can Islam justify the violence by saying well Christians did it(1000 years ago) why cant we?

Question

time period is not the issue(I just grabbed any #)lets just say in the past.

yep I'm serious

Answer 1

Who belongs to the terrorists group?
You know the answer. Everybody knows it if you used your coconut shell.
jtm

Answer 2

There is a little lack of historical knowledge being presented in some of the answers so far. First, any religion that believes that Christ is the messiah is a Christian religion. That includes Catholics.

Secondly, the Crusaders were the Christians trying to take back land and people that the Muslims overran and forced to convert at the point of a sword. The aggressors were the Muslims the defenders were the Crusaders and the Crusaders lost.

Now to answer your question, no, Islam cannot justify their modern violence by blaming it on the Crusades.
.

Answer 3

Islamics took over churches, destroyed Christian holy places and prevented Christians from doing the stations at the cross in Jerusalem after 700 AD.

These establishements and rituals were in practise there since 30 to 50 AD or 650 years before Islam existed.

Now who has rights!

Answer 4

that's very long so i did no longer study all of it, even however in attempting to greater healthy text fabric from the two the Quran and the Bible, its maximum severe to remember that traditionally, the Bible was written first. that doesn't make the two text fabric much less ultimate - fairly, you may traditionally argue that the Quran has greater suitable know-how to artwork with - yet because of the fact maximum persons will in no way study each and every, that's seems unfair to evaluate sections of text fabric and characteristic which ability to that for one faith or an extra. basically my opinion. on an identical time as you state that Christians reject Islam: if youin case you advise that Christians reject Islam as their chosen faith, then i might agree. maximum persons do no longer worship 2 religions on an identical time. Many Christians basically understand little or no approximately Islam, i might say. whether, settling in your self as a Christian does now no longer advise you're claiming that Islam as a faith is invalid. that's a valid faith for thousands of thousands of persons around the globe and maximum smart Christians comprehend that. Christians do no longer seem announcing Islam is invalid for each guy or woman interior the completed worldwide, basically that it is not their very own selection of religion.

Answer 5

I don't understand this, when a Muslim does something Islam is blamed and when a christian, jewish, hindu etc does it then a person or a country is blamed not the religion. Have you asked yourself why a christian country like US and UK attacked a Muslim country without any proof of illegal act that is WMD? Have you asked the Gujarat Riotes which killed 2000 innocent people by Hindu fundamentalist, have asked which religion those Sri lanka (Tamil Tigers) belong to and why media never names there religion etc No you don't do that, why because Media did say so and didn't brain washed us. Come on people be fair when judging religions or anything as a matter of fact.

http://askmuslims.com

Answer 6

The door to ijtihad is always open, but there are factors which prevent the present desires for ijtihad from being “heavenly” and make them “worldly.” They are:

The first: The cause for the establishment of a rule is different from the wisdom and benefit expected of it. Wisdom or benefit is the reason of its preference, while the cause requires its existence. For example, when a Muslim is on a journey, he shortens his prescribed prayers--he per-forms the prayers of four units or cycles (rak‘a) to two. The cause for this Divine dispensation in respect to the lightening of the duty of the prayer is traveling, and the wisdom lying in it is the hardships of traveling. A Muslim shortens his prayers as long as he is on a journey, even though he meets no hardships during it, because the cause exists. If he is not on a journey and yet meets hundreds of hardships, he cannot shorten the prayers, because wisdom or benefit cannot be the cause for this dispensation. However, contrary to this precept, the present viewpoint substitutes wisdom or benefit for the cause and judges accordingly. Certainly, this type of ijtihad is worldly and cannot be heavenly.

The second: The present viewpoint of people considers the worldly happiness in the first place and gives it priority in its judgments. Whereas, in the view of the Islamic Shari'a the other-worldly eternal happiness has absolute precedence, and the happiness in the world has a secondary place and is considered from the perspective of its being a means of eternal happiness. Therefore, since the present viewpoint is strange to the spirit of the Shari'a, it has no right to exercise ijtihad in the Name of the Shari'a.

The third: The principle that an absolute necessity makes permissible what is forbidden by the Shari'a, does not have validity at all times and in all circumstances. If the necessity does not arise from a forbidden act, it may be the cause for a permission. If, by contrast, it arises from a misuse of will-power and unlawful acts, it cannot be the means or an excuse for any dispensation.

For example, if a man voluntarily drinks alcohol and becomes drunk, he cannot be excused for the crimes he commits. If he divorces his wife, the divorce is in force. If he commits a murder, he is punished. Whereas, if his drunkenness has not arisen from his misuse of will-power – if he has been forced or threatened to do that, for example – then neither the divorce is in force nor is he punished. But one who has voluntarily been addicted to alcohol and can no longer give it up, cannot make the excuse: ‘I am obliged to drink it, and therefore it is lawful for me.’

Thus, at this time there are many things which have become generally ‘necessary’ and people are unable to renounce them. However, since they have all arisen from voluntary misuse of will-power, unlawful inclinations, and forbidden acts, they can be the means for neither a dispensation nor making the unlawful lawful. Whereas, since those who are in favour of exercising ijtihad in the present circumstances, build their reasoning on such sorts of necessities, their ijtihad is worldly, the product of their fancies, and under the influence of modern trends of thought, and therefore is not heavenly and in accordance with the Shari‘a. If any exercise of authority in the Divine ordinances of the Creator of the heavens and earth, and interference in the worship of His servants does not depend on that Creator's permission, that exercise of authority and interference are rejected.

Answer 7

It wasn't justified when the Christians did it, why would it work for Islam. Using that same logic, the Egyptians had Hebrews for slaves, so why can't I still have an African American come do my dishes, etc.? This question(and my answer) are both silly.

Answer 8

No i think that that is more of a grudge thing 1000 years ago alot of things were different it doesn't make any sense to be bringing it up now. it was a thousand years ago, it has no relevance to now. and after 1000 years what ever they are mad about they should have gotten over it by now

Answer 9

Just because the Christians did it (ie - Crusades) 1000 years ago.... it doesn't make it right. It was absolutely WRONG for the Christians to do that violence back then and it's wrong now for other people to do the same. Justification doesn't make it right.

Answer 10

Nope, but the difference is that Christians supported it as a whole during that time. 99.9% of muslims don't support the violence or even want to be a part of it.

Answer 11

Islam is so strong and so self-assured that it does not need to use force to attract others to it. The moral and intellectual superiority of Islam over all other religions has manifested itself clearly throughout the history of Islam. Despite the ills that Muslims are facing everywhere, Islam continues to be the fastest growing religion on earth. Professor Huston Smith of the MIT in his book, The Religions of Man says:

"In some areas where Islam and Christianity are competing for converts, Islam is gaining at a rate of 10 to 1."

A conference of Christian missionaries in 1887 was discussing why Islam has almost swept away Christianity from the Middle East. What did Islam offer these people to forsake Christianity for good? One of the missionaries was insightful enough to say the following: "Islam brought out the fundamental dogmas of the Unity and Greatness of God, that He is Mindful and Righteous. It proclaimed the responsibility of man, a future life, a Day of Judgment and stern retribution to fall upon the wicked, and enforced the duties of prayer, alms giving and fasting. It replaced monkishness by manliness; it gave hope to the slave, brotherhood to mankind and recognition to the fundamental facts of human nature."

what is the truth? Did Muslims really force others to convert to Islam? Is there any evidence for consistent forcible conversion throughout Islamic history? In fact, there is no such evidence anywhere in the history of Islam. Many distinguished Western historians have attested to this fact -- foremost among whom is Sir Thomas W. Arnold in his book, The Preaching of Islam. Similarly authors like, Marshall G. Hodgson, in his book The Venture of Islam, Albert Hourani in his book, A History of the Arab People, Ira Lapidus in his book, History of Islamic Societies, L.S. Starorianos in his book, A Global History: The Human Heritage and many others have testified to this.

On the contrary, there is substantial evidence that Muslims were often seen as liberators of the oppressed people everywhere.

Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years.
Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.

14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians.
Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

More than 80% non-Muslims in India.
The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

Indonesia and Malaysia.
Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?"

East Coast of Africa.
Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, "Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?"