Sure mate, Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world especially in muslim countries because ALL muslims in muslim countries (where muslims have the mist power) dont know the teachings of their book/ sarcasm off

you make me SICK, really

EDIT:

I will stop here, it doesnt make sense, everyone who wants to know the truth about both religions should read the bible and the quran (and the hadiths) and compare them, everyone else, wait 20-40 years and you will hate yourself because you havent informed yourselves in the first place.

im off, cya everyone

I wasn't pointing fingers at you per say. After all I don't see any Muslim armies invading the Western world killing hundreds of thousands of people unlike the other way around. There's always a 'BUT'.

I am not going to debate that, because that is just a flat out lie. Islamic violence has only lasted 150 years? lol. More like around 1400. Sure, alot of violence in Europe and all the areas it has affected can be blamed on christianity. But the same is true for Islam and all the areas it has affected. And again, not just in the last 150 years- since it's inception.

In my opinion the koran is the main problem with islam... I may not know every word in it, but you can't ignore that some of what it says is messed up.

And yeah, i know the old & new testaments have those types of areas as well, but in todays society most people are sane enough to not interpret those verses as "kill this entire group of people because they are different". The new testament even specifically preaches the opposite of that mindset. So yeah, islam threatens me because of it's doctine. Therefore some Muslims do. But most don't because I only know a couple moderate ones and they are all hard workers and very friendly.

sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Super Chunk that is alittle exagerated don't you think? During the Crusades it wasn't all one sided. The Moores (Muslims) forced many to convert. Sure they may not have gone to the extent of Genocide as often as some of the crusaders did but they were just as brutal.

Infact if you study the Crusades the only reason Saladin didn't slaughter every Christian in Jerusalem when he took it, was that the Crusaders threatened to execute every Muslim within the walls as well as destroy every Muslim Mosque and holy site. Saladin had the option kill them all and loose Jerusalem for ever or let some Christian's leave and enslave the remainder.

The Moores were known to be very brutal, also you talk about how under Muslim rule the Christians and jews were both allowed to worship freely in Jerusalem. Thats not what I learnt in social studies a large reason for the crusades was that many Christian's were persecuted. Several priests were killed.

You then say Christian's didn't allow Muslims to worship (At least I believe you said that) that is entirely not true. Muslims were also allowed to worship in Jerusalem under Christian rule to the same extent Christians were allowed in Muslim rule. Many were persecuted and imprisoned but some were allowed to worship.

Islam has been violent just as long as Christianity. The only difference is the New Testiment which is the basis for Christianity not once orders Christian's to slaughter non-believers. In Revelations it says God will unleash his rath on the non-believers but the New Testiment does not order Christians to kill infidel.

The Qur'an is very easily taken out of context because it is very violent. You mention that it was war time when it was written. But the New Testiment was written during persecution from the romans. The Romans and Jews killed many believers feeding them to Lions or making them into human torches. Yet the Bible says to love those that persecute you.

The major difference is the New Testiment can't be taken out of context to support mass murder. The violence of the Crusades was largely because nobody but the priests could read the Bible, so when the Catholic Church ordered its followers to defend Constantinople and retake Jerusalem they were able to lie to the people and convince them that killing Infidel was Christian.

Islamic extremists don't even have to lie to their congregations they can just take stuff out of context. Its in the Qur'an they just have to twist it. The same can not be done with the New Testiment.

I know Sapphi Snake was quick to mention that the Byzantine Empire and Constantinople were enemies. However when the Muslims continued advancing North they became a bigger threat to the Christian countries then each other were.

Example say the US and Russia were at War. But in the middle of that war aliens invaded the US or Russia. They would set aside their differences to fight off the invaders. Why? because they are both human and have more incommon with each other then the aliens.

Well, your one class is nice. However my entire minor and original Bachelor's degree was on religion (predominately history of) as well as Middle Eastern Studies.

During the Crusades, i.e. a time of war, I'm positive Muslims committed atrocities to Christians just as was the reverse. However, I also know that Saladin rebuilt the Church of the Sepulcher as well as ordered all nonMuslims to be treated equivocally. Also, most scholars would disagree with the image you push regarding Saladin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin

"His chivalrous behavior was noted by Christian chroniclers, especially in the accounts of the siege of Kerak in Moab, and despite being the nemesis of the Crusaders he won the respect of many of them, including Richard the Lionheart; rather than becoming a hated figure in Europe, he became a celebrated example of the principles of chivalry."

In fact, reading just this summary in wikipedia regarding the incident you stated, it sounds like you goofed the details a bit. Saladin never threatened to kill the Christians. He actually offered a very good set of terms for surrender which the Crusaders rejected. Then during the siege, the he stopped his attack when the Crusaders threatened to kill all the Muslims inside as well as destroy the Muslim holy areas. Then Saladin went ahead and re-offered some of the terms and Jerusalem was then handed to him. Additionally, when it was all said and done, Saladin sent out requests for the Jews who had fled the Crusaders to return to their homes and resettle in Jerusalem. Which many did. (See same wiki article and its sources)

************

I would never state that it was 100% rosy gardens while dancing in the streets holding hands for the 1200 years (before my 200 time frame) between Muslims and nonMuslims, however, It's also historical fact that during all this time conditions were FAR better than really, any place in modern Islamic countries.

A simple study of the difference between the rise of the Arab Empire (only 100 years to reach maxium) and the rise of Islam as being the dominate religion in these areas (this took remarkably longer, hundreds of years in any given area). This is easily shown in India where it was ruled beginning in the 12th century until almost British rule, however, it was never a place where Islam was the predominate religion (Hindus remained majority). This can only be possible if Islam was not forced on the community, regardless of what some maintain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam

Reading this and its sources are good examples of the difference between the rise of the Arab empire and the slower spread of Islam as a religion, including the tolerance found in these early Muslim communities. In particular read the section about Spain "Hispania /Al-Andalus". To quote this article... "The at-first small Muslim elite continued to grow with converts, and with a few exceptions, rulers in Islamic Spain allowed Christians and Jews the right specified in the Koran to practice their own religions, though it is true that non Muslims suffered from political and taxation inequities."

I'm sure in the 800 years of Muslim (Moor) Spain there were times of bad leaders, but its known by Jewish historians to be the absolute best times for Jews outside of modern US and Israel. Its when many of the most revered philosophical Jewish documents were created.

When I talked about the atrocities most were not commited by Saladin. When I mentioned in Social Studies I was refering to learning of how the first Crusade began. Many priests were killed and Christian's were being persecuted in the Holy Land after the Muslims took it.

I think after the first Crusade the only reasons Muslims allowed Christians to worship more freely and Christian's allowing Muslims to worship is because both Christians and Muslim realized neither of them could control Israel and Jerusalem without the other's somewhat support.

Yes Saladin was honourable and yes he was very nice after conquering Jerusalem. But I stand by my statement. If the Crusaders didn't threaten to slaughter every Muslim within the walls and destroy every holy site then I'm pretty sure Saladin would have killed the majority of them. Notice he enslaved everyone who could not pay a ransom, what would he have done if they didn't come to terms? I'm pretty sure it would have been far worse.

Its simply a fact that Islamic countries and Government's and Muslims have been very violent since the middle ages if not earlier. In the same way Christian's were (Which is the point of your thread right?)

However every time you talk about the Muslims and Christian's being violent , you refer to Islam as being less violent and having only been extreme for the last 200 years. Fact is your right Islam is and has been as violent as Christianity ever was. I won't argue that Islam has been more violent then organized Christianity. But to argue it was less so is futile.

Their have been atrocities commited by the Crusaders (Christians), the Moores and Al-Quida (Muslims) and even today the Jews (Israeli occupation and abuse).

No matter which way you look at it Islam is and has been for a very long time a violent religion. No less violent then organised Christianity no matter which way you slice it.

1st bolded: I have no clue where you are getting this. Muslims held the holy land for over 400 years before the first Crusade. The first Crusade was entirely because the Byzantines were losing land and asked the Catholics for help and the "holy land" was simply bait in how they got support from the Christian people's across Europe.

2nd bolded: That's purely your opinion that differs from historical facts in how Saladin acted in other battle's he won vs nonMuslims.

Finally, while there have been bad Muslim rulers prior to 200 years ago, Islam was FAR less violent before that, had no notion of extremism as we see it today, had far better woman's rights (rights to own land, equal education, etc) that all predated anything similar to the western concept of such, unparalleled religious freedoms, etc.

My thread's point was to demonstrate a few things.

1. Islam now is FAR worse now than it has ever been in its entire history. Islam from the beginning of the Arab Empire until about 1800AE was very, very different. This is easily demonstrated through Jewish history (pre-US and modern Israel) and especially Muslim controlled Spain since its highly recorded throughout history.

2. Islam now is the same as Christianity during its dark ages.

3. The Qur'an is not violent in nature, but its verses taken out of context and mixed with the Hadith literature that was recorded hundreds of years after Muhammad died is what has allowed the creation of this relatively modern concept of extremist Islam. Just study the concept of Wahhabism to see where it primarily started. Thank you Saudi Arabia for that.

4. People shouldn't focus on proving extremist theories in Islam, but should focus on proving why they are NOT Islamic in foundation and are actually contradictory to the message delivered in the Qur'an.

5. The hope that what we see today in various political revolutions will result in freer societies that will in turn question religious authority and begin an Islamic Renaissance.

Now, all of these points may not be fully detailed or expressed in my OP, but I think they are when you follow my various postings in this thread.

I'm getting that from what I was taught in Social Studies. The Muslims began moving North towards Constantinople and Christians began being persecuted or at least thats what the church told everyone and what was recorded in the history books. Constantinople and the Byzantine empire called on the Catholic Church for help. The persecution and advances of the Muslims caused the Catholic Church to unite the Christian nations in a war which they considered holy.

I don't know why it took 400 years, actually I do the Christians were to busy fighting amongst each other to stop the Muslims from taking over. But when Constantinople was threatened and the Muslims began moving towards other Christian territories they got afraid and fought back.

Keep in mind Emperor Constantine built the first big christian church in Constantinople. Constantinople and Jerusalem were the two biggest Christian landmarks. Its like Jerusalem and Mecca is to Islam. Muslims controlling those two cities would be a horrible thing for the Christians especially if persecution was occuring as the Christians claimed it was.

As I said Muslim nations may have been better then the crusaders. But it wasn't an unprovoked war. Its not like one day for no reason the Catholic Church declared a holy war on Islam and marched into Jerusalem. It was hundreds of years of war and/or persecution that lead to the crusades.

I admit Muslims back in the middle ages were more civilized then the Catholics. But Muslims were still pretty violent and weren't entirely innocent in the Crusades or other wars. Also keep in mind the Catholics killed the protestants the same way today the Sunni's kill the Shiites and vice versa.

More people were killed last year in Muslim terrorist attacks than the entire Spanish Inquisition. Your OP is a failed attempt to make Christianity sound as violent as Islam.

Now of course Christians have killed people in the past but not at the rate Muslims kill people today. And the fact that Muslims are doing these attacks in the modern day is really bad. I can't even think of the last time there was a Christian terrorist attack. 

Oh and if anyone says Hitler was Christian they are wrong. Hitler hated all religions including Christianity. He was basically an atheist.