How can Islam be called the religion of peace when it was spread by the sword?

The "antichrist spirit" enters individuals and whole nations regularly throughout history regardless of what country they're from, stirring them up to war and violence.
"This is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour" (1 John 2:18 )

The Star Trek episode 'Wolf in the Fold' dealt with the theme when the same evil spirit that had once possessed Jack the Ripper and other psychos now possessed Scotty-

Actually, Scotty was not possessed by any kind of evil spirit. He was merely framed by the guilty culprit, an ageless entity that had been Jack the Ripper himself in 19th-century England. Watch the episode again, and you'll see I'm right!

By the way, you'd never guess who wrote the script for that particular episode of Star Trek (in addition to "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" and "Catspaw"). Why, it was none other than this guy:


Love that Robert Bloch!

Call it what you will, the entity/evil spirit/demon/ malevolent life form seemed to be responsible for about 30 murders over the centuries by entering the bodies of Jack the Ripper and Scotty etc to "possess" them and make them kill, so that it could feed off the terror of its victims

WIKI- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_in_the_Fold

Hmmmmm . . . I'll have to check it out (again).

Anyway, it's a great monster, feeding upon human terror.

Gotta go!

Yeah, real peaceful.

Wow...that picture...manipulates human nature, and the difference between passionate anger (usually when someone is known to you or something is personal to you) and cold anger (usually when someone is not known to you or something is impersonal to you).

I find it disturbing even while it has a legitimate message. I have a suspicion that it does more harm than good.

My opinion of religion. Christianity and Islam to be precise.

Well, if you've been reading my posts in their entirety rather than looking for comments with which you could pick at, you would realize that I stated that my argument flows from the assumption that religions begin with birth or enlightenment (well within a 100 year span) of their primary prophets, Gods, or advocates.

Christianity began with the emergence of Jesus as a religious leader; and Islam began with Muhammad’s same status.

First of all, there is absolutely no agreement upon "what you and I now call Christianity"

However, let's say that Christianity began in 325 AD. When did militant Christianity begin? By Set's examples it was some 400 to 700 years later.

Contrast this with Islam where militancy began within the lifetime of its primary prophet, and at his behest.

It really is revealing that you are so bound and determined to argue against my point.

I've not argued that the Christian religion has never been spread by the sword. Why do you feel compelled to argue, against the facts, that Christianity was birthed in violence?

I'm not sure whether it is your reflexive liberal disdain for Christianity, and protection of Islam, or idiocy. That's not true, I'm sure it’s the former.

Many westerners are of the belief that all religions are somehow the same, and should be treated the same, and that a person treating one religion as worse than another is taboo or hypocritical...

...those that do this, hold up the historical violence of Christianity as excuse for the current violence of Islam....this I call nonsense - no violence is justified in the name of religion.

I also don't find religion / ideology to be 'the same', but am of the opinion that each religion should be judged on it's own merits.

When that belief (that each should be judged on it's own merits) is applied to Islam - it's obvious that the current violence today is partly related to the founder's violence...with the large problem that violence to 'further Islam' is justifiable through the founder's violence.

This peculiarity may not be used by moderates & pacifists, but it is by extremists & fundamentalists - the percentage of which is high enough to result in violent problems (ie terrorist events / civil wars / violent supression etc).

I don't think Islam will ever get past the particular problem posed by it's founder / founding.

Maybe the Christianity-bashers would like to see it replaced by Islam in America, Britain and Australia?
If it ever happened we'd be getting the 'Islamic Police' knocking peoples doors and arresting them for homosexuality, drugs, adultery, drunkenness, blasphemy, atheism etc..

Kabul police

You misstate my position completely.

Christianity and Islam are equivalent. Neither is superior in any way. They have each been used to justify terror and barbaric acts. They have both been used to argue for peace and understanding.

I am arguing against the claim of the superiority of one religion over the other. Where the claim is being made that Islam is superior to Christianity, I would take the same position.

Are you arguing that Christianity is superior to Islam Finn? If not, then we really have nothing to fight about.

Hi Max...while the words that follow this quote are true...this quote simply cannot be true.

Christianity will be superior to Islam in some ways, and Islam will be superior to Christianity in other ways. Flip side - Christianity will be worse than Islam in some ways, and Islam will be worse than Christianity in some ways.

Using a faulty argument as basis for your latter statement causes problems. That said - your latter statement can can stand on it's own merits.