Shaggai wrote:The USOT wrote:That logic is highly flawed.
1) Persecution does not make one suddenly stop having a beleif. It was inherrantly easier to be a Communist supporter in the USSR than it was to be a Tsarist. People have beleifs which are often highly flawed which they are willing to die and suffer for, especially when it is so intrinsicly tied to their identity.
In a similar fashion, the implication is that everybody would have walked away from mohammad during the early days of Islam for the persecution they received when they were kicked out of Mecca, or that Islam would cease to exist in spain because of the persecution following the end of Al-Andalus. Its simply a wrong hypothesis.
2) Survivabilaty does not = truth. Zoroastrians have gone through far more persecution than Christians have over the millenia. Furthermore Hindu`s have been horribly opressed by Christian powers and at war with Islamic ones for centuries. Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and Christianity all negate eachother, and yet all have equal validity by your standard for truth.
Also, Islam wasn't a "convert or die" sort of thing. It was more "hey, we rule you now. You can keep your religion, but you'll need to pay a tax." It also believed that all believers were equal, which of course was pretty appealing to lower class people.
If all Islamist believers are equal, then why is one sect trying to blow up another?

