...based on some of the people who follow it (fundamentalists), wouldn't it only be fair to do the same with other religions, such as Christianity, and therefore say that Christianity is violent as well? When people criticize Islam for being violent and point to 9/11, the terror attacks in the Middle East, and oppressive treatment from the government in Saudi as their basis, isn't it only fair to look at events of violence involving Christians as well?
For instance, the Crusades where thousands upon thousands were killed, the Inquisition, the Salem witch hunts where women were boiled alive/drowned/hanged, the genocide and near-extinction of the Native Americans, the slavery of Africans in the U.S., the Holocaust...since these were spurred by Christians wouldn't people who say Islam is violent have to say the same about Christianity for the sake of credibility? It just wouldn't make sense if Islam is called out as the singlemost violent religion.
Anyway, in case any of you have gotten the wrong idea, one obviously can't label a religion as violent based on some of its followers being extremists or terrorists, since it doesn't reflect the actual teachings of the book that the religion originates from. Surely, there are many Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus etc. who may be extremists or terrorists, but how can you judge their religion based on their actions? Why not, instead, look at the majority of the followers who don't commit acts of violence and judge the religion on the basis of that? It makes more sense, anyway.
Log in to comment