Medieval History

» Brian Tubbs - Christianity, Islam, Violence

I think there's truth to Manuel's writing. Christian nations, when they become more secularized, engage in violence. The Crusades are an example of this. You'll find that much of the violence of the Catholic Church, for example, during the medieval period was motivated by greed, power, etc.

By contrast, Muslim violence is usually religious in nature. And Muhammad (or Mohammed - I've seen it spelled both ways) did start the religion of Islam with the sword. That is a historical fact. Islam spread with the sword. Not so with Christianity - at least not initially.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» thesnowleopard - Christianity, Islam, Violence

In response to Christianity, Islam, Violence posted by BrianTubbs:
I'm a little confused--you are seriously claiming that the Crusades were secular? How so? The First Crusade began with a sermon, continued with convulsions of religiously inspired pogroms against Jews in the Rhine area and culminated in the siege and sacking of Jerusalem in which the city was "cleansed" of "infidels" by killing the inhabitants. Subsequent crusades all began with similar religious fervor. I'm aware of the historiographical arguments that the Crusades were essentially an economic and military venture, but even the most extreme never completely discounted the religious motivation and they are now considered out of favor with historians.

As far as the idea of Christianity being a peaceable religion--not since Constantine, it hasn't been. And Byzantine emperors well into the 11th century spread Christianity quite freely by the sword. As did the knights of the Albigensian Crusade. While that crusade certainly had a strong element of northern territorial expansion to it, it was sanctioned by the Church as a way to "cleanse" the Catharist heresy. There is also the example of the Spanish Inquisition and the fanatical campaigns of Ferdinand and Isabella, not to mention the eastern crusades against Slavic pagans.

And lest we let Protestants off the hook, let's not forget the Reformation, in which Christians spent nearly two centuries cheerfully murdering each other in the name of Christ.

Finally, your argument about Islam is just silly. For it to work, Muslims would have always had to prosecute war in the name of Allah, never for greed, power, etc. Obviously, they have fought for gold, land and power just like any one else.

-- posted by thesnowleopard

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Christianity

In response to Christianity, Islam, Violence posted by thesnowleopard:

First, let's clarify our terms. When I hear "Christianity," I think of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the apostles. I think of the Bible, as originally canonized.

Others (and it appears you) think of the "Christian" denominations and institutions over the centuries - leading to the current 2.3 billion "Christians" in the world today.

Christianity, understood that way, is NOT monolithic. Not even close.

So, let's discuss foundational, biblical Christianity. Fair enough?

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Islam

In response to Christianity, Islam, Violence posted by thesnowleopard:

Finally, your argument about Islam is just silly. For it to work, Muslims would have always had to prosecute war in the name of Allah, never for greed, power, etc. Obviously, they have fought for gold, land and power just like any one else.

I'll rephrase. Muslim violence TODAY is mostly about religion. Historically, Islamic nations have fought for a multitude of reasons. I agree.

I stand by my point that Mohammed (or Muhammad - whatever the correct sp) laid the foundation of Islam with the sword. His evangelism was one of violence. That is a historical fact, and it contrasts significantly with Christianity's origins.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» thesnowleopard - Christianity

In response to Christianity posted by BrianTubbs:
Let's not, since Islam did not come into existence until a good six centuries after the "primitive", apostolic New Testament Christianity that you apparently want to set up versus a straw-man Islam. If you want to compare Islam to Christianity, then to avoid being anachronistic, you must compare Islam to what Christianity was like when Islam came into existence--which is definitely post-Constantine and definitely problematical in the terms you want to compare. And definitely not monolithic. Nice try, though.

Christians had been making war on both pagans and each other for centuries before Islam came along. It is therefore a logical fallacy to compare pacifistic, non-nationalistic, apostolic early Christianity with early Islam. The two never coexisted.

Second, you keep comparing Muhammad to Christ. Please stop as this is grossly sacrilegious to a Muslim (especially considering that we're at the end of Ramadan). While Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet, they naturally do not revere him as the Son of God. Even if they believed in a Son of God, it would never be Muhammad. Muhammad is in no way comparable to God in Islam--he is "just" the final prophet. He may be the Perfect Man to many Muslims, but he is still only human.

If you want to accuse Muslims of violence endemic to their religion (always a dodgy idea with any religion that boasts a billion adherents, imho), you should look at how they perceive God. But watch your step, since you'll also have to show why Christianity is not inherently violent even though Christians still revere the Old Testament, which frequently portrays God in such a vengeful way that it makes Allah truly look kind and merciful.

As for the "canonized" Bible--in what language? There have been many canonizations of the Bible through the ages. We don't follow every one of them today.

-- posted by thesnowleopard

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Christianity and Islam

In response to Christianity posted by thesnowleopard:

Let's not, since Islam did not come into existence until a good six centuries after the "primitive", apostolic New Testament Christianity that you apparently want to set up versus a straw-man Islam.

I am not setting up anything as a straw man. I'm simply comparing foundations - the foundation of Islam as opposed to the foundation of Christianity. This is a valid comparison.

If you want to compare Islam to Christianity, then to avoid being anachronistic, you must compare Islam to what Christianity was like when Islam came into existence--which is definitely post-Constantine and definitely problematical in the terms you want to compare. And definitely not monolithic. Nice try, though.

I disagree with these parameters, since my objective - I being the initiator of this discussion - was to contrast the foundations of the two religions. But, since you wish to compare the conduct of the two organizations during the Middle Ages....well....then, okay. But the terms of the discussion change dramatically.

With that in mind, I would say that both Islam and Christianity were organizationally corrupted by human beings -- and both, in their own way, inflicted great pain on the world.

But...this does not speak to the truth claims of each respective faith. For that, it's helpful to look at their comparative creeds and foundations.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Offense?

In response to Christianity posted by thesnowleopard:

you keep comparing Muhammad to Christ. Please stop as this is grossly sacrilegious to a Muslim (especially considering that we're at the end of Ramadan)

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'm only comparing Christ and Muhammad in the sense that one is the central figure in Christianity and the other is the central figure in Islam.

But even if my comparisons or arguments are offensive to Muslims, that should not be reason for you to ask me to 'stop' unless I'm being deliberately provocative and insulting. I'm being neither. I'm just engaged in a discussion.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» thesnowleopard - Christianity and Islam

In response to Christianity and Islam posted by BrianTubbs:
Since this is a history forum, certain parameters already existed when you posted your discussion--namely, that you should make comparisons that were historically valid. Comparing an insider's view of early Christianity (which will naturally be rose-colored) with an outsider's view of early Islam (which will naturally be less favorable) is not historically valid. It reminds me of those medieval disputations that used to occur between Christians and Jews--those, of course, were supposed to end in the favor of the Christians, not because the Christians had the right but because they had the might.

Further, if you really want to compare the two religions in some pure theological space that does not exist, you should keep in mind that this aim goes completely against original Christian theology. You are asking what is wrong with Islam. Yet, Jesus himself spoke out against this type of attitude: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," "How is it that you can see the mote in your brother's eye and not see the beam in your own eye?", "Judge not lest ye shall be judged" and "By their fruits shall ye know them." His parable of the Good Samaritan also warns against condemning those who don't believe as we do.

I frequently hear comments like yours from people who seem to feel they have every right to judge Muslims and others who do not share their beliefs without showing any need whatsoever to examine their own beliefs. As Christians, we have no right to call Islam "inherently violent" when we have so much blood in our own history. So the Qu'ran has examples of war in it. So what? So does the Bible. The Qu'ran also makes provisions for charity and the care of those who are helpless in Muslim society. The hadiths enjoin Muslims to treat animals with kindness. Early female mystics are still revered as saints today. These examples contradict the popular western attitude of Islam as "inherently violent" and "inherently misogynistic" (another favorite slur) while conveniently ignoring the violence and misogyny often found in Christian practice.

I have known many kind and gentle Muslims who have taken their strength and faith to help others from the Qu'ran. They have treated me kindly as one of the "People of the Book" and have, in fact, respected me more because I held firm in my own faith while respecting theirs than they would have for someone raised Christian who had no faith. Like the Good Samaritan, some of them even took care of me when I was ill and far from home. As such, I do not feel that I have the right to judge the validity of their faith and I do not feel that you have a right to do so, either.

Further, were you to make such a comparison and prove your thesis, what would it accomplish save to show how high many Muslims have risen and how low many Christians have fallen in their respective faiths? Not quite the flattering theological self-portrait you were looking for, I suspect.

Finally, you ask what is so offensive about comparing Muhammad to Christ. If you really don't know, I would suggest that you need to read up on Islam before you proceed any further in this discussion. Also, this is the week of 'Eid al-Fitr, the three-day celebration that follows Ramadan. I would suggest asking yourself how you would feel if you read a Muslim author questioning Christ's divinity and the validity of the Resurrection in light of the Crusades during Holy Week.

-- posted by thesnowleopard

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - quick response

In response to Christianity and Islam posted by thesnowleopard:

First, I am personally NOT judging anybody. That is not my perogative. But I can certainly express my disagreement or disapproval as a participant in a discussion. But Judging someone? No, that requires higher authority - something neither of us has.

Second, writers question Jesus' divinity all the time. I'm used to it. I believe in freedom of speech as well as the freedom of religion. I believe in the free exchange of ideas and in debates and discussions. We should not have to muzzle ourselves on certain days or weeks. You're basically saying: "Don't compare Muhammad to Christ at any time, because that will offend Muslims." And "don't say anything disagreeable about Islam on any of their holy days or weeks." Well, excuse me, but what happened to freedom of speech?

Third, I haven't said anything in any kind of an offensive or derogatory tone. I've been polite and civil in this exchange with you. In fact, if you comb back through our exchanges, I think you've been the more aggressive one.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds