Response to Robert Spencer on Religious Violence

[zameel]

As Robert Spencer's writings are representative of a lot of anti-Islamic comparative accounts of Jewish, Christian and Islamic violence, the following informed response should hopefully enlighten many:

Violence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam: Response to Robert Spencer

In his provocative book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is and Islam isn’t, Robert Spencer devotes one chapter and 29 pages to buttress his belief that violence is rooted in Islam’s theology while absent in Judaism and Christianity, a contention that is most central in proving his thesis that Islam is essentially more violent than Christianity. Spencer’s chief objective in authoring his books is identifying continuity between Islamic scripture and tradition and distasteful elements of modern Muslim society, particularly violent conflict which he associates solely with the religious doctrine of jihad. The following will attempt to show Spencer’s analysis is parochial, biased, often hyperbolic and highly selective, and thus does not represent an objective examination of the facts.

Read the rest here:

allahisalmighty.blogspot.com/2009/10/violence-in-judaism-christianity-and.html

[bjorn]

Well, it had to be a link to a "book length" reply...

Spencer seems really to have hit a nerve.

More to the point, the list of comparative casualities seems very peculiar and a mostly a matter of naming numbers and putting the blame on any religion involved.

To mention just a few points related to "Which was the Historically more Violent: Christianity or Islam?"

American Indians: 20 million

We've been into this before, though nice to see your numbers dwindle, I find this very unsubstantiated - when did 20 million die from conquest, and for religious reasons?

French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars: 20 million

Beg you pardon? In what way were these religious conflicts with "The Christians" to blame? Never heard that one before.

Thirty Years War: 7 million

Even this has lately been seen as something other than a religious conflict, by secular historians. There were even alliances between catholic and protestant forces.

Saracen slaughter in Spain: 7 million

Beg your pardon? The Saracens invaded Spain and were driven out in later reconquests, with casulties on all sides (and the Christian victims strangely enough not mentioned in the list).

Saxons and Scandavians in the Christian conquests of Europe: 2 million

Again, I am a Scandinavian and these are impossible figures in my part of the world, not to mention that the battles involved here were for royal power and tended to have pagans and Christians on both sides.

Crusades: 1.5 million

Based on which sources? (Well, the same can be asked about other figures).

Witch Hunts: 100,000

I think 45 000 is the latest number

Inquisition: 30,000

If it is the Spanish that is considered here, I think you can divide by ten.

In short, these kind of numbers can not be taken seriously.

Hopefully you have enough historical sense to agree.

[zameel]

The post was more geared towards theology than it was history.

I realised the Napoleonic wars should not have been included in the above.

The estimates are based on Matthew White's analysis here: users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

The comparison is loosely based on the number of deaths resulting from Christendom's and Islamdom's fighting from 600 to 1900 AD. A mixture of motivations can also be found in Islam's wars, but because religion defined these empires during this period, I think it was a fair comparison to make.

[himself]

Oct 24, 2009 19:58:55 GMT zameel said:

The post was more geared towards theology than it was history.

In that case, some theological reasons need to be adduced. But for the history, facts matter.

Let's not forget, either, that the Crusades began directly in response to the Byzantine plea following Manzikert. And predicated also on the earlier Sultan's demolition of the churches in Jerusalem and the attacks on pilgrimages, not to mention the conquests of Sicily, Sardinia, southern Italy, three sieges of Rome, the depopulation of Genoa for the better part of two generations, attacks on Pisa, several sieges of Constantinople, conquests of Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete, Malta, and so on. (Leaving aside the original conquests of Syria, Egypt, Iraq, North Africa, and Persia, or the war against the Chinese in the Tarim Basin.)

In context: the reconquista in Spain, the Pisans' counterattack against Tunis, the Genoans and Pisans reconquest of Sardinia and Corsica, the Norman reconquest of Sicily, the Byzantine reconquest of Crete, and so on to the attempted reconquest of Anatolia and Syria by the crusaders as such. The whole thing can be seen in the context of desperate counterattacks by an imperial and colonizing conquering force, once which until that time appeared well nigh unstoppable.

Even afterward the jihad continued, with the final conquest of Constantinople and the Greek cities of Smyrna and Thessalonika and so also the Balkans - Greeks, Bulgars, Serbs, Albanians, Hungarians - culminating in the first and second sieges of Vienna. Only after the failure of the Second Siege did the "Grand Turk" cease to be a menace to Europe.

So, from the conquests of Omar to the Second Siege of Vienna we have a thousand years of imperialist-colonialist aggression in which the crusades amount to little more than a hundred years of counter-attack.

So who gets the bony finger wagged at them?

[zameel]

Oct 24, 2009 22:01:57 GMT himself said:

Let's not forget, either, that the Crusades began directly in response to the Byzantine plea following Manzikert. And predicated also on the earlier Sultan's demolition of the churches in Jerusalem and the attacks on pilgrimages,

I addressed this apologetic in the post:

Spencer argues elsewhere that the Crusades were justified because of earlier Muslim conquests (e.g. see The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam), but a few things are to note: firstly, Muslim annexation of Jerusalem in 638 AD was completely peaceful: Umar I allowed Jews to re-enter Jerusalem and Jews and Christians remained the dominant religious groups in Jerusalem until the First Crusade (i.e. there was no attempt to colonise or replace the indigenous population); secondly, Latin Christendom was responsible for the Crusades, while it was Byzantium that had suffered defeat in the Muslim lands – lest it be thought these two were unified, the entire Fourth Crusade (1204) was aimed at subjecting Constantinople, the heart of Byzantium, to Latin rule (this was at the height of the “Great Schism” between the two churches); thirdly, the Christian soldiers were not motivated by defence or any events in the east, as Spencer seems to insinuate, but by a newly found religious zeal. HEJ Cowdrey writes: “Such events as the burning of the Church of the Holy Sepulchure in 1009 by the mad Caliph Hakim were few and far between, and there was no recent outrage that stirred men to the heart. Islam was by and large a tolerant religion; while subject Christians kept themselves duly humbled and paid their taxes, they were not badly off. Nor was it unduly hard for Christians from the West to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem and the other Holy Places” (The Holy War, p. 12). He explains that the Seljuks after Manzikert in 1071 receded by 1092 with the death of the last great sultan Malik Shah. The Byzantine Emperor Alexius requested some mercenaries from the West to make diplomacy better, but “Crusaders by the thousands, under independent command, spoiling for war, and whom he could not control, were not what the circumstances of Byzantium in 1095 called for” (ibid). Cowdrey thus concludes: “All things considered, historians would, I think, now be pretty generally agreed that the First Crusade, the “great stirring of the heart” in the West, was not, at root, caused by any pull of events in the East”.

Cowdrey lists four important factors that contributed to making the Crusades possible. The second and third concern us here: firstly, the knights rose in social class with the help of the clergy. In 950 AD, we see liturgical blessings of banners under which knights fought; in the eleventh century swords and weapons were blessed; various “holy wars” were sanctioned (e.g. the Spanish campaigns; wars against the Muslims of the Mediterranians approved by Pope Leo IV; Ottonian wars against the Magyars; the campaign against Normans of S Italy in 1053 sanctioned by Pope Leo IX); the councils in the tenth and eleventh century enforcing the peace and truce of God (rules of war and days when wars should not be had) indicate there was an increasing atmosphere of war. However, even in the eleventh century, soldiers were required to make penance for killing during war. This was overturned by Gregory VII (d. 1085) in what has been called a turning point in Catholic Christendom: he believed the soldier-saint (miles Christi) would be saved not in spite of but because of fighting; Paul’s spiritual soldiers for Christ, the militia Christi, was given a new earthly significance, and converts to the faith or heretics were told salvation could be had through the holy war.

Oct 24, 2009 22:01:57 GMT himself said:

from the conquests of Omar to the Second Siege of Vienna we have a thousand years of imperialist-colonialist aggression in which the crusades amount to little more than a hundred years of counter-attack.

As historian KY Blankinship shows in The End of the Jihad State, an imperialist mindset was only existent for about a century from 634 to 740 (i.e. during the period of Rashidun and the Umayyad). After this period, the wars against the Byzantines were essentially defensive. It may be argued some of the Ottoman wars against Europe were aggressive, but they were never one-sided. For example, preceding the 1453 Constantinople siege, the greatest military victory for the Ottomans, Pope Nicolas V gave permission to capture and enslave Muslims around Constantinople (in a Papal Bull called Dum Diversas), which appears to have been what motivated the Ottoman response.

[himself]

Oct 25, 2009 12:47:30 GMT zameel said:

I addressed this apologetic in the post:
As historian KY Blankinship shows in The End of the Jihad State, an imperialist mindset was only existent for about a century from 634 to 740 (i.e. during the period of Rashidun and the Umayyad). After this period, the wars against the Byzantines were essentially defensive.

I suppose that if first you conquer a bunch of someone else's land, then all of his efforts to get it back makes him the aggressor.

Oct 25, 2009 12:47:30 GMT zameel said:

It may be argued some of the Ottoman wars against Europe were aggressive, but they were never one-sided. For example, preceding the 1453 Constantinople siege, the greatest military victory for the Ottomans, Pope Nicolas V gave permission to capture and enslave Muslims around Constantinople (in a Papal Bull called Dum Diversas), which appears to have been what motivated the Ottoman response.

Sure. They would never have invaded and conquered the Balkans if the Pope had not ordered that POWs not be executed out of hand, but put at labor. Oh, wait. They had already conquered the rest of the Balkans and Constantinople was the last redoubt.

Oct 25, 2009 12:47:30 GMT zameel said:

Muslim annexation of Jerusalem in 638 AD was completely peaceful: Umar I allowed Jews to re-enter Jerusalem and Jews and Christians remained the dominant religious groups in Jerusalem until the First Crusade (i.e. there was no attempt to colonise or replace the indigenous population);

The rules of combat at the time were that if a city resisted, it was subject to a sack of three days after it was finally taken. A city that opened its gates was not subject to sack. Thus, during the first crusade, Antioch, which was a Greek city, surrendered, and was not sacked. Jerusalem did resist and was sacked. Later, Antioch was retaken, apparently without a siege, by Baybars, who ordered the gates closed and everyone inside massacred. This was criticized even by muslim chroniclers.

Oct 25, 2009 12:47:30 GMT zameel said:

Latin Christendom was responsible for the Crusades, while it was Byzantium that had suffered defeat in the Muslim lands – lest it be thought these two were unified, the entire Fourth Crusade (1204) was aimed at subjecting Constantinople, the heart of Byzantium, to Latin rule

The Latins came at the request of the Emperor and during the first phase (up to Antioch) the Byzantine armies occupied the land won by the crusaders. It was only when the Emperor turned back from Antioch, thinking the crusaders doomed, when he could have attacked the Turks from behind, that they considered their oaths dissolved.

"United" is not an issue. The UK and the USSR were not "united" when they agreed to fight Hitler together as allies.

Also, the fourth crusade was not "aimed at subjecting Constantinople to Latin rule." It had set forth on other purposes when a dissident Greek prince promised them rich rewards if they would help restore him to the throne. They did so. Then it turned out that he had not been warmly welcomed back, and could not raise the money to pay them. They rioted for their pay and were expelled from the city, where they faced starvation. That was then they turned their arms against the city and the patron who had conned them. The Pope excommunicated the leadership for their actions.

Oct 25, 2009 12:47:30 GMT zameel said:

Cowdrey writes: “Such events as the burning of the Church of the Holy Sepulchure in 1009 by the mad Caliph Hakim were few and far between, and there was no recent outrage that stirred men to the heart. Islam was by and large a tolerant religion; while subject Christians kept themselves duly humbled and paid their taxes, they were not badly off. Nor was it unduly hard for Christians from the West to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem and the other Holy Places”

Sure, dey be jes sooo happy on massa's plantation, long as they knowed they place. Speshly since they was still the majority in most places.

It was not unduly hard for Christians to pilgrimage to Jerusalem so long as the original Arabs remained in charge. They really were tolerant (so long as they were in charge); and of course they were badly outnumbered by the people they ruled. But by the 11th century, the Saljuqs and the Fatimids were in charge - and were themselves fighting for control of Jerusalem. When the Fatimid sultan heard about the crusaders defeating the Saljuqs in Anatolia, he sent them a message proposing an alliance: Fatimid shi'ites and Crusader against Saljuq sunnis. (A similar intolerance had been shown by the Almoravids and Almohades in Spain, not only against the native Spanish, but against the "lax" muslims that had preceded them and created the great days of old Andalusia.)

In 1065, Bishop Gunther of Bamberg led 7000 pilgrims, incl. nobles to make pilgrimage. They were attacked by bedouin in sight of Jerusalem. After two days, the knights in the party armed themselves and repelled their assailants until they were finally rescued by the amir of Ramleh with his garrison. Civil order was collapsing in the Holy Land and attacks on pilgrims were increasing. The old rulers were themselves fighting a losing battle against anarchy.

All during the life of Outremer, the pattern was that crusader barons and muslim amirs would fight one another and make alliances with one another, entertain one another, stage tourneys, etc. Sometimes the wars featured crusaders and muslims allied against other crusaders and muslims.

Few and far between. It was on-going. Burgundy in the heart of Europe was pillaged by Saracens in the eighth century. A jihadi castle remained in the Alps (at Garde Frenet) into the 10th century, preying on pilgrims and merchants traveling between France and Italy. Southern Italy was invaded in 1002; Pisa was attacked in 1004. But the counter-attack was beginning already in that generation: the Byzantines recaptured Crete in 981; Sardinia by the Genoans and Pisans in 1015 and 1022; the Pisans took Tunis in 1034; Sicily by the Normans in 1052; Toledo by the Spaniards in 1085; Corsica by the Genoans in 1091; then Jerusalem in 1096.

So you see it was a continuous counterattack all along the border, with the reconquest of Anatolia and Syria only only one episode. Of course, after the mass conversions, it all became moot. And after the gates of ijtahid were closed, the ultimate outcome became inevitable.

[zameel]

Oct 25, 2009 19:16:35 GMT himself said:

I suppose that if first you conquer a bunch of someone else's land, then all of his efforts to get it back makes him the aggressor.

Before the conquest of Byzantine lands, Muslims had had clashes with the Byzantines, hence an assumed state of hostility already existed.

Oct 25, 2009 19:16:35 GMT himself said:

They had already conquered the rest of the Balkans and Constantinople was the last redoubt.

Why do you not mention why the Ottomans entered the Balkans? In the mid-fourteenth century, the Balkan Peninsula was in chaos, the second Serbian empire was disintegrating and Byzantium was too weak to intervene; the corulers of Byzantium John V Palaiologos and John VI Kantakouzenos were fighting and the latter called on the precursor to the Ottoman empire for support. The successive battles that followed even before 1453 were never one-sided. For example, the Macedonian princes attacked Murad I in 1371 at Chernomen, which though in the defensive, the Ottomans were victorious. It is not true, therefore, that Ottomans were alone in their aggression.

Oct 25, 2009 19:16:35 GMT himself said:

And after the gates of ijtahid were closed, the ultimate outcome became inevitable

The gates of ijtihad never closed:

Although “closing the gates of ijtihad” was a theoretical way of understanding the evolution of Islamic jurisprudence in some classical understandings, it never actually happened, nor was it accepted in theory by most Islamic jurists, as Wael Hallaq shows in his article “Was the Gates of Ijtihad Closed?” [International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Mar., 1984), pp. 3-41]. Hallaq concludes “the gate of ijtihad was not closed in theory nor in practice”. Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1254), al-Suyuti (d. 1505), Shah Wali Allah al-Dihlawi (d. 1762) all explicitly challenged the idea. Al-Suyuti in fact wrote a book (al-Raddu ‘ala man Akhlada ila l-Ardi wa Jahila anna l-Ijtihada fi Kulli ‘Asrin Fard) in which he compiled the names of many Muslim scholars who practiced ijtihad after the doors were supposedly closed, and he vehemently criticised those who believed ijtihad had come to an end; the process of ijtihad was fermented in the early stages of fiqh, between two to four hundred years after the Prophet’s death, but it was continuously practiced by the Muslim jurists. Nonetheless, the marginal classical view describing the closing of the doors of ijtihad was adopted by early Orientalists like Joseph Schacht (d. 1969) as it colluded with their Eurocentric view that no abstract intellectual thought could occur in Islam, and this notion took root in much of Western scholarship on Islam, but has been challenged in recent decades.

[krkey1]

Jesus' teaching on how to treat enemies:

* Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, pray for them which despitefully use you (Matthew 5:44).
* Resist not evil (Matthew 5:39).
* If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to them the other (Matthew 5:39).
* If someone takes your coat, give them your shirt (Matthew 5:40).
* If someone make you carry something one mile, carry it two (Matthew 5:41).
* Forgive and you shall be forgiven (Matthew 6:14).
* Judge not, that ye be not judged (Matthew 7:1).
* Blessed are the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9).
* Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy (Matthew 5:7).
* Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not kill, but I say who ever is angry with his brother is in danger of the judgment (Matthew 5:21-22).
* Treat others the same way you want them to treat you (Luke 6:27-36).
* Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick, whatever you do to the very least you have done unto me (Matthew 25:40).

Muhammad's teaching on how to treat enemies:

* Infidels are your sworn enemies (Sura 4:101).
* Be ruthless to the infidels (Sura 48:29).
* Make war on the infidels who dwell around you (Sura 9:123, 66:9).
* Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day (Sura 9:29).
* Strike off the heads of infidels in battle (Sura 47:4).
* If someone stops believing in Allah, kill him (al-Bukhari 9:84:57).
* Take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends (Sura 5:51, 60:13).
* Never be a helper to the disbelievers (Sura 28:86).
* Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them (Sura 2:191).
* No Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel (al-Bukhari 1:3:111).
* The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land (Sura 5:33).

I think a quick look at the text will show Islam teaches violence and Christianity doesn't. Muslims attacking non Muslims is just Muslims following the teachings of the Qu'ran, while Christians attacking Christians and nonbelievers is in violation of Christianity.

Human nature is violent. I am sure that many Muslims killed people without giving a flip on way or another what the Qu'ran said as I am equally sure many Christians killed people without giving a tinkers damn to what the New Testament taught. However the issue remains that the New Testament condemns violence and the Qu'ran encourages it.

While the Crusades went too far in killing innocent Muslims it should be noted if Muslims had not been, pardon the phrase, Jihading all over the place this wouldn't have happened. I do wish the Crusaders would have flattened Mecca and Medina though, they would have done humanity a favor with that one. It probably will have to happen sometime this century though I would prefer it to be done by ex Muslims.

[himself]

Before the conquest of Byzantine lands, Muslims had had clashes with the Byzantines, hence an assumed state of hostility already existed.

Yes, the Emperor was given the traditional choice between submission to Islam or the sword. Although he responded politely, the emperor did not submit. (Neither did the shah, who was not so polite, but matters ended badly for him and Zoroastrians were ruthlessly persecuted.) The third letter, iirc, went to the emperor of Ethiopia, which was also subsequently attacked.

[zameel]

Oct 26, 2009 0:10:30 GMT krkey1 said:

Jesus' teaching on how to treat enemies:

* Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, pray for them which despitefully use you (Matthew 5:44).
* Resist not evil (Matthew 5:39).
* If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to them the other (Matthew 5:39).
* If someone takes your coat, give them your shirt (Matthew 5:40).
* If someone make you carry something one mile, carry it two (Matthew 5:41).
* Forgive and you shall be forgiven (Matthew 6:14).
* Judge not, that ye be not judged (Matthew 7:1).
* Blessed are the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9).
* Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy (Matthew 5:7).
* Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not kill, but I say who ever is angry with his brother is in danger of the judgment (Matthew 5:21-22).
* Treat others the same way you want them to treat you (Luke 6:27-36).
* Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick, whatever you do to the very least you have done unto me (Matthew 25:40).

If Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels were at odds with Islamic teachings, they would not have been circulating within the first few centuries of Islam. A standard work on sayings attributed to pious men in early Islam, like Abu Nu‘aym’s hilyat al-awliya contain all of the above sayings of Jesus, some attributed directly to Jesus from the saint in question and others to the saint himself.

I have addressed these charges which attempt to draw a contrast between Islam and Christianity based on false comparisons. All of these sayings of Jesus have analogies in Muslim scriptures: Qur’an 41:34, 16:126 and 3:186 recommend forgiveness in the face of ill treatment, physical attacks and verbal insults (and the latter two verses specifically in regards to attacks from non-Muslims). Peacemaking is encouraged in the Qur’an (e.g. 4:114). The Qur’an says “they should forgive and overlook, do you not wish that God should forgive you?” (24:22) [akin to Jesus’ “forgive and you shall be forgiven”].

The Qur’an also says “O ye who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for God can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily God is well-acquainted with all that ye do” (4:135).

The Prophet Muhammad said according to a hadith which is the first one taught with a chain of transmission from the teacher back to Muhammad in most madrasas “The merciful will be shown mercy by the Most Merciful. Show mercy to those on earth and the one in heaven will show mercy to you” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi). The Qur’an praises those “who restrain anger, and pardon (all) men” (3:143) After the Battle of Uhud the Prophet Muhammad was asked to curse the disbelievers; his reply was: “God has not sent me to curse or vilify, but He sent me as a caller and a mercy…O God, guide my people [i.e. the Meccan enemies]! For they are a people who know not” (al-Bayhaqi). The Prophet Muhammad also said “none truly believes until he loves for his neighbour what he loves for himself” (Sahih Muslim 1:72) – according to the commentator al-Nawawi this refers to all humanity, and with regards to non-Muslims it is hoped they will receive right guidance.

The Qur’an also contains features the Gospels do not. For example, it tells Muslims “if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you” (24:33) and many other verses encourage emancipating slaves as an act of virtue, kindness and atonement. Jesus said nothing of the kind, and in fact the New Testament says slaves are to remain slaves and be dutiful to their masters.

Similarly Jesus preached separation from relatives who did not believe in him (Matthew 10:34-6), and he told a disciple who wished to bury his father “let the dead bury the dead” (Matthew 8:22); in contrast Muhammad told his female follower Asma after the Conquest of Mecca she may host her idolaterous mother based on the verse of the Qur’an which commands dealing kindly with those idolaters who are not hostile (60:8) (Sahih al-Bukhari 8:73:9).

But the Prophet did pray against his enemies. And so did Jesus. In Matthew 23 Jesus uses less than kind words in describing Jews and Pharisees: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!” and “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?”

Jesus according to Revelations 19 returns with an iron rod, and strikes down the nations of the world with a sharp sword; Muhammad, on the other hand, according to Muslim tradition will function as intercessor on behalf of his community in the Judgement – in other words, eschatologically, Muhammad will express mercy whereas Jesus will express judgement.

Oct 26, 2009 0:10:30 GMT krkey1 said:

* Infidels are your sworn enemies (Sura 4:101).
* Be ruthless to the infidels (Sura 48:29).
* Make war on the infidels who dwell around you (Sura 9:123, 66:9).
* Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day (Sura 9:29).
* Strike off the heads of infidels in battle (Sura 47:4).
* If someone stops believing in Allah, kill him (al-Bukhari 9:84:57).
* Take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends (Sura 5:51, 60:13).
* Never be a helper to the disbelievers (Sura 28:86).
* Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them (Sura 2:191).
* No Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel (al-Bukhari 1:3:111).
* The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land (Sura 5:33).

As explained in the blog post, “kuffar” does not translate to infidels, but those who reject the plain truth. In one verse of the Qur’an “kafir” (the singular) is in fact used explicitly for a farmer (57:20) as “kafir” literally mean somebody who “covers” something up. 4:101 is clearly in the context of those warring against the Muslims.

48:29 does not say to be ruthless to the infidels, it is a description of how the Prophet’s companions behaved towards unbelievers, and the Prophet himself often exhibited the opposite behaviour (see discussion of 48:29 in the post). The hadith does not say “If someone stops believing in Allah, kill him”. It is in fact a paraphrase of Ibn Abbas and not the actual words of the Prophet “If someone changes his religion, kill him”, for if this were taken literally even those who convert to Islam should be killed. The actual words of the Prophet as recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari 9:83:17 is capital punishment cannot be practiced except in three cases: murder, adultery and “the one who leaves the religion, turning against the community”, which clearly gives the impression apostasy alone is not sufficient reason for execution unless it is accompanied by treason. See this article: www.lamppostproductions.com/files/articles/PRESERVING%20THE%20FREEDOM%20FOR%20FAITH.pdf

2:191 does not say “kill the disbelievers” wherever you find them. 2:190 clearly refers to “those who fight you” – “disbelievers” are not mentioned anywhere in this section.

Oct 26, 2009 0:10:30 GMT krkey1 said:

I think a quick look at the text will show Islam teaches violence and Christianity doesn't

A quick look at the passages you selectively (and often incorrectly) quote. I suggest you read the link above. Christians did not only draw inspiration from the New Testament for war but the Old Testament too.

Oct 26, 2009 0:10:30 GMT krkey1 said:

Muslims attacking non Muslims is just Muslims following the teachings of the Qu'ran, while Christians attacking Christians and nonbelievers is in violation of Christianity.

Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas and many other sages of Christianity would disagree. Christian theologians justified their wars of aggression using the New and Old Testament - see the link in the first post.

[zameel]

Oct 26, 2009 2:31:12 GMT himself said:

Before the conquest of Byzantine lands, Muslims had had clashes with the Byzantines, hence an assumed state of hostility already existed.

Yes, the Emperor was given the traditional choice between submission to Islam or the sword. Although he responded politely, the emperor did not submit. (Neither did the shah, who was not so polite, but matters ended badly for him and Zoroastrians were ruthlessly persecuted.) The third letter, iirc, went to the emperor of Ethiopia, which was also subsequently attacked.

Ethiopia was attacked by the early Muslims? Hadn't heard of that one before. The Byzantines killed the diplomat who was sent to the levant which was what precipitated the 629 Battle of Mut'a.

[himself]

Ethiopia was attacked by the early Muslims? Hadn't heard of that one before.

Hence: "subsequently."

Then, too, I suppose too the attack by the Juhayna Arabs on the Nubian kingdoms of Dongola and Soba are also of the "look what you made me do" variety. As are the continuing attacks on the Nubians in the southern Sudan.

+ + +
The Qur’an also contains ... verses [that] encourage emancipating slaves as an act of virtue, kindness and atonement. Jesus said nothing of the kind, and in fact the New Testament says slaves are to remain slaves and be dutiful to their masters.

That must be why the Peninsular Arabs revolted in the 1860s when the rumor circulated that their Turkish rulers planned to abolish the slave trade and emancipate women. [The Turks, being Turks, won; but they backed off from the emancipation thingie.] Heck, slavery was not abolished de jure in Mauritania until the 1970s. And, save for courageous individuals here and there, any movement to abolish slavery in the House of Submission was met with the argument that since Allah [in the Qur'an] had set up rules regulating slavery, slavery was clearly permissible.

Jesus did not speak about slavery because he was talking to Jews and the Jews did not keep slaves. When Paul wrote about slavery it was a Roman institution and not entirely safe to criticize. But he did tell Philemon to treat Onesimus as a brother, not as a slave. What we know of funerary inscriptions of that era, there is no discernable difference in Christian graveyards between the graves of slaves and freemen, and the third pope, Anacletus, bore a slave name. Slavery as an institution disappeared from Europe during the Christian era, except as an alternative to executing POWs captured along the Mediterranean. It returned with the Age of Reason and had to be abolished a second time, spearheaded by the Abolitionists.

Fundamentalists love to toss off proof-texts; but the course of history is a more rigorous proof.

Christian theologians justified their wars of aggression using the New and Old Testament

Wars of aggression were not justified. See the criteria for a just war.

[zameel]

Oct 27, 2009 16:39:58 GMT himself said:

That must be why the Peninsular Arabs revolted in the 1860s when the rumor circulated that their Turkish rulers planned to abolish the slave trade and emancipate women.

I know of the tanzimat reforms in the nineteenth century suppressing slavery and slave trade in the Ottoman empire, but never heart of an Arab revolt because of it. The move to abolish slavery began before the 1860s due to European influences.

Oct 27, 2009 16:39:58 GMT himself said:

And, save for courageous individuals here and there, any movement to abolish slavery in the House of Submission was met with the argument that since Allah [in the Qur'an] had set up rules regulating slavery, slavery was clearly permissible.

Slavery in the Qur'an was only permitted following a war: "It is not fit for a prophet [and the believers] that he should take captives/slaves unless he has fought and triumphed in the land" (8:67). "(Show) kindness unto parents, and unto near kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and unto the neighbour who is of kin (unto you) and the neighbour who is not of kin, and the fellow-traveller and the wayfarer and (the slaves) whom your right hands possess" (4:36). Slaves are to be freed if they ask it of their masters (24:33).

A number of Islamic slave revolts occured in West Africa and Brazil during the early nineteenth century. See: www.africanholocaust.net/news_ah/bahiaslaverevolts.html

Oct 27, 2009 16:39:58 GMT himself said:

Jesus did not speak about slavery because he was talking to Jews and the Jews did not keep slaves

Jewish scripture does speak of slaves, and slavery was common in the Roman empire.

Oct 27, 2009 16:39:58 GMT himself said:

the third pope, Anacletus, bore a slave name

Slaves in Islam rose to high positions. Harun al-Rashid, the Abbasid caliph, for example was a slave. Qutb al-Din Aybak the sultan of India began his life as a slave. The Mamluks were initially trukic slaves.

Oct 27, 2009 16:39:58 GMT himself said:

Slavery as an institution disappeared from Europe during the Christian era, except as an alternative to executing POWs captured along the Mediterranean

Slavery as an institution did not disappear from Roman Christendom. It was in fact encouraged by Augustine in the fourth century and Aquinas in the thirteenth due to the doctrine of original sin.

Slave trade in the Mediterranean and in the Americas began in the fifteenth century, sanctioned in papal bulls. T David Curp writes "Eugenius IV and his immediate successor issued a series of bulls, including Illius Qui (1442), Dum Diversus (1452), and Romanus Pontificus (1455), that recognized the rights of the monarchs of Portugal and eventually Spain to engage in a wide-ranging slave trade in the Mediterranean and Africa — first under the guise of crusading, and then as a part of regular commerce" and "The occasional papal pronouncements against slavery earlier in the 15th century and later in the 16th century sought to regulate particular abuses, but they did not deny Spain and Portugal the right to engage in the trade itself."

The New Testament asks slaves to submit even to harsh masters: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh" (1 Peter 2:18). The Muslim scriptures say the opposite:

Sahih Muslim 15:4082 - Hilal b. Yasaf reported that a person got angry and slapped his slave-girl. Thereupon Suwaid b. Muqarrin said to him: You could find no other part (to slap) but the prominent part of her face. See I was one of the seven sons of Muqarrin, and we had but only one slave-girl. The youngest of us slapped her, and God's Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to set her free. Sahih Muslim 15:4092 - The Prophet said: "They (your servants and slaves) are your brothers. God has put them in your care, so feed them with what you eat, clothe them with what you wear. and do not burden them beyond their capacities; but if you burden them (with an unbearable burden), then help them (by sharing their extra burden)." Sahih Muslim 15:4978 - "He who slaps his slave or beats him, the expiation for it is that he should set him free"

Oct 27, 2009 16:39:58 GMT himself said:

Wars of aggression were not justified

Augustine, for example, justified forcefully eradicating the Donatist schism based on a Gospel principle which he interpreted as compelling heretics to come into true Christianity. David Aers wrote in his book Faith, Ethics and Church (2000) "It is worth recalling how Augustine's book De Correctione Donatistarum had given the church an exegetical passage that became a canonical part of its legitimization of the use of violence against Christians resisting its determinations. In Luke 14:15-24, Jesus tells one of the parables of the Kingdom. A certain man invited people to a great supper. Having difficulty filling his hall, he sent servants into the "highways and hedges" and ordered them to "compel" people to come in so that his house would be full (compelle intrare ut impleatur domus mea). Augustine had believed that the use of the empire's force to drive people into the Catholic Church was incompatible with the Gospels. But he changed his mind in his struggle with the Donatists. So his De Correctione Donatistarum takes Jesus's parable of the kingdom and allegorizes it to legitimize the use of secular power against heretical Christians. What else could Jesus mean by "highways and hedges" than "heresies and schisms"?..." (pp. 137-8). See the link in the first post for examples of post-reformation Christians justifying wars for the faith.

[praefectusurbanus]

[/quote]As historian KY Blankinship shows in The End of the Jihad State, an imperialist mindset was only existent for about a century from 634 to 740 (i.e. during the period of Rashidun and the Umayyad). After this period, the wars against the Byzantines were essentially defensive. It may be argued some of the Ottoman wars against Europe were aggressive, but they were never one-sided. For example, preceding the 1453 Constantinople siege, the greatest military victory for the Ottomans, Pope Nicolas V gave permission to capture and enslave Muslims around Constantinople (in a Papal Bull called Dum Diversas), which appears to have been what motivated the Ottoman response.[/quote]

What then were the invasions of Syria, Palestine, Asia Minor, Egypt, North Africa and Spain all about then? They were imperial conquests in every sense of the word, with powerful Islamic states headed by opportunistic princes such as Abd al-Rhaman in Cordoba replacing the established order. The expansion gradually sputtered out for a time due to divisions and faction squabbling on the part of the Muslims and counterattacks by the Byzantines and the onslaught of the Crusades, but it regained steam under leaders such as Zengi and Nur ad-Din in Syria and Saladin in Egypt during the 12th century and the rise of the house of Osman amongst the Turks during the 13th century. Islam was only fighting a defensive war because the previous owners were none to happy with seeing their domains invaded and one can hardly blame the Byzantines for disliking the idea of being conquered and calling for aid from their Latin neighbors.

To say that the Mehemet II was motivated in his conquest of Constantinople because of the papal bull "Dum Diversas" is rather naive and a gross understatement. There were previous attempts by the Ottomans to take the city before the 1450s with the objective of crushing the Byzantine empire and opening up the conquest of Europe but which were thrown back (the siege of 1422 led by Murad II, for example). The final taking of Constantinople was a long standing objective for the rising power of the Ottomans, and Mehemet illustrated these goals quite clearly by continuing the construction of fortresses along the Bosporus and creating a stranglehold on Constantinople before finally launching his assault on the city itself. "Dum Diversas" had little to do with the fact that the crushing of the Byzantine Ouikemene was a long standing objective for the Turks.

[/quote]
Ethiopia was attacked by the early Muslims? Hadn't heard of that one before. The Byzantines killed the diplomat who was sent to the levant which was what precipitated the 629 Battle of Mut'a.[/quote]

Eh, the Byzantines had nothing to do with the death of the emissary: the people responsible were the Ghassanids, a collection of Arabic tribes who converted to Christianity and inhabited southern Syria as a protectorate of the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantines got involved in the battle when the Ghassanids naturally called for aid against the approaching Muslim army. It should also be noted that the battle of Mu'tah appears to have been part of a series of expeditions by Islamic forces aimed at expanding the influence of Islam over the Arabic tribes living in southern Syria, especially around the Jordan, and not merely in retribution for the diplomatic mess.

[zameel]

Oct 28, 2009 16:55:39 GMT praefectusurbanus said:

What then were the invasions of Syria, Palestine, Asia Minor, Egypt, North Africa and Spain all about then? They were imperial conquests in every sense of the word, with powerful Islamic states headed by opportunistic princes such as Abd al-Rhaman in Cordoba replacing the established order

All of these conquests occured in the first Islamic century, which I agreed were expansionist.

Oct 28, 2009 16:55:39 GMT praefectusurbanus said:

The expansion gradually sputtered out for a time due to divisions and faction squabbling on the part of the Muslims and counterattacks by the Byzantines and the onslaught of the Crusades, but it regained steam under leaders such as Zengi and Nur ad-Din in Syria and Saladin in Egypt during the 12th century

The Zengids and Saladin fought defensive wars against the Crusades and attempted to unify the Muslim empire. Their wars were not expansionist.

Oct 28, 2009 16:55:39 GMT praefectusurbanus said:

Islam was only fighting a defensive war because the previous owners were none to happy with seeing their domains invaded and one can hardly blame the Byzantines for disliking the idea of being conquered and calling for aid from their Latin neighbors.

Was Islam also to blame for Christian expansion in Europe and the Americas (across three continents) from the period 800 to 1800 AD? See for example The making of Europe: conquest, colonization and cultural change 950-1350 by Robert Bartlett and Christianity Comes to the Americas, 1492-1776 by Charles Lippy.

Oct 28, 2009 16:55:39 GMT praefectusurbanus said:

To say that the Mehemet II was motivated in his conquest of Constantinople because of the papal bull "Dum Diversas" is rather naive and a gross understatement. There were previous attempts by the Ottomans to take the city before the 1450s with the objective of crushing the Byzantine empire and opening up the conquest of Europe but which were thrown back (the siege of 1422 led by Murad II, for example)

Murad II's seige of Constantinople followed Manuel II's attempt to divide the Ottoman elite. The examples above were simply to show Ottoman aggression was not one-sided. Sure, in some of its wars between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries it was motivated by conquest, but often the wars were either defensive or strategic necessities.