4 ms·

>The Quran is a revelatory text from a single generation, revealed by God to Muhammad, primarily providing divine justification for Muhammad's conquests and fur

>The Quran is a revelatory text from a single generation, revealed by God to Muhammad, primarily providing divine justification for Muhammad's conquests and further expansion. Quite a bit of the OT involves God instructing, encouraging, or justifying the Hebrews' conquests around the Levant.

candiodari 10y ago
This is, however, put forth as a story. A history. In most ways OT is no more aggressive than a book detailing any serious amount of history containing a war. It is cruel, sure, but no more than other books from that long ago or even more recent (Cicero, for instance, contains quite a few gruesome passages). The quran, on the other hand, instructs people to war. There is no temporal dimension in the vast majority of the war, and every 50 verses or so, muslims are instructed to attack this or that. I guess what I'm saying is that in the OT's case, especially when viewed through the interpretation the NT provides, requires quite a bit of roundabout reasoning to get it to say to make war. In contrast, it is a quite well established fact that islam teaches eternal war ("through words when possible, militarily when necessary"). It quite directly states that anything opposing their spread is to be attacked (and yes it uses words like attacked). First with words. Then with soldiers. And then through traps and sabotage, through raids and blind destruction. Islam, and this is an incredibly well established fact, teaches that there will be war until islam reigns supreme and all dead muslims will rise again. Needless to say, there are more than a few variations on the exact mechanism, but none are peaceful. Furthermore, islam's history (of the religion/state) is a history almost without significant periods of peace. Islam was created in a 100-150 year long war (as in the people who wrote the quran were born into a muslim-instigated set of wars, raised during war, and died during war. Several generations had that experience). Then a period with expansion wars but internally relative peace, then devolving into a millenium of constant warfare everywhere, internally and externally. That period is still going on, the violence there may have reached quite low levels since 1970 or so, but it certainly looks to be increasing again. Worse: wherever islam went, large scale massacres followed. Famously in Spain and India, but let's get real here : those are famous because they were recorded. We know, for instance, that there was an islamic massacre in Carthage. It killed or kidnapped and enslaved every last man, woman and child. Every last one. There was never any recovery and to today the city/country lies in ruins. We have plenty of reports from the Roman Empire of muslims doing that to towns, farms and cities. Plus let's get real here. Christianity spread because it convinced the population to convert and help eachother. For the poor to work together to make life better and provide a large-scale improvement of the life of the poor in the Roman Empire. Any revolution or any form of violence would have failed, so Christians didn't do that. You might want to look up once, for instance, exactly why Nero was fiddling when Rome burnt. Islam succeeded because it caused a millenium of large-scale wars of conquest, with constant massacres. The cases of conversion to islam without military intervention exist, but they are few and far between (and in many cases it's nobles converting to then go to war using a muslim army). To say these ideologies are the same when it comes to war and violence, is incredibly ignorant of everything. From their own texts, their history, both from their own perspective and from other sources.
- cholantesh 10y ago
  >This is, however, put forth as a story. A history. In most ways OT is no more aggressive than a book detailing any serious amount of history containing a war. It is cruel, sure, but no more than other books from that long ago or even more recent (Cicero, for instance, contains quite a few gruesome passages). A history in which a divine being, ostensibly the only divine being, and the most powerful, knowing, and moral being in existence is a primary character. One who calls for wars and even participates in them. And who doesn't indicate if this state of war will ever end, or whether one is to behave differently if it does. >I guess what I'm saying is that in the OT's case, especially when viewed through the interpretation the NT provides, requires quite a bit of roundabout reasoning to get it to say to make war. I think the opposite is true. It takes minimal effort to find God commanding the Israelites to engage their enemies. As to Islam's violent tenets and history, I don't deny its existence, but the only historical documents we have about Judaism's early days suggest that it, too, was the same at the outset. Also, as I argue below, Christianity has its share of skeletons in its closet. >Christianity spread because it convinced the population to convert and help eachother. For the poor to work together to make life better and provide a large-scale improvement of the life of the poor in the Roman Empire. This is a hypothesis that explains its survival during the first two centuries of its existence - one among several that is suggested by historians. It's hardly the only answer, though, and a survey of later Roman and all of Byzantine history indicates strongly that there are myriad political reasons for Christianity's subsequent survival. One consequence of the Christianization of the Empire and the various post-Roman kingdoms is forced conversion, particularly of Jews (who also experienced plenty of systemic discrimination, violence, and social stigmatization). All of this with plenty of ecclesiastic support. >You might want to look up once, for instance, exactly why Nero was fiddling when Rome burnt. I suppose any reason could be posited, since this didn't happen.

candiodari 10y ago

This is, however, put forth as a story. A history. In most ways OT is no more aggressive than a book detailing any serious amount of history containing a war. It is cruel, sure, but no more than other books from that long ago or even more recent (Cicero, for instance, contains quite a few gruesome passages). The quran, on the other hand, instructs people to war. There is no temporal dimension in the vast majority of the war, and every 50 verses or so, muslims are instructed to attack this or that. I guess what I'm saying is that in the OT's case, especially when viewed through the interpretation the NT provides, requires quite a bit of roundabout reasoning to get it to say to make war. In contrast, it is a quite well established fact that islam teaches eternal war ("through words when possible, militarily when necessary"). It quite directly states that anything opposing their spread is to be attacked (and yes it uses words like attacked). First with words. Then with soldiers. And then through traps and sabotage, through raids and blind destruction. Islam, and this is an incredibly well established fact, teaches that there will be war until islam reigns supreme and all dead muslims will rise again. Needless to say, there are more than a few variations on the exact mechanism, but none are peaceful. Furthermore, islam's history (of the religion/state) is a history almost without significant periods of peace. Islam was created in a 100-150 year long war (as in the people who wrote the quran were born into a muslim-instigated set of wars, raised during war, and died during war. Several generations had that experience). Then a period with expansion wars but internally relative peace, then devolving into a millenium of constant warfare everywhere, internally and externally. That period is still going on, the violence there may have reached quite low levels since 1970 or so, but it certainly looks to be increasing again. Worse: wherever islam went, large scale massacres followed. Famously in Spain and India, but let's get real here : those are famous because they were recorded. We know, for instance, that there was an islamic massacre in Carthage. It killed or kidnapped and enslaved every last man, woman and child. Every last one. There was never any recovery and to today the city/country lies in ruins. We have plenty of reports from the Roman Empire of muslims doing that to towns, farms and cities. Plus let's get real here. Christianity spread because it convinced the population to convert and help eachother. For the poor to work together to make life better and provide a large-scale improvement of the life of the poor in the Roman Empire. Any revolution or any form of violence would have failed, so Christians didn't do that. You might want to look up once, for instance, exactly why Nero was fiddling when Rome burnt. Islam succeeded because it caused a millenium of large-scale wars of conquest, with constant massacres. The cases of conversion to islam without military intervention exist, but they are few and far between (and in many cases it's nobles converting to then go to war using a muslim army). To say these ideologies are the same when it comes to war and violence, is incredibly ignorant of everything. From their own texts, their history, both from their own perspective and from other sources.

cholantesh 10y ago
>This is, however, put forth as a story. A history. In most ways OT is no more aggressive than a book detailing any serious amount of history containing a war. It is cruel, sure, but no more than other books from that long ago or even more recent (Cicero, for instance, contains quite a few gruesome passages). A history in which a divine being, ostensibly the only divine being, and the most powerful, knowing, and moral being in existence is a primary character. One who calls for wars and even participates in them. And who doesn't indicate if this state of war will ever end, or whether one is to behave differently if it does. >I guess what I'm saying is that in the OT's case, especially when viewed through the interpretation the NT provides, requires quite a bit of roundabout reasoning to get it to say to make war. I think the opposite is true. It takes minimal effort to find God commanding the Israelites to engage their enemies. As to Islam's violent tenets and history, I don't deny its existence, but the only historical documents we have about Judaism's early days suggest that it, too, was the same at the outset. Also, as I argue below, Christianity has its share of skeletons in its closet. >Christianity spread because it convinced the population to convert and help eachother. For the poor to work together to make life better and provide a large-scale improvement of the life of the poor in the Roman Empire. This is a hypothesis that explains its survival during the first two centuries of its existence - one among several that is suggested by historians. It's hardly the only answer, though, and a survey of later Roman and all of Byzantine history indicates strongly that there are myriad political reasons for Christianity's subsequent survival. One consequence of the Christianization of the Empire and the various post-Roman kingdoms is forced conversion, particularly of Jews (who also experienced plenty of systemic discrimination, violence, and social stigmatization). All of this with plenty of ecclesiastic support. >You might want to look up once, for instance, exactly why Nero was fiddling when Rome burnt. I suppose any reason could be posited, since this didn't happen.