The essence of a religion really should be characterized by its founder and the founders intentions/actions in the course of fulfilling those intentions.
Muhammad spread his religion by the sword or threat of the sword. Buddha was a somewhat recluse nihilist. Jesus claimed he was God on Earth, died to precipitate the redemption of mankind, and rose again as proof of divinity. Bloodshed will be wrought by his hand, but that will not be until evangelism as we know it becomes obsolete.
We can pass quotes from the Quran and the Bible back and forth. At the end of the day one was a violent patriarch who used a monotheistic movement for largely temporal political goals, and the other was both God and Man who continues to shine in the hearts of man and only demanded the spreading of that light through acts of love and proclamation of truth.
The religions they founded ultimately bear their marks in spite of all the heretics and apostates to emerge from them in the last couple thousand years (or about fourteen hundred years in the case of Islam). Muslims can be peaceful, but that does not mean their religion is ultimately one of peace.
Why is it I am the only one that feels I need to provide some sort of evidence for the reason for my position ?
The historian De Lacy O’Leary wrote in “Islam At the Cross-roads”:
“History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.”
I feel I need to repeat myself. Perhaps from below you can see how De Lacy arrived at his conclusion.
In 638, just a few years after the death of the Prophet pbuh, an army of his followers surrounded Jerusalem. The city Patriarch, Sophronius, handed over the city after a brief siege. There was only one condition; that the terms of their surrender be negotiated directly with ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Khalif of Islam.
‘Umar entered Jerusalem on foot. There was no bloodshed. There were no massacres. Those who wanted to leave were allowed to, with all their possessions. Those who wanted to stay were guaranteed protection for their lives, their property, and their places of worship in the ‘Umariyya Covenant.
For the first time in its long history, Jerusalem had been spared a bloodbath.
It is said that ‘Umar accompanied Sophronious to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and that he was offered a place to pray in it. ‘Umar declined, fearing it might establish a precedent which would threaten the church’s continued use as a Christian house of worship. He prayed instead to the south of the church, now the site of the Mosque of ‘Umar in Jerusalem.
‘Umar then asked to be taken to the site of Al Aqsa Mosque. Accompanied by hundreds of Muslims, to his disappointment he found the area covered in dust and debris. The Bishop took him to the site (known to the Jews as Temple Mount), which to Umar’s disappointment was being used as a garbage dump. This is because under the Christian rule at that time, Jews were not allowed to worship or even enter Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa site.
On seeing the state of the Al-Aqsa site, Umar said:
“Allah (God) is Great, I swear by the one who holds my soul in his hand that this is the Mosque of David which the prophet of Allah described to us after his night journey.”
A huge timber mosque which held three thousand worshippers was erected on this site in the time of ‘Umar, at the southernmost wall of the Noble Sanctuary.
Umar Al Khattab allowed the Jews back into Jerusalem and allowed them access to the temple mount which the Christians of that time used as a rubbish dump. The place where Jesus chased the money changers out with a stick was used as a rubbish dump. Do you see the irony ?
