People are defending Isam by attacking christianity? Is that valid?

Question

Sure christians kill and commit crimes, but this is NOT a Biblical response. yet folks say that Jesus said to do this, but they have no scripture to back up these untruths.

The Koran promotes religous war:

Quran Surah 4: Women
Allah will bestow a vast reward on those who fight in religious wars.

War is fine but not for religous reasons. The Bible is against religous wars. Any religous war, done by christians was NON Biblical. Despite what man or any church states.

Once again, I acknowledge the Old Testament promoted killing for the Jews BEFORE the messiah came and fulfilled the Law and told us not to kill for the faith.

Answer 1

Of course it's not valid. It's a BS tactic to shift attention from the flagrant discrimination, hatred and bigotry taught in Islamic holy texts and practiced by many Muslims, and to soften the deservedly negative image of Islam in its truest form.
After all, if Islam and Christianity are the same sort of thing, the most we really have to fear is another billion overbearing missionaries...annoying, yes, but hardly worthy of much concern.

Answer 2

No, this is not a valid kind of response. People whom argue like this fail to provide a good rational answer but they distract others from the issue in question through introducing a fallacy of irrelevance (where premisses are logically irrelevant to the conclusion). The premise that Christianity endorses violence (which fails to be true) is unrelated to the conclusion that Islamic jihads are morally justified.

"Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation."

S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition) (St. Martin's, 1994), pp. 204-206.

Answer 3

But of Course it is, their History is Filled with Violence & not just towards Christianity! Here is the Doctrine on their "Tactic"!!! Enjoy! John

DOCTRINE OF THE AMBUSH OF EVIL

A. Discredit the person who represents the truth or communicates doctrine.
Attack his person, modus vivendi, or modus operandi.

B. He must be represented as evil, immoral, and conniving so as to hide
their own conspiracy.

C. Having assassinated the personality of the one who represents the truth,
then attack his message. But do not attack his message until he has been
discredited.

D. Use a debator's technique: the person is wrong; therefore what he says
is wrong. (This is used in law, called "throwing a skunk into the jury
box.")

E. The distortion of rationalization follows. The person is wrong;
therefore, his message is wrong. Having begun by discrediting the person
and having continued by discrediting the message, it is now time to
substitute a new personality with a new message. Up springs things like
Bolshevik communism, the tongues crowd, legalism, or some anti-American
function. This is the key and the turning point of the ambush of evil.

F. This must be handled adroitly with Machiavellian machination. A new
authority is introduced, so you must establish his person, his authority and
his message.

G. He must be represented as sweet, kind, nice, wonderful, and concerned
about you personally. Therefore, anything he says is going to be the
absolute truth.

H. Because the personality is so nice, so perfect, and so flawless, you
must listen to what he says because nice people are always right.

I. Therefore, having sold the new personality as being a nice person, they
revert to the fact that it isn't the man but the message. This is the
strangest twist of all. But it works too many times!


Answer 4

No and The Best way to Defend any position is by Finding your own Facts and make firm, solid affirmations and Concrete, focused responses. Above all be honest and ready to defend the supposed shortcomings of your theological theories. Nobody has to belittle anyone else's religion, lack of one. Comparitive Religious Studies points out each of the major religions attributes.

There is a Story that actually happened between two Ministers. One drowned the other over their perspectives on Baptism. That is not A Christian Act either.

Answer 5

I think you're referring to me based on a previous question. I never attacked Christianity -in fact I've read the Bible from cover to end (I'm Hindu) and it's an exciting read. I can quote as many phrases of Christianity or any mainstream religion which vitiates common sense (for the Christianity part you may simply visit Google).

Don't judge normal Muslims by a few simplistic phrases in their holy book. It should be kept in mind Islam was born in a desert region which was the bedrock of feudal/tribal warfares in Mohammed's time. Some of the language/description may sound harsh to the modern ear but it's not fair to judge present-day Muslims based on what was there in the 7th century.


My point is nothing much is going to come out of all this mud-slinging. There is no end to how much you can criticize another faith and be criticized in return.

Answer 6

These are the same folks who rebut derision aimed at Islam over the violence inherent to the "religion of peace" by referencing the Crusades, the Inquisition, or the burning of witches. When it's pointed out that there's not much we can do about events of a few hundred years ago, but murderous jihad is taking place today, they want to change the subject or worse...try to tell us there's no difference.

Western kids and Muslim kids both learn about the Crusades in school. The difference is that ours study them in World History whereas the Muslims apparently study them in Current Events.

Gruz: If you're claiming that Hitler committed his acts in the name of Christianity, or that the situation in the Blakans was religious iinstead of nationalistic, I suggest you read a little more.

Answer 7

I agree with you when saying that Jesus NEVER said anything regarding war or killing for belief in God.


Again, I will say that you are reading the Koranic verses at face value. The arabic culture in which the Koran and Muslim faith was founded had some very different ideas regarding martyrdom, belief and dying for their faith.
They are incomparable to Christian and Jewish ideas regarding God and belief systems...period. So to that point, yes you are right.

When I was getting my BA in Religious Studies, I took a class that covered martyrdom in the Abrahamic traditions..basically, yes the Koran does say to "go to war with non-believers" -but it is meant only to happen when these non-believers have thrown the first punch, so to speak.
I can give you many different journal articles and book examples on the subject if you like.

Now, for the verse you are citing in Surah4, based on the fact that in Islamic traditions to die in the name of the Lord is to be a martyr -and it could be just by going to war and tripping on a rock on the way there and dying, this is how I take this verse:
Those who fight in the name of God - for their belief system, way of life, laws, etc. when these things have been threatened - to die this way is the most glorious way you can die, and those who die that way have a special place by God's side.

Now that being said, you like many of the Islamic fundamentalists are taking this verse at face value and saying "hey, here is a verse that says everything I think to be true about this religion." Fundamentalists think it means that they can go and fight and kill in the name of God. You think that the WHOLE of the Muslim faith is violent just because you don't know the history or context in which it was written.

Answer 8

Why not ? Christians defend their religion by attacking Islam. Barely a week goes by without some Christian minister bashing Islam - attacking a thriving religion in a desperate attempt to
defend their decling one- the Pope was the best example of this.

BTW -what verse is the one you quoted from the Quran - Ive never heard it

Answer 9

okay what does religious war mean..there is a significant purpose for fighting in a war, but it means not the back out like the jewish did when musa asked them to fight with him against an attacking army...

Islam only says this to prevent its followers from being cowards..

Answer 10

"The non-believer, wherever you may find them, must be killed, or made to accept the Din of Islam.....the non-believer, you shall place an ambush for him in every place."

"Take not the Jew or Christian to be your friend."

"And he clove the Jew's spine from his mid section to the neck, the rear teeth burst forth with blood from his head."

"Therefore the Jews violated the Sabbath and Allah said to them, "Yea, you shall be humiliated as pigs and apes." "

"On the day of judgement, it shall be a great holy deed to kill the Jew. The Jew will hide behind the trees and stones, and a stone will cry out to a Muslim, "O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!" "