Which is more anti-Semitic, Christianity or Islam?

chillax dude im not even a christian im a muslim

>forgetting that the old covenant applies only to Jews
Ever wonder why Christians outside the US don't circumcise their kids?

>I was just pretending to be retarded
You are still wrong, unless you are with ISIS. I just haven't made a Muslim version yet.

Christianity.

Muslims only recently began to hate Jews because of the question of Israel and Palestine.

>this revisionism
One of the first struggles early Muslims faced was against a tribe of Jews, they've always been distrustful

>Old Testiment = Old covenant
>not realising Old testiment is the Christian Old Convenant which are essentially the same things
>He literally does not understand religious History
Okay.

>le ISIS are right maymay

>1. “Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person.” (Sunan Abu Dawud)
>2. “Do not practice treachery or mutilation.(Al-Muwatta)
>3. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees.(Al-Muwatta)
>4. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food.” (Al-Muwatta)
>5. “If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam.” (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)
>6. “Do not kill the monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)
>7. “Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.” (Sahih Bukhari; Sunan Abu Dawud)
>8. “Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience.” (Sahih Muslim)
>9. “No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire.” (Sunan Abu Dawud).
>10. “Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and to not do wrong even if they commit evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)

Does ISIS follow this shit?

>he missed the part where the followers of Christ through him made a new covenant with God
OK.
The new testament is the true christian holy book, the old one is just background

this thread went to shit pretty fast.

>implying there is any context
As I said, I dunno yet. ISIS is definitley following the more literal versions of their faiths though.

Are heretics and heathens able to be considered human in Islam? Are they enemies worthy of this treatment? I guess if you can answer those questions for me I can give you my thoughts.

But I am almost certain they will simply justify themselves with "those who do not follow allah are not humans or less than us" yadda yadda yadda.

>the old one is just background

Kek.

>Christianity has simply had all the offensive material ommited and people 'never really did that stuff'.

You idiots are so predictable, truly sheep.

>Are heretics and heathens
yes

killing is one of the "greatest" sins of islam (next to usury,thievery, etc etc)

quran itself says let there be no compulsion in religion (AKA do not force convert other people)

>Abu Bakr literally has a PhD in Islamic theology
>ISIS staffed with imams
>some random poster on a haram board knows better than them

Right, so all of those Pagans, Christians and Zoroastrians converted on their own volition and wouldn't have fought until the bitter end, right?

>quran itself says let there be no compulsion in religion

>"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (2:190-193).

>"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

I mean the wordings are different. Violence is still there and Islam really is not my strong suit.

nice cherrypicking abdul utter sophistry

>obviously and flamboyantly going against the word of god
>hurr this guy has a PHD

saying baghdadi is right about islam, is like saying the child-molesting priests are right about christianity

i mean, you can't know better than catholic priests, amirite? :^)

and read my other post

>>"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (2:190-193).
>>"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

boy you sure as hell grabbed this from google in 2 second, right?

dont reply to me unless you read the whole sura

it's a story not a commandment

Here's a better analogy for you: Saying ISIS is wrong about Islam is like saying Protestants are wrong about Christianity.

k.

>he fell for the Islam is nonviolent meme

Ka ka

The book prioritizes killing infidels retard.

>source: my ass

Hello, scholar of Islam.

Since you seem to be such an expert on the topic of Islam, I have some questions:

1. What are the five pillars?

2. What is 'Ijtihad'?

3. What are key fundamentals of Sufism?

>it's a story not a commandment
>I am still wrong don't reply though because I don't want to be wrong
>I-I-It's not acutally part of the faith!
>insight cannot be gained through idealogical stories
Are you actually retarded? They are not JUST stories....... What the fuck? Everything in these books relate to the faith and following. If it IS a story it still hold relevence.

Especially fucking this part

>>"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Ignorance surely is bliss.

>Shutting down ignorance with literal google searches
That's how easy it is.

no need for that since he's obviously going to start googling and copypasting like crazy

Ask ISIS, they'll tell you. In perfect detail.

>

Here's a better question, answer for me the principal differences between Pentecostalism and Evangelical Christianity in regards to how they consider the role of the Church in worship? Now contrast between the interpretation of the importance of conversion between Evangelical Christianity and, say, the Lutheran branch or maybe even Roman Catholics.

The notion that ISIS is not Islamic even though they worship Allah and seek to fulfill His will is no different than claiming that Lutherans or Pentecostals are not Christian even though they believe in God.

This is not about whether they do or don't adhere to the tenets of Sunni Islam, it's about the fact that you are establishing a double standard for Christians and Muslims. A christian can disobey the tenets of the Bible and still be considered Christian, no one questions that even when they do bad things. When a Muslim bombs an airport though, suddenly everyone is pointing out all the areas where he did un-Qur'anic things and saying that makes him "not a muslim".

All you need to know to prove someone follows a religion is the answer to the following question:
-Do they believe in [relevant deity]

Everything beyond that is unimportant.

ISIS follows what they believe to be the will of Allah. They are Islamic even if they don't follow the Qur'an. All else is unimportant.

>trying to deflect the questions

Considering ISIS doesn't even know which direction the Kaaba is, I think I'll pass.

Christianism de jure, Islam de facto

>deny the islamic state is islamic
>a dude in a random pic proves everything about the whole sect
Why do you expect an actual reply to this?

>ISIS are islamic

>ISIS: the same people who wanted to destroy the kaaba, Destrory the prophet's tomb, and destroy half of the mosques they see; are islam
ic

>moving the goalposts

You talk of double standards. If a Christian acts against the tenets of Christianity, he/she is told that his/her action(s) is un-Christian. The same is done by Muslims to Wahhabis.

I'm willing to wager you condemn Muslims for the actions of ISIS, yet refuse to condemn Buddhism for the actions of Ashin Wirathu or Christianity for Cardinal Richelieu. So please, don't try to tell me about "double standards".

Now, since you know so much about Islam, answer my questions:

1. What are the five pillars?

2. What is 'Ijtihad'?

3. What are key fundamentals of Sufism?

lmao thanks for crossposting this from facebook

Yes, the same people who mainly target muslims are Islamic. The same people who destroy Islamic holy places are Islamic. The same people who utilize prostitution via "sexual jihad" are Islamic. The same people who carried out attacks in the holy city of Medina are Islamic.

As for the "random picture", Muslims are supposed to pray facing in the direction of the Kaaba. ISIS fighters have been shown multiple times failing to do this.

>1. What are the five pillars?
>2. What is 'Ijtihad'?
>3. What are key fundamentals of Sufism?

I am not him but you can literally google that and gain enough understanding of their basic functions and how they work inside of Islam.

>Ijtihad
Is interpretation of Sharia law usually done by someone capable of doing so.

>What are key fundamentals of Sufism?
Essentially theur worship through someone who has their lineage of worship traced back to the prophet.

>What are the five pillars?
The core of their practical faith

I mean it's worded like shit, but you really need to make a proper argument.
>inb4 line by line dissection of semantics and how I am wrong
Don't bother.

what
i found this on /pol/ months ago

>Islam 101 that anyone with a google search and five seconds could answer easily

Why even bother? It's 2016. What answer, exactly, are you hoping to get?

You're not asking for anything relevant, yet you accuse ME of moving the goalposts? My knowledge or lack there-of of Islam has nothing to do with the fact that you are blatantly ignoring the point.

FIRSTLY: Wahhabism is a SECT of Islam, they are not separate.

SECONDLY: Don't fucking assume you know what I think or feel about any religious organization, figure, or group as a whole, because you fucking don't and it makes you look like an idiot.

THIRDLY: Un-Christian or Un-Islamic is not the same thing as not being a Christian. ISIS is composed of Muslims. They believe in and worship Allah, regardless of what you "think" about them. This is an established fact. ISIS members worship Allah, and they are Muslims.

FOURTHLY: Applying No True Scotsmans by saying "These people who don't agree with X are therefore not members of group A" is a belief rooted in stereotyping and prejudice. You believe that a group is homogenous. Muslims are good and if people are bad then they can't be Muslims because Muslims are good. ISIS is composed of Muslims, your circular logic does not change this fact. Do they deserve condemnation (WHICH THEY HAVE VERY MUCH FUCKING RECEIVED ALREADY) for their actions? Yes. Are Muslims all good? No. Are Muslims all bad? No. There are good and bad Muslims just like there are good and bad Christians, but proclaiming that "I don't like these people therefore they're not part of this demographic group I believe needs protection" makes you look like a prejudiced moron who's in denial of reality.

>same people who wanted to destroy the kaaba, Destrory the prophet's tomb, and destroy half of the mosques they see
Are you retarded? Or just a flatout liar?
They bombed the security forces around the mosque, to free it, and kill others only and exclusively on quranic justification. Everything they do is always supported by passages of the text. They are motivated by islam and islam only. What interpretation or version of islam that is, or if its "true islam" that is just the interpretation you like best, who cares? Its islamic because its based on their best (and plausible) understanding of the "perfect text".
Their fuckin head honcho has a doctorate for Islamic studies from the Baghdad University.
And you think he what? Doesn't know the text?
Next up: Pope and catholics and crusades actually buddhists.

Please try the "but you can't name the details of MY favourite interpretation of the text, so their interpretation therefore is clearly not valid!" argument again.

>IT'S NOT VIOLENT!
>IT'S SIMPLY ADVOCATING VIOLENT SELF DEFENCE
>IT'S A RELIGION OF PEACE!

Get outta here, Jamal. You are literally, also missing all the parts where it's saying you have to subdue them if they don't convert, you have to kill them if they don't convert.

It's all good though if you do convert.

>it's just those lines can be interpretated in such a way
>impying this isn't the literal problem with religions and translations

Fucking newb breh, can't even simple logic. I literally provided you full quotes, not snippets. I am not some idiot, like yourself.

Has anyone considered maybe they don't know how to find South?

they LITERALLY said that the kaaba is a form of polytheism and must be destroyed

how fucking dense are you?

>Is interpretation of Sharia law usually done by someone capable of doing so.
Ehh more or less right.

>Essentially theur worship through someone who has their lineage of worship traced back to the prophet.
Nah.

>The core of their practical faith
List them.

There are people who will read the definition and history of Taqiyya and still fall for the meme definition.

>IT'S SIMPLY ADVOCATING VIOLENT SELF DEFENCE
Yes it does, Get fucked you hippie pinko

if someone threatens my life or my loved ones' i'd gladly kill him

>the kaaba is a form of polytheism and must be destroyed

Are you implying it isn't?

Throughout the greater part of history, Christianity. They spent nearly two thousand years now blaming Jews for killing Jesus.

I mean, if you know the history of Islam a valid argument in that regard could easily be made. Doesn't the actual rock itself even pre-date Muhammad?

>the same people who mainly target muslims are Islamic
Yes. Muslims in some sects, "worst animals" and apostates in others. Islam is the worst thing to happen to its followers.
>The same people who destroy Islamic holy places are Islamic
Yes. Holy to some sects, blasphemous to others.
>The same people who utilize prostitution via "sexual jihad" are Islamic
Yes. Because they have precedents in the texts. Because the texts are written in a way to easily allow interpretations like this.
>The same people who carried out attacks in the holy city of Medina are Islamic
Yes. To them, its occupied and they are trying to cleanse it.

>they pray in the wrong direction, there for they can't be praying to allah
Who they pray to in that direction? Lenin? Do they choose the wrong direction on purpouse to defy allah and the faith?

Using bad arguments like this is the worst selfsabotage of your asinine ideas you could do. Maybe thats why you do it, who knows.

The problem with declaring "true" followers of anything is that people cherrypick and interpret things constantly. You can pick parts of the bible and declare almost every jew/christain not real jews/christians.

Any descent would just create more and more non-believers until you're left with no one, but pertty much tiny minority of people who think exactly like you.

Identifying religions is best done by identities, not dogma.

>if someone threatens my life or my loved ones' i'd gladly kill him
"Religion of Peace".

As I said and others have said all this is literally googleable, I am not even the user you were arguing with just proving the way you have formed your argument is weak and doesn't hold.

>Nah.
Not at all?
>congregations formed around a grand master referred to as a mawla who traces a direct chain of teachers back to the Islamic prophet, Muhammad.

>List them
Seriously?

What the fuck are you trying to prove.

we don't worship kaaba, it's just simply holy.

say, christians don't worship Church of the Holy Sepulchre, But sure as hell they will be mad if it gets destoryed, right?

Exactly, this is what I was saying.

Religious divisions are huge, and every sect has different interpretations. You can't declare following dogma is the guide when literally one of the largest periods of political instability in the world (The Reformation) was due to a sectarian split which still remains today.

>>if someone threatens my life or my loved ones' i'd gladly kill him
>>"Religion of Peace".

no that's called basic human instinct you dense faggotnigger, that's why americans own guns.

hippie.

>no that's called basic human instinct you dense faggotnigger
mm and funnily enough, some religions teach you how to trenscend this basic instint.

Note. It's not one of the big 3.

Ignorant fatty.

Before Muhammad appeared, the Kaaba was surrounded by 360 idols, and every Arab house had its god. Arabs also believed in jinn (subtle beings), and some vague divinity with many offspring. Among the major deities of the pre-Islamic era were al-Lat ("the Goddess"), worshiped in the shape of a square stone; al-Uzzah ("the Mighty"), a goddess identified with the morning star and worshiped as a thigh-bone- shaped slab of granite between al-Taid and Mecca; Manat, the goddess of destiny, worshiped as a black stone on the road between Mecca and Medina; and the moon god, Hubal, whose worship was connected with the Black Stone of Kaaba.

I thought that the point of the post is that ISIS isn't Islam, because it doesn't follow the dogma listed. I guess I must've misunderstood it.

>you are blatantly ignoring the point.
You are blatantly ignoring my questions.

1. One of Wahhab and Saud's first acts together was sending forces to pillage Shia holy sites and killing the neighboring Shias. Acts like this, along with the very nature of Wahhabism, have led many Muslims to reject the idea of Wahhabism entirely. Furthermore, fatwas against radical Islam (one of which was signed by 70,000 clerics) more or less targeted ISIS

2. k

3. Muslims calling ISIS fighters is an escalated declaration of un-Islamic actions. ISIS fighters plunge themselves so deeply into the ideology of Wahhabism, which permits acts like killing other muslims, that many Muslims question their beliefs. Furthermore, the aforementioned fatwa(s) can make the statement "ISIS is un-Islamic" hold some weight.

4. I don't believe muslims are good or bad. I believe Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is bad, but I believe Gamal Abdel Nasser is good. It is foolish to collectively judge any religion.

christianity is more anti semetic when christians were still 'christian' and not the limp wristed shit they are now

muslims/islam was/is more tolerant to jews, though still from a 21st century standpoint intolerant

as of current, islam/muslims are more antisemetic only because they tend to follow their religion, whereas christians are pussies that don't follow their religion properly at all

>oh no pls dont defend yourself, let thieves rob you, murderers kill you,

like i said, hippie

Just answer this fucking question, okay?

Are Protestants Christians?

Insults do not prove you correct
>hippie is the best insult you have
Okay.

im not insulting you.

you say people shouldn't defend themselves, which is wrong

Nope. I am saying a religion which advocates any form of violence is not a religion of peace.

You can project all you want.

>Muslims in some sects,
Fatwas challenge the authenticity of these sects.

>Yes. Holy to some sects, blasphemous to others.
The "others" who believe this are most likely Wahhabis, and they're faith is often called into question. Also, again, fatwas against radical Islam often target Wahhabism.

>Because the texts are written in a way to easily allow interpretations like this.
"The devil can cite scripture for his own purpose" is an occurrence for all holy texts.

>Who they pray to in that direction? Lenin? Do they choose the wrong direction on purpouse to defy allah and the faith?
According to Muslims, the Qibla (direction faced when praying) signifies Muslim unity.

>Using bad arguments like this is the worst selfsabotage of your asinine ideas you could do. Maybe thats why you do it, who knows.
So I bring up something you don't know about, and that means I have bad arguments? You're the one speaking about shit you have little knowledge of.

hold up

who said islam is a religion of peace? not me

there is no "religion of peace"

islam allows self defense, so does christianity, so does judaism

hell even buddhism allows self defense, there is no religion of peace

Jainism

>be jain
>someone invades my house to steal my shit
>grab rifle an kill him
>oh no wait that would be violent
>call cops to shoot him
>oh no wait that would be violent
>end up dead
el oh el

Exactly.

There it is.

>I was just being retarded on purpose.

Funny how I said it's not one of the big three, then you go ahead and list off said big three. ANd it's funny, you used strict terminiology "killing", which is not the case anymore. Buddisim is directly against killing of any kind, even in self-defence.

>hell even buddhism allows self defense,
Is actually wrong, at least there is no clear meaning. To say with certainity like you have just proves your ignorance.

>who said islam is a religion of peace?
Me, literally the first thing I said in reply to you which you replied back to. Your argument has now fallen apart and you are actually feigning ignorance. Hilarious.

hold up
no i was not being retarded on purpose because i never claimed that islam is a religion of peace. dont grasp to straws

>Is actually wrong
myanmar

>>who said islam is a religion of peace?
>>Me
yeah, and that's wrong

Well I was never the guy who you posed the question to, but sure I'll answer:

Christian definition: "A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ."

Protestantism: "Protestantism is a form of Christian faith and practice which originated with the Protestant Reformation,[a] a movement against what its followers considered to be errors in the Roman Catholic Church."

So yes, Protestants are Christians, as their ideology claims to adhere to the teachings of Jesus.

Before you say "hahaha I was right! you have a double standard!", let me remind you that Islam and Christianity are two separate religions with different systems.

Let me also remind you that Wahhabism, the ideology of ISIS, has been refuted and rejected by Muslims ever since its founding. Furthermore, fatwas against radical Islam are essentially targeting Wahhabism. I also suggest you read the following links carefully and fully:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism#Criticism_and_controversy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa_on_Terrorism
independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/70000-indian-muslim-clerics-issue-fatwa-against-isis-the-taliban-al-qaida-and-other-terror-groups-a6768191.html
ctvnews.ca/canada/canadian-imams-issue-fatwa-on-isis-supporters-calling-them-non-muslim-1.2275582

Which a history of having it's Islamic authenticity taken into question, I'd be willing to say that the statement "Wahhabism is un-Islamic" is a valid statement.

>yeah, and that's wrong
Why did you even reply, you fucking idiot. That's the whole point. I mean go straight back here It's not my term, literally google 'Religion of Peace'. I mean your ignorance is astounding. DId you actually think I, literally me am calling it a religion of peace?

>myanmar
Wait, you think people speak for a religion? When they bastardize it's teachings it becomes that which it is not?

Holy shit, you're an idiot. All Christians wear white hoods burn crosses and lynch niggers cause the KKK do it. All Christians go to Africa abduct Children in the name of the Lord and attempt to over throw the current political reigeme cause, Kony is doing it.

Good thing not just any fucktard can issue fahtwas.. oh wait..
>is an occurrence for all holy texts
No its not, maybe in abrahamic ones. And "but others are also retarded" is a solid argument for.. you still being retarded.
>According to Muslims,
I asked you who they were praying to dipshit, not what the direction is called.
> that means I have bad arguments
No, the arguments being bad means they're bad. You googling some arabic words means jackshit.
And please go full alsan on me and yell about how you know so much more and how you have "expertise". All knowledgeable people do that, really.

The fact that Wahhabism has been refuted and rejected by non-Wahhabist Muslims means nothing. Protestant Christianity was also rejected by non-protestant Christians. Your argument basically amounts to "I do not know what the Reformation is and don't recognize why this is similar."

>Wait, you think people speak for a religion When they bastardize it's teachings it becomes that which it is not?
so many people can't be wrong, if they go to a formal war, then their religion must allow it.

and why do you think lethal self defense is unacceptable?

>and why do you think lethal self defense is unacceptable?
Kek. Literally no where have I even implied this, please by all means continue prejecting.

As I said before, a religion which advocated any form of violence does not equate to being a religion of peace. You are missing the point where Islam commands you to literally KILL whereas buddists ALLOW SELF DEFENCE but not killing.

>then their religion must allow it.
Please point me to these sutras.

>so many people can't be wrong,
Wew lad. You cannot be more wrong.
>mob rule when it comes to knowledge
Really now?

I fucking ball punching contest that is modern religious people trying to prove they're sect is the most liberal of them all

like this shit

bustedhalo.com/questionbox/what-does-st-paul-say-about-homosexuality

trying to pass off the most obvious statements through mental gymnastics
>u-um Paul didn't mean gays are bad, no, he LOVED sodomy, he just didn't like pederasty, that's totally what the verse means

read >>if someone threatens my life or my loved ones' i'd gladly kill him
>>"Religion of Peace".
this is what you said, right?

>Please point me to these sutras.
>inb4 reddit
reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1d4lj1/what_does_buddhism_say_about_self_defense/

>I fucking hate the ball punching contest
oops

>Good thing not just any fucktard can issue fahtwas
Only a qualified jurist and/or a mufti can issue a fatwa. Either way, one would still have to acquire a ijazat attadris wa'l-ifta from an Islamic law school (actual school, not a school of thought). Furthermore, fatwas from actual clerics/schools are debated prior to being issued.

>"but others are also retarded" is a solid argument for.. you still being retarded.
My claim is that these "others" shouldn't even be grouped with other sects.

>I asked you who they were praying to
Allah, God, Yahweh, Dios, take your pick.

>some arabic words
If you knew shit about Islam, you'd realize that these aren't just "some arabic words".

You can't describe Christianity without using some Latin and Greek, just as you can't describe Buddhism or Hinduism without using some Sanskrit. Same goes with Islam and Arabic.

Catholics might criticize Protestants every now and then and make the old "we wuz the first true church and sheet" argument, but Catholics still recognize Protestants as Christians. The Reformation has already passed.

Meanwhile, Wahhabism is still being refuted and rejected, with many declaring it to be anti-Islamic.

>reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1d4lj1/what_does_buddhism_say_about_self_defense/
You understand thats literally what I used to refute what you are saying.

There is nothing wrong with defending yourself.
There is something wrong with killing someone/something in self defense.

The Buddhist precepts for lay-people like us are:

"Do not kill." (Unintentional killing is considered less offensive)
"Do not steal." (Including misappropriating someone's property)
"Do not engage in improper sexual conduct." (e.g. sexual contact not sanctioned by secular laws, the Buddhist monastic code, or by one's parents and guardians)
"Do not make false statements." (Also includes pretending to know something one doesn't)
"Do not get intoxicated (or eat/drink intoxicants)."

If someone trying to steal from you, that's precept #2 in violation. If you kill in self defense, that violates #1. Rape clearly falls in #3.

Someone who ordains is expected to become strictly non-violent (even to insects, where possible).

>still didn't give sutras.

>this is what you said, right?
Again, cure your ignorance and google Religion of Peace. Here I will take out a step for you - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_of_Peace.

Literally just stop.

You have back flipped so fucking hard.

Protestants ARE wrong about Christiantiy

I dont think theyre praying, pray should be on a clean surface, not in dirt

>congregations formed around a grand master referred to as a mawla who traces a direct chain of teachers back to the Islamic prophet, Muhammad.
There's a lot more to Sufism than that.

That's why I prefeced that line with essentially.

t. Roman

Christianity by far.

Under the Ottoman Millet system Jews were basically left to their own, subject to the jizya like all other non-Muslim minority groups (while Muslims paid Zakat).

Many of the greatest Jewish thinkers flourished in the midst of Islamic societies. Maimonides wrote from Muslim Spain, Egypt and Morocco. Nachmanides wrote from Muslim Spain.

European Jews were subject to pogroms, expulsions and all form of legal harassment throughout the Middle Ages and into the 20th century.

Jews and Muslims basically had few problems until the Israel Palestine conflict emerged. The idea that this conflict stems from a centuries long religious conflict is absolutely untrue. It is a contemporary political conflict over territory, and in order to obfuscate this reality, certain people continue to suggest it is an unsolvable religious conflict.