|Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 94):
I may not be the expert on the Bible, but there is as much violence in Islamic history as there is in Jewish or Christian histories.
Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.
Those who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.
Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as some enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There were five deadly attacks over a 35 year period in the U.S. Seven people died. This is an average of one death every five years.
By contrast, Islamic terrorists have staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001. If you go back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.
In the last six years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and a radical clergy that supports the terror.
Some may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.
The Quran contains dozens of verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers, and kill the infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
These verses are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not embedded within historical context (as are nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.
As for your point about native americans, yes, it was bad, but it is irrelevant today because it is past history - nobody who committed those crimes is alive today, and our culture has changed to the point that it is highly unlikely that we would do such a thing again.
About the Crusades, here are some quick facts…
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.
By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world. Did Christians go overboard in their retribution? Most certainly. But you would note that nowhere in the New Testament does it say to act like this. In spite of the wars being called religious "Crusades", the wars were more about plain old conquest, wealth and power, and basically made up their so-called religious justification. The Quran does provide such justification.
If you want to start a different thread on the subject, we can go through it Sura by Sura. We've already gone off-topic enough.
[Edited 2007-10-25 19:49:21]