No. Yo have cited various opinion polls of various levels of accuracy that make that assertion while choosing to ignore, completely, that all those people are not actually performing the actions that would actually enforce those rules.
Common sense, of course, is the sum total of one’s prejudices.* The overwhelming majority of Muslim religious scholars have condemned the statements and actions of Daesh and nearly as many have condemned al Qaida. Claiming that all the evils emanating from Islamic extremists are simply the result of the evil of Mohammed is nothing more than trying to make complex situations simplistic to avoid the effort required to consider the actual nature of the situations.
Labeling the extremists as the “most ardent” followers has no basis in reality as they repeatedly violate explicit statements attributed to Mohammed in the Qur’an.
*“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.” *- Albert Einstein
Are you willing to concede you were wrong when you said there was no whip?
You’re acting like your claims are verified by the quote, and half of what you said is very explicitly denied. Stop trying to pretend you’re right here, when you are at most half right…and according to tradition, not even that.
Also, this is a pointless highjack, but you’re being obtuse and need to be brushed back.
I didn’t say that all such countries were Christian, just that in general Christian countries have done far more invading and conquest and killed far more people beyond their borders than others.
But have they? Imperial WWII Japan killed tens of millions of people in China and elsewhere. Has that death toll been the same in Christian-country-initiated wars in the past 200 years?
We also need to distinguish between aggressor and defender. If a Christian country is the victim of aggression but kills many people in defense or in the war that ensues, that’s different.
Since you specify the last thousand years, which situation do you think has been more common over the last thousand years: Muslims conquering and ruling over Christians, or the reverse?
Before about the mid-18th century (with the expansion of Dutch influence in Java and British in Bengal) there were virtually no instances of Christians conquering and ruling over a Muslim population. (I guess the one example would be southern Spain, which was apparently about 80% Muslim before it was conquered by the Spanish Christians). Against that you have the conquest of, um, the entire Byzantine Empire by the Turks (all the way up to the frontiers of Austria), as well as the conquest of Russia by the Golden Horde. (The Golden Horde’s leaders were shamanist or Buddhist in their origins, but adopted Islam by the 14th century).
Muslim conquests of other parts of the world (Animist, Hindu, Buddhist or Zoroastrian) were also much more common than Christian conquests until European contact with the New World in the early 16th century.
It’s also not entirely clear whether the population of Palestine was majority Muslim or Christian on the eve of the crusades. Ellenblum discusses the problem here; it appears as though most historians think there was a Muslim majority but some disagree, and the estimates on both sides are quite weak and unreliable.
So you’re saying that until the 18th century or so, Muslim countries were far more violent, but since then it’s been the reverse? If so, I wonder what it is about the bible/Christian teachings that caused Christian nations to be so much more bloodthirsty and aggressive than pretty much all other religions’ countries over the past few centuries.
Why is that the limit? I don’t honestly know enough about history to know if it makes much of a difference in terms of what amounts/percentages of what actually happened. But why limit it to Christian aggression vs. Muslims and Muslim aggression vs. Christians? Nations waging war on nations of the same religion seem like that would also count towards a study of “who’s been doing the most warmongering”.
I suspect that the whole way in which this discussion has meandered is rather pointless.
We can get all sorts of contradictory claims based on moving the dates forward or back or by tweaking adjectives or other modifiers.
For example, iiandyiiii’s statement included the phrases “overseas invasions” and “conquest of territories.” The “overseas invasions” tends to limit the discussion to European based nations as agressors, simply because the fifteenth century sea-roving explosion gave the technology to the Europeans. (I would not regard the invasion of Spain or the crossing of the Bosporus as particularly “overseas invasions,” given the rather short distance covered in each case, but if we do, then we have to include the Viking and Germanic invasions of Britain and Ireland, the Norman Conquest of 1066, the various English re-invasions of France in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, as well as the temporary Swedish conquest of Lithuania-Poland.
“Conquest of territories” is, itself, problematic in that adjacent kingdoms and empires have routinely attacked each other throughout human history. Most of the Islamic conquests had more to do with neighborly greed than religion and Europe was a persistent site of neighbors conquering neighbors from the fall of the Roman Empire until the end of WWII. (Similar wars were conducted between neighboring Muslim nations at the same time, of course.)
I doubt that any legitimate conclusions can be drawn regarding the nature of cultures based on the long human history of rapacious conquest.
In case I was too subtle, this pretty much is my point - that the explanation for all this stuff is complicated and has little or nothing to do with religious tenets of any kind. No religion is especially good or especially bad, at least no major religion. Peaceful Muslims are the same as peaceful people of any religion, and if there are more non peaceful Muslims relative to the peaceful ones than for other religions at this moment, then it’s due to geography and history and not anything about the religion, and this is proven by the fact that there are many times in history and many ways to describe violence in which Christians were far, far more violent than any others.