Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hope you are not trying to excuse what is being done by Muslim extremists today. In this day and age Christians are not killing people in the name of Christ. We do not kill people at sporting events or malls in the name of Christ. Nor folk taking the subway. We do not gather up school girls for forced marriage and then burn their village. In the name of Christ.
Please. Two wrongs do not make a right.
I agree 2 wrongs do not make a right.
However, how a person lives life does depend a great deal upon the religious beliefs they have, even if they do not verbalize what they do is in accordance with their religion.
Muslims do not distinguish between life and religion, a person's life is their religion.
What a Christian does is a reflection of how they perceive Christianity just as everything a Muslim does is a reflection of how they perceive Islam.
We both have among us people that dishonor the beliefs of the majority.
I would like to clarify that to say "Allahu Akbar" is not an acknowledgement a person is doing an act in the name of Allah.
Bismillah is "In the name of Allah" We say "Bismillah" when we begin an act in the name of Allah.
In Africa and India there are quite a few Christians committing atrocities. Neither Muslims nor Christians have a monopoly on evil people that claim to be true adherents of their religion.
Simple fact is when a Christian commits an atrocity the media will not report it as being religion motivated, but will nearly always assert it is, if a Muslim is the culprit.
A lot of it depends upon the news reporting agency.
You will not find headlines like these in major Western news media:
However, how a person lives life does depend a great deal upon the religious beliefs they have, even if they do not verbalize what they do is in accordance with their religion.
Muslims do not distinguish between life and religion, a person's life is their religion.
What a Christian does is a reflection of how they perceive Christianity just as everything a Muslim does is a reflection of how they perceive Islam.
We both have among us people that dishonor the beliefs of the majority.
I would like to clarify that to say "Allahu Akbar" is not an acknowledgement a person is doing an act in the name of Allah.
Bismillah is "In the name of Allah" We say "Bismillah" when we begin an act in the name of Allah.
In Africa and India there are quite a few Christians committing atrocities. Neither Muslims nor Christians have a monopoly on evil people that claim to be true adherents of their religion.
Simple fact is when a Christian commits an atrocity the media will not report it as being religion motivated, but will nearly always assert it is, if a Muslim is the culprit.
A lot of it depends upon the news reporting agency.
You will not find headlines like these in major Western news media:
so what you are saying is Muslim violent acts are OK, because Christians do bad things?
I do not see you apologizing. But instead saying Muslim violence is ok cuz others do it.
I do not see anyplace where I indicated it is ok if a Muslim does it because Christians do it.
It is equally wrong no matter who does it.
As for me apologizing for what gangsters do, I see no more reason to do so, than a Catholic needs to apologize for what the Mafia does.
I see Muslims terrorists as being no different than how I saw the Mafia while I was Christian. I never felt any need to apologize for what the Mafia did or what was done during the Inquisition.
Should I apologize for the Inquisition because I was Catholic from my birth until about the age of 25?
Should I apologize for ISIS and it's like because I have been Muslim since the age of 65?
Um ... everybody on that list is a militant atheist with the possible exception of Adolf Hitler. So your point kinda fails.
Human suffering has two primary sources.
Natural disasters and natural phenomena.
A bunch of people being a-holes.
Religion or the lack thereof has very little to do with it.
LOL! This is another one of those foot-in-mouth posts that I'm going to be chuckling about for the rest of the day.
Throughout this entire thread, you have people listing atrocities committed by Muslims and atrocities committed by Christians in an effort to "one up" each other on which religion is more violent.
And then you say, almost as comic relief, "Religion or the lack thereof has very little to do with it."
I mean, really? C'mon. I feel like I'm in the audience of An Evening at the Improv.
Um ... everybody on that list is a militant atheist with the possible exception of Adolf Hitler. So your point kinda fails.
No the things on the list were the attempt to deify a single person or a state religion. And THAT is the issue. Not atheism, whether you pretend such people were atheists or not. Dogma is a problem. Dictatorships are a problem. Atheism.... is not. You can not, I warrant, establish any causal link between atheism and any of the people or things listed there.
Let's go and see what Koenraad Elst says in his own blog, why don't we?
There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like "punishing" the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty. The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526). The Moghuls (1526-1857), even Babar and Aurangzeb, were fairly restrained tyrants by comparison. Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million under the Sultanate, but that would be hard to substantiate; research into the magnitude of the damage Islam did to India is yet to start in right earnest.
No response to the invasion of spain, europe, byzantium, etc?
The comment was there were 80 million less Hindus in India. Was that because they were killed or because parts of India had seceeded and were no longer part of India?
It can be said the were million less Muslims in India in 1947 then there were in 1946. But that was because repartition Pakistan was no longer part of India.
The size and shape of India has changed many times
Is there any evidence of genocide during the invasions of Spain, Europe, Byzantium? In all of those Muslims remained a minority and the people retained their religions.
If anything - most of these are retaliatory and protective - not provocative. I will not fault them for acting instead of sitting by and doing nothing and watching themselves be destroyed. Islam is bringing the fight... what should they do? Nothing??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
