet as their own and went on to change the name of their city from Yathrib to Medinatul Nabi (the city of the Prophet) in his honour. While in Medina, he was still chased and they plotted yet again to wipe him off, since Makkans were relocating in droves to join the new faith of Muhammad (s) in Medina. Such unrelenting persecution would rightfully prompt self defense, espeicially because the Makkans started drawing blood and destroyed lives and properties of the nascent Muslim community members. There are many instances where the Prophet would prefer forgiveness, forbearance and protecting his enemies, after they surrender, than vengeance.

I am not a proponent of conquests. Even though the Sunni caliphs that came after the Prophet conquered far and wide, they still promoted pluralistic societies. Christian philosophers and scientists contributed to the growth of learning and science im Baghdad and Damascus during the Islamic Golden Age. It took the Levant and Egypt many centuries to attain Muslim majority status. That reflects the fact that there were no conversions at sword point that mischievous Christian missionaries tout. In Muslim Spain or Andalus, half of the population under Muslim rule were Christians and Jews. This even enabled a later return of Christian rule to Iberia through force. Had the Muslim rulers imposed religious cleansing, a return of Christian rule to Spain would have been harder, if not impossible. The return of Christian rule led to the inquisition and the expulsion of not only the Muslim population, but also Jews, who once thrived in Muslim ruled Spain. When the cleansing of pagan Europe and Muslim Spain, among other atrocities for forced conversion to Christianity are visited on history pages, even the most brutal contemporary terror groups in Muslim countries that follow the Takfiri ideolody of the tiny minority of Sunni Muslims would blush in shyness. After all said and done, Christianity is "pissful" but Islam is "violent".

Christanity was spread by sword while Islam is still spreading by terrorism (bombings, beheading).

Happy Ramadan to my Islam brothers and sisters. I love you all.

Kai. So Europe was forced with Christianity.

This is a knockout punch.

Christianization of Pagan Europe

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization

Christianization of Pagan Europe

AlBaqir:
Then there is the Christian hobby of character assassination against the Prophet Muhammad. When you pinpoint the fact that Christian rulers used violence, they would deny or absolve Christianity. The normal reply has been that Christianity spread peacefully within the Levant, its birthplace, even if it later on spread to Europe and elsewhere through forced conversions. But that doesn’t negate the fact that Christianity obtained its majority status, first, because Constantine adopted the faith and imposed it on his subjects throughout the Roman Empire. And then, his successors spread it further into pagan Europe, again through brute force and destroying pagan temples and criminalizing pagan rituals. Upon closer examination, we observe that the Prophet of Islam preached in Makkah, his birthplace for 13 years without the use of force. He succeeded in gaining thousands of followers through preaching despite the fact that he was persecuted. The pagan elites were alarmed since the idols kept in the holy Kaabah were a source of revenue for them and pilgrims from far and wide came for that purpose. Therefore the preaching of the Prophet of Islam against idol worship threatened their economic status. He was physically harmed, insulted and they went as petty as placing animal intestines on his back while he prostrated in prayers and throwing garbage on his path. He then fled from Makkah after they plotted to assassinate him, in his birthplace to Yathrib.

The people of Yathrib peacefully converted to Islam, wholesale and embraced the Prophet as their own and went on to change the name of their city from Yathrib to Medinatul Nabi (the city of the Prophet) in his honour. While in Medina, he was still chased and they plotted yet again to wipe him off, since Makkans were relocating in droves to join the new faith of Muhammad (s) in Medina. Such unrelenting persecution would rightfully prompt self defense, espeicially because the Makkans started drawing blood and destroyed lives and properties of the nascent Muslim community members. There are many instances where the Prophet would prefer forgiveness, forbearance and protecting his enemies, after they surrender, than vengeance.

I am not a proponent of conquests. Even though the Sunni caliphs that came after the Prophet conquered far and wide, they still promoted pluralistic societies. Christian philosophers and scientists contributed to the growth of learning and science im Baghdad and Damascus during the Islamic Golden Age. It took the Levant and Egypt many centuries to attain Muslim majority status. That reflects the fact that there were no conversions at sword point that mischievous Christian missionaries tout. In Muslim Spain or Andalus, half of the population under Muslim rule were Christians and Jews. This even enabled a later return of Christian rule to Iberia through force. Had the Muslim rulers imposed religious cleansing, a return of Christian rule to Spain would have been harder, if not impossible. The return of Christian rule led to the inquisition and the expulsion of not only the Muslim population, but also Jews, who once thrived in Muslim ruled Spain. When the cleansing of pagan Europe and Muslim Spain, among other atrocities for forced conversion to Christianity are visited on history pages, even the most brutal contemporary terror groups in Muslim countries that follow the Takfiri ideolody of the tiny minority of Sunni Muslims would blush in shyness. After all said and done, Christianity is "pissful" but Islam is "violent".

In Muslim Spain or Andalus, half of the population under Muslim rule were Christians and Jews. This even enabled a later return of Christian rule to Iberia through force. Had the Muslim rulers imposed religious cleansing, a return of Christian rule to Spain would have been harder, if not impossible. The return of Christian rule led to the inquisition and the expulsion of not only the Muslim population, but also Jews, who once thrived in Muslim ruled Spain.


This is quite misleading and a big lie! Muslims invaded and conqurerd Spain before she lost it; In 711 Muslim forces invaded and in seven years conquered the Iberian peninsula.It became one of the great Muslim civilisations; reaching its summit with the Umayyad caliphate of Cordovain the tenth century.Muslim rule declined after that and ended in 1492 when Granada was conquered.The heartland of Muslim rule was Southern Spain or Andulusia.The traditional story is that in the year 711, an oppressed Christian chief, Julian, went to Musa ibn Nusair, the governor of North Africa, with a plea for help against the tyrannical Visigoth ruler of Spain, Roderick.Musa responded by sending the young general Tariq bin Ziyad with an army of 7000 troops. The name Gibraltar is derived from Jabal At-Tariq which is Arabic for 'Rock of Tariq' named after the place where the Muslim army landed.
The story of the appeal for help is not universally accepted. There is no doubt that Tariq invaded Spain, but the reason for it may have more to do with the Muslim drive to enlarge their territory.The Muslim army defeated the Visigoth army easily, and Roderick was killed in battle.After the first victory, the Muslims conquered most of Spain and Portugal with little difficulty, and in fact with little opposition. By 720 Spain was largely under Muslim (or Moorish, as it was called) control.One reason for the rapid Muslim success was the generous surrender terms that they offered the people, which contrasted with the harsh conditions imposed by the previous Visigoth rulers.The ruling Islamic forces were made up of different nationalities, and many of the forces were converts with uncertain motivation, so the establishment of a coherent Muslim state was not easy. One of the reasons that led to the fall of islamic rule in Spain was the GRANADA MASSACRE of 30th December 1066 in which over 4000 jews were killed by a muslim mob who were majority Berbers They stormed the royal palace in Granada, which was at that time in Muslim-ruled al-Andalus, assassinated the Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela, and massacred many of the Jewish population of the city. Islam occupied spain by conquest and where defeated through the same process that brought them there never to rule Spain again.

Oksman:




In Muslim Spain or Andalus, half of the population under Muslim rule were Christians and Jews. This even enabled a later return of Christian rule to Iberia through force. Had the Muslim rulers imposed religious cleansing, a return of Christian rule to Spain would have been harder, if not impossible. The return of Christian rule led to the inquisition and the expulsion of not only the Muslim population, but also Jews, who once thrived in Muslim ruled Spain.

So in reclaiming Spain, the turn the other cheek Christians also did exactly like the caliphate and massacred Muslims and Jews?

Quote:
"One reason for the rapid Muslim success was the generous surrender terms that they offered the people, which contrasted with the harsh conditions imposed by the previous Visigoth rulers."

So that goes to prove that the Muslim rulers still afforded others a place in Spain and there was diversity in society.

And you did not tell us about the forced conversions of pagans in Europe to Christianity.

Are you in accord with the author that both the Christian's and the Sunni caliphate are birds of the same feather?

You always tell us what Muslim rulers did. You told us of a massacre of Jews by Muslims. What of the massacre of Jews by Christians? Do Christians have the right to claim they're peaceful or that Christianity itself is peaceful? The OP didn't stop at showing his disgust for Muslim conquests or all conquests. But he only emphasized how Christian persecution was much worse than the Muslims, who the Christians label with names.

Levant:


So in reclaiming Spain, the turn the other cheek Christians also did exactly like the caliphate and massacred Muslims and Jews?

Quote:
"One reason for the rapid Muslim success was the generous surrender terms that they offered the people, which contrasted with the harsh conditions imposed by the previous Visigoth rulers."

So that goes to prove that the Muslim rulers still afforded others a place in Spain and there was diversity in society.

And you did not tell us about the forced conversions of pagans in Europe to Christianity.

Are you in accord with the author that both the Christian's and the Sunni caliphate are birds of the same feather?

You always tell us what Muslim rulers did. You told us of a massacre of Jews by Muslims. What of the massacre of Jews by Christians? Do Christians have the right to claim they're peaceful or that Christianity itself is peaceful? The OP didn't stop at showing his disgust for Muslim conquests or all conquests. But he only emphasized how Christian persecution was much worse than the Muslims, who the Christians label with names.

Who are the Visigoth rulers you mentioned above. Where they Christian Rulers as the topic tries to potray them ? Why the SELF- jUSTIFICATION narrative? Why the effort to place christianity and islam on the same page. Was Adolph Hilter fighting to impose christian rule in Germany when he murdered 6 million jews? Study Roman history and understand that the VISIGOTHS were a Germanic race that conquered Rome, and it was not to impose their there own "religion" butevery muslim conquest ws to expand Islam. How many nations in this present time are still trying to force people to accept their religion? Your guess is as good as mine. Men! let focus our time on where we are heading to now and not wasting our time on things that are too deep for us to understand. Thank you and have a wonderful day.

Oksman:



Who are the Visigoth rulers you mentioned above. Where they Christian Rulers as the topic tries to potray them ? Why the SELF- jUSTIFICATION narrative? Why the effort to place christianity and islam on the same page. Was Adolph Hilter fighting to impose christian rule in Germany when he murdered 6 million jews? Study Roman history and understand that the VISIGOTHS were a Germanic race that conquered Rome, and it was not to impose their there own "religion" butevery muslim conquest ws to expand Islam. How many nations in this present time are still trying to force people to accept their religion? Your guess is as good as mine. Men! let focus our time on where we are heading to now and not wasting our time on things that are too deep for us to understand. Thank you and have a wonderful day.

The Spanish kings who staged the Reconquista were Christian. Stop spreading nonsense like your pastors. They reclaimed power in Spain and imposed Christianity and killed/expelled Muslims and Jews. The cross appeared on their flags. The Visgoths had converted to Christianity in the 4th century. Read:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista

Levant:
Persecution of Pagans by the Holy Roman Empire

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_pagans_in_the_late_Roman_Empire

lol in order to make more sense, u added Holy to d Roman empire not knowing how fooolish u sound. is it the Roman empire that persecuted and killed a lot of d early Christians?

zionmde:

lol in order to make more sense, u added Holy to d Roman empire not knowing how fooolish u sound. is it the Roman empire that persecuted and killed a lot of d early Christians?

Too many blind believers.

Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire after Constantine adopted Christianity and imposed it. Thus, the word "Holy" is added to its name to differentiate the two eras of paganism and Christianity respectively.

And you said I sound foolish? Empty head. Olodo. Take this as an opportunity to learn something.

Levant:


Too many blind believers.

Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire after Constantine adopted Christianity and imposed it. Thus, the word "Holy" is added to its name to differentiate the two eras of paganism and Christianity respectively.

And you said I sound foolish? Empty head. Olodo. Take this as an opportunity to learn something.

There is nothing like Holy Roman empire, who declared it Holy? on whose authority?
U still sound foolishh though?

zionmde:

There is nothing like Holy Roman empire, who declared it Holy? on whose authority?
U still sound foolishh though?

Before 1157, the realm was merely referred to as the Roman Empire.[21] The term sacrum ( "holy", in the sense of "consecrated" ) in connection with the medieval Roman Empire was used beginning in 1157 under Frederick I Barbarossa ("Holy Empire" ) : the term was added to reflect Frederick's ambition to dominate Italy and the Papacy.[22] The form "Holy Roman Empire" is attested from 1254 onward.[23]

In a decree following the 1512 Diet of Cologne, the name was changed to the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" (German: Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, Latin: Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Germanicæ),[24] a form first used in a document in 1474.[22] The new title was adopted partly because the Empire had lost most of its territories in Italy and Burgundy (the Kingdom of Arles) to the south and west by the late 15th century,[25] but also to emphasize the new importance of the German Imperial Estates in ruling the Empire due to the Imperial Reform.[26] By the end of the 18th century, the term "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" had fallen out of official use. Contradicting the traditional view concerning that designation, Hermann Weisert has argued in a study on imperial titulature that, despite the claims of many textbooks, the name "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" never had an official status and points out that documents were thirty times as likely to omit the national suffix as include it.[27]

In a famous assessment of the name, the political philosopher Voltaire remarked sardonically: "This body which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."[28]

In the modern period, the Empire was often informally called the German Empire (Deutsches Reich) or Roman-German Empire (Römisch-Deutsches Reich).[29] After its dissolution through the end of the German Empire, it was often called "the old Empire" (das alte Reich). Beginning in 1923, early-twentieth century German nationalists and Nazi propaganda would identify the Holy Roman Empire as the First Reich (Reich meaning empire), with the German Empire as the Second Reich and either a future German nationalist state or Nazi Germany as the Third Reich.[30]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire

Levant:


Before 1157, the realm was merely referred to as the Roman Empire.[21] The term sacrum ( "holy", in the sense of "consecrated" ) in connection with the medieval Roman Empire was used beginning in 1157 under Frederick I Barbarossa ("Holy Empire" ) : the term was added to reflect Frederick's ambition to dominate Italy and the Papacy.[22] The form "Holy Roman Empire" is attested from 1254 onward.[23]

In a decree following the 1512 Diet of Cologne, the name was changed to the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" (German: Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, Latin: Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Germanicæ),[24] a form first used in a document in 1474.[22] The new title was adopted partly because the Empire had lost most of its territories in Italy and Burgundy (the Kingdom of Arles) to the south and west by the late 15th century,[25] but also to emphasize the new importance of the German Imperial Estates in ruling the Empire due to the Imperial Reform.[26] By the end of the 18th century, the term "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" had fallen out of official use. Contradicting the traditional view concerning that designation, Hermann Weisert has argued in a study on imperial titulature that, despite the claims of many textbooks, the name "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" never had an official status and points out that documents were thirty times as likely to omit the national suffix as include it.[27]

In a famous assessment of the name, the political philosopher Voltaire remarked sardonically: "This body which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."[28]

In the modern period, the Empire was often informally called the German Empire (Deutsches Reich) or Roman-German Empire (Römisch-Deutsches Reich).[29] After its dissolution through the end of the German Empire, it was often called "the old Empire" (das alte Reich). Beginning in 1923, early-twentieth century German nationalists and Nazi propaganda would identify the Holy Roman Empire as the First Reich (Reich meaning empire), with the German Empire as the Second Reich and either a future German nationalist state or Nazi Germany as the Third Reich.[30]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire

Ok
No human being has d right to declare anything holy
we only have Holy Jerusalem

AlBaqir:

Anonymous writes:

If you want to make criticism, then, you must pick out certain topics or events or incidents to expa

When it comes to religion, there is the text and there are the acts.

Resorting to or the use of force in the Quran was not indiscriminate and it even had a starting point through the revelation of the permission to fight Quran verse. In that verse (Quran 22:39-40), even the conditions of when to fight back are listed. Then in verses 2:193-194, the use of force is only limited against enemy combatants and not against enemy civilians. Further, Muslims are told to embrace non Muslims who haven't caused us harm or hurt and we should show them justice and kindness through Quran verse 60:8.
...cont.

One wonders why anonymous.

Islamic literature clearly shows Islam for what it is. One would not need to resort to too many documents outside Islam to get a true picture of Islam.

Half-truths at the end of the day are lies.
Show us where the people of Yathrib voluntarily turned to Islam and the peacefully agreed to rename their city Medical. Show us.
This video show clearly Moslem approach of always attempting to label others - Christians in particular - with their own faults and flaws:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixtc_yI46Hg

That's an open secret. Both christianity and Islam are spread by killing people, but Islam did it more and are still in the business of terrorism till today. Christianity had graduated into the scamming business.

No religion was ever more fertile in crimes than Christianity. From Abel’s murder to the torture of [Jean] Calas [1762], there is not any line of its history that is not bloody.
— Diderot, Salon de 1762, §42



We should always limit ourselves to the following historical truth: The Muslims’ lawgiver was a powerful and terrifying man, who established his dogmas by his courage and by his weapons; yet his religion became merciful and tolerant. Christianity’s divine founder lived in humility and peace, and preached forgiveness of offenses; but owing to our furious madness, his holy and sweet religion became the most intolerant and most barbarous of all.
— Voltaire, Essai sur les mœurs, chap. vii


Source: Philippe Buc, "Holy war, martyrdom, and terror Christianity, violence, and the West" pg. 67