Regarding the actual content of the offensive material on the site, I'm always surprised at how many "Christians" don't follow the basic tenets of the religion. The entire New Testament teaches tolerance and love, even for one's enemies. It's not even subtle about it. Many of the parables and scriptures are explicit about the "commandment" (i.e., requirement from God) to "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek".
From what I've read, the Qu'ran teaches very similar principles, including the commandment "Thou shalt not kill."
Basically what we're seeing are two religious groups fighting against one another while clearly ignoring their own religious principals.
Disclosure: I'm a practicing Christian in the LDS church
The tone is hardly New Testament - turn the other cheek fare:
Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Qur'an (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination."
Exactly. And while the Bible has a huge range of tone and message, having been compiled from a bunch of books written over a couple of thousand years by hundreds of authors, the Koran was all written by one dude over the space of a few years, so it's a bit more consistent from page to page.
It would be interesting to imagine that you're a Martian given copies of these two religious books for the first time divorced from any historical context and asked to determine which one has the nicer message. The Bible does have a bunch of nasty stuff towards the beginning, but turns into a feel-good hippie tract about love being nice towards the end. The Koran, on the other hand, seems to have an awful lot more about being a dick to the unbeliever. Still, I don't claim to have read either all the way through.
guess it all lies in the interpretation and in the intentions of the early compilers / facilitators of such books and men in position of power ...
Correct me if I'm wrong but Christianity, Islam and even Buddhism rapidly propagated in early ages through conversions and there was a conscious effort for the same in terms of the growth of religion. Maybe such text was merely an aid in helping with the growth of religion in order to establish a certain superiority for followers of one religion over another.
For what it's worth (and I know you don't care) each of those verses have a historic context in which they were invoked.
It's a hamfisted critique at best, and utterly ridiculous when you consider that it is being made by someone who has the good fortune not to see the violence being done in his own name.
Ignoring historical context for cheap political points is a rhetorical tool for deceivers, not hackers.
I'm not sure historical context helps you cast those quotes in a "peaceful" light. Islam's early spread essentially was at the edge of a sword and conquest.
I'm sincerely interested to hear the context I'm missing.
You cannot possibly expect an honest reply if you go in with an attitude that reeks of prejudice.
Islam's early spread included conquest, and also included very real economic aspects that were appreciated by its adherents. The religions in the middle east at the time were extremely taxing; one of the reasons there is no priesthood in Islam is the sheer amount that would be paid in tithes to the pre-Islamic religions in the area.
Furthermore, as context, many of these verses are in a historic situation where Muslims were betrayed by an entire group and were on the verge of annihilation. Please don't pretend that violence is abhorrent in that situation. Regardless of what group you belong to (or don't), the fact is that every group in that situation lashes out; whether it is burning and leveling large parts of the South or expelling / killing a group of people who had betrayed a nation. This clearly is not meant to be the behavior in an era where there is peace between various groups.
If what you say is true, you need to account for why there were any Christians or Jews or Hindus for that matter left alive in territories conquered by Muslims. I don't doubt that there were atrocities and acts of malice / evil inflicted by conquerers, but the unfortunate truth is that it is a common part of war; then and now.
I won't be bringing up the topic again, I don't think it is worth it and I doubt you are honestly interested in the issue. Still, it's sad that you choose to demonize 1/6th of the population of the world. Best of luck to you if that's how you choose to live your life.
You are aware that book-burning is mentioned in the Bible?
Acts 19:19 "A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly. When they calculated the value of the scrolls, the total came to fifty thousand drachmas." (NIV translation)
From what I've read, the Qu'ran teaches very similar principles, including the commandment "Thou shalt not kill."
Basically what we're seeing are two religious groups fighting against one another while clearly ignoring their own religious principals.
Disclosure: I'm a practicing Christian in the LDS church