See, now, if you're going to set out with the presumption that Christianity is objectively correct, and that Islam is just a load of old cobblers some guy made up for a laugh, then you're never going to get an accurate reading of things.
There is an important point, however. In the life of Jesus, I see 2 violent examples: when he chased out the traders and when he said he comes to bring the sword. He didn't engage in wars, forced conversions etc, although his followers, after several centuries, did. Christians today can condemn Theodose the Great or pope Urban for their actions. Muslims can not condemn Muhammad.
You seem to be under the impression that the crusades were merely targeted against Muslims, which ignores those crusades- and, more broadly, religiously motivated wars- aimed at pagans and heretics within Europe, such as the Baltic Crusades or the Albigensian Crusade, respectively. Even William I's conquest of Catholic England was formally endorsed by the Pope, and widely characterised as a crusade by his contemporaries, and that can hardly be described as a reaction to Islam.
The briefest reading of Europe history makes it rather self-evident that the Christian penchant for holy wars was more than the mere reaction which you declare it to be.
this came later. The first official crusades were against muslims. I don't see what it has to do with the subject. Christian idea was no different than muslim at this time: if a land belongs to infidels, we're free to take it.
You neglect to mention however, that the first crusade (amongst others) went on to cause rather a lot of devastation in the Byzantine empire. The request was a pretext, that is all.
Not for the pope, but for some of its leaders, especially Boemund, perhaps. Every passing army, especially great, not to mention the folk crusade, which was very much a rifraf of incited peasants, causes troubles. Byzantium profited a lot from the first crusade - thanks to it, the emperor managed to reconquer western Anatolia.
You are the one refusing to give any proof that Islam is responsible for anything evil whatsoever.
Do you claim it is not responsible for anything evil whatsoever?
You say this but then you proceed to ignore its implication. Have any of these traditions about the sayings and the deeds of the Prophet been translated by Islamic scholars into laws that prescribe the persecution of non-believers today? Yes or no?
You cite these militant examples, but ironically the same could be done with the Bible itself, which says nothing about the militancy of Christianity today. And you think this proves anything? Way to ignore the whole realm of Islamic scholarship, on which the interpretation of such traditions rests in the first place.
Again "but in the Bible"... My post was a direct response to someone doubting that Muhammad was spreading islam by violence. The Old Testament had fragments about warfare, true, but I don't think it has any instructions to fight every infidels until they convert. Judaism was not a missionary / expansionist religion. In the New Testament, there's nothing about warfare.
These quotes had practical implications for centuries. I believe I did mention that muslims could only stop fighting infidels for 10 years, and this only when they were losing.
Does they have legal implications today? Probably yes, although, obviously, not for all muslims. You can hear Ahmadinejad etc talking about islam conquering the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
* Ayatollah Khomeini in his book On Islamic Government indicates unequivocally that non-Muslims should be required to pay the poll tax, in return for which they would profit from the protection and services of the state; they would, however, be excluded from all participation in the political process.[33] Bernard Lewis remarks about Khomeini that one of his main grievances against the Shah was that his legislation allowed the theoretical possibility of non-Muslims exercising political or judicial authority over Muslims.[34]
* Dr. Zakir Naik, a prominent Islamic preacher from India, has stated that "as far as the matters of religion are concerned we know for sure that only Islam is the true religion in the eyes of God. In 3:85 it is mentioned that God will never accept any religion other than Islam. As far as the second question regarding building of churches or temples is concerned, how can we allow this when their religion is wrong? And when worship is also wrong? Thus we will surely not allow such wrong things in our (i.e. an Islamic) country."[41]
Thankfully, there are saner attitudes present as well.
