More people have been killed in the name of religious persecution than died in the bombing of hiroshima. ( I was going to say holocaust but again religious persecution) People are willing to kill in the name of religion because it allows them to mentally absolve themselves for the sin of murder without just cause. Men order murder not God under whatever name you call him.
2007-01-20 22:00:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by Natashya K 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Golden rule is applicable and is meant for only the believers the non-believers are considered inferior and thus unequal.
Equal treatment is for equals only not for the unequals !!
This is the height of hypocrisy of those who swear ion the name of the One who is the embodiment of Goodness.
Their answer which is mostly implied is Ours is the Only True Belief and if you come to our side you would of course be our equal !!
Some sort of a Patent Rights from God !!
2007-01-20 22:07:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by madhatter 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because we are humans; drugs, guns, politic, weapons any kind, religion, cars, any kind of transportation, animals, etc. aren't bad, is the use we give to things that makes us to hurt each other. We need to understand that we are all equals and that we need a better understanding among us for the better future of this world, we ain't got another home to live, we just have this one and is our responsibility to leave a good home for our children in the future. Please people open your eyes, stop the killing, stop the racism, we are all brothers, let save the our home our planet, let work together for each other, we still having time yet.
2007-01-20 22:06:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by Javy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
That is not entirely true and this may seem to be biased for a Muslim like me to say but Islam proves otherwise.
A famous Muslim convert, Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall once said:
"In the eyes of history, religious toleration is the highest evidence of culture in a people...It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant, and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance..."
This is indeed true. The former regimes of Taliban and current Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia are perfect examples of this. Religious tolerance and pluralism embodied in the Holy Quran and the Prophet's Sunnah (prophetic traditions) are discarded, if not entirely then partly. This is indeed shameful to Muslims worldwide who detest such unislamic governments. History testifies that implementing the teachings of Islam without leaving even one single part of it could do wonders to the world.
Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall in his speech, "Tolerance in Islam" continued by saying that:
"Innumerable monasteries, with a wealth of treasure of which the worth has been calculated at not less than a hundred millions sterling, enjoyed the benefit of the Holy Prophet's (Muhammad’s) Charter to the monks of Sinai and were religiously respected by the Muslims. The various sects of Christians were represented in the Council of the Empire by their patriarchs, on the provincial and district council by their bishops, in the village council by their priests, whose word was always taken without question on things which were the sole concern of their community...The tolerance within the body of Islam was, and is, something without parallel in history; class and race and color ceasing altogether to be barriers."
Several scholars write:
"We have never heard about any attempt to compel Non-Muslim parties to adopt Islam or about any organized persecution aiming at exterminating Christianity. If the Caliphs had chosen one of these plans, they would have wiped out Christianity as easily as what happened to Islam during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain; by the same method which Louis XIV followed to make Protestantism a creed whose followers were to be sentenced to death; or with the same ease of keeping the Jews away from Britain for a period of three hundred fifty years."
(Thomas Arnold in 'The Call to Islam')
"Despite the growth of antagonism, Moslem (Muslim) rulers seldom made their Christian subjects suffer for the Crusades. When the Saracens finally resumed the full control of Palestine the Christians were given their former status as dhimmis. The Coptic Church, too had little cause for complaint under Saladin's (Salahuddin) strong government, and during the time of the earlier Mameluke sultans who succeeded him the Copts experienced more enlightened justice than they had hitherto known. The only effect of the Crusaders upon Egyptian Christians was to keep them for a while from pilgrimage to Jerusalem, for as long as the Frank were in charge heretics were forbidden access to the shrines. Not until the Moslem victories could they enjoy their rights as Christians."
(James Addison in 'The Christian Approach to the Moslem')
"During the period of the Caliphs the learned men of the Christians and the Jews were not only held in great esteem but were appointed to posts of great responsibility, and were promoted to the high ranking job in the government....He (Caliph Haroon Rasheed) never considered to which country a learned person belonged nor his faith and belief, but only his excellence in the field of learning."
(Dr. William Draper in 'History of Intellectual Development of Europe')
Peace and Love.
2007-01-20 23:22:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by mil's 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
i don't know why that's your point of view.
2007-01-20 21:57:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋