Question:
Why is Islam called the religion of 'violence/terrorism', when Christians killed FAR more people in the name of religion?
anonymous
2016-01-24 10:39:29 UTC
1) Colonization of the Americas, 1492 to 1800, 8 million to 145 million dead natives. (the Spaniards and other European conquistadors used Christianity to justify their killing of Native Pagans. Most natives did die from disease but then again most deaths in most major wars/genocides were caused by disease/famine.)

2) 30 years religious war in Europe between Catholics and Protestants, 1618 to 1648, 8 million deaths.

3) French wars of religion, Catholics vs Protestants, 1562 to 1598, 3 million deaths.

4) Christian terrorist group Lord's Resistance army kills 65,000 to 100,000 civilians (more than Taliban, ISIS and Boko Haram combined) throughout Uganda, Congo, South Sudan and Central African Republic in their war to rule Uganda under the 10 commandments, 1987 to present.

5) Christian terrorist group National Liberation Front of Tripura kill thousands of Hindus in the name of Christ in Eastern India, 1989 to present.

Like Muslim extremists misquote the Quran, Christian extremists misquote the Bible to justify their violence:

Kill anyone who works on the Sabbath (Ex 31:15), kill disobedient children (Ex 21:15), kill adulterers (Lv 20:10), kill non-Hebrews (Dt 20:16-17), kill witches (Ex 22:18), kill gays (Rom 1:21-32), kill blasphemers (Lv 24:14), kill any bride who's not a virgin (Dt 22:21).
After winning battles, kill all male prisoners and take the women, children, and cattle for yourselves. - Dt 20:13-14
Ten answers:
?
2016-01-24 10:41:45 UTC
They've taken over where Christians left off.



> You can add the Cathars to that list -- well, actually lots of others. It's a good list, though.



>> What exactly is it with you people who constantly deny your religion's history? Christianity has a horrific history, and it's time you all learned it!



>>> And, no, they were NOT extremist Christians.





Read this, and learn something!



Christianity, Torture and Physical Abuse



And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers; even as I received of my Father. Revelations 2:27



Up to the fifth century AD Christians seem to have an inkling that there was something morally questionable about torture and killing. Christian torturers and executioners generally delayed their own baptism until just before death. The Church assured them that any sins of which they might have been guilty were thus washed away, and no lasting harm was done to their immortal souls. For the next thousand years and more, when Christianity was at the height of its power, the Church regarded brutality and killing as perfectly acceptable, and no such precautions were thought necessary. Mutilation, branding and flogging were commonplace. The Church found it acceptable for people to be flogged for the most trivial offences, even for things that are not now considered offences at all. Amongst them were vagrancy, drunkenness, drinking on a Sunday, having an illegitimate baby, even for contracting smallpox.



Torture had been used as punishment and as a method of eliciting information in ancient times, but thinkers like Seneca and Cicero had recognised both its injustice and its futility as a means of discovering the truth. Such ideas did not impress Christians, and as we shall see (The Inquisition page 364) the Church was responsible for introducing torture into almost all European penal systems, without any of the original roman safeguards. .



In England the provisions of Magna Carta (which had been denounced by the Church) had been interpreted as representing torture to be abhorrent to the principle of English freedom, and the Common Law did not permit its use . When two Inquisitors were sent to England in 1310 to extract confessions from Knights Templars, they insisted on using torture . The king allowed some torture to be applied "according to ecclesiastical law", but apparently not enough to satisfy the Inquisitors. The Pope wrote to the King:



We hear that you forbid torture as contrary to the laws of your land; but no state can override Cannon Law, Our Law; therefore I command you at once to submit these men to torture...Withdraw your prohibition and we grant you remission of sins



(Letter from Pope Clement V to King Edward II of England. Regestum Clementis Papae V, nunc primum editum cura et studio Monachorum Ordinis S. Benedicti, (Rome, 1885-92) year 5, no. 6670, pp 84-6. . The English translation is quoted from G. G. Coulton, Medieval Panorama, (CUP, 1947) p 380. Clement was asking for the Templars to be taken to Ponthieu, in Edward's French territories, where the Inquisitors could work normally. It seems likely that the Inquisitors could not get the results they wanted in England because the civil authorities were insisting that the rules be followed, and that the tortures applied should not cause permanent injury or violent effusion of blood. These rules were routinely ignored in France, and nearly all French Templars either died under torture or else confessed to charges put to them. For a full account of this whole sad business see Barber, The Trial of the Templars, especially pp 197-199. )



In the seventeenth century James Felton defied Archbishop Laud's threats of torture on the rack and the matter was referred to the courts. As a result the common law was confirmed and torture was definitively declared to be unlawful in England. In 1689 the Bill of Rights explicitly prohibited its use, so now it was banned by statute as well.



Elsewhere, torture was a favourite method of extracting confessions for offences both real and fabricated. Its use was explicitly sanctioned by Pope Innocent IV in 1252 in his bull ad extirpanda. Inquisitors and their assistants were permitted to absolve one another for applying torture. It was applied liberally to obtain whatever confessions were required, and sometimes just to punish people that the Church authorities did not like.



The voices raised against the use of torture were all secular. Early critics like Juan Luis Vives, Johann Graefe and Montaigne were regarded by the Church as its enemies. In 1740 Frederick the Great abolished torture in Prussia and around the same time Voltaire lent his voice to opposing the use of torture in France, where Churchmen were still intent on torturing and killing people for trivial offences like those of the Chevalier de la Barre).Despite the opposition of the Churches, secular powers succeeded in abolishing torture: in Italy in 1786, in France in 1789, in Spain in 1812, and so on. The use of torture by Inquisitors was nominally banned by Pope Pius VII in 1816, but a blind papal eye was turned to its continued use for another twenty years or so.



Paschal I (pope 817-824) blinded his opponents before beheading them. He was made a saint. Hadrian III (pope 884-885) was also keen on blinding his political opponents and once had a woman whipped naked through the streets of Rome. He too is now a saint. Over the centuries the Roman Church tortured, flogged, branded, and killed countless thousands of people, many of them for crimes which no longer exist. Mutilation was a common punishment throughout Christendom. For example a Crusader who struck another and drew blood was liable to have a hand chopped off. Other offenders suffered the removal of limbs, or of the nose, ears, lips, tongue, or genitals. Branding was used to disfigure bodies, arms, hands, cheeks and foreheads. Penitent heretics were branded with a cross. A fray-maker in church might expect to be branded with the letter F, and a blasphemer with the letter B.



Bishops' courts in England passed sentences of whipping and branding even on their own clerics. The great English saint Thomas Becket was one of many who had recourse to the branding iron .



For many centuries Christian missionaries secured conversions by offering a choice between adopting the Christian religion and instant death. By the late Middle Ages this was seen to be a little harsh. Christian missionaries now routinely used torture to secure converts and to punish those who did not live up to requirements. Such practices had been assumed to have been abandoned during the Enlightenment, at least by Protestants, but a flurry of cases were exposed in Victorian times. In 1880 it was disclosed that a Free Church of Scotland mission to Nyasaland maintained a pit prison in which a man had died after receiving two hundred lashes. It turned out to be common for people to be given a hundred lashes, and sometimes salt was rubbed into their open wounds. A few years later a Nigerian woman died having had red pepper rubbed into her wounds after a beating. Such cases caused a scandal among European sceptics. Churches became more cautious about their methods, but such techniques may well have been used into the twentieth century.



While the Church held sway, it supported all manner of absurdity and horror. It was the custom for Christian teachers to punish a servant lad when a royal pupil had misbehaved. (This is the origin of the term whipping boy.) As long as someone suffered, justice was somehow thought to have been done. Such an inequitable concept was comfortably accommodated within the Church. Corporal punishment has always featured strongly in Church Schools until recent times, but it was not confined only to schools. When society shared common Christian mores corporal punishment was widespread: it was practised extensively in Christian seminaries, monasteries, convents, orphanages, mental hospitals, armies, navies, prisons, and homes. Sentences of corporal punishment were handed down by courts in England until 1946. Birching was practised in British prisons until 1968.



For more than a thousand years Christianity set the standards. During that time many suffered physical abuse. Prisoners were tortured in Bishops' torture chambers. Noses were split, ears cropped, tongues bored, backs whipped, foreheads and cheeks branded, limbs crushed or cut off. And it was not only prisoners who suffered. Slaves were thrashed to death. Uncooperative potential converts were physically coerced. The insane were tortured by monks and nuns. Christian parents beat their children. Christian Schoolmasters beat their pupils. Christian husbands beat their wives. Canon law specifically permitted wife-beating, so it took place at level of society. All this has changed through the gradual adoption of secular ideas, and the Churches have now ceased to oppose such changes.
anonymous
2016-01-24 11:05:24 UTC
You don't know the history of your own religion then. Islamic invaders killed millions of people in their invasions of the Byzantine empire alone. The sack of Constantinople alone led to the massacring of nearly 200,000 people. Then there was the massacre of Poitiers in France, what on Earth were Muslims doing there. They also burnt the original church of Saint Peters in Rome, again massacring thousands of Roman citizens. Then there is Greece, Rumania, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria. Again and again Muslims tried to invade Austria, the Ottoman Sepahi cavalry scoured the countryside around Vienna in 1683 killing everyone, man women and children



You also cannot forget the Almohads in North Africa who killed every Christian and Jew who refused to convert to Islam. They later imported this habit into Spain which led to the Christian lords uniting to expel the Muslims from Spain. Then there is the Golden hoard who held Russia and Ukraine in bondage for 200 years the death rate there reached the millions, this is why the Russians have a visceral hatred on Islam.



Then there is one of the greatest butchers of all time, the emir Timur. He definitely killed millions of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Muslims. He used to build mountains of skulls. "the city reeked of decomposing bodies of its citizens with their heads being erected like structures and the bodies left as food for the birds. Timur's invasion and destruction of Delhi continued the chaos that was still consuming India and the city would not be able to recover from the great loss it suffered for almost a century". well over a million dead as the city was full of refugees. Timur himself probably killed more Muslims alone that the west has up until this day.



Before you criticise others learn you own history.
anonymous
2016-01-24 11:17:24 UTC
Ah, here's the thing. In the Old Testament, Jews were under the Old Covenant.

First, let's look at this from a Christian standpoint, which I can go on about since I used to be a Christian to begin with. Remember that the Israelites in the time of Moses lived under a theocracy. God's people in the Old Testament prior to the coming of Christ were identified externally through their adherence to the Law. According to Christian belief and what the Bible states, Jesus came and fulfilled the Old Covenant, establishing a new one in which sin was no less serious, but such laws had no need.

Therefore, a vast majority of Christians today do adhere to Western values. Christian extremists today are condemned by many Christian leaders, as they do not seem to realize the context of the Bible. Their actions are not Christian; "Christian" literally means "like Christ."



Muslim extremists, on the other hand, are not misquoting the Quran at all. It's amazing how you want to make the wrongdoings of Islam today justified because of the wrongdoings of Christians hundreds of years ago. I may not be religious in any sense, but I'm fine with Christianity because it understands and adheres to Western values, and has reason to do so because of their belief of Jesus fulfilling the Old Covenant. Not like Islam, which commands hate and killing and continues to do so even today. Even if you're a "moderate Muslim" then the term itself does not make sense. Why aren't you fully following the ideologies of Islam?



And since you seem so inclined towards posting verses of the Old Testament, here are some from the precious Quran:





2:193-“Fight against them (unbelievers) until there is no dissension, and the religion is for Allah.”

Fight until no other religion exists but Islam.

8:39-“Fight them (unbelievers) until persecution is no more and the religion of Allah reigns supreme.”



Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216 (different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.

O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54

O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. - 9:73

Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell. - 33:60



There, intolerance at its finest listed above. I don't usually stand up for Christianity, but it's rather irritating that Muslims try to justify acts done today in the name of Islam because of what Christians did a hundred years ago, and what a vast majority of Christians do condemn. The fact that Christians do not adhere to the verses you posted is due to the fulfillment of the Old Covenant, and therefore they have reason to do so. Nothing like that is mentioned in the Quran, except for a mess of contradictions that cannot be so easily saved by contextualization. Still today, Muslims have utmost respect for their prophet Mohammed, who consummated with a nine year old at age 53 and allowed all sorts of atrocities.
Morton L.
2016-01-24 10:48:25 UTC
Because there weren't TV stations and video tape in the Dark Ages when christians were murdering people in the millions. Today, it looks like Muslim extremists are committing unprecedented violence but they will have to murder hundreds of millions of people to tie the christians in terms of body count.
Archer
2016-01-24 13:02:32 UTC
You will find that Christians and Muslims engage in selective presentation of their faiths hoping that the ignorant and gullible will simply follow.
?
2016-01-24 12:50:36 UTC
uh hate to burst your bubble there, but the Natives were constantly in battle for territory much more than the settlers, who had no fight, they just wanted a new start. the natives were doing a pretty good job of killing each other, too.
Ruth
2016-01-24 10:48:15 UTC
I think your number dead is highly exaggerated. The colonization of America had nothing to do with religion. Islam is a religion that are world terrorists TODAY, not hundreds of years ago..
anonymous
2016-01-24 10:47:11 UTC
You answered your own question. Extremists use religion to justify their evil.
Misty
2016-01-24 10:57:11 UTC
Wow, do a little research.
G C
2016-01-24 10:41:21 UTC
Not hardly. It helps to know your history.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...