The premier non-Muslim apologist for Islam speaks at Florida Southern College. "Lecturer Dispels Myths About Islam: Christians fail to notice their own complicity in global violence, professor says," by Cary McMullen in the Ledger, with thanks to Kamala:
LAKELAND -- John Esposito said he gets asked the same questions repeatedly these days, one of them being, "Why is Islam such a violent religion?" In a lecture, "Violence in the Islamic Tradition," at Florida Southern College on Friday, he posed a question in response: "Why is it we have so much of a problem distinguishing between what a majority of Muslims do and what extremists do?"
Hmmm. Good one, Professor. Could it be because the "extremists" cite chapter and verse of the Qur'an and Sunnah to support their actions, and the majority of Muslims have never yet come up with an adequate Islamic refutation of that "extremism"?
After that, Esposito led his hapless hearers into a forest of tu-quoque:
Esposito, professor of religion and international affairs and Islamic studies at Georgetown University in Washington, delivered the Warren W. Willis Lecture in Religion at the college to an audience of about 150. The author of more than 30 books on Islam and a consultant to the U.S. State Department, Esposito stressed in his lecture that Islam, like other religions, including Christianity, has been misused to justify political and economic goals."There are transcendent and dark sides to religion. Religion is about a transcendent reality but also helping those who follow it to transcend themselves and their baser instincts. It also is used, abused and misused to justify all kinds of things," he said.
As an example, Esposito pointed to a quote by former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski that the 20th century was the bloodiest in human history. He asked, "Who was it that engaged in and perpetuated the violence? Not Muslims, but America and Europe. It was not waged in the name of religion, but it was fought by religious people and legitimated by religious chaplains."
Christians fail to notice their own complicity in such violence while reacting with shock to violence inflicted by Muslims and wrongly seeking to characterize Islam as a whole as a violent religion, he said.
The persistence of this canard puzzles me. After all, if Christianity were the bloodiest, most violent religion on the planet, would that somehow mean that Islam is not violent?
Even Pope Benedict fell into this trap, he said, in a recent speech in which he quoted a medieval emperor who castigated Islam as a religion that was spread by coercion. After the death of Muhammad, subsequent Muslim rulers did forge an empire by use of war, but this was for reasons of political and economic gain, Esposito said."It was legitimated as spreading Islam. They got religious leaders to legitimate what they were doing," he said.
Esposito affirmed in his book Islam: The Straight Path that non-Muslims were offered the triple choice of conversion, subjugation, or war: "As Islam penetrated new areas, people were offered three options: (1) conversion, that is, full membership in the Muslim community, with its rights and duties; (2) acceptance of Muslim rule as ‘protected’ people and payment of a poll tax; (3) battle or the sword if neither the first nor the second option was accepted" (p. 35). This was a religious imperative, and if it was developed to justify political expansion, it certainly took on a life of its own and became the impetus for future expansion.
An Islamic term that is often used in connection with violence is jihad, but the word usually means to strive or struggle to be a good Muslim, Esposito said. It is also used to refer to the defense of oneself or one's religion.
"Usually"? When, where, and by whom? Esposito probably knows that Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Abdullah Azzam, cofounder of Al-Qaeda, and others have argued that the idea that jihad is a spiritual struggle is based on a weak hadith, and thus should be rejected by Muslims. Unfortunately, moderates have never shown this argument to be false. There is also, as he undoubtedly knows, an elaborate legal edifice of laws governing offensive jihad to spread the religion, in accord with Muhammad's dictates (cf. Sahih Muslim 4294).
"That's defensive warfare, but, like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. . . . The struggle is, when is it just, when is it defensive, when is it offensive?"For mainstream Muslims, it's a very central term. It's understood in a nonviolent way, but it is used by terrorists," he said.
Yes, but unfortunately, the terrorists have the texts on their side, and that's why that "mainstream" is eroding and becoming radicalized. But I expect Esposito did not explain that.
Robert, I don't mean to sound hostile but am simply curious. Why aren't you also a 'consultant to the U.S. State Department'? Or are you? Why don't they factor in your view? Tell us how you think that politics works, even with Republicans in control of White House, the Senate and the Congress? I have a rough idea ('religion of peace') but maybe you have some interesting details or observations.
It seems that Esposito forgets that very early Islam did not want converts. They wanted to preserve rule by the Arab tribal conquerors and thereby keep Islam as a system of exploitation to benefit only Arabs and which only Arabs could be trusted to enforce.
It is bizarre that Esposito tries to whitewash the Islamic/Arab conquests by portraying them as Not Religious, but as merely political or economic [= pecuniary exploitation]. His reasoning is bizarre.
I guess that if they were merely political [empire-building] or economic [exploitative] then that makes it all right.
For a supposedly smart fellow, Esposito continues to disappoint by once again illustrating that he hasn't got a clue..
Robert, don't mention Esposito unless you are talking about Phil Esposito of the Boston Bruins. Don't ruin that name for me.
Defense/Offense
Gee, it looks like Mohammed invented the old football axiom:
The best defense is a good offense.
Right, Christians are running around blowing themselves up or beheading people. I'm so sick of hearing this kind of gibberish. [As a side note, I love how in debates where religion is portrayed as the source of all evil (especially Christianity) no one ever brings up that beliefs such as atheism/communism have also resulted in death - the death of millions. Never have I seen that mentioned.]
These are the kinds of nonsensical arguments we always here. And this guy is advising our State Department? God help us all.
Esposito also reminds me of George Will's citing of the difference between "well schooled" and "well educated." Obviously, Esposito is well schooled.
fair dinkum...
Asked about possible reconciliation between Muslim religious groups, such as Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, Esposito said the problems are basically political and economic but have historical roots that include religious differences.
"There is tribalism and sectarian division. It's a very fluid, very dangerous situation,"
was it a year 7 high school class he delivered this to? he's trying to make excuses for centuries of sectarian hatred between these 2, but to me it just reads muslims have so much hate for "apostates" and "blasphemers" that it has caused economic, political and religion based nightmares for thousands upon thousands of people within and from outside their own countries and societies. he's whitewashing the valid question with vague, hazy references to economics etc.
the "fluid situation" depends on which side has the most arms/willings martyrs/torture cum death squads at any given time... simple.
if the sectarian violence between suunis and shites (yes shites) being carried out by real live mohammodeans in a real live muslim democracy is in fact jihad, and i suspect that both sides would see it as such, then it blows any other notion of what jihad might be right out of the water...
boring, tedious claptrap.
"Christians fail to notice their own complicity in such violence while reacting with shock to violence inflicted by Muslims and wrongly seeking to characterize Islam as a whole as a violent religion, he said."
He states as though the middle ages ended yesterday morning. He come across as a person without any faith, one who thinks everything went from disorder to order, just to have religion come in and try to return to disorder.
And this is who has the ear of our leaders?
Was not WW1 started by a killing of a prince/king , by a muslum, which led to that conflict beginning?
The argument that much of the bloody wars of the 20 century were fought by religious people does not completely stand up to history. Does he not remember an areligious Austrian named Adolf Hitler? Does he not remember Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev? Also, America did not start these wars. With the exception of World War I, the three major wars of the 20th century were started by areligious or anti-religious aggressors. Also, the violence of the 20th century was physically brutal. The violence we see from Islamic terrorists is physically brutal on a lesser scale but is more brutal psychologically. You do not see Westerners blowing up coffee shops, beheading kidnap victims and videotaping it, issue fatwas against authors, or engage in suicide bombing. Mr. Esposito needs to get his facts right.
Finally, anyone who relies on Zbigniew Brzezinski for quotes is lost. Brzezinski was in the Carter administration, enough said.
My eyes are starting to bleed reading this kind of dung.I need duct tape before my head explodes...
Was not WW1 started by a killing of a prince/king , by a muslum, which led to that conflict beginning? Posted by Islofob IS-1.
Gavrilo Princip, Austrian Archduke Ferdinand's killer was a Serb, I cannot determine Princip's religion, but I doubt that he was MUslim.
WHY DO PLEPLE LIKE Mr. Esposito HIDE THERE HEAD IN THE CLOUDS FROM THE IVORY TOWER HE LIVES IN
So does this guy believe that the Muslims fought a defensive war against the Buddhists in Central Asia?
...a consultant to the State Department...
$250 per hour plus expenses? There are problems that you can throw money at to make them go away. Religious conflict is not one of them. Repeating the same lie over and over, even at high billing rates, will not make it true.
I met John Esposito twenty-two years ago when he was teaching religious studies at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass. He was not very impressive, although he could strut. I also knew his colleague, John Voll, when he taught History of the Middle East at my alma mater, the University of New Hampshire when I was an undergraduate there in the late seventies and early eighties. His solicitude for the Muslim students was touching, and he never failed to distort the history of jihad and Israel's history. Both men are hollow sycophants. I knew it then and nothing has changed in their careers to convince me otherwise.
John Esposito has never shown any evidence that he has read the Qur'an or Sunnah.
How is it that both men are invited to provide policy input when, although impeccably credentialled, they are so superficially informed?
Don't you love it when people respond to a straight question with another question that doesn't even come close to addressing the original question posed?
Yes, Christianity has had its share of violence, but that DOESN'T deal with the question of why Islam is so violent!!!!
Moron!!!!! ...and the bigger morons are universities that are actively supporting radical Islam by hosting such idiots as this person.
The most useful solutions are simple ones.
The truth is too simple for Washington and men like John Esposito, so they get along swimmingly.
The truth, that Islam is at war with the world, is just too stark and realistic to convey to the public, so Esposito chooses to become just one more traitor to the West. It's his skin he thinks he's saving, afterall, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if men like him were secretly looking forward to "reversion" and a harem and the concubines in Paradise themselves.
The State Department has lost a lot of credibility in recent years, due in no small part to the likes of Rice and Albright. Talking heads without creative and insightful intellects are very dangerous when in positions of power.
With Esposito it's a living. Folks can bet that he would not dare debate Robert for the same reason Tetzel and the clerics of Luther's time did not want to debate Luther on the question of indulgences. Follow the money. This PC hierarchy doesn't see the coming Reformation because their egos and their paychecks are blocking the view. They sneer as the revolt brews under their noses.
Fred; These guys are invited, and well paid, because they 'recognize the right answer when told'. There is an entire industry called 'consultants' whose primary purpose in life is to support the government's position.
They effectively act to dilute the accountability of the bureaucrat who arranges their paycheck. If you boil it down, they whore out their intregrity and background. I don't know this man from Adam, but I can guarantee you that his billing rate, if not his employment, is a direct result of the views he expressed in the article above.
Suppose the 'extremists' are distorting 'true' Islam. What is it about 'true' Islam that makes it so prone to 'extremist' distortions? Why aren't there Christian terrorists all over the world distorting the Bible and blowing things up? Or Buddhist terrorists all over the world blowing things up and distorting the lotus sermon (if that's what it was called)? Even if the Muslim terrorists murdering civilians in Thailand, the Phillipines, India, Russia, Sudan, Spain, Britain and all around the world are distorting Islam, that still reveals a profound flaw in Islam: it is so subject to extremist distortion that almost all terrorism is Islamic terrorism. The latter has claimed thousands of victims around the world since 9/11. And Islamic jihad has been spreading the world of Islam by means of the sword since Muhammad's time.
Robert Spencer recently posted the Policy Review book review of Andrew Bostom's book, The Legacy of Jihad and the Fate of Non-Muslims. The reviewer lauds Bostom's book and argues that Islam is unique because of its huge capacity to erase other cultures -- but not because of its violence. The reviewer points out that other peoples have been very violent too. But the reviewer fails to note that when Muslims are violent they are obeying central portions of their central texts. Linguist Tina Magaard (Ph.D in textual analysis and intercultural communication from the Sorbonne) carried out a three-year study of the texts of ten major religions and found that Islam's texts are significantly more violent than those of the other nine religions in the study.
Off-Topic FYI: There is an ESPN special tomorrow morning (Sunday morning at 9:30am EST) on Pat Tillman called "Outside the Lines" which deals with his journey from the NFL to Afghanistan and tragic death. The preview showed fellow Rangers being interviewed who were there at the scene on the day he was killed. Maybe this will settle the issue of how he died once and for all. I hope so, but I also hope that it will be mainly a tribute to one Man's bravery, dedication, and sacrifice for his country, for all of us. Pat Tillman, American Hero, RIP.
I am sick and tired of pointing towards the violent past of various religions, mainly christianity by Islam apologists, though I am not a christian myself. Let us assume for a second (although it is highly painful and violent for me to associate Christ with violence even in wildest thoughts) that Christianity has been the most violent religion in the past, but today violence has no place in christainity. It does not matter what Christians did in past as long as the most fundamental christian fanatic today proclaim that thhere is no place for violence in Bible and christianity, in theory as well as in practice, which is the case truly. Today countries with predominant christian populations are secular with total separation of church and state,and world is safe place even though these countries have power to destroy the whole earth. If they commit violence in any way it is not because of church but inspite of today's church. That is the only thing which matter, it does not matter what Church did in past, that is over and totally irrelevant. There is immense freedom which people of all faith including muslims enjoy in these countries. Can we say that of muslim countries. Let all the christians ask to built a tiny church in Saudi before Muslims are permitted to built grand mosque in Rome and all the difference will be apparent. But the dhimmi politicians (and I include BUsh, Cheney, Rumsfield in that category also) will never have guts to do that becuase they already think that Islam has the privilege just becuase of oil.
As a disciple of Edward Said, John Esposito is carrying on a tradition of fraud bequeathed to him by his master. Esposito is slightly more erudite than Said, but no less illogical and shallow. His explanation of the meaning of jihad is classic taqiyya - and it makes me wonder if he is secretly a Muslim. There are Muslim apologists who are more substantive than Esposito. They too are wrong, but they put up a better fight.
It's obvious that Esposito is able to prey on the gullible and those in denial. It troubles me that his largest audience are the students of a JESUIT institution (which rankles me, since I am a former Jesuit). He has perpetrated a fraud upon two solid institutions of The Society of Jesus and it makes me very angry to see that. The people who hired him are obviously not interested in Christian values or preserving our brilliant heritage.
"Christians fail to notice their own complicity in such violence while reacting with shock to violence inflicted by Muslims...
...............
So what is the tally of Christian terrorism?
In 1998. James Kopp shot and killed an abortion doctor in upstate New York, for what he claimed were Christian reasons. Most other Christians, even those who were fervently anti-abortion, condemned his actions.
Also in the 1990s, Millenial Christian and White Supremecist Randy Weaver forced a shootout with ATF agents during which his wife and armed teenage son were killed. He and his family were not part of any mainstream Christian sect.
Eric Rudolph, a Catholic, detonated a bomb at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, killing one (he didn't like foreigners, especially non-white foreigners). The casualties almost certainly would have been greater if security guard Richard Jewel hadn't cleared the area after discovering the suspicous bag. Rudolph went on the lam for several years. He was finally caught, and also found guilty for the bombing of a Gay nightclub. His actions were not supported by either American Catholics or the Vatican.
What about internationally?
In 2004 Christian terrorists killed 44 Hindus in India.
A bizzare self-proclaimed Christian terrorist group in Uganda, The Lord's Resistance Army, was founded in 1987 by Joseph Kony. This rebel group was a cult of personality, based loosely on Biblical millinarianism. This group was vicous, not only attacking villages, but more kidnapping small children, turning them into brutal child soldiers and sex-slaves. The group surendered to government forces this year. It wasn't supported by a single mainstream Christian denomination, and indeed was fairly unknown outside Africa.
The largest example of Christian terrosrist activity must be Catholic and Protestant groups in Ireland. The motives were both political and religious, and raged for much of the Twentieth Century. By now, though, even Sinn Fein (the armed wing of the IRA) has put down its weapons.
What about ongoing examples? Fred Phelps' Baptist Church is often cited as a Christian terrorist group. They started out around twenty years ago protesting Gay people's funerals, holding signs saying the departed were going to Hell. Most mainstream figures denounced their actions, especially the targeting of funerals.
After the start of the War in Iraq they apparently decided they had not offended enough people, because they then started attending service person's funerals. That most of the service people were no doubt heterosexual made no difference. Recently, after the tragic school shootings of five little Amish girls, they had planned to attend the funderal, claiming that the little girls were going to Hell. Someone got an injunction to stop them from doing this.
Although Phelps calls himself Baptist, and is often identified as such in the media, the American Baptists do not recognize or condone his actions. Indeed, Phelps' "Baptist Church" is entirely made up of his own large extended family. They believe that anyone not in his "Church" are damned.
Even here, though--as odious as I find Phelps' actions and vile ideology, he and his followers have not killed or physically harmed anyone, nor have they advocated doing so.
The above list may not be entirely complete, but it is close. None of the above groups (with the possible, occasional case of Ireland) had *any* mainstream Christian support. None of these groups convincingly cited the Bible to support their ugly campaigns. With a few exceptions, they were small and localized.
Sometimes Christian groups act complicity wiith terrorist groups, like the support by some Lebanese Christians of Hamas. This is ugly, but often is the result of fear. Christians are often targets, especially in the Muslim world. They feel (usually erroniously) that if they support local terrorist groups that they are less likely to be targeted by them.
All in all I think its clear that Muslim violence is far more widespread. Indeed, it is a threat on every continent. It is much more widely accepted by "mainstream Muslims" than is Christian violence. Finally, it is easy to cite the Koran to justify such violence. Christians are taught to emulate Jesus, whose creed is gentle, while the creed of Muhammed, Islam's perfect man, is anything but. This is a ludicrous argument, just knee-jerk moral equivilency.
"In 2004 Christian terrorists killed 44 Hindus in India."
Why?
Religion is about a transcendent reality but also helping those who follow it to transcend themselves and their baser instincts.
Odd that Esposito points this out. It seems that Islam attracts followers because it offers the way (and an excuse) to indulge in some of man's most base instincts-murder, rape, pillaging,etc.
After all, who wouldn't want the women of their enemies when Allah says it's alright as Islam says?
And killing is fine because Allah says it's no problem when done in his name.
Another thing is that Esposito fails to see is that Islam is constantly on the march and has been 14 centuries. What does he expect the rest of the world to do, sit and watch Islam destroy it? Almost everything Christianity has done regarding Islam has been a mere reaction to its aggresiveness. Good thing for him that Christianity has been somewhat successful in its defensive reaction: otherwise he wouldn't be around to pour forth his pablum.
Maybe Esposito should go to Tehran and get a job at a university in Western studies. No doubt his baloney would be highly prized there.
"What is it about 'true' Islam that makes it so prone to 'extremist' distortions?" -- traeh
yes, Why is Islam so easily "hijacked" ?
I don't know what is scarier, that fact that this moron is a professor and fills the mush brain college students with this bs or that fact that he is on the government payroll as a consultant. This just tells me our leadership is incompetant, time to move to Australia!
"Yes, Christianity has had its share of violence, but that DOESN'T deal with the question of why Islam is so violent!" -- monkeywho
That's true, Monkeywho, but like it or not this is one of the most pervasive arguments against Islamic exceptionalism for violent inspiration.
"They All Do It" is the boiled down argument. And if they all do it then why would Islam be any different? So Islam is no better or worse than any other religion. Ralph Peters was drawing on this same argument when he pointed to the violence in, what was it, the Book of Joshua? Saying that it was every bit as bloodthirsty as what's found in the Koran. What he neglected to add was that Christians don't look to the Book of Joshua for guidance on how to treat their fellow man, or how to deal with Non-believers.
Anyway, "Everybody Does It" is the ultimate lie which we need to face and defeat if we are to win people over to the true threat posed by radical Islam and militant Muslims.
Limes said "There is an entire industry called 'consultants' whose primary purpose in life is to support the government's position."
Consultant:Verb; from the root words meaning to con and insult.
gravenimage/
Brave words and I agree with you in the main. However, you should be gay, like me, and on the receiving end of Christian fundamentalist beliefs. People like you tell me that I will and can and do receive worse at the hands of the moslems - and you're right, but it's only a matter of degree. Christians can be pretty bloody awful when it comes to gay people - witness the annual hate crime death toll in the UK, the physical attacks resulting in traumatic injuries, the abuse, the insults, the denial of service (by government employees, by doctors, by dentists, by teachers, by police, by train guards, by nurses, by refuse collectors, by local government operatives, by registrars, by councillors, by MPs and MSPs and MWAs and MNIAs and by MEPs, by government ministers and by licencing authorities up and down this land).
Don't be misled here. Christians give themselves a good press but in reality they are pretty bloody awful to live with if you happen to be gay - not much better than moslems, actually - excepting that Christians don't want to kill you, they just want to torture you for ever. I call myself a Christian - because I believe in Christ's central tenet (the message of love) - but you have no idea how hard that is when most people who call themselves Christian just want me, and people like me, dead.
I have nothing to fear from speaking out about islam because I, and many others, have been through Christian 'love'. God help me - and them.
Dominic.
Dominic --
You could give up your gay life-style tomorrow, but still go to hell when you die. Being gay isn't the issue, but being a sinner is. We are ALL sinners, and we are all on our way to hell apart from Christ.
Knowing the love of Jesus is good, but it is not what Jesus said would save us from hell. Jesus said, "Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
We all need to repent of our sins, turn from our sins, and ask for Gods forgiveness, in order that we may be born again.
It's funny couse I personally think Freud is total junk but it occurred to me that 3 motives of human behaviour were constantly under siege by religion:
Judaism -- took away a human desire for self importance: nothing is more important than God Almighty and Abraham almost sucrificed his own son for his God
Christianity -- subdued sexuality
Islam -- took away the basis of living species:
the survival instinct
What's there left for a poor human being?
Dominic --
I am of two minds writing this. First: the "difference in degree" you speak of is the "difference" between death under Shari'a and criticism. That's a big one, to me.
Now I agree that there is much improvement to be made with regard to the rights of gay and lesbian people even in secular societies. I've protested, written my representatives, and argued to anyone who would listen that denying the right of marriage to gays and lesbians cannot be rigorously defended, that it's simply a matter of bigotry. I've appealed to everything from the Constitution to Jesus's own statements -- that "love thy neighbor" doesn't include a caveat "unless he's gay." Public employees should be fired or jailed if they fail their duties due to hatred of gays. It's not like life isn't hard enough without finding something else to torture people over.
At the same time, I lived in SF during the arc of AIDS and the heyday of ACT-UP. Day after day I'd see protests that boiled down to a bunch of children screaming that they'd eaten too much candy, even after being warned of the consequences, and they wanted mommy to find a cure instantly so they could go back to eating too much candy. But even with this, public opinion began to move. No-one now would own up publicly to approving of Fred Phelps and his gang of vampires. Gay bashers are put in jail, and plays, "art projects," movies and television shows are made about gays and openly disapproving of the people who hate them. Some of our most popular celebrities are openly gay.
Accordingly, any ingrained sense of grievance and victimization, while initially justified, no longer pulls the same weight. Evidence argues against you. It isn't perfect, but what is? It's moving toward equality, not away.
Now tell me, Dominic, in your misery and oppression, your living hell among the Christians, if you think that same movement is happening in Muslim-dominated countries. It seems inappropriate -- not to mention childish and self-absorbed, much like those protestors demanding an instant cure to a very, very medically complex and personally avoidable problem -- to put "Christians" in the same league as Mohammedans who would like to really, seriously, and actually kill you in "the most painful way possible." They don't want to stop you from marrying, Dominic, they want to push a wall on you, and when they get enough numbers together they will.
Dominic...
I am sorry that Christians have made your life bad. There is only one thing to say to them..and yes I am a Christian,ask if they can read souls and know exactly where G-d is going to send you? He gave them that information? They would be better off cleaning up their own souls first then they would realize that G-d wants all His children to return to Him.
Like Champ above said...we are all sinners..
"He who is without sin throw the first stone."
This discussion is somewhere south of worthless. Replete even with a homosexual whining about violence and threat of violence absent from this culture.
610 * 623 * 732 * 1066 * 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001
Violence and world takeover are not tenets of Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, or any other religion except Islam (if one confers Islam the status of Islam).
Violence and world takeover are the central tenets of Islam (and also of Marxism).
Until you deal with these all-subsuming salient distinctions, please, pleae, just shut the hell up.
Otherwise, you sound like a combo of Oprah, Rosie and, yes, "professor" John Esposito.
And that's a dumbass sound. A dangerous sound. Go make an appearance on the View.
Esposito should actually crack open a history book and read it.
In World War II
Just running some quick numbers, Germany (Fascist) declared war on the USA.
Japan (Buddhist) also declared war on the USA by sneaking up and surprise bombing Pearl Harbor in Hawaii USA.
Japan (Buddhist) killed 10,000,000 Chinese (Buddhist).
Germany (Fascist) attacked Communist Russia. (Communist).
It was the Christians of the USA, Great Britain, Canada and Australia that DEFENDED the Buddhists of China, the Christians and Catholics of Europe and Muslims of North Africa and the Hindus of India.
Please take note that the Christians were DEFENDING OTHER PEOPLES AND RELIGIONS AFTER they were ATTACKED.
Muslims are the aggressors fighting Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews
This is the fundamental difference between Christianity and the others on this particular issue.
Statistics of World War II
Including the European and Pacific Theaters
Countries
GERMANY(Fascist)Aggressor 6,850,000 dead
JAPAN(Buddhist)Aggressor 2,000,000 dead
CHINA(Buddhist)(Attacked by Japan) 10,000,000 dead
POLAND(Catholic)(Attacked by Germany) 6,123,000 dead
USSR (Communist)(Attacked by Germany) 20,600,000 dead
UNITED STATES(Christian)(Attacked by Japan) 500,000 dead
GREAT BRITAIN(Christian)Attacked by Germany 388,000 dead
JEWISH(Jewish) Attacked by Germany 6,000,000 dead
There is no honor or pride in all of this. Real people with real lives, died. We are all worse off for it, but it WAS NOT Christians attacking others!
I hope to learn more about any perceived connection between Islam and violence at the next
Muslims Against Terrorism Protest March.
See you there ?
I dont know if David Forte is still President Bushes islam advisor, but this guy could take his place in a heart beat. Niether one knows a god damn thing about Islam.
It is time Mr Esposito was EXPOSED-all the way along a money trail leading to our friends,the Saudis...'Dear John' has a very selective approach to history and one wonders how he ever got to his present position?? Sack the useless bugger and put Robert & Hugh as advisors to the President. Maybe Mr Esposito could make it in the Real World writing Muslim Fairy Tales but I doubt it.
"Gavrilo Princip, Austrian Archduke Ferdinand's killer was a Serb, I cannot determine Princip's religion, but I doubt that he was MUslim."
Posted by: Pelayo;
Thank you for the history refresh. It was a while ago I read this, and if I gave islam a wrong turn with this, I retract it with a sorry bow.
Islam needs nothing from false tales to support it's deeds, I will try and find out where and what I read to see where I was right, or the memory has faded.
Thank you again Pelayo.
I posted above about contemporary Christian violence. I noted that a lot of posters just said something along the lines of, "Yeah, like Christians are beheading people!". I thought I would take a closer look. I was already familiar with a few cases, and did a quick search to see what else was out there. I never claimed that the list was exhaustive, just fairly comprehensive.
The above list is ugly, and I didn't have any fun reviewing it. I want to make it clear that I am not excusing *any* sort of religious violence, just noting that there is in general far less Christian violence, and that very little of it has wide support by mainstream Christian sects. Even less is it supported doctrinally.
This is not to say that Christianity has not had a bloody history--the massacres of Albigensian "heretics", and lengthy violence between Catholics and various Protestant sects. Most of this violence ended centuries ago, though.
................
Dominic wrote:
gravenimage/
Brave words and I agree with you in the main. However, you should be gay, like me, and on the receiving end of Christian fundamentalist beliefs. People like you tell me that I will and can and do receive worse at the hands of the moslems - and you're right, but it's only a matter of degree. Christians can be pretty bloody awful when it comes to gay people - witness the annual hate crime death toll in the UK, the physical attacks resulting in traumatic injuries...
...................
Dominic, because I am against Muslim violence *does not* mean I am condoning Christian violence. Even in "Christian" countries, though, not all homophobic violence is inspired by Christian ideas. I am not gay, but I live in an area (San Francisco Bay Area) where violence aginst gay people is very much an issue. I am in no way in favor of anti-gay violence, and am sorry if you have suffered this.
.....................
alexon wrote:
"In 2004 Christian terrorists killed 44 Hindus in India."
Why?
....................
Thanks for asking that question. It was late at night when I posted, and I did not follow-up on that issue. It turns out that there is a group of Christian terrorists in Assam, India, who are trying to religiously cleanse the area of non-Christians. They are responsible for many more than the 44 deaths noted above. I was completely unfamliar with this situation. Maybe some of our Indian posters have more information.
.....................
I'm afraid my main point has gotten lost in all this. Often when Islam is accused of being a violent religion, Muslims or their apologists note that *all* religions have have incidents of violence. Not only is this far, far more widespread with Islam, but it is very much part of the preaching of Islam itself, sanctioned by the unchanging Koran and the example of Muhammed. Here it is not an occasional perversion of a religious ideal, but the religious ideal itself. Until Muslims honestly face this major aspect of their faith, the violence will not stop.
gravenimage,
Thanks for the additional info. I appreciated your posts.
I also think your conclusion is right on the mark.
There are other interesting angles here but since so few of them have to do with the wacky professor I think I'll pass for now.
A few statistics:
The Jihad is global. Every inhabited continent on earth has been affected.
There have been 6132 acts of Islamic terrorism since 9/11, over *three a day* somewhere in the world.
There are more people killed world-wide by Islamists *each year* than in 350 years of the terrible and feared Spanish Inquisition.
There were more civilians killed in just *two hours* on 9/11 than in 36 years of sectarian conflict in Ireland.
Someone needs to tell both Esposito and Brziznszky and the scads of Islam apologists out there that tens of millions of Christians were massacred in (and by) the Islamosphere during the twentieth century and that World War II was partly an offshoot of Islamic jihad (Hitler was a fan of Islam, the Holocaust was plotted in part through Nazi collusion with Palestinian Arabs living in Berlin in the 1930s, and the "Final Solution" was originated by Muslims).
We cannot afford to allow the likes of Esposito to let Islam off the hook now or ever. Europeans did that and look how poorly Europe is faring against the onslaught of Islamic aggression.
No, Esposito's whitewashing of Islam must be countered with the unvarnished (and undigestible) truth.
Dominic-
What you are experiencing is the sad reality that Americans have trouble accepting people who are different.
In the past, gays have often left America and gone to Canada and western Europe (which also happen to be Christian, or WERE, I should say) where they were generally treated better. So Christianity is NOT to blame for the the homophobia you have observed and been targeted by in America.
While Christianity is not the cause of the miserable treatment gays usually receive in America, I suspect it is the old puritan mentality that we went through during the colonial era that is still lingering like the stench from a box of rotting Twinkies.
However, I recommend that you spend some time in Saudi Arabia or Iran for a truly eye-opening experience in what can befall those who are gay (or otherwise out of synch with the Kuran and thus judged to be different).
In the words of Shakespeare "things can always get worse..."
I wonder if anyone at Florida Southern asked John Esposito how he planned to spend the $20 million dollars the Saudis gave Georgetown to burnish the face of Islam. Harvard also received $20 million.