With the recent controversy surrounding Islam and the beliefs concerning it I have decided to create this thread in order to clear up some of the more foggy matters, especially where the conflict between Christianity and Islam is concerned. Now, those of you who know my view points on religion may find this strange, that I, an extremely atheist person, would be making a thread like this. I would like to clarify a few points before I open the discussion to my fellow Amor Gamers.
1. The point of this thread is NOT to debate whether God exists or not.
Well it could have to do with the East-West Schism, which was a splitting point between Europe and the Middle East. Could also have to do with The Crusades, the conversion of the Roman Empire, the fact that they share the same Holy Land... lots of reasons.
These days, Muslims are the ones blowing stuff up.
Yep, except if you look at it there are far fewer extremists lashing out now then when the Crusades were taking place.
lol you realize the East West Schism was the spilitting of Western Europe and Roman Catholics from the Bysantine Empire and what was know as Eastern Othadox right? This slip sowed disunity and as the Bysantines grew weaker Muslims took the advantage to attack.
Basically, the conflict is based on territorial squabbles between the Byzantine Empire and the expansion of Islam into Anatolia. this was Byzantine heartland and an early zone of Muslim conversion. The Byzantines being Christian, but mixed race, determined that the way to rally their populace against what they saw as a threat chose Islam as their target. Small wars commenced, culminating in the Crusades which featured both main sects of Christianity. That unification against them made Christianity a cultural enemy for many Muslims. Besides that, the main force of Islam was the Ottoman Empire after the Crusades. They spent the next 600 years in control of most of the world's Muslims AND constantly at war with Christian enemies like Russia, Romania and the British. All that combines to make Christianity a cultural and historic enemy of the vast majority of Muslims. When it comes to finding something to fight, history is the best excuse.
That's mostly in Jerusalem between All 3 religions; Muslims, Jews, and Christians. I heard it's really bad between the Arabs and the Jews digging under the temple. It's kind of sad that we can't all just learn to share.
If you are referring to the most recent conflicts, I say they stem from the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WW1 and the subsequent slicing up of the Middle East between Britain and France. Until WW2, foreign policy there was a complete shambles, and after WW2, the USA by way of Israel picked up where the declining European powers left off. We do have some nerve being indignant against Islamic extremism in the West. We went to great lengths to create it.
I read all the posts, not just the first page. This is the only one I would like to clear up:
After WWII and the Holocaust, we busted Hitler and his regime, and rescued those that were trapped in the internment camps, mostly the Jews. Some had nowhere to go, yet they had the freedom to go anywhere. The U.S. proposed giving Israel to the Jews. The Muslims had already controlled Israel, but they compromised giving part of the land to the Jews.
They gave the GOOD land to the Jews and left the Muslims with the dead soil and desert. That's primarily why they are pissed at us. However, religiously, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have the same holy land, which is Israel. They all have religious importance there.
1. The US didn't propose anything. At least, only officially. 2. why do you call Britain "muslim"? 3. They didn't compromise. 4. They gave the Jews the only part of real estate in the middle east that doesn't have a drop of oil. 5. Israel is only recently used to describe that land.
i`'s in spanish: los conclictos son principalmente, a que ambas religiones estaban ligadas a un imperio, por eso hay ciertas rivalidades entre ambos, que se remontan a la antigüedad. (lo estoy estudiando más o menos)
Depends if you are religious or not, like Quincy said, if you believe in the Bible, you believe that God chose Isaac, the son of Abraham, to build his nation on. Of course, since Isaac was now the favoured son instead of Ishmael, this would have made Ishmael jealous and bitter. Ishmael would have mocked Isaac, and it must have escalated as Sarah, Abrahams wife, demanded that Ishmael and his Egyptian mother leave. So Ishmael was banished, of course he would have now held onto hatred at Isaac for this, of course, he would have passed down his hatred to his family, just like the Palestinians are doing now to the youth of their country against the Jews.
God made Ishmael a father to a great nation (Arabs, most of whom are Muslims.)
Genesis 17v20 "As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation."
Depends if you are religious or not, like Quincy said, if you believe in the Bible, you believe that God chose Isaac, the son of Abraham, to build his nation on. Of course, since Isaac was now the favoured son instead of Ishmael, this would have made Ishmael jealous and bitter. Ishmael would have mocked Isaac, and it must have escalated as Sarah, Abrahams wife, demanded that Ishmael and his Egyptian mother leave. So Ishmael was banished, of course he would have now held onto hatred at Isaac for this, of course, he would have passed down his hatred to his family, just like the Palestinians are doing now to the youth of their country against the Jews.
This has no historical context, the bible proves nothing, and should not be looked to unless we're debating the differences between the bible and th qu'ran, which are few when we get down to the nitty gritty.
Genesis 17v20 "As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation."
This slip sowed disunity and as the Bysantines grew weaker Muslims took the advantage to attack.
Exactly.
Many Byzantines, actually, preferred being conquered by the Turks (ergo the Muslims) than asking help to the Western counties (ergo the Catholics). And honestly their rational is pretty understandable, if we consider the fact that the Latins 200 years before the fall of Constantinople had looted and seized several major Byzantine cities, including the capital of the Empire.
The main source of the difference is the difference between the Qur'an and the Bible. Muslim's see it this way, Moses was given the Old Testament but humans messed up the copying and translation, Jesus was given the entire New Testament but people messed it up again. the prophet Muhammad was given the entire Qur'an and it is today the same as it was when Muhammad got it, Allah's perfect word. The only problem with this is that people DID edit the Qur'an in the years following Muhammad's death, this is a historical fact.
The only problem with this is that people DID edit the Qur'an in the years following Muhammad's death, this is a historical fact.
And many books of the bible were left out when the Romans put it together. Also, the book of Mark has an ending that can't be found in early manuscripts; these are historical facts. again, in modern times the main argument comes from America's support of Israel which is angers the Muslim nations. It's a political argument between countries were Christianity and Islam find themselves extremely important.
