Comparing violence in the Bible and the Qur'an.

[stevecanuck]

Right then. Time to get this sorted and resolve if, "there's as much violence in Christianity as there is in Islam", as many on this site have claimed.

But, first some clarification:

1. There is a world of difference between one-off descriptions of violence told in story form vs. commands to commit violence going forward.

2. This thread is NOT about what Christians and Muslims DO. It is about what their respective holy books TELL them to do.

3. The stories and basic tenets of the OT are common to both religions (as well as Judaism), and therefore quotes from it do nothing to resolve the debate. All of the major blood and guts stories in the OT are reiterated in the Qur'an. After the first 12 twelve years of Islam (as delineated in the first 86 chronological surahs of the Qur'an), there is little to distinguish Islam from Judaism (except for the appearance of Mohamed as the new self-appointed spiritual leader of Abrahamic believers).

With that in mind, here we go:

The OT has some horrible shit in it, but nothing that a zealot of today could use to justify gathering an identifiable group of "true believers" and causing it to make war on another identifiable group (unless you're a Hittite). Nor does it contain commands for the faithful to forever engage in warfare until the wishes of the "One true God" are obeyed throughout the world. Therefore, it is logical to compare only the NT and the Qur'an to resolve this issue.

At least that's my understanding and my position. I'm going to pause at this point in case someone can prove my premise wrong. I will also be relying on Christians with extensive knowledge of the NT to jump in where necessary (thanks to them in advance).

 

[stevecanuck]

Shortly after Mohamed relocated to Medina, and during the revelation of surah 2, Mohamed embarked on a campaign that changed not only the nature of Islam, but the course of history. He started a war with the pagans of Mecca by raiding their trade caravans. For the first time, Muslims were instructed to take lives by fighting "fee sabil Allah (in the cause of God)". The pagans responded by sending forces to protect their caravans, but, despite having superior numbers, were defeated by the Muslims in the Battle of Badr (CE 624). This sparked a seven year war that ended in complete victory for the Muslims and control of Mecca and the Kaaba. These raids were the first action in a pattern of aggression that would escalate and eventually turn into the campaigns of conquest that resulted in the creation of a vast Islamic caliphate within only 100 years of Mohamed's death.

Muslims dispute this. They claim the raids were justified based on persecution they suffered at the hands of the pagans before the Hijrah. What they do not, and can not, claim is that physical abuse of Muslims occurred during that period. There are no verses in the Qur'an that speak of harm inflicted; only of mockery and refusal to obey Mohamed and abandon their long-held beliefs and gods. They also do not dispute that the 'first arrow' was fired by a Muslim named Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas when his party was sent to raid a caravan (although the raid was eventually called off). Rather, they celebrate Sa'd as a folk hero.

For Mohamed to order military action "in the cause of God", he was faced with being able to claim that a clearly offensive strike would be justified and in compliance with God's wishes. The Qur'an would therefore have to supply him with two revelations that were not so much as hinted at in all 86 Meccan surahs; a direct command to fight, and moral justification for taking lives. To that end, the following two verses were conveniently revealed:

- 190 "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors".
- 191 "And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression (fitnah) are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith".

continued ...

 

[stevecanuck]

Verse 190 provided the order to fight, but only in self-defense, which by itself did not justify an attack against the pagans, as there is no indication in the Qur'an that any Muslims had been killed. Therefore, Mohamed could not accuse them of being "those who fight you". He immediately solved that problem in 191 by providing a work-around that moves the goal posts in such a vague and open-end manner as to designate virtually any unbeliever an enemy. It breaks down as follows:
- "And slay them wherever ye catch them" removed any doubt that blood-letting had been introduced to Islam.
- "and turn them out from where they have turned you out" is a clear reference to Mohamed's claim that he was forced to flee Mecca.
- "for tumult and oppression (fitnah) are worse than slaughter" introduced 'fitnah' as a catch-all crime against Islam that, in the space of one verse, effectively dropped self-defense to second place as a reason to make war.

The importance of the definition of 'fitnah', and of adding it to self-defense as the basis for which Muslims can justify attacking non-Muslims, cannot be stressed enough. 'Fitnah' is described in various English translations as any action that either impedes the practice of Islam ("suppresses faith") or simply violates any of God's commandments as stated in the Qur'an. For example, Christians are guilty of 'fitnah' every time they pray to Jesus rather than God. Six of the seven translations given in http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=191 define 'fitnah' as tumult, oppression, or persecution, whereas the seventh, by Muhammad Sarwar, goes so far as to translate it as "the sin of disbelief in God". The only 'crimes' the Meccans had committed against Islam were to "deny God's signs" (refuse to adopt Islam), and to 'desecrate' the Kaaba by using it for polytheist prayer. But, thanks to verse 191, it became enough to warrant an attack. However, that was just the beginning of the influence verse 191 had in shaping history. It not only provided the excuse Mohamed needed to attack the Meccans, and although it was crafted to solve a short term problem, it established the criteria that has inspired Islamic jihad for 1400 years and counting.

Verse 191 is noteworthy for a third reason. Although it targeted the pagans of Mecca, it demonstrates a method of instruction commonly used in the Qur'an. While the first part of the verse is specific to a given circumstance, the concluding statement is generic and suggestive of a wider application. In this case, "Such is the reward of those who suppress faith" implies that military action would be an appropriate response against any person, tribe, or nation deemed guilty of 'suppressing faith'.

There is much more to come, but now it's the turn of those who say there's as much violence in the bible (NT) to match this. Let's hear about Jesus forming an army and sending it out to do battle.

 

[Yasureoktoo]

There is a serious problem with comparing the bible and the Qur'an.
While the Qur'an has many comments on violence, most are not complete.
Few realize the Qur'an is only 14% of Islamic text, and the Sunnah is where all the juicy stuff is in detail, but vagely confirmed by the Qur'an.

Most Muslims have not read the Sirat Rasual Allah, Islam's first documentation, and the only biography of Muhammed written within 200 years of his lifetime.
Muhammed is not in the Qur'an, mentioned 4 times, but nothing about him.
The Sirat Rasual Allah is one of the vilest books written, and would be illegal in a pornographic movie.
Open to any page, in 80% of the text Muhammed is robbing, raping, or killing someone. Jesus did none of that.

800 pages of fine print putting the damper on any comparison between the two.
After that is The History of AlTaburi, 40 volumes. Almost as bad, but more descriptive in many events.
These are the only sources of Muhammed anywhere near the timeframe, on planet earth.

You have in the messenger, a beautiful pattern of conduct to follow. Quran 33:21

 

[Yasureoktoo]

In an interesting comparison, if you ask a Christian preacher, any sect, about Jesus, not only will he tell you what to read, he will give you the books.

Not so in Islam.

A cleric will go to great lengths to lead you astray.
He may direct you to a sugarcoated 21st century book report,
but he will do all he can do to keep you from reading the original books.
These books worked great 800 years ago, as Islam slashed it's way through the world,
however they cannot be accepted in the modern world.
so they do the only thing they can, and do so often...THEY LIE.

 

[stevecanuck]

There is a serious problem with comparing the bible and the Qur'an.
While the Qur'an has many comments on violence, most are not complete.
Few realize the Qur'an is only 14% of Islamic text, and the Sunnah is where all the juicy stuff is in detail, but vagely confirmed by the Qur'an.

To Mohamed the Qur'an is 100% of Islamic text. I'm going back to the source.

Most Muslims have not read the Sirat Rasual Allah, Islam's first documentation, and the only biography of Muhammed written within 200 years of his lifetime.
Muhammed is not in the Qur'an, mentioned 4 times, but nothing about him.

He is only mentioned by name 4 times, but is spoken of and to many times. Every time a verse starts with "Say", that is supposedly God telling Mohamed what to preach.

The Sirat Rasual Allah is one of the vilest books written, and would be illegal in a pornographic movie.
Open to any page, in 80% of the text Muhammed is robbing, raping, or killing someone. Jesus did none of that.

800 pages of fine print putting the damper on any comparison between the two.
After that is The History of AlTaburi, 40 volumes. Almost as bad, but more descriptive in many events.
These are the only sources of Muhammed anywhere near the timeframe, on planet earth.

You have in the messenger, a beautiful pattern of conduct to follow. Quran 33:21

I have no doubt all that is true.

 

[stevecanuck]

Still waiting for the first warrior Jesus comparison. I have a feeling I'll be waiting for a long time. Meanwhile, The qur'an says ....

2:216 - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you ...".

2:218 is extremely pivotal as it not only continues to encourage hostilities, but in the minds of some of the most influential translators of the qur'an, it equates "jihad" with fighting. Perhaps the most respected translator, Yusuf Ali, uses "strive", "struggle", and "fought" in translating "jihad", "Those who believed and those who suffered exile and fought (and strove and struggled) in the path of Allah,- they have the hope of the Mercy of Allah ". https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=218

And that war monger Jesus said __________ (fill in the blank please).

 

[OrphanSlug]

"Comparing violence in the Bible and the Qur'an" is a complete waste of time.

All of this text, spanning from very early on in the Bronze Age up to the point of all the latter texts added for Islam, is all from period of human history filled to the brim with violence.

It does not matter that some text from the OT is more straight forward about violence someone than other text included in Christianity, and it does not matter that the Qur'an is even more direct about violence than anything from the other Abrahamic Religions.

What does matter is we should be ignoring all of this nonsense and evolve, instead of comparing all this foolishness.

 

[stevecanuck]

"Comparing violence in the Bible and the Qur'an" is a complete waste of time.

All of this text, spanning from very early on in the Bronze Age up to the point of all the latter texts added for Islam, is all from period of human history filled to the brim with violence.

It does not matter that some text from the OT is more straight forward about violence someone than other text included in Christianity, and it does not matter that the Qur'an is even more direct about violence than anything from the other Abrahamic Religions.

How could it not matter? Non-Muslim villagers in Mozambique are being slaughtered by followers of those qur'anic directives as we speak. Maybe it just doesn't matter to you because you're not a villager in Mozambique.

What does matter is we should be ignoring all of this nonsense and evolve, instead of comparing all this foolishness.

Ok, agreed. Please go to Mozambique and spread some of that fairy dust on the mujahadeen and make them "evolve".

 

[stevecanuck]

2:224 - "So fight in God's way, and know that God is All-hearing, All-knowing".
2:264 - "give us victory over the disbelieving people ".

Jesus may have said to get a sword, but the only time one was yielded in his defense, he put a stop to it and healed the wound of the person who had come to arrest him. Oh, and once he got so angry that he turned a table over.

And that's just surah 2. There are many more examples I could give to prove that the qur'an and Mohamed turned Islam in a warrior religion in the later verses whereas the NT went in the other direction.

 

[stevecanuck]

Surah 8 concerns the Battle of Badr, which was the first major battle between the Muslims and the Meccan pagans. Although this surah is entitled "The spoils of war", only four verses are actually dedicated to that topic. The rest of the surah is part recap of the battle, and part call to arms in a general and on-going sense:

8:12-13 are particularly noteworthy, "I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them. That is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger - indeed, Allah is severe in penalty". This explicitly states that the Meccans were fought because they refused to follow Mohamed rather than because they had used physical force against him. Also, this is an example in which a quote is inspired by a specific circumstance, but is stated in a way as to suggest broader, on-going applicability.

8:17 tells Muslims they are merely God's instruments when it comes to killing, "And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them".

8:39 speaks of the fight to come after Badr. Now that a state of war exists, this verse urges Muslims to carry on and, "fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression [fitnah], and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease [convert to Islam], verily Allah doth see all that they do".

That is Yusuf Ali's interpretation, which is restricted to the word-for-word meaning. However, Mohsin Khan, as he frequently does, adds further explanation and context in brackets, "And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do". Khan is saying that fighting is not merely to make the enemy lay down their arms, but to impose Islamic rule on them and "the whole of the world".

Are there any comparable commands and comments from Jesus? No, you say? Remember, he did turn that table over, so watch out.

 

[Yasureoktoo]

To Mohamed the Qur'an is 100% of Islamic text. I'm going back to the source.



He is only mentioned by name 4 times, but is spoken of and to many times. Every time a verse starts with "Say", that is supposedly God telling Mohamed what to preach.



I have no doubt all that is true.

This would be the stories he was told from Allah, however it would be almost 300 years before it is packaged and sold as it is today.
Also these other books, Ishaq's Sira, and Taburi are about Muhammed mostly from birth to death.
Bukhari and Muslim are 300 and 350 years late.

Also we don't know if Muhammed is put in later, as is suspected, and that he is a composite charactor.
This 300 years from supposed start, to the finished product, gives lots of time to change the story.

The first time in History where he is mentioned in In Ishaq, 125 years late, and re-written by Ibn Husain 60 years later.
There are quite a few contradictions.

ie. Everything in the Qur"an indicates and claims, Muhammed's God was Ar Ramon, Allah shows up over halfway through.
In Ishaq Allah teaches Adam how to read "true Arabic

 

[Yasureoktoo]

Surah 8 concerns the Battle of Badr, which was the first major battle between the Muslims and the Meccan pagans. Although this surah is entitled "The spoils of war", only four verses are actually dedicated to that topic. The rest of the surah is part recap of the battle, and part call to arms in a general and on-going sense:

8:12-13 are particularly noteworthy, "I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them. That is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger - indeed, Allah is severe in penalty". This explicitly states that the Meccans were fought because they refused to follow Mohamed rather than because they had used physical force against him. Also, this is an example in which a quote is inspired by a specific circumstance, but is stated in a way as to suggest broader, on-going applicability.

8:17 tells Muslims they are merely God's instruments when it comes to killing, "And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them".

8:39 speaks of the fight to come after Badr. Now that a state of war exists, this verse urges Muslims to carry on and, "fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression [fitnah], and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease [convert to Islam], verily Allah doth see all that they do".

That is Yusuf Ali's interpretation, which is restricted to the word-for-word meaning. However, Mohsin Khan, as he frequently does, adds further explanation and context in brackets, "And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do". Khan is saying that fighting is not merely to make the enemy lay down their arms, but to impose Islamic rule on them and "the whole of the world".

Are there any comparable commands and comments from Jesus? No, you say? Remember, he did turn that table over, so watch out.

Also at Badr, the battle started when Muhammeds boys tried to intercept Abu Sufan's caraven.

When the Apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, “This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 428)

Abu Sufan's got away, but they intercepted another, when the Meccans rallied to protect their property, the battle began.

 

[Yasureoktoo]

"Comparing violence in the Bible and the Qur'an" is a complete waste of time.

All of this text, spanning from very early on in the Bronze Age up to the point of all the latter texts added for Islam, is all from period of human history filled to the brim with violence.

It does not matter that some text from the OT is more straight forward about violence someone than other text included in Christianity, and it does not matter that the Qur'an is even more direct about violence than anything from the other Abrahamic Religions.

What does matter is we should be ignoring all of this nonsense and evolve, instead of comparing all this foolishness.

A scary part is to follow the main person in the religion, in Christianity, that would be Jesus..
Weather you are a believer or not, Jesus is a pretty damn good person.

Muhammed on the other hand is a murderer, thief, slave trader, rapist, and a slew of other adjectives.
"Good Muslims", or those who follow Muhammed closely, are very evil people.

 

[OrphanSlug]

How could it not matter? Non-Muslim villagers in Mozambique are being slaughtered by followers of those qur'anic directives as we speak. Maybe it just doesn't matter to you because you're not a villager in Mozambique.



Ok, agreed. Please go to Mozambique and spread some of that fairy dust on the mujahadeen and make them "evolve".

I was talking mainly about the actions of religion in a general sense, your emotions with any one example does not change that point.

 

[OrphanSlug]

A scary part is to follow the main person in the religion, in Christianity, that would be Jesus..
Weather you are a believer or not, Jesus is a pretty damn good person.

Muhammed on the other hand is a murderer, thief, slave trader, rapist, and a slew of other adjectives.
"Good Muslims", or those who follow Muhammed closely, are very evil people.

The comparison is irrelevant to me, and the reason is the main person in religion is people.

When I say people I am referring to leaders in religion no matter if self appointed or otherwise and their flocks of people. Following the oldest text related to the teachings of God (Judaism,) or following a more expanded set of texts (Christianity) you only know about because of the Romans, or following Muhammed (Islam) is all contextual of the period in question.

Ultimately it is subject to the teachings a human being tells another, where one is of some degree of authority to speak about the text to those willing to subscribe to those teachings. No matter which of the Abrahamic religions one subscribes to all of the writings were completed by men.

All of whom had their own intentions and agendas, limitations of knowledge at the time, and ultimately all of positives and negatives of what it means to be human. It was true then, and is still true today. True of those who wrote across the Bronze Age producing a plethora of mythology, true of those who wrote about Jesus all of whom never met Jesus, and true of Muhammad who could not write but spoke to scribes to wrote it all down and formulated a book after his death. Groupings of men made decisions about the nature of God.

What I will agree to is the spirit of all these texts suggests that Islam is the most easy of the three Abrahamic religions to weaponize, it also happens to be the one of the three most behind the evolutionary curve (as in the understandings sense.) However we have a treasure trove of texts making its way into the holy books for each of the three Abrahamic religions that is both in origin and continuation today sources of bigotry and prejudice, misogyny and homophobia, divisions and violence, basis for murder and war, and honestly sheer ignorance. All of it absent rational thought or humanity.

Who is a damn good person is all of us, when we decide to be so because it is the right thing to do.

Anyone who is a damn good person because of Bronze Age mythology, doing so because of the interest in reward or escaping punishment later, listening to an authority tell you about morality from a book written across the time periods we are talking about, is an intellectual slave to an ideology.

Ideologies based on attributes from aged writings by men, translated and edited over a very long period of time, splintered into all kinds of opposing interpretations and groupings within these faiths, that all have nothing at all to do with being rational, or humble, or empathetic, or accepting, or knowledge seeking... or even moral.

It is time we grew up, evolved, and moved on from mythology.

 

[stevecanuck]

This would be the stories he was told from Allah, however it would be almost 300 years before it is packaged and sold as it is today.
Also these other books, Ishaq's Sira, and Taburi are about Muhammed mostly from birth to death.
Bukhari and Muslim are 300 and 350 years late.

Also we don't know if Muhammed is put in later, as is suspected, and that he is a composite charactor.
This 300 years from supposed start, to the finished product, gives lots of time to change the story.

The first time in History where he is mentioned in In Ishaq, 125 years late, and re-written by Ibn Husain 60 years later.
There are quite a few contradictions.

ie. Everything in the Qur"an indicates and claims, Muhammed's God was Ar Ramon, Allah shows up over halfway through.
In Ishaq Allah teaches Adam how to read "true Arabic

I have no doubt that Mohamed is not a composite. Far too many verses in the qur'an refer to specific events in which was involved.

 

[stevecanuck]

Also at Badr, the battle started when Muhammeds boys tried to intercept Abu Sufan's caraven.

When the Apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, “This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 428)

Abu Sufan's got away, but they intercepted another, when the Meccans rallied to protect their property, the battle began.

Yes, that's my understanding as well.

Mohamed was a highwayman by any standard.

 

[stevecanuck]

I was talking mainly about the actions of religion in a general sense, your emotions with any one example does not change that point.

This is a thread about comparing two specific religions.

 

[OrphanSlug]

This is a thread about comparing two specific religions.

And I am saying it is a waste of time, a hollow victory lap at best.

 

[stevecanuck]

The comparison is irrelevant to me, and the reason is the main person in religion is people.

When I say people I am referring to leaders in religion no matter if self appointed or otherwise and their flocks of people. Following the oldest text related to the teachings of God (Judaism,) or following a more expanded set of texts (Christianity) you only know about because of the Romans, or following Muhammed (Islam) is all contextual of the period in question.

And just like that, the Qur'an is swept aside in a single brush-off. Nice try.

The qur'an exists for the sole purpose of creating and defining Islam. It's creation is contextual to the period in question, but its application is forever.

Ultimately it is subject to the teachings a human being tells another, where one is of some degree of authority to speak about the text to those willing to subscribe to those teachings. No matter which of the Abrahamic religions one subscribes to all of the writings were completed by men.

That is not how the qur'an is presented. Devout Muslims believe it to be a verbatim sermon from God presented for the understanding of the common man.

All of whom had their own intentions and agendas, limitations of knowledge at the time, and ultimately all of positives and negatives of what it means to be human. It was true then, and is still true today. True of those who wrote across the Bronze Age producing a plethora of mythology, true of those who wrote about Jesus all of whom never met Jesus, and true of Muhammad who could not write but spoke to scribes to wrote it all down and formulated a book after his death. Groupings of men made decisions about the nature of God.

Again, you're talking about all religions except Islam. It was invented, from stem to stern, by one man.

What I will agree to is the spirit of all these texts suggests that Islam is the most easy of the three Abrahamic religions to weaponize,

That's like saying an AK-47 is easy to weaponize.

it also happens to be the one of the three most behind the evolutionary curve (as in the understandings sense.)

No, it finished evolving in 632 when Mohamed died. A case can be made that compilation of hadiths and the history of Mohamed clarified it, but did not change it. It is what it is, and one of its tenets is that it can never change.

However we have a treasure trove of texts making its way into the holy books for each of the three Abrahamic religions that is both in origin and continuation today sources of bigotry and prejudice, misogyny and homophobia, divisions and violence, basis for murder and war, and honestly sheer ignorance. All of it absent rational thought or humanity.

That's religion in a nutshell.

Who is a damn good person is all of us, when we decide to be so because it is the right thing to do.

There's the rub with Islam. God says "to fight until all religion is for Allah", which makes that the "right thing to do".

Anyone who is a damn good person because of Bronze Age mythology, doing so because of the interest in reward or escaping punishment later, listening to an authority tell you about morality from a book written across the time periods we are talking about, is an intellectual slave to an ideology.

That's the bleedin obvious.

Ideologies based on attributes from aged writings by men, translated and edited over a very long period of time, splintered into all kinds of opposing interpretations and groupings within these faiths, that all have nothing at all to do with being rational, or humble, or empathetic, or accepting, or knowledge seeking... or even moral.

It is time we grew up, evolved, and moved on from mythology.

Hear, hear.

 

[stevecanuck]

And I am saying it is a waste of time, a hollow victory lap at best.

If it's so hollow, then why does virtually everybody say, "Oh, yeah! Well what about the bible. It's just as bad" when I try to discuss the qur'an?

 

[OrphanSlug]

If it's so hollow, then why does virtually everybody say, "Oh, yeah! Well what about the bible. It's just as bad" when I try to discuss the qur'an?

Probably because "everyone" has come to realize your typical take on this.

 

[stevecanuck]

Probably because "everyone" has come to realize your typical take on this.

That's wasn't an answer. I wouldn't be trying to compare the two religions if it wasn't everyone's first go-to when they reflexively defend Islam despite knowing nothing about it.

 

[OrphanSlug]

That's wasn't an answer. I wouldn't be trying to compare the two religions if it wasn't everyone's first go-to when they reflexively defend Islam despite knowing nothing about it.

No, it was not an answer you like. In studying both religion and history I have no reason to join you in forgiving other religions only to target one.