Why do so many people hate Islam?

[Saiwania]

I'm not ignoring that Islam has spawned several wars and there's been violence involved with it, but to ignore Christianity's equal bloody history is fucking disingenuous.

Well maybe if Spain wasn't invaded by Muslims in the first place and made it so that it took centuries of warfare to finally purge the invaders from their homeland, the Spaniards might've been less inclined to be so brutal in spreading Christianity during their colonization of the Americas.

The Spanish saw the Islamic methods of conquest and sought to emulate their successes. The Spanish did what they thought was necessary to win. Instead of risking being vulnerable to invasion again, the Spanish decided to preemptively build an empire for themselves when it was found they had the opportunity and means to do so.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Only the one and only female anime cat that I find hot

Good, the plan is going along perfectly.

Yes... I do believe I have weird tastes when it comes to the kind of hand-drawn women I like.

BUT, in my defense, I got a weak spot for scientist chicks with glasses.

[Herskerstad]

I am well aware of my history. Though spread is a rather meticulous word to use in such a context. It did 'spread' throughout the Roman empire under persecution, and eventually through Constantine gain top political influence. The amount of 'holy wars' IE, crusades, subjugation's and to a lesser degree colonization in Christianity is relatively limited though not few, even though they are dwarfed by relatively secular conflicts in scale if not in scope.

If Jesus however had said things like 'Slay the infidel wherever you find him' or 'Wage war against the unbelievers' you can be certain that history would look quite different. The problem is, the prophet of the southern religion did say such things, and as a result one can see the history of Islam the way it developed.

Focusing on Jesus or Mohammed alone is really irrelevant. Focus on the negative adherents who twisted their religion to conquer and kill. Christianity is not innocent here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiani ... n_violence

I'm not ignoring that Islam has spawned several wars and there's been violence involved with it, but to ignore Christianity's equal bloody history is fucking disingenuous.

Firstly, it is not irrelevant, focusing on the teachings of the core figures on the religion is pretty vital if you are going to define religious violence. Especially if one in the question started several. Secondly, it is also vital to categorize what makes a 'holy war' Otto Von Bismarck repelling the french invasion of Prussia and saying 'Gott Mit Uns' does not make it in my book. Religious traditionalism during a war with relative secular, nationalistic or imperial rationale does not convert it into a religious one and for the most part that's what Europe has been doing. That's not to say that it's not had it's 30 years war, or it's crusades 'even though, as I've said in past behemoth posts, it would not be irrational for a pope which had several Islamic naval landings near his center to try to make friends with the Byzantines and the unexpected scope of it' and of course it's internal religious turmoil, which while significant, pales to the far more numerous historical Jihads and their sometimes quite awful treatment of dhimmi's which with modern research is becoming increasingly evident.

It's one thing to whitewash, but I do find it rational to compare doctrines, rationale, scope and scale of wars and treatments of the subjugated, there are numerous reasons why humanities, technology and general political advancements was undertaken at an increased rate in Europe and a part of that was not having a religion that has a legal system embedded into it, which did not in it's doctrine call for the war and subjugation others and indeed stood far more peaceful at it's core than many other religions. With the exception of the Ottomans which eventually stagnated themselves, there was very little growth for a long time until the colonial undertakings in the Islamic world which had in it's inception profited so much from Roman, Byzantine and various eastern technology from which they had conquered. You are entirely correct that the followers of various religions do take a central role in the question of religious violence, but it becomes ever more apparent when one can find scripture to condone conquests and subjugation in a doctrinally-formalized way, and the other does not.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

"Why don't I believe you? And why is it that I feel an ominous chill behind my back?"

''Because I was there.''

Top that, damn it.

But yes, I hate extremists, not Islam or Christianity or Hinduism or Buddhism or Shintoism or any other religion there is. I hate extremism.

I just see them as lunatics.

They're cute until they start doing stupid shit.

[SuperFruitland]

I'm not ignoring that Islam has spawned several wars and there's been violence involved with it, but to ignore Christianity's equal bloody history is fucking disingenuous.

Well maybe if Spain wasn't invaded by Muslims in the first place and made it so that it took centuries of warfare to finally purge the invaders from their homeland, the Spaniards might've been less inclined to be so brutal in spreading Christianity during their colonization of the Americas.

The Spanish saw the Islamic methods of conquest and sought to emulate their successes. The Spanish did what they thought was necessary to win. Instead of risking being vulnerable to invasion again, the Spanish decided to preemptively build an empire for themselves when it was found they had the opportunity and means to do so.

Spain was invaded by the Muslims when Spain wasn't Spain, IIRC.

It was a buncha weak tribes, IIRC.

The Muslims were more technologically advanced than the Spanish tribes.

When Spain became, well, Spain, and got tech and shit, they kicked out the Muslims.

And emulated the Muslims by attacking weak tribes, eh?

And oppressing the shit out of said native tribes, spreading disease, murdering, enslaving...

And the Muslims did worse?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'm not ignoring that Islam has spawned several wars and there's been violence involved with it, but to ignore Christianity's equal bloody history is fucking disingenuous.

Well maybe if Spain wasn't invaded by Muslims in the first place and made it so that it took centuries of warfare to finally purge the invaders from their homeland, the Spaniards might've been less inclined to be so brutal in spreading Christianity during their colonization of the Americas.

The Spanish saw the Islamic methods of conquest and sought to emulate their successes. The Spanish did what they thought was necessary to win. Instead of risking being vulnerable to invasion again, the Spanish decided to preemptively build an empire for themselves when it was found they had the opportunity and means to do so.

That's irrelevant when you consider that Christians did this kind of shit all the time too. Remember the Holy Roman Empire? Remember the Crusade boners many a Pope had (even before the Spanish reconquista)? Remember the invasion of Constantinople by the Venetians in the 1200s? Recall the auto-da fe that cost the life of 2,000 Jews in Strasbourg in the 1200s? An auto-da fe led by Christians? Or the expulsion of the Jews from Spain? An expulsion made in the name of Jesus. Must I go on? How many lost their lives during the times of the Inquisition? Or during the Salem witch trials? Should I continue?

[Napkiraly]

What makes the Islamic conquests worse than the Roman/Persian/Greek/Babylonian etc conquests exactly?

[Sebastianbourg]

Well maybe if Spain wasn't invaded by Muslims in the first place and made it so that it took centuries of warfare to finally purge the invaders from their homeland, the Spaniards might've been less inclined to be so brutal in spreading Christianity during their colonization of the Americas.

The Spanish saw the Islamic methods of conquest and sought to emulate their successes. The Spanish did what they thought was necessary to win. Instead of risking being vulnerable to invasion again, the Spanish decided to preemptively build an empire for themselves when it was found they had the opportunity and means to do so.

That's irrelevant when you consider that Christians did this kind of shit all the time too. Remember the Holy Roman Empire? Remember the Crusade boners many a Pope had (even before the Spanish reconquista)? Remember the invasion of Constantinople by the Venetians in the 1200s? Recall the auto-da fe that cost the life of 2,000 Jews in Strasbourg in the 1200s? An auto-da fe led by Christians? Or the expulsion of the Jews from Spain? An expulsion made in the name of Jesus. Must I go on? How many lost their lives during the times of the Inquisition? Or during the Salem witch trials? Should I continue?

And Portugal too.

[SuperFruitland]

What makes the Islamic conquests worse than the Roman/Persian/Greek/Babylonian etc conquests exactly?

The Islamic conquests were by Muslims.

Obviously.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

What makes the Islamic conquests worse than the Roman/Persian/Greek/Babylonian etc conquests exactly?

Apparently only Muslims are reprehensible, while the others did it for a very very very good reason or some other bullshit.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Focusing on Jesus or Mohammed alone is really irrelevant. Focus on the negative adherents who twisted their religion to conquer and kill. Christianity is not innocent here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiani ... n_violence

I'm not ignoring that Islam has spawned several wars and there's been violence involved with it, but to ignore Christianity's equal bloody history is fucking disingenuous.

Firstly, it is not irrelevant, focusing on the teachings of the core figures on the religion is pretty vital if you are going to define religious violence. Especially if one in the question started several. Secondly, it is also vital to categorize what makes a 'holy war' Otto Von Bismarck repelling the french invasion of Prussia and saying 'Gott Mit Uns' does not make it in my book. Religious traditionalism during a war with relative secular, nationalistic or imperial rationale does not convert it into a religious one and for the most part that's what Europe has been doing. That's not to say that it's not had it's 30 years war, or it's crusades 'even though, as I've said in past behemoth posts, it would not be irrational for a pope which had several Islamic naval landings near his center to try to make friends with the Byzantines and the unexpected scope of it' and of course it's internal religious turmoil, which while significant, pales to the far more numerous historical Jihads and their sometimes quite awful treatment of dhimmi's which with modern research is becoming increasingly evident.

It's one thing to whitewash, but I do find it rational to compare doctrines, rationale, scope and scale of wars and treatments of the subjugated, there are numerous reasons why humanities, technology and general political advancements was undertaken at an increased rate in Europe and a part of that was not having a religion that has a legal system embedded into it, which did not in it's doctrine call for the war and subjugation others and indeed stood far more peaceful at it's core than many other religions. With the exception of the Ottomans which eventually stagnated themselves, there was very little growth for a long time until the colonial undertakings in the Islamic world which had in it's inception profited so much from Roman, Byzantine and various eastern technology from which they had conquered. You are entirely correct that the followers of various religions do take a central role in the question of religious violence, but it becomes ever more apparent when one can find scripture to condone conquests and subjugation in a doctrinally-formalized way, and the other does not.

Both religions have blood in their hands. Christianity has been as violent as Islam in many occasions. The Bible has passages that advocate violence against non-believers. Religious leaders in both religions have advocated wars and tolerated genocide. Neither ideology is free of guilt. *shrug*

[Napkiraly]

What makes the Islamic conquests worse than the Roman/Persian/Greek/Babylonian etc conquests exactly?

Apparently only Muslims are reprehensible, while the others did it for a very very very good reason or some other bullshit.

What makes the Islamic conquests worse than the Roman/Persian/Greek/Babylonian etc conquests exactly?

The Islamic conquests were by Muslims.

Obviously.

It's all legit.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What makes the Islamic conquests worse than the Roman/Persian/Greek/Babylonian etc conquests exactly?

You owe us Romans for your modern Western civilization. That's what makes us better than all those other peasants.

[SuperFruitland]

What makes the Islamic conquests worse than the Roman/Persian/Greek/Babylonian etc conquests exactly?

You owe us Romans for your modern Western civilization. That's what makes us better than all those other peasants.

And we owe Greeks for culture, and Bablyonians, for, well, walls and Great Scientists

and Persians for their double-movement during Golden Ages

[Herskerstad]

Firstly, it is not irrelevant, focusing on the teachings of the core figures on the religion is pretty vital if you are going to define religious violence. Especially if one in the question started several. Secondly, it is also vital to categorize what makes a 'holy war' Otto Von Bismarck repelling the french invasion of Prussia and saying 'Gott Mit Uns' does not make it in my book. Religious traditionalism during a war with relative secular, nationalistic or imperial rationale does not convert it into a religious one and for the most part that's what Europe has been doing. That's not to say that it's not had it's 30 years war, or it's crusades 'even though, as I've said in past behemoth posts, it would not be irrational for a pope which had several Islamic naval landings near his center to try to make friends with the Byzantines and the unexpected scope of it' and of course it's internal religious turmoil, which while significant, pales to the far more numerous historical Jihads and their sometimes quite awful treatment of dhimmi's which with modern research is becoming increasingly evident.

It's one thing to whitewash, but I do find it rational to compare doctrines, rationale, scope and scale of wars and treatments of the subjugated, there are numerous reasons why humanities, technology and general political advancements was undertaken at an increased rate in Europe and a part of that was not having a religion that has a legal system embedded into it, which did not in it's doctrine call for the war and subjugation others and indeed stood far more peaceful at it's core than many other religions. With the exception of the Ottomans which eventually stagnated themselves, there was very little growth for a long time until the colonial undertakings in the Islamic world which had in it's inception profited so much from Roman, Byzantine and various eastern technology from which they had conquered. You are entirely correct that the followers of various religions do take a central role in the question of religious violence, but it becomes ever more apparent when one can find scripture to condone conquests and subjugation in a doctrinally-formalized way, and the other does not.

Both religions have blood in their hands. Christianity has been as violent as Islam in many occasions. The Bible has passages that advocate violence against non-believers. Religious leaders in both religions have advocated wars and tolerated genocide. Neither ideology is free of guilt. *shrug*

I would ask for you to substantiate that one, just so that I got a good idea on where you are coming from.

[Napkiraly]

What makes the Islamic conquests worse than the Roman/Persian/Greek/Babylonian etc conquests exactly?

You owe us Romans for your modern Western civilization. That's what makes us better than all those other peasants.

Germanic people gave the world lagers. Your argument is invalid.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You owe us Romans for your modern Western civilization. That's what makes us better than all those other peasants.

Germanic people gave the world lagers. Your argument is invalid.

Fuck. I knew we should have listened to Agricola when he told us we should have done beer back then.

[Anglo-California]

Because the Middle East has been a hornet's nest of religious warfare in the past few decades.

[Herskerstad]

Germanic people gave the world lagers. Your argument is invalid.

Fuck. I knew we should have listened to Agricola when he told us we should have done beer back then.

Hey, hey hey, you can't ignore us Norwegians when we gave the world.... uhh.... we gave..... umm....

THIS

[SuperFruitland]

Fuck. I knew we should have listened to Agricola when he told us we should have done beer back then.

Hey, hey hey, you can't ignore us Norwegians when we gave the world.... uhh.... we gave..... umm....

THIS

lolwtfisthat

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Both religions have blood in their hands. Christianity has been as violent as Islam in many occasions. The Bible has passages that advocate violence against non-believers. Religious leaders in both religions have advocated wars and tolerated genocide. Neither ideology is free of guilt. *shrug*

I would ask for you to substantiate that one, just so that I got a good idea on where you are coming from.

Psalm 137: ends with na blessing to anyone who would seize Babylonian children and smashed their heads against the floors to kill them.
"I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh" (Deut. 32:42).
Read Deut. 20: 16-18.
According to the first book of Samuel, God orders King Saul to strike at the Amalekite people, killing every man, woman, and child, and even wiping out their livestock (1 Samuel 15:2-3).
The Bible also alleges divine approval of racism and segregation. If you had to choose the single biblical story that most conspicuously outrages modern sentiment, it might well be the tale of Phinehas, a story that remains unknown to most Christian readers today (Numbers 25: 1-15).
The Gospel of John expresses such hostility to the Ioudaioi, a Greek word that usually translates as "Jews." Ioudaioi plan to stone Jesus, they plot to kill him; in turn, Jesus calls them liars, children of the Devil.
''They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.'' (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

And those are just a few examples.

[Anglo-California]

Fuck. I knew we should have listened to Agricola when he told us we should have done beer back then.

Hey, hey hey, you can't ignore us Norwegians when we gave the world.... uhh.... we gave..... umm....

THIS

What about us Americans? We gave the world this:

[SuperFruitland]

Hey, hey hey, you can't ignore us Norwegians when we gave the world.... uhh.... we gave..... umm....

THIS

(Image)

What about us Americans? We gave the world this:

Meanwhile, Filipinos (proud of my heritage)...

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

What about us Americans? We gave the world this:

Meanwhile, Filipinos (proud of my heritage)...

I thought you were going to post a photo of a parang.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Hey, hey hey, you can't ignore us Norwegians when we gave the world.... uhh.... we gave..... umm....

THIS

What about us Americans? We gave the world this:

Casuals.