Is Islam a uniquely violent religion?

>>17796374 (OP)
Nah.

It's not essentially different from other religions.

>>17796374 (OP)
yes
Jihad is a pillar of Islam and can be interpreted freely as an actual violent struggle, any other answer is massive copium
point me toward any other religion that require by commandment the physical, violent expansion of the domain of the faith, I'll wait.

>>17796374 (OP)
Nah, definitely not
I say this as a massive Islamophobe

>>17796382
>>17796405
>t.mohammed

>>17796418
Cope and seethe

>>17796374 (OP)
no but islam is a uniquely gay religion which is why it's shilled in western academia

nowadays, yes
historically, no

>>17796388
>Jihad is a pillar of Islam and can be interpreted freely as an actual violent struggle, any other answer is massive copium
point me toward any other religion that require by commandment the physical, violent expansion of the domain of the faith, I'll wait.

Christianity
Judaism

>>17796374 (OP)
not really the crusaders made rivers of blood flow throughout Canaan/Jerusalem back in the day. jews are having their blood orgy moment now too. what is to be expected of the religions rooted out of Ba'al/Moloch worship?

>>17796374 (OP)
Yes.

>>17796405
>>17796382
>Nah
Worthless animals. I'm so glad I don't do drugs.

>>17796374 (OP)
You tell me.

>>17796657
Judaism arguably does command the control of territory; but once it's got control over what is claimed, it's chill.
A lot of early Islam pulls from Jewish text. Uri Rubin's book "Between Bible and Qur'an: The Children of Israel and the Islamic Self-Image" explains this. Also Robert Hoyland.
Islam's problem is that it can't fucking stop itself from overreaching because it doesn't just say "nah, we got our bit, we good".

>>17796712
>we good
Brain cancer.

Nah most of the violence associated with them since WW2 has more to do with Israel's neocolonialism than religion. If Israel weren't there constantly mucking things up, they would have calmed down after the struggles of decolonization reached an equilibrium.

>>17796816
>Nah
See >>17796706
Also, I've already mathematically proven that you are wrong. Ready to admit that your brain is completely worthless? Yes or no.

>>17796374 (OP)
Covert to Islam
Pay the tax
Face the sword

These are your options according to them

>>17796816
>Narrated Ibn 'Umar that the Prophet (SA) said, "My livelihood is under the shade of my spear,(1) and he who disobeys my orders will be humiliated by paying Jizya" Footnote: (1) "Under the shade of my spear" means "from war booty" .[5] Sahih Bukhari Vol.IV (page 104)

>>17796816
I think it's a reaction to Islam's weakness, and losing wars to Israel is the icing on the cake because the Jews are supposed to be weak people and Muhammad pushed their shit in at Medina.

>>17796706
I don't have a problem with being warlike per se, but I'm not a Christian. The idea that Christians are soooo innocent is, like, meh. Whatever! I'd have more respect if you owned up.

>>17796999
Catholics are not Christian. Grow up. Also, I do not care in the slightest for your worthless respect.

>>17796374 (OP)
The sons of Abraham (Jews, Christians, Muslims) are all violent. Abraham’s grandson (Sikhism) is also violent. The problem began at the root.

>>17796374 (OP)
Not any more so than Christianity or Marxism

>>17797041
>>17796657

There's no direct command in the bible to go and conquer physical land or start wars. Christians are told to be meek and quite and preach to all who will hear. You're never going to win this argument because there's just no such command to conquer others in the bible.
>But christians did conquer
Maybe they shouldn't have. I don't know what was going on in their minds.

From what I understand about Islam. There is an explicit command to physically conquer.

>>17797017
Your sola gratia church ran by Pastor Bob isn't Christian

>>17797062
You do not get to decide what is Christian and what is not. Your life and faith are completely worthless, because you reject Jesus.

>>17796374 (OP)
By violent do you mean encouraging warfare or individual acts of violence against other humans independent of invasions/defensive full-scale warfare? If it’s the latter, then the answer is yes as Islam is unique in that its doctrine mandates the outright killing of apostates. If it’s the former then that’s up for debate as there isn’t a single period of human history where humanity isn’t engaged in warfare of some kind regardless of religious creed of the adherents. War is an inescapable reality. The Aztecs would war to acquire more slaves and the Soviets would war to acquire resources and enforce the spread of communism. Swapping one religion for another or making society secular doesn’t magically get rid of war; at most it can change reasonings for war.

>>17796709
This would be more helpful if the dates these figures lived was on the image

>>17797017
>>17797062
>>17797132
>same arguments every single day for years and years

>>17797058
>>17796388
>Christians are told to be meek
You have plenty of tough love hard line Christians who say "well Jesus whipped all those money changers at the temple"

remember, in the middle ages, it was every Christian's duty to go fight in the Crusades. And Christianity's conquest of Latin America and Africa was pretty brutal

But yeah when it comes to core teachings, most people don't even know what those are of their own religions. In Christianity, the great sermon started off with the beatitudes, one of those is Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness

But yeah you don't need a commandment to stick up for injustice, and it easy to see why Muslims are treated unjustly in comparison to Israelis by the ruling powers (the West, who routinely bombs the Middle East at will)

>>17796374 (OP)
>Is Islam a uniquely violent religion?
No. Christianity is the uniquely non-violent Abrahamic religion.

>>17796961
that's normal for premodern faiths west of China and "pay the tax" was one more option than Christians allowed

>>17796374 (OP)
I would say all Abrahamic death cults are murderous but Muslims are pretty bad all around. At least Christians and Jews care about the west.

>>17797371
Because early Arabs actually didn't want a lot of people to convert to Islam. That's why the Abbasids revolted

>>17796374 (OP)
violence is good, the alternative is to be a cuck like christians

>>17797379
What

>>17797379
>Because early Arabs actually didn't want a lot of people to convert to Islam.

>When the Moon Split: A biography of Prophet Muhammad
>Subsequently, the Muslims were allowed to fight “People of the Book” (Christians and Jews) who harassed or persecuted them. If the “People of the Book” surrendered to the Islamic state and paid Jiziyah (a nominal tax), then the Muslims were forbidden to fight them. Finally, the Muslims were required to make peace with any polytheists, Jews or Christians who embraced Islam, and to respect their rights and property.

Why do Muslims lie?

>>17796374 (OP)
not any more violent than judaism when darkhei shalom isnt promoted

>>17797583
that anon meant under the Umayyads (when conversion was eroding the tax base) not under Muhammad himself

>>17796388
Jihad means struggle and can also mean with yourself to improve, or in your community to act properly, or yes against nonbelievers

Wahabist and shi’ite jihadists today are a complex phenomenon not solely because of the nature of islamic religion, but definitely partly because of it. Unless you’re pretending our societies have not historically waged very destructive wars for faith

>>17796374 (OP)

>>17797323
>>17797591
Sorry, you seem to be posting as if I did not definitively answer OP's question in >>17796702
. Are you stupid?

>>17798246
Islam has only engaged in direct conflict for 1500 years.
Judaism has subverted and destroyed nations for 6000 years.

Christianity is the only Abrahamic religion worth its merit. Its also why its the only religion on /his/ anti spammed by shills.

>>17798287
Judaism hasn't existed for half as long as you posit. Go back to /pol/.

>>17798294
So was it Christians who genocided the Canaanites?

>>17798298
No. The official religion of Israel at that time was the religion of the Old Testament.

>>17798305
>The official religion of Israel at the time was the law of Moses and the torah
they would call those Jews, chud.

>>17798306
>equivocation
Ah, so you know you are lying.

>>17798306
>Tribe of Judah
>The entirety of the 12 Hebrew tribes of Israel
Not equivalent.

>>17796374 (OP)
Yes and no, it preaches peace and shuns torture or violence at some points in but the same time to promotes marriage and having many kids (literally called multiply in the Quran) to spread and the usual we are right and everyone else is wrong.

Funny thing is most of what is being promoted in violent Islam is something the Caliphs pushed and integrated during the wars of conquest in its early age. Islam USED to have an elective system for leaders but the Umayyads decided to make it a dynasty rule and went all in on the expansion.

>>17798960
>preaches peace and shuns torture or violence
No

>Kinana b. al-Rabi`, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (T. was brought) to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-`Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has," so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, translated as, The Life of Muhammad, (tr. A. Guillaume), Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 515.)

>>17798960
>it preaches peace and shuns torture or violence
You have not read a single islamic text.
>>17797188
Why would it be more helpful?

any group that takes a blade to the genitals of a newborn is a group to be considered barbaric and not worthy of respect

this is where the discussion starts and ends

No, it’s not “uniquely” anything. Violence is human, not exclusive to one creed. But Islam’s got a knack for codifying it in ways that make modern pansies clutch their pearls. Quranic calls to smite necks (Surah 8:12, look it up) aren’t exactly “turn the other cheek.” And don’t give me that pathetic “context” cope. The Hadiths glorify Muhammad’s raids like he’s some divine bandit king. Compare that to Christ’s Passion: one’s a warrior, the other’s a martyr. Guess which one’s easier to spin into a bomb vest.

>>17796374 (OP)
No
Tamil Tigers are a lot more violent for an arguably more semantic reason.
To call them uniquely violent without any actual reason is trolling. Better to understand them and what the goal is.

>>17796374 (OP)
I would say Islam has a unique combination of having a clear doctrine of religious war AND being an aggressively proselytizing religion.
Most historical religions didn't really try to convert anyone from the outside and even fewer did fight wars to convert people. Only Christianity and Islam did that in any meaningful scale.

>>17798287
>Its also why its the only religion on /his/ anti spammed by shills.
you're saying this on a thread dedicated to smearing islam with its bait topic? are you blind just open the catalog?

>>17799103
Islam isn't about turning the other cheek you are right. However I am not sure why you are so allergic to context.
>Remember when you had been vastly outnumbered and oppressed in the land, constantly in fear of attacks by your enemy, then He sheltered you, strengthened you with His help, and provided you with good things so perhaps you would be thankful. - 8:26
>And ˹remember, O Prophet,˺ when the disbelievers conspired to capture, kill, or exile you. They planned, but Allah also planned. And Allah is the best of planners. - 8:30
>And why should Allah not punish them while they hinder pilgrims from the Sacred Mosque, claiming to be its rightful guardians? None has the right to guardianship except those mindful ˹of Allah˺, but most pagans do not know. - 8:34
>Tell the disbelievers that if they desist, their past will be forgiven. But if they persist, then they have an example in those destroyed before them . Fight against them until there is no more persecution—and ˹your˺ devotion will be entirely to Allah. But if they desist, then surely Allah is All-Seeing of what they do. - 8:38-39

>>17799103
Islam isn't about turning the other cheek you are right. However I am not sure why you are so allergic to context.
>Remember when you had been vastly outnumbered and oppressed in the land, constantly in fear of attacks by your enemy, then He sheltered you, strengthened you with His help, and provided you with good things so perhaps you would be thankful. - 8:26
>And ˹remember, O Prophet,˺ when the disbelievers conspired to capture, kill, or exile you. They planned, but Allah also planned. And Allah is the best of planners. - 8:30
>And why should Allah not punish them while they hinder pilgrims from the Sacred Mosque, claiming to be its rightful guardians? None has the right to guardianship except those mindful ˹of Allah˺, but most pagans do not know. - 8:34
>Tell the disbelievers that if they desist, their past will be forgiven. But if they persist, then they have an example in those destroyed before them . Fight against them until there is no more persecution—and ˹your˺ devotion will be entirely to Allah. But if they desist, then surely Allah is All-Seeing of what they do. - 8:38-39
>If the enemy is inclined towards peace, make peace with them. And put your trust in Allah. Indeed, He ˹alone˺ is the All-Hearing, All-Knowing. - 8:61

>>17799163
Oh, look, the context cop showed up.

>8:26 --> “vastly outnumbered and oppressed”
Nice sob story. Early Muslims were persecuted, but so were Christians under Rome. The difference is that Christ didn’t tell his followers to raid caravans or chop heads to cope. Muhammad did. Context doesn’t erase the body count; it just dresses it up.

>8:30 --> “disbelievers conspired to capture, kill, or exile you”
Boo-hoo, Muhammad had enemies. Welcome to leadership. The “Allah is the best of planners” bit just screams divine justification for outsmarting foes with swords, not sermons. Compare that to Christ forgiving his crucifiers. One’s a schemer, the other’s a savior.

>8:34 --> “why should Allah not punish them”
Guardianship of the Kaaba? Really? It’s a pagan rock fetish Muslims inherited, and you’re mad about who controls it? Catholics don’t slaughter people over St. Peter’s. This is just territorial pissing dressed as piety.

>8:38-39 --> “fight until there is no more persecution”
“No more persecution” sounds noble until you realize it’s a blank check for endless war until everyone bows to Allah. Catholic crusades had clear targets; this is a global domination fantasy. “Desist” just means submit or die.

8:61 --> “if the enemy is inclined towards peace, make peace”
Wow, a single verse about peace buried under a pile of smiting. Convenient how this only applies when the enemy’s already on their knees. Christ’s peace was universal; Muhammad’s is conditional.

>>17799191
>The difference is
Biblical Jesus and his followers didn't have any power for hundreds of years, when they did their true nature was revealed. btw he told them to kill those that don't follow him. The body count you speak of perfectly demonstrates this fact. Now mind telling me what Jesus will do when he comes back according to the bible? Anyway this is irrelevant you also believe in biblical Moses and his genocides so what's the issue?
>forgiving his crucifiers
The final prophet forgave those that abused him and his followers when he conquered them too. Also again I find it incredibly funny when someone who believes in the old testament preaches about divine justification for war...
>Catholics don’t slaughter
It's literally the same justification you people give for the crusades lmao
>stop fighting until peace is achieved is equal to global domination
What clear targets did you have when you wiped out the Americas again?
>verse about peace doesn't count because you won
That makes it even more righteous because even though they are in a position of power they seek to stop fighting for the sake of peace.
>Christ’s peace was universal
What does that even mean? Is he going to throw demons (and aborted babies with original sin) in eternal hellfire or give them universal peace? As for conditions there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Someone stops being evil you stop resisting them, simple

>>17797017
so there were no christians in the world for 1200 years? or do you believe the church of east or the ethiopians are the true christians?

>>17799337
>so there were no christians in the world for 1200 years?
No. Strawman.
>or do you believe the church of east or the ethiopians are the true christians?
No. Retard.

>>17796374 (OP)
I sure hope they get real violent towards Jews, but after the Crusades they chilled out.

>>17799652
>No. Strawman.
How is it a straw man? you say catholics aren't christians so by your logic there were no christians between 325 -1517 ad

>>17796706
Rude

>>17799233
>Biblical Jesus and his followers didn't have any power for hundreds of years, when they did their true nature was revealed
Christians were feeding lions for centuries while Muhammad was playing desert warlord within a decade. When Christians got power, they built cathedrals and wrestled with theology, not a kill-list.

>btw he told them to kill those that don't follow him
Quoting Luke 19:27 out of context? That’s a parable, you illiterate fuck, not a hit order. Jesus isn’t commanding murder; he’s illustrating judgment. Compare that to Muhammad’s actual body count (Banu Qurayza says hi).

>what Jesus will do when he comes back
Second Coming? He judges, sure, but it’s divine, not a sword-swinging jihad. Revelation’s apocalyptic, not a playbook for mortals to slaughter. Moses’ wars? Old Covenant, fulfilled in Christ. Catholics don’t justify genocide with it; we grapple with it.

>The final prophet forgave…when he conquered
Forgave after slaughtering and exiling? Real saintly. Muhammad’s “mercy” came after he’d already won, not from a cross. Spare me the revisionism.

>crusades same as jihad
Crusades were defensive wars to reclaim Christian lands or protect pilgrims, not a blank check for eternal conquest. Islam’s jihad doctrine has no off switch (Surah 9:29, fight until they pay jizya). Read it.

>clear targets in the Americas
Conquistadors were messy, no question. But that’s not Catholic doctrine; it’s human greed in cross necklaces. Jihad’s baked into Islam’s texts. Big difference.

>peace verse more righteous because they won
Winning doesn’t make your peace noble; it makes it convenient. Christ preached peace without a sword. Muhammad needed bodies to stack first.

>Christ’s peace universal, demons in hellfire
Universal peace means offering salvation to all, not forcing it. Demons and unrepentant get judgment, not torture for lulz. Islam’s “stop being evil” just means “submit or else.” Conditions? Fine. But Islam’s condition is groveling, not goodness.

>>17800456
>feeeding lions
boohoo you seem to be jealous that you couldn't get your shit together as fast as we did. When you got in power you started slaughtering your heretics and pagans left and right. Why did they do it? They clearly believed the bible was teaching them that. Don't try to rewrite history.
>i-it's le hecking parables because it is inconvenient for me!
We don't even have to go there, the bible is full of biblically approved violence and conquest. Directs commandments from Jesus in your belief because his will is united with the rest of the godhead.
>but it's divine
Does that change anything? No. As for the rest of your cope this is blatantly false. Nobody says the old covenant can't be used for anything. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 You believe that at one point everything there was moral, including all the genocides
>from a cross
How is that better? Someone who is in the weakest position offering you mercy is laughable. he literally has no choice, you believe he was forsaken by the Father
>proceeds to use the same justification the Quran gave
Concession accepted. As for that verse >>17797999
>no true catholic
fucking lmao, they were doing it for your blood smeared church
>it makes it convenient
How? From his position he could have wiped his enemies clear like your deity commanded with Amalek. There would be no risk and only material benefit. Jesus literally said "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."
>universal peace is what I like
No, peace means peace. If you want to pretend you're a religion of love you wouldn't be preaching about roasted babies. Yes we have to submit to God and that's how we remove evil, your bible clearly states it too "Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you". Is Jesus commanding you to grovel?

>>17796374 (OP)
What do the actions of its adherents incline you to believe?

>>17796374 (OP)
>uniquely violent
that would be two peoples in particular on the Eurasian landmass
Vikings and Mongols
Maybe the Assyrians too if you want to go to BC
Vikings were in a way cajoled into Giga-Violence by Christian expansion and as they saw it, encroachment especially during Charlemagne and the domino effect that he caused with the Saxon wars.
Mongols can make a similar claim, as they were dirt poor, occasionally enslaved/domineered by their stronger neighbors, and raised in a do or die environment

>>17798306
oy vey no they wouldn't
>580k went with Titus
>another 500-600k with Hadrian
>the Romans just counted fighting age men
>this was in one of the least populated provinces of the empire
>all within 50 years
>then crickets for 300 years
>ff to V century AD in Iraq some braindead write a talmud and declare themselves 'Judaean'
lol
lmao even
>inb4 sources
learn to read Latin and look them up on google books. play with date ranges and cross-reference
but they are translated as well if you trust the translator's integrity

>>17800605
>boohoo you seem to be jealous
Jealous of what? Of a camel merchant’s murder spree? Nah, I’m good. Christians took centuries to gain power because they were busy being martyred, not carving empires. When they did, yeah, some fucked up heretics and pagans (sinners gonna sin). But that’s not Christ’s command; it’s humans twisting texts. Islam’s violence is straight from Muhammad’s mouth, no middleman needed.

>i-it’s le hecking parables
Luke 19:27’s a parable, dipshit. Jesus isn’t handing out swords; he’s talking judgment day. Bible’s got violence. Old Testament’s a rough neighborhood, but Christ’s New Covenant flips it: love your enemy, not behead them. Islam’s stuck on “smite their necks” (Quran 8:12). Spot the difference, genius.

>2 Timothy 3:16-17
Scripture’s inspired, sure, but Catholics don’t cherry-pick genocide orders. Old Covenant’s context is Israel’s survival, not a blank check for slaughter. Christ fulfills it: mercy over wrath. Muhammad’s still raiding caravans in your book.

>Someone who is in the weakest position offering mercy is laughable
Laughable? Forgiving from a cross is the ultimate flex; power in sacrifice, not conquest. Muhammad’s “mercy” after winning is just a victor’s PR stunt. Weak sauce.

>same justification the Quran gave
Crusades were about reclaiming holy sites, not forcing conversions or jizya. Jihad’s endgame is submission, not defense. Read Surah 9:29 again, brainlet. It’s not about pilgrims.

>no true catholic
Conquistadors weren’t Vatican hitmen. Greed drove them, not dogma. Islam’s violence is baked into the Quran and Hadith. Show me Catholic doctrine calling for global conquest. I’ll wait.

>Jesus said “not peace, but a sword”
Matthew 10:34 talks about division, not violence, retard. He’s talking spiritual strife, not jihad. Context matters, unlike your cherry-picked Quran peace verses that only kick in post-victory.

cont.

>>17800685
>roasted babies
Hell’s for unrepentant evil, not babies. Catholic theology: unbaptized infants get limbo or mercy, not fire. Your strawman’s pathetic.

>Submit to God
James 4:7’s about resisting sin, not groveling to a warlord’s god. Islam’s submission is a yoke; Christ’s is freedom. Keep coping, apologist. Your “peace” is just surrender with extra steps.

>>17796702
Curious regarding the author's methodology. What was the criteria for determining a war was religious? What are these 123 wars mentioned? Which ones were included and excluded and why?

>>17800685
Nah you're jealous you weren't victorious over the pagans earlier so you could start your rampage as soon as possible. Buddy your entire religion is twisting texts, some of you fetishize being eternal victims (You) others go for the kill (real Catholics)
>Jesus was lying!
I don't care about your mental gymnastics the same way you don't care about context, eye for an eye. Also imagine calling your divinely inspired scripture a "rough neighborhood" and then admitting there's no continuity with the new message. Do you believe Jesus sought help for his rage and turned over a new leaf?
>Old Covenant’s context is Israel’s survival
Oh so you are saying baby murder was justified in the old testament? Anyway a lot of you people cope by saying you are the new Israel and Jesus himself tells you to follow the law and what the Pharisees preach
>reclaim
Literally what we are doing from our paradigm. Double standards as usual from you people. Also I already responded with that surah but of course you're allergic to reading holy scripture because that's what your church preached for most of its existence
>ultimate flex
What are you flexing? He was in the worst state, literally emaciated and could only forgive.
>i-it's spiritual!
Your religion is spiritually violent? Anyway it speaks plainly about how he means to wreck families, no peace. Submission is mandatory 2 Chronicles 15:12-13
>they weren't hitmen
Yeah just conquerors who directly benefited the church, literally seeking to forcefully convert people. They were greedy for the catholic afterlife yes
>limbo cope
You had to invent that out of nowhere because the likes of Abraham would have ended up in the hellfire because of your convoluted theology. Anyway early Christian saints believed it, so it's fair to say that's what your religion preaches.
>actually you don't have to submit to God but somehow you still have to whip yourself over it
I am sure you believe your freedom was bought with those indulgences

>>17800748
It is (sort of) from the index of The Encyclopedia of Wars. I don't believe outside of the index it actually goes into detail about criteria since that's not really what the books are about. The actual number is 121, author/crazy person Vox Day added an additional 2 for some reason and people quote his number when discussing this. I don't know if the screen shot is also from Vox Day but it's definitely not from The Encyclopedia of Wars.

>>17800785
Double post because I forgot to add, the The Encyclopedia of Wars actually clearly describes multiple wars as being religious and just doesn't list them in the index as being so. So both 123 or 121 aren't actually accurate. Again, actually categorizing if a war is religious or not isn't really the point of the books.

>>17800764
>Nah you're jealous you weren't victorious over the pagans earlier
Jealous of what, your pedo prophet’s kill streak? Christians didn’t need to “rampage” to spread truth, martyrdom did that. Your boy Muhammad needed swords to sell his “revelation.” Cry harder.

>your entire religion is twisting texts
Says the guy whose “final prophet” ripped off Jewish and Christian scraps to cobble together his desert fanfic. Catholics wrestle with scripture through 2000 years of exegesis; you just parrot “context” like a brain-dead apologist.

>Jesus was lying!
Luke 19:27’s a parable, not a lie, you absolute retard. Christ’s message is clear: love, sacrifice, forgiveness. Muhammad’s? Fight, conquer, subjugate. Quran 8:12’s no metaphor, it’s literally a beheading manual.

>rough neighborhood…no continuity
Old Testament’s gritty, sure, but Christ fulfills it; mercy trumps wrath. Catholics don’t dodge that; we interpret it. Your book’s stuck on “slay the idolaters” (Quran 9:5). No evolution, just stagnation.

>baby murder justified
Israel’s wars were survival in a brutal era, not a divine baby-killing fetish. Christ’s law is love, not genocide. You citing Jesus on the Pharisees (Matthew 23)? He calls them hypocrites, not role models. Try reading.

>reclaim…double standards
Jihad’s about global submission (Surah 9:29, jizya or death). Crusades were limited: defend Jerusalem, protect pilgrims. Your “reclaim” is a euphemism for empire-building. Nice try, hypocrite.

>ultimate flex…emaciated
Forgiving from the cross is divine strength, not weakness. Muhammad’s “mercy” only showed up after he’d won battles. One’s a god, the other’s a warlord. Guess which one’s yours.

>spiritually violent
Matthew 10:34’s about division over faith, not swords, you illiterate fuck. Families split when truth cuts deep. Islam’s “no peace” is literal "kill or convert." 2 Chronicles? Old Covenant again. Christ supersedes it.

cont.

>>17801027
>conquerors benefited the church
Conquistadors chased gold, not papal orders. Forced conversions aren’t Catholic doctrine—canon law condemns it. Jihad’s in your core texts. Show me “conquer the world” in the Catechism. Still waiting.

>limbo cope
Limbo’s a theological hypothesis, not dogma. Early saints speculated; we don’t roast babies. Your hell’s packed with anyone who doesn’t bow to Allah. Real merciful.

>indulgences
Lmao, indulgences are about penance, not “buying freedom.” Keep swinging, apologist. Your Quran’s a warlord’s diary, and you’re still dodging its bloodlust. Come back with something that doesn’t suck.

>>17801027
Christianity really started spreading when it was militarily enforced not due to your death cult's suicidal members. btw you follow a pro pedo religion, especially as a catholic
>wrestle with scripture
Yes because your theology isn't found there. Ask any Jew and they won't find a dying and raising mangod (who is one of three) messiah that's supposed to forgive humans of original sin and act as a sin chicken generally
>Jesus didn't mean what he was saying
That's the definition of deception. I see you're just desperate and now are resorting to mindless repetition while running away from the refutation
>Jesus at one point was full of wrath but then he went to therapy
lmao, good on you for admitting you have changed your religion
>not a divine baby-killing fetish
"Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."
>when we invade every nation surrounding us to spread our religion by the sword and annihilate the natives we are totally just defending ourselves
I wonder what bible reading country does this today
>forgiveness when you can do nothing but forgive
It's like nothing, same as a person breathing. Someone who can terminate the threat permanently choosing not to however for the sake of peace is something special. But of course you wouldn't get that since you believe baby slaughter is justified
>cut with anything but the sword like Jesus says
cope, anyway it's clear that you are allowed to murder your disobedient family members according to the bible. Also again just running away from what your deity commanded. You literally have no problem with kill or convert because that's all the bible offers. Meanwhile with us hostilities can cease via treaty and if not we will make you pay tribute while you keep your faith and life
>chased gold
For the glory of Rome's church?
>speculation
From people with the Holy Spirit, it's practically revelation
>bribing God to allow you to sin is penance
Your tricks are not gonna work missionary

>>17801102
Oh and since we were talking about revelation it's hilarious to see a cathard complaining about disbelievers burning in hell

>>17801102
>>17801106
>Christianity really started spreading when it was militarily enforced
Bullshit. Christianity spread through blood of martyrs, not swords, you ignorant fuck. Constantine’s conversion came after it was already a juggernaut. Islam needed Muhammad’s raids to kickstart. Check your history, retard.

>pro pedo religion, especially as Catholic
Oh, you’re swinging with that image? That’s Thomas Aquinas, arguing marriage age under medieval law (12 for girls, 14 for boys) based on puberty and consent, not some priestly rape guide. Compare that to Muhammad marrying Aisha at 6, consummating at 9 (Sahih Bukhari 7:62:64). Sit down, hypocrite.

>wrestle with scripture
Jews don’t buy the Trinity? Shocker. They also don’t buy your one-god war cult. Christ’s divinity is in John 1:1, fulfilled prophecy. Your “sin chicken” jab just shows you can’t read past your biases.

>Jesus didn’t mean what he saying
Matthew 10:34’s about spiritual division, not literal swords, you illiterate clown. Quran 9:5 (slay idolaters) isn’t a metaphor, it’s a kill order. Stop projecting.

>Jesus full of wrath then therapy
Christ’s wrath was righteous (John 2:15, temple cleansing), not genocidal. Your “therapy” crack’s a joke: He’s God incarnate, not a shrink’s patient. Islam’s wrath is Muhammad’s vendetta.

>Happy is the one who seizes your infants
Psalm 137:9 is a poetic lament, not a command. Context: Babylonian exile, not baby-smashing policy. Quran 8:12’s neck-smiting is literal doctrine.

>invade every nation…defending ourselves
Crusades targeted specific threats (e.g., Jerusalem). Jihad’s global (Surah 9:29, subjugate all). Modern Israel? Not a “Bible reading country” (secular state with religious flavor). Try again.

cont.

>>17801130
>forgiveness when you can do nothing
Christ’s cross forgiveness is power in weakness (Romans 5:8). Muhammad’s post-conquest “mercy” is a victor’s brag. One’s divine, one’s opportunistic.

>murder disobedient family
Deuteronomy 13:6-10; Old Covenant, fulfilled in Christ’s mercy. Islam’s jizya (Quran 9:29) is pay or die, faith intact or not. Your “treaty” is just a pause before more conquest.

>chased gold for Rome’s church
Conquistadors enriched Spain, not the Vatican. Canon law forbids forced conversion, check it. Jihad’s core to Islam; show me “convert or die” in Catholic doctrine.

>speculation from Holy Spirit
Limbo’s a guess, not revelation. Hell’s in Revelation 21:8; unrepentant, not babies. Your taunt backfires, dipshit.

>bribing God
Indulgences are penance, not bribes, you clueless fuck. Read a catechism.

Keep flailing, apologist. Your Quran’s a warlord’s wet dream, and you’re drowning in it.

>>17801130
>people half way across the planet cared about lion food so they converted
Totally had nothing to do with the military forces committing genocide against them! Also around Constantine's time is when you really started with the persecution of heretics
>puberty
He makes it very clear that even under it's okay according to catholicsm. It's no surprise given the fact that your priests are known for that. Also your nonsense ahistorical claim is refuted I already linked you >>17797999
>Shocker.
Yes it should be. So many prophets and none knew God was triune nor did they have any idea about your idea of a Messiah. It's so bad they literally had to make up prophecies from scratch (no previous scripture calls him the Nazarene) and get them wrong like how Matthew believe Jesus had to ride two donkeys or calling him an idolater. btw tell me exactly how he isn't a sin chicken beside not being a literal chicken?
>He’s God incarnate, not a shrink’s patient.
Great then what made him change his ways beside his exposure therapy living as a human? The very ways you are desperately trying to run away from
>it's a metaphor/poem because it exposes my viscous death cult
The classic christard cope. I will not be charitable at all with your text the same way you aren't with mine.
>not a bible reading country
They are literally using biblical verses to justify the destruction of modern Amalek and Christians all over in positions of power supporting them also because they cite the bible.
>weakness is power
contradictory christian nonsense as usual. bragging about your victory is wiping everyone biblically
>old covenant
Not just Mark 7:9-10 explicitly uses it as a criticism against the Pharisees. Anyway this does not change anything, it means that you at one point considered it fully moral and biblical to murder your child.

>>17801184
>Spain didn't enrich the Vatican
bwahaha, just the very fact they got multiple slave continents serving them is enough
>guess
That's my point, it literally does not exist and so babies have to burn as the saints say. That verse was about the unbelieving, you do not have the concept of the fitrah and so it applies. But I wasn't even using it that way but to demonstrate to you that your deities have no problem with burning nonbelievers who do not submit to their will. It's pure hypocrisy.
>not bribes
Give one difference. I know you catholics like to play word games. The same way you made actual idolatry and polytheism impossible so you can continue worshiping Mary and her statues

>>17801027
>He calls them hypocrites
Maybe you should try reading. He calls them that because they do not follow their own teachings. He actually criticizes them for not being genuine Pharisees. Do you follow their teachings? No, and therefore you're not doing what Jesus told you and you're in the exact same boat as them.
>inb4 everything doesn't mean everything

Yes. The Quran teaches its ok to attack and enslave and lie to non Muslims. That their rights don't mean anything. It's more or a organzied crime racket that beleives in a desert pedophile than an actual religion. I have more respect for any other religion except Norse paganism. Bc they were violent too.

>>17801221
>The word literally means "protected person."[32] According to scholars, dhimmis had their rights fully protected in their communities, but as citizens in the Islamic state, had certain restrictions,[33] and it was obligatory for them to pay the jizya tax, which complemented the zakat, or alms, paid by the Muslim subjects.[34] Dhimmis were excluded from specific duties assigned to Muslims, and did not enjoy certain political rights reserved for Muslims, but were otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract, and obligation.[35][36][37]
>Under sharia, the dhimmi communities were usually subjected to their own special laws, rather than some of the laws which were applicable only to the Muslim community. For example, the Jewish community in Medina was allowed to have its own Halakhic courts,[38] and the Ottoman millet system allowed its various dhimmi communities to rule themselves under separate legal courts. These courts did not cover cases that involved religious groups outside of their own community, or capital offences. Dhimmi communities were also allowed to engage in certain practices that were usually forbidden for the Muslim community, such as the consumption of alcohol and pork.[39][40][41]
Why does it seem like their rights do mean something?