It is true that Christianity has been exceptionally bloody at times in its history, but to argue which religion is more bloody is pointless. Today there is no question that Islam is the more reprehensible, and has mayhem on its mind with political gain as a result. Why deny the obvious? Christianity has become largely effeminate and supine, and unconvincing as a force to offer resistance to Islamic aggression. It simply no longer inspires political will.

The most interesting part of the conversation is what has not been said: Both Islam and Christianity are daughter religions derived from Judaism. The mother faith warns clearly of the dangers of both excessive love (Christianity) and excessive discipline (Islam), and teaches the need for balance since each will lead to murder if not balanced by the other. This lack of balance is glaring in both Islam and Christianity today.

Significantly, Judaism, while accepting of converts, does not seek nor require people to become Jews. It does not require territorial conquest beyond its ancestral homeland, nor require the world to become Jewish. The 7 Noahide Commandments, intended for all Mankind, are minimums for both religious and civilized behavior. What matters most to Jews and Judaism is how people behave, not what they think.

The teachings of this first Abrahamic faith should be studied much more closely in attempting to understand the behavior of its offspring, and to find alternatives to the thinking which threatens to plunge the world to new depths of despair and suffering.

Where today in the world are Christians quoting Christian scripture as a justification for violence, beheadings, misogyny, child marriage, and hostility for infidels and their ways?

I suppose I could point to recent wars in Rwanda, Serbia and elsewhere. Or I could point to the terrorism recently perpetrated against doctors in this country. There are plenty of examples if you care to look.

History shows that the borders of the Islamic world are everywhere bloody, as Samuel Huntington pointed out, whether you agree with his clash of civilizations thesis or not.

As if the borders of the Christian world have not been bloodied by a thousand wars as well? Or the borders of the Communist world? Or the borders of the Hindu world? Of the borders of any number of African cultures?

Islam is a religion, not a totalitarian system. There are millions of Muslims living peacefully with their neighbors in secular societies around the globe. Any religious tradition that claims divine preference is prone to totalitarianism and abuse – this applies to Judaism, Christianity, Islam and any other tradition with a jealous deity.

Since when do the most inveterate habits get changed in a whole civilization overnight? Since when are the most advanced lessons learned in a moment, with no preparation? Yet you expect the words of JC about the State to have been absorbed by Christians perfectly within a short historical time frame.

Christianity has had a few centuries longer than Islam to learn the most advanced lesson – if Christianity has problems after 2,000 years, why should it be surprising that similar problems persist in Islamic cultures? The West does not have a monopoly on secular culture, nor does Islam have a monopoly on religious violence. It is a matter of degree – and by objective measures, Islam is not the biggest offender.

Your claim that Islam is uniquely violent of prone to malignancy is not borne out by history. Christianity may or may not be inherently more benign – that’s not really the point. It’s what happens when people apply their beliefs in the real world that matters, and Christians have enough blood on their hands to make Muslims look like pacifists. It doesn’t really matter what you claim to believe – actions speak louder.

“Religious fanaticism of any stripe leads to violence and civil strife.”

Yes, but the question is whether one doctrine is more fanatical than others, or whether all doctrines are the same. Is one doctrine more resistant to fanatical interpretation than another doctrine? Of course! Doctrines differ profoundly on that. Islam is far less resistant to fanatical interpretation — in fact strongly encourages it — than are the other major religions.

There is no basis for making the claim that Islam is less resistant to fanatical interpretation than other major religions. Any religion that claims a monopoly on salvation is likely to get around to a little “forced conversion” at some point.

As Gandhi said “Oh, I don’t reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It’s just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ.” You can argue until you are blue in the face that Christianity is “theoretically” the most peaceful religion ever, but it’s simply not true in reality.

Peace.

DS

Pages from the History of the Indian sub-continent: Islamic Invasions, Conquests and Rule in India; Resistance and Submission to the Islamic Empires

——————————————————————————–

Forced Conversions to Islam

In his “Discovery of India” Jawaharlal Nehru appears to attribute the conversion of Hindus to Islam to Islam’s purported egalitarian character and hence its ‘mass appeal’: ” The idea of brotherhood of Islam and of the theoretical equality of its adherents made a powerful appeal, especially those of the Hindu fold who were denied any semblance of equal treatment.”

But strangely, India’s demographic data stands in complete contradiction to such a conclusion. From Punjab and Haryana in the North to the Gangetic Plains, and to Bengal, Hindu communities include members of all castes – including those that should have been most amenable to conversions to Islam. If Islam had truly been perceived as the vehicle for liberation from a petrified caste society as Nehru had claimed, surely there could be no Hindus left at the lower ends of the caste spectrum – especially after five centuries of Islamic rule.

Furthermore, such a speculation appears to be contradicted by another of Nehru’s assertion (concerning Muslim Rajputs) which seems more historically accurate: “It is worth noting as a rule, conversions to Islam were group conversions…Among the upper castes individuals may change their religion…almost an entire village would convert…group life as well as well as their functions continued as before with only minor variations with regards worship etc.”

If entire villages converted and maintained their former practices, how could the conversion have had any tangible effect on any prevalent social hierarchies? Moreover, as Nehru himself implied, the conversion of the lower castes followed the conversion of the upper-castes such as the Rajputs. This is quite in line with the observations of Arab historian Ibn Khaldun who noted that conversions to Islam amongst the masses followed the conversion of the elites. In other words, the subjects followed the religion of the rulers – and not the other way around, as was gratuitously implied by Nehru.

Yet, such an ahistorical view has continued to receive wide currency, and has been echoed by numerous Indian intellectuals and government-supported historians and has been reinforced by another commonly held notion that Hindus converted to Islam peacefully and voluntarily and were won over by enlightened Sufis.

In fact, a careful perusal of the historical record suggests that the observations of Ibn Khaldun apply as much to India as they did to North Africa and the Middle East. Surviving records point to most conversions being preceded by military victories by Islamic invaders or local interlopers. While some conversions may have been of a purely voluntary nature, most were coerced, or were, at least of an opportunist character. Furthermore, the historical record provides numerous instances of conversions that were a result of violent terror or blackmail.
And unsurprisingly, when Islamic invaders/rulers left or were subsequently defeated, the converted population returned almost en masse to their former faiths.

Referring to statements made by E. Denison Ross (who along with Eileen Power wrote and edited a 26 volume series on India: The Broadway Travellers), K.S. Lal concludes that after the recall of the Arab General bin Qasem from Sindh, Islamic power in Sindh declined rapidly and the neo-converts reverted to their original faith.

That mass conversions to Islam took place after violent invasions and massacres is documented by several historians of the Khalji period (late 12th-13th C) including K.S. Lal. When Bakhtiar Khalji marched into Bihar and destroyed the university centers at Nalanda, Vikramshila and Odantapuri (Magadh) and massacred the Buddhist monks, the Buddhist masses turned to Islam or Brahminism. K.S. Lal also refers to Malik Kafur, the victorious general of Alauddin Khalji, who gave the Raja of Dwarsamudra a choice between Islam, death or payment of a huge idemnity.

Such threats were neither uncharacteristic nor unusual.

K.S. Lal notes how during the reign of Muhammad bin Tughlaq there was even greater insistence on the vanquished Hindu princes to embrace Islam. During the Warangal campaign all the eleven sons of the Raja of Kampila were forced to become Muslims.

In the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi, it is recorded that when Firoz Tughlaq invaded Jajnagar (Orissa), he captured the son of the Rai of Sikhar, converted him to Islam, and gave him the name of Shakr Khan. During his campaigns in the Saurasthra region of Gujarat, Mahmud Beghara attacked the Raja of Girnar in 1469, even though he had been paying regular tribute. Although he offered considerable resistance, he was eventually compelled to convert to Islam and was bestowed the title ‘Khan-i-Jahan’. In 1473, the Raja of Champaner died in a valiant attempt to fend off an attack, following which his son was forcibly converted to Islam and given the title ‘Nizam-ul-Mulk’.

Such practices continued during Mughal rule under Jehangir, Shah Jehan and Aurangzeb.

In the Gangetic plain, when local Hindu chieftains or royal feudatories were subjugated after they had rebelled against the Mughal authorities (or their agents), they were coerced into converting, (along with their clans and other loyal followers).

Forcible conversion during war became common iduring the reign of Shah Jehan. When Shuja was appointed governor of Kabul, the rebellion of Jujhar Singh yielded a rich crop of Muslim converts, mostly minors. His young son Durga and his grandson Durjan Sal were both converted to become Imam Quli and Ali Quli

It is therefore no surprise, that in UP (prior to partition) there were as many (or more) Muslims amongst the landlords and the elites than amongst the lower castes.

Scheduled castes who were considered impure because they handled corpses or performed janitorial duties were looked down upon by the Muslims elites no less than their Hindu counterparts.

In contrast, when local rulers were successful in resisting the Islamic rulers, there is simply no record of any conversions having taken place. For instance, the Kateheriyas of the Bareilly/Aonla region remained undefeated till the reign of Akbar, but it was only when Bareilly fell to the Afghan Rohillas that there is any notable record of conversions to Islam.

Likewise, in Gonda and Bahraich, there was staunch resistance to the Islamic invaders.

At different points in time, rulers emerged from amongst the local tribes and castes and during Mughal rule, Raja Dutt Singh refused to pay taxes to the Mughal authorities.Later Raja Jai Singh of Gonda refused to pay the customary tribute to the Nawabs of Awadh. After his death in battle, his wife Rani Phul Singh administered the region for some months before she was murdered by rivals to the throne.

Because there were no major victories recorded by the Islamic invaders in these districts, there are no early records of conversions to Islam, and this appears to be a trend that prevailed throughout the plains of what is now Uttar Pradesh.

In many other districts of UP (such as Kannauj, Etawah and Mainpuri) resistance and rebellion against the imperial Islamic rulers of Delhi persisted right up to Mughal rule, thus limiting the number of conversions. K.S. Lal estimates that the proportion of Muslims in India was probably less than 2% prior to 1400 and may have risen to 10-11% by 1600 and to 14-15% by 1800 and this obviously included those that had arrived with the invaders and other Islamic migrants.

By and large, areas that came under victorious Islamic invasions more frequently saw a proportionally greater percentage of Hindus convert than areas that virtually escaped defeat at the hands of Islamic invaders, thus refutating the Nehru claim that Islam held any sort of mass appeal amongst Hindus chafing under a repressive caste system.

Nevertheless, it may be useful to explore further detail as to how, in 400 years, the Muslim percentage had grown seven-fold.

The Tarikh-i-Firishta records that Sultãn Sikandar Butshikan of Kashmir (AD 1389-1413) persecuted Hindus and issued orders proscribing the residence of any other than Muslims in Kashmir “Many of the brahmins, rather than abandon their religion or their country, poisoned themselves; some emigrated from their native homes , while a few escaped the evil of banishment by becoming Mahomedans. After the emigration of the bramins, Sikundur ordered all the temples in Kashmeer to be thrown down”

Sikh archives note how Guru Tegh Bahadur helped save Kashmiri Hindus who were fleeing from slaughter during the reign of Sher Afghan Khan, the viceroy in Kashmir, who had launched a campaign of mass murder against Kashmiri Hindus who refused to embrace Islam.

Historians of Bengal have noted how during the reign of Jalaluddin Muhammad (converted son of Hindu Raja Ganesh, 1414-1431) a large number of Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam. British historian Dr. Wise observed that the only condition he offered were the Koran or death, forcing many Hindus to flee to Kamrup and the jungles of Assam.

And contrary to the widespread myth about Sufis only converting through peaceful means, both Prof. Abdul Karim and Dr I.H. Qureshi refer to the activities of militant and warrior Sufis who forced conversions from amongst the Hindus and Tribals of Bengal (and what is now Bangladesh). Other Bengali historians have recorded how rulers and landlords unable to deposit land revenues by the proscribed date were forced to convert.

(It is also recorded by Jamali how Raju Qattals efforts to convert Nahawan, the Darogha of Uchch led to the latter’s resistance and murder by Sufi zealots.)

Most significantly, K.S. Lal refers to the widespread scourge of mass enslavement and the ensuing forced conversions that resulted during the reign of the Khaljis and Tughlaqs. Alauddin Khilji was reputed to own 50,000 slaves some of whom were mere boys, of which many were captured during war.

Chroniclers such as Ziyauddin Barani record how the Delhi Slave Market was constantly replenished with fresh batches of slaves. “Firoz Tughlaq had issued an order that whichever places were sacked, in them the captives should be sorted out and the best ones (fit for service with the Sultan) should be forwarded to the court”. “Soon he was enabled to collect 180,000 slaves”.

Under Firoz Tughlaq (1351-88) the state openly became an active agent of conversion and Tughlaq ordered his subordinates to convert Hindus to Islam. In his memoirs Fatuhat-i-Firoz Shahi, he acknowledged how he rescinded the Jiziyah to lure people into converting.

Likewise, Gujarat’s Ahmad Shah (1411-1442), collected the Jiziyah with such strictness, that it brought a number of converts to Islam.

Early in his reign Shahjahan had appointed a Superintendent of converts to Islam, thus setting up a department for the special purpose of making converts. The one common practice was to make terms with the criminals. The Hindus of the Punjab, Bhimbar, Bhadauri and Sirhind were all offered remission of their sentences provided they accepted the true faith. Thus common criminals were converted to Islam.

Earlier, Jahangir had banned his Muslim subjects from embarcing Hinduism even of their own free will. He severely punished Kaukab, Sharif and Abdul Latif who, under the influence of a Sanyasi, showed inclination for Hinduism.

Thus, while Hindu rulers were frequently coerced into coverting, there was no freedom for Muslims – even converts to voluntarily embrace Hinduism.

Even Tipu Sultan – who has been held up by several historians as a great patriot, as a “liberal” and “secular” ruler was not free from a Jehadi mentality as is evident from these quotes from his correspondence: In a letter dated January 18, 1790 to Syed Abdul Dulai, Tipu writes: “With the grace of Prophet Mohammed and Allah, almost all Hindus in Calicut are converted to Islam. Only on the borders of Cochin State a few are still not converted. I am determined to convert them also very soon. I consider this as Jehad to achieve that object” .

A day later, in a letter sent to Budruz Zuman Khan, Tipu wrote: “Don’t you know I have achieved a great victory recently in Malabar and over four lakh Hindus were converted to Islam? I am determined to march against that cursed ‘Raman Nair’ very soon (reference is to Rama Varma Raja of Travancore State who was popularly known as Dharma Raja). Since I am overjoyed at the prospect of converting him and his subjects to Islam, I have happily abandoned the idea of going back to Srirangapatanam now” (K.M. Panicker, Bhasha Poshini, August, 1923).

It is evident, the Nehruvian view of Islam in India is considerably at odds with the actual evidence. One can only hope that honest and serious authors of Indian history take into account the truth in its entirety and not rely on the speculations of those whose views on history have been shaped more by personal dogmas (or ideological prescriptions) than a genuine knowledge and understanding of the actual historical record.

References and Bibliography:

Ibn Khaldun: The Muqaddimah (An Introduction to History) trans. Franz Rosenthal, edited and abridged by N. J. Dawood; Bollingen Series, Princeton

Kishori Saran Lal: Indian Muslims: Who are they?, Voice of India, New Delhi

K.S. Lal: History of the Khaljis, 1290-1320 (Forward by Muhammad Habib)

Yahiya Sarhindi, Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi

Satish C. Misra, The Rise of Muslim Power in Gujarat (Bombay, 1963), p.175

Lahori, Badshah Nama

Districts of India: History sections from Bareilly, Bahraich, Gonda, Etawah and Mainpuri oertaining to local/regional resistance to Islamic conquest

Muhammad Qãsim Hindû Shãh Firishta : Tãrîkh-i-Firishta, translated by John Briggs under the title History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India, first published in 1829, New Delhi Reprint 1981

Hoshiarpur District Administration: Sikh Guru Teg Bahadur and the plight of Kashmiri Hindus threatened with death

R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, and Kaukinkar Datta: An Advanced History of India.1946

Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1894, Pt. III, p.28
Abdul Karim, Social History of Muslims in Bengal, pp.136-38, 143-146.

Jamali, Siyar-ul-Arifin (Delhi, 1311 H.), pp.159-60

Satya Krishna Biswas, Banshasmriti (Bengali), Calcutta, 1926, pp.6-10.

Shams Siraj Afif: Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi

Ishwari Prasad, Qaraunah Turks, p.331

Fatuhat-i-Firoz Shahi of Firoz Tughlaq, E and D, III, p. 386.

Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, I, p.171.

K.M. Panicker, Bhasha Poshini

Notes:

Romantic and sentimental notions abound regarding Sufi orders in India and elsewhere. However, fulsome praise of the Sufi movement needs to be balanced (and qualified) with the awareness that many Sufi leaders were neither liberals nor Islamic heretics as projected. Some were militant, hard core Jehadis as is evident from some of the following quotes:

Sufi Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624), wrote several letters to the courtiers of Akbar and Jehangir protesting their “liberal policies towards Hindus”

Here is an excerpt from letter No. 163: “…The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims… The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in gran- deur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam…”

Excerpt from another letter: “…The abolition of jizyah in Hindustan is a result of friendship which (Hindus) have acquired with the rulers of this land… What right have the rulers to stop exacting jizyah? Allah himself has commended imposition of jizyah for their (infidels’) humiliation and degradation. What is required is their disgrace, and the prestige and power of Muslims. The slaughter of non-Muslims means gain for Islam… To consult them (the kafirs) and then act according to their advice means honouring the enemies (of Islam), which is strictly forbidden…”

Another excerpt: “The Shariat prevails under the shadow of the sword (al Shara’ tahat al-saij) – according to this (saying), the Shariat can triumph only with the help of mighty kings and their good administration…”

And another: “..The only longing which this recluse (meaning himself) cherishes is that the enemies of Allah and his Prophet should be roughed up. The accursed ones should be humiliated, and their false gods disgraced and defiled. I know that Allah likes and loves no other act more than this. That is why I have been encouraging you again and again to act in this way…”

(Quotes from Sita Ram Goel’s The Story of Islamic Imperialism)

Sita Ram Goel has observed: “History should not be distorted and falsified to serve the political purposes of a Hindu-baiting herd.” He has also argued that Muslims should evaluate the Islamic history and doctrines in terms of rationalism and humanism “without resort to the casuistry marshalled by the mullahs and sufis, or the apologetics propped up by the Aligarh and Stalinist schools of historians”.

regards

regards

“As if Christianity were not associated with [violence, beheadings, misogyny, child marriage, and hostility for infidels and their ways.]?

Where today in the world are Christians quoting Christian scripture as a justification for violence, beheadings, misogyny, child marriage, and hostility for infidels and their ways? Yet since after 9/11/01, there have been some 12,000 deadly, intentional, attacks on civilians, carried out by jihadists around the world acting in the name of the Qur’an and Muhammad’s example. Islamic jihadists around the globe do invoke the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira to justify all those things. They can do that because Muhammad was radically different from JC as an exemplar. It is not hyperbole or xenophobia to say that Muhammad was a violent warlord and theocratic totalitarian. It’s the simple truth.

David S. said:
“Put away the double standard. Christianity does not have a monopoly on peaceful coexistence…”

No, or course not. But no one sensible is talking about a monopoly. It is a question rather of percentages and proportions. History shows that the borders of the Islamic world are everywhere bloody, as Samuel Huntington pointed out, whether you agree with his clash of civilizations thesis or not. Most of the major conflicts in today’s world — whether you consider the one in Thailand, or the one in the Philippines, or the one in Israel, or the one in Sudan, or in Somalia, and so on — involve Islamic jihad. That global universality makes doubtful all the pretexts given for that jihad. In Israel, it’s one set of pretexts. In the Philippines it’s another. In Thailand, it’s yet another. In Sudan or Somalia, it’s another. Ultimately the reason is that Islam is an expansionist totalitarian system. It was Muhammad who was reported by canonical Islamic texts to have said, on a number of different occasions: “If a Muslim changes his religion, then kill him.” Want the citations? A Muslim can look to Muhammad as a justification for many kinds of totalitarian behavior. To engage in totalitarian behaviro, a Christian must actually go against JC’s example. But this rather important difference has somehow utterly passed you by. Where have you been the last 2000 years?

David S. said:
“Christianity does not impose itself on politics? Where have you been for the past 2,000 years?…”

Where have you been? Since when do the most inveterate habits get changed in a whole civilization overnight? Since when are the most advanced lessons learned in a moment, with no preparation? Yet you expect the words of JC about the State to have been absorbed by Christians perfectly within a short historical time frame. I suspect you do not even know the relevant words, nor have you ever noticed the historical trend rooted in those words. Here, first are the words; then the historical trend;

1. JC is reputed in the Bible to have said, “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, to God the things that are God’s.”

2. JC is reputed in the Bible to have been offered, by a demon, rule over the whole earth. He refused rule over any earthly kingdom.

3. JC is reputed in the Bible to have said “My kingdom is not of this world.”

4. Jesus is reputed in the Bible to have told the disciples that he who would be greatest among them would not lord it over them, but would serve them and wash their feet, as Jesus washed their feet.

5. Jesus is thought to have said the most important commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself, and love God with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul. By placing love at the center of his teaching, JC placed freedom there, because the paradox is that love cannot be commanded, because it can only come from the innermost core of a person’s being. As Bonnie Raitt put it, “I can’t make you love me, if you don’t. I can’t make your heart do somethin it won’t.”

Now for the historical trend. Because of the above words and other similarly spirited words in the New Testament, there has been, slowly developing over the last two millennia, a growing tendency to recognize two realms, the sacred and secular, and there has been consequently a growing element of competition between those two realms. Since human beings 1500 years ago did not yet have a clear sense of how the two realms should be bounded, the age-old fusion was often taken for granted when it should not have been. And the state often tried to dominate religious authorities, while religious authorities often tried to dominate the state. Generally one or the other side succeeded to various degrees in dominating, but what is notable is not that; the fusion of the two realms has been, more or less, the historical rule everywhere. What is notable is that even in the midst of significant degrees of fusion between sacred and secular realms in the Christian world, there was some vague sense, which always had some sort of institutional expression, however feeble, that there are two realms, not one. No God-King as in ancient Egypt. Deification of a Caesar was perceived as profoundly un-Christian. And the institutional expression of that separation of the two realms has during the course of Christian history slowly gestated and grown, taking two steps forward and one step back, over many centuries, until finally today we find that States born out of Christian cultural traditions have fairly strong boundaries between religion and state. There have been many other historical causes that have helped that separation along, but the New Testament is one of the most significant.

David S. said:
“I’m sorry, but most all of the flaws of Islam are shared by the Christian faith.”

This is a mistake. You confuse two things that are different: people and doctrines. People everywhere, Christians and Muslims and those of other religions, have flaws. But religious doctrines and philosophies of life exist along a spectrum, from very benign to very malignant, and everything in between those two extremes. Similarly, doctrines form a spectrum extending from those that support individual freedom and loving kindness, all the way to those that support utter totalitarianism and conformity. Doctrines by which people live are very important. But from what you say, it doesn’t matter what you follow, whether you are a Muslim, a Christian, a Hindu, whatever, all religions are equally benign and equally malignant. And that view of yours is malarkey. Or maybe you don’t hold that. Maybe you simply hold that the doctrine of Christianity is no more benign than the doctrine of Islam. And that shows that you know neither doctrine in any detail.

David S. said:

“Religious fanaticism of any stripe leads to violence and civil strife.”

Yes, but the question is whether one doctrine is more fanatical than others, or whether all doctrines are the same. Is one doctrine more resistant to fanatical interpretation than another doctrine? Of course! Doctrines differ profoundly on that. Islam is far less resistant to fanatical interpretation — in fact strongly encourages it — than are the other major religions.

Tina Magaard has a PhD in Textual Analysis and Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne in Paris. She spent three years on a research project comparing the original texts of ten religions.

She said: “The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree.”

David S., Muhammad, as an example to Muslims, is utterly different from JC as an example to Christians, precisely on the issue of the relation of religion and state. Muhammad, far from giving to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, actually became Caesar. He became the ruler of a theocratic state. He ordered people stoned, where JC said, “let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” Muhammed, according to canonical Islamic texts, ordered the torture of a man to get him to reveal where the man’s treasure was. Muhammad, according to canonical Islamic texts, married a girl at age 6, and consummated the marriage with her when she was 9. Some Muslims try to pretend that she had reached puberty at 9, though the evidence runs otherwise. But suppose that’s true. Nevertheless, it remains the case that the Qur’an itself in one of its verses says that certain rules for divorce shall apply to girls who have not yet menstruated! The Qur’an assumes marriage to pre-pubescent girls! Muhammed was in his 50s when he consummated the marriage with 9-year old Aisha. You want the citations for all these facts about the wonderful Muhammad? I’ll be happy to supply them.

Muhammad was a theocrat and a totalitarian, whatever his virtues may have been. Else Muhammad would not have said, “If a Muslim changes his religion, then kill him.” Else Muhammad would not have said “No two religions can coexist in Arabia.” Else he would not have indicated, both in the Qur’an and the Hadith, that non-Muslims should be given three choices: 1) convert to Islam; 2) if you won’t convert, then pay a special tax, and agree to live as a second-class citizen under Islamic law, subject to all sorts of discrimination reminiscent of Jim Crow in the American South; or if #1 and #2 are rejected, then the only alternative is 3) be warred upon by Muslims, so that your life may be forfeit, your wife taken as a slave concubine, you may be enslaved, and all your property taken. By contrast with all these (and many other) totalitarian features of Islamic doctrine, JC was not a theocrat by any evidence of the New Testament. His words have helped lead, over two thousand years, to the separation of religion and state. That is where your argument falls down.

“I suggest you go and learn some more about Islam before making your ludicrous all-religious-are-the-same arguments.”

I like how you offered no example to illustrate your lack of a point. Hint: I did not make that argument.

@11. Huckaffir:

“Really, you don’t see a difference?

Christianity imposes itself on politics every day. The difference in the west is that we have secular government, which helps prevent a single denomination from dominating the political sphere.

@12. Spinoneone:

“The question I would have for David S is not whether Christianity and some other religions were used to provoke and support war and worse. The question is whether or not he would decide to protect himself and his family, clan, tribe, nation, from the imposition of Islam? For that, David S, is still the stated goal of most streams of Islam.”

I believe in the freedom of religious thought that the USA was founded upon. I don’t want Christians or Moslems imposing their religion on anyone. Both traditions have very strong traditions of violent evangelism.

@13. Self-hating Boomer:
Religious fanaticism of any stripe leads to violence and civil strife. I respect my fellow man, but I have no respect for faith in fantasy.

“Indeed. Those climatarians like Hansen and Gore are nut cases.”

The difference between scientific evidence and faith escapes you. This is sadly a very common problem among the evangelical.

@15. Joe Libson:

“You would have to go back hundreds of years to find large groups of Christians behaving in a vaguely equivalent manner.”

No you would not. Perhaps you have forgotten some recent history?

the slaughter of 900,000 Rwandans in 1994, or the genocide of over 300,000 Muslims and systematic rape of over 100,000 Muslim women by Christian Serbs in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995

There is plenty more where that came from, if you care to follow the link. Christians have a lot more blood on their hands than you claim.

“I will never be a believer in Christianity. But as a proud believer in the ideals of our nation and of human freedom, I am an ally of Christianity in the long war against Islam.”

Fundamentalist Christianity is the only reason for a long war against Islam. Islam is not the enemy unless you are a religious fanatic. The ideals of our nation and of human freedom require an acknowledgment that Moslems and Christians can coexist peacefully, and that religious warfare is inherently unjust.

Our Constitution guarantees the right of religious freedom. Waging war against any religion is wholly incompatible with the ideal of human freedom.

@17. Professor Guvinoff:

“They viciously attack christianity, while cautiously avoiding any comment which could be construed as derogatory towards islam.”

That is simply false. I attack religious fanatics of all stripes, while cautiously avoiding any comment which could be construed as derogatory towards reason. I pay no special deference to any religion.

@18. myth buster:

“you will be forced to choose between worshiping Jesus or worshiping the Devil, with no third option. Then you will see the truth.”

You have a wonderful fantasy life. I’m quite happy for you. Thankfully the third option is very real. I can’t be forced to worship anything.

Peace.

DS

PS – Wishing violence upon your enemies is a great way to ensure that they will return the favor.