I have not seen or heard anyone denying that jihad once involved (and still does, at the hands of certain zealots and their followers) violent armed struggle in contrast to the more accepted modern view of jihad as a personal struggle to remain on the path. Lately though I seem to be seeing a lot of books being published and interviewees making assertions about sackings and forced conversion that portray these things as some unspoken tradition of jihad that is exclusively Muslim, which is only partly true.
One need only a cursory study of the history of the Western Hemisphere to see everything this author is denouncing Islam for being perpetrated by Christians on 2 entire continents of native peoples. A history which is also largely unspoken when promoting Christianity as a religion of peacemaking and tolerance. Was the gold and silver of St Peter's more valuable than the majority of the written history of the pre-columbian americas?
From some perspectives, none of the branches of Abrahamic tradition have any moral ground to stand on regarding the violent destruction and subjugation of outsiders. Most of the pagans groups are right there beside them too. The entire history of man is a bloody one.
With all of the religious traditions drenched in the blood of those who dared disagree with them, why is it appropriate to single out Islam as particularly objectionable? If Islam's past proves it is not a religion of peace (as these authors seem to want to convey), all of the other religions are equally non-peaceful.
And what does bickering over whose massacres were more egregious do to heal the continuing wounds generated by those conflicts? Wouldn't it be better to agree that all groups of humans have done horrible things in the name of the divine and the greater good, and try to see if there's some way of increasing tolerant cooperation over sowing dischord and pointing fingers?
no subject
One need only a cursory study of the history of the Western Hemisphere to see everything this author is denouncing Islam for being perpetrated by Christians on 2 entire continents of native peoples. A history which is also largely unspoken when promoting Christianity as a religion of peacemaking and tolerance. Was the gold and silver of St Peter's more valuable than the majority of the written history of the pre-columbian americas?
From some perspectives, none of the branches of Abrahamic tradition have any moral ground to stand on regarding the violent destruction and subjugation of outsiders. Most of the pagans groups are right there beside them too. The entire history of man is a bloody one.
With all of the religious traditions drenched in the blood of those who dared disagree with them, why is it appropriate to single out Islam as particularly objectionable? If Islam's past proves it is not a religion of peace (as these authors seem to want to convey), all of the other religions are equally non-peaceful.
And what does bickering over whose massacres were more egregious do to heal the continuing wounds generated by those conflicts? Wouldn't it be better to agree that all groups of humans have done horrible things in the name of the divine and the greater good, and try to see if there's some way of increasing tolerant cooperation over sowing dischord and pointing fingers?