Is Islam a religion of peace , or is it inherently violent ?

[Tassadar500]

And from what I read, the Jews under Muslim rule were much better off than Jews under Christian rule.

[Al B. Sure!]

insanely better off... aside from a tax, Christians and Jews were not at all ill-treated by their Muslim rulers. whereas Christian nations since Constantine's Rome have been rife with expulsions and progroms of Jews, Islamic nations never had any history of such things until the 20th century.

in the 17th century, when Akbar the Great, the Muslim Mogul sultan, invited philosophers and theologians from around the world to discuss religious matters, he and all the other religious congregations of jews, muslims, nestorians, hindus, buddhists, confucists, taoist, etc. all found the Jesuit theologians to be violent, intolerant, and single/narrow-minded. that experience epitomizes Christianity until recently.

when a Muslim monarch puts out his hand to have a free and open discussion of religion, the world's religions respond with friendly debate and discussion except for the Christians who blindly and intolerantly insisted on their version of God.

history shows that with only a rare exception (the Quakers), Christians were the civilized world's intolerant, violent bastards until the Enlightenment. so bizarre considering the especially kind, gentle, and tolerant founder.

[Ramo]

It's interesting that often governments of Islamic states (such as the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates) discouraged conversion to Islam (to maximize tax revenue).

history shows that with only a rare exception (the Quakers), Christians were the civilized world's intolerant, violent bastards until the Enlightenment. so bizarre considering the especially kind, gentle, and tolerant founder.

Not really. Between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Clunyist reform movement in the 10th century, Christianity was suprisingly tolerant towards other religions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Clunyist reform movement in the 10th century, Christianity was suprisingly tolerant towards other religions.

Not really towards the Jews... look at the words of Saint John Chrysostom, an anti-semite if there was one. Some Christians believed Jews were part of the same branch, but most of Christianity believed in Chrysostom's teachings about them messing up God's word, which necessitated the sending of the Messiah, who the Jews killed, etc. His works were very influential, even after the Empire fell.

And Speer, while Muslims were, as a whole, much more tolerant and did not ill treat Christians and Jews, some areas in some periods of history did engage in some persecution, such as the early Seljuks.

[Ramo]

Nonetheless, significant numbers of pogroms didn't start again until the end the millennium. The ideology of intolerance was primarily a byproduct of soceity (especially parts of the Church) directing feudal violence away from Christians and towards "the others."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Saying you are bad because of your religion, but not wiping you out is still intolerance.

[Ramo]

Suprisingly tolerant isn't the same thing as tolerant.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wouldn't call disdain and disgust for a group as 'suprisingly tolerant' either, at least not compared to Roman tradition on cults .

[MrFun]

Did I ever mention that it's somewhat ridiculous sometimes, to argue back and forth which religion has been more oppressive in its history?


Oh, and since I wanted to keep the winking smilie going . . . .

[Tassadar500]

As if it could go on forever.

[Ramo]

I wouldn't call disdain and disgust for a group as 'suprisingly tolerant' either, at least not compared to Roman tradition on cults

This disgust wasn't universal. And the Roman Empire towards the end was pretty damn oppressive to religious dissidents. Look at all the **** that Augustine was advocating.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This disgust wasn't universal. And the Roman Empire towards the end was pretty damn oppressive to religious dissidents.

Well mostly after Christians took it over (Theodosius II and all). Before hand, the Roman Empire only acted against those cults which formented political defiance (such as when the Jews started to feel too important in the 1st Century and the Christians before Constantine). They didn't care so much about what different religions believed, as long as they didn't stray into political issues. The Jews, for instance, were mostly left alone before and after that unplesantness around 70 CE.

And I'd say the disgust was held by a large majority.

[Ramo]

Well mostly after Christians took it over (Theodosius II and all).

Of course.

And I'd say the disgust was held by a large majority.

Since Gallup and Zogby weren't around back then, I can't say. But there were prominent exceptions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But there were prominent exceptions.

I agree there were exceptions but a lot of the people considered Church founders expressed a lot of anti-semetic statements... setting up what occured later.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
insanely better off... aside from a tax, Christians and Jews were not at all ill-treated by their Muslim rulers.

Oh what a pile of crap.


If you are going to study Islamic history at least do it in some depth, not tactfully omitting the eruptions of puritanical Islamic sects who had no compunction about offering a choice of submission or sword to peoples of the book.

It's entirely possible to combine great artistic and scientific achievement with cruel and arbitrary behaviour based on 'interpretation' of religious texts, but glossing over the more sanguine episodes as you do is dishonest.