Why do Christians hate muslims?

[Runt]

But you have to admit that jihad is one of the pillars of Islam. Thus this facet of their religion condones and promotes retribution and revenge in the name of allah. Just something to think about!

True... but Jihad in the Koran is no more than the concept of "Just War" in defense of one's religion. This is not such a terrible thing in and of itself (after all, many religions unofficially hold this view, and all governments do in a non-religious sense), but the way some extremists manipulate this concept to justify ANY war is where you get the problem... just as Biblical verses can be taken out of context or implied in ways that are less than ideal. Again, it goes back to who is doing what in the name of God, rather than the actual religion. All religions have these kinds of loopholes. I bet if one really tried, one could even reinterpret the Tao Te Ching so that it justifies war or other bad things!

And I respect you a lot because you aren't just arguing with me when my opinions differ to yours.

Sometimes I get a little... passionate... but I'm trying to see it from your point of view as well, which is not flat out wrong even though I may sometimes disagree (I am just able to see another side to the whole story being that I am neither Christian nor Muslim). It makes me happy that you noticed! :goodjob:

 

[anders]

I find it hard to improve on Runt's posts, so I'll just address a few details in previous posts.

Several times I have seen the statement that jihad is one of the "pillars of islam". It isn't. The 'Five Pillars' of Islam are:

Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;
Establishment of the daily prayers;
Concern for and almsgiving to the needy (the Zakat);
Self-purification through fasting; and
The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able.

Hinduism often seems to be involved in "communal violence" in India. I need only to refer to Ayodhya and Gujarat. I think (and hope) that the underlying factors often are political and social. For scriptural references, I quote Shrimad Bhagavatam 11:5 "Truth has many aspects ... Ignorant is he who says, 'What I say and know is true; others are wrong." and 11:3 "Like the bee, gathering honey from different flowers, the wise man accepts the essence of different scriptures and sees only the good in all religions."

I especially like that last sentence.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

hinduism in its beliefs are tolerant. but its up to the hindus themselves to practice tolerance, and the fundamentalists in ayodya dont. i dont support fundamentalists, they take everything literally and overlook major things when violence and power come upon them.

about the situation in ayodhya, they both (muslims and hindus) have valid points. but seriusly, grow up and move on... perhaps if they share the place. eh nah. the riots its mainly due to misunderstandings....

talk about hypocrites. the voilence in india is due to the people and thier mind. how they are falsely lead by others to fight.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

hinduism in its beliefs are tolerant. but its up to the hindus themselves to practice tolerance, and the fundamentalists in ayodya dont. i dont support fundamentalists, they take everything literally and overlook major things when violence and power come upon them.

about the situation in ayodhya, they both (muslims and hindus) have valid points. but seriusly, grow up and move on... perhaps if they share the place. eh nah. the riots its mainly due to misunderstandings....

talk about hypocrites. the voilence in india is due to the people and thier mind. how they are falsely lead by others to fight.

 

[chamberlain]

"hinduism in its beliefs are tolerant. but its up to the hindus themselves to practice tolerance, and the fundamentalists in ayodya dont. i dont support fundamentalists, they take everything literally and overlook major things when violence and power come upon them.

about the situation in ayodhya, they both (muslims and hindus) have valid points. but seriusly, grow up and move on... perhaps if they share the place. eh nah. the riots its mainly due to misunderstandings....

talk about hypocrites. the voilence in india is due to the people and thier mind. how they are falsely lead by others to fight."

congratulations, sounds very interesting, (i don't mean to be rude but could you save this for a hindu thread?)

thanks

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

"48:16 means more like "You shall go forth to war if you learn discipline, not for booty, but for a great noble cause." (Doesn't that sound very modern?) "For if your opponents sumbit to the cause, there will be no fighting and no booty."

To me, this looks like a direct order to spare any converts and their belongings - a striking contrast to the indiscriminate killings and plunderings by the crusaders."
- anders

I would like to see your translation of the Koran. I can't get anything that resembles your interpretation from my source. I will put a link below to what I have been using. I would like to reiterate that the crusade's end result were wrong. They became something that they never should have become primarily because of their disorganization. However, you must look to the fact that the Muslim armies were forcing their way into the Palestine area at that time (Christian lands) and the crusades were created to reclaim those lands for Christianity. If the Muslims hadn't invaded, there would have been no crusades.

Chamberlain- I am Lutheran. Blessings to you.

http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html

 

[anders]

My quote comes from a explanatory note in the translation of A. Yusuf Ali. My impression is that this version is one of the most reliable and respected ones. Your version, by M.M. Shakir, is very Shi'a biased and severely criticised by most Sunni. Shakir has, for example, "... you will fight against them until they submit‎ ...", Ali "then shall ye fight, or they shall submit". I find Ali closer to the Arabic text (his "or", Shakir's "until", is "aw" in Arabic, which clearly is the conjunction), and I think that his note corresponds well to the intention and words.

I have not yet dug very much into Palestine's early history. Palestine has throughout history been invaded innumerable times by different foreign powers, so it isn't very sensible to use one invasion and/or change of religion as a pretext for yet another one.

 

[chamberlain]

"My quote comes from a explanatory note in the translation of A. Yusuf Ali. My impression is that this version is one of the most reliable and respected ones. Your version, by M.M. Shakir, is very Shi'a biased and severely criticised by most Sunni. Shakir has, for example, "... you will fight against them until they submit ...", Ali "then shall ye fight, or they shall submit". I find Ali closer to the Arabic text (his "or", Shakir's "until", is "aw" in Arabic, which clearly is the conjunction), and I think that his note corresponds well to the intention and words."

Sounds like muslims don't agree on what there holy book says. Or maybe it just contradicts itself?

Just a tiny possibility.

 

[anders]

Contradictions in holy books isn't exactly a unique feature...

 

[Ardhanariswar]

haha... sorry chamberlain. anders brought up hinduism and i just had to open my big mouth. haha :lol:


okay, so christians dont hate muslims. whoever made this topic is generalizing that all christians hate muslims, which is not true. i have several friends as examples disprove this. (i go to a catholic school)