Who is responsible for more deaths? -...

Who is responsible for more deaths? - Christians, Muslims, or Atheists?

Posted in the Islam Forum

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Boomer

Lapel, IN

#1 Nov 2, 2007
Who is responsible for more deaths?- Christians, Muslims, or Atheists?

It seems there are a lot of violent opinions expressed on the net between "Christians" and "Muslims" as to who is more violent. There is also a recurring theme that both and actually any religion is responsible for wars and deaths. Considering history, I think atheists are responsible for more deaths than any religion. Hitler was a westerner but not a Christian. His religion was of the occult if any.
Easter Bunny

Taos, NM

#3 Nov 2, 2007
Boomer wrote:
Who is responsible for more deaths?- Christians, Muslims, or Atheists?
It seems there are a lot of violent opinions expressed on the net between "Christians" and "Muslims" as to who is more violent. There is also a recurring theme that both and actually any religion is responsible for wars and deaths. Considering history, I think atheists are responsible for more deaths than any religion. Hitler was a westerner but not a Christian. His religion was of the occult if any.
Exactly my point. Lots of ruthless leaders have followed in the footsteps of "prophets" before them. They cultivated the same kinds of ardent followers, and as with the religious versions, called for the extermination or conversion of everybody who didn't meet their standards.

Marxism is just a religion too, because it's based on the groundless claims of one man.

Also, when atheists kill people, I doubt it's because the victims are not atheists, whereas both major religious traditions explicitly call for going after non-believers.

So, I'm here to agree with you about all manner of nasty things that some people have done even though they were not religious. Thing is, this doesn't establish the truth of religious belief.
eris

London, UK

#4 Nov 2, 2007
This is a competition Islam wins easy. Compare the islamic invasion of India with the British conquest. It has been estimated that during the islamic conquest 82 million hindus were massacred. There were occassions when on a killinmg spree ther would kill 100,000 in one go.

Even as recently as 1971 during the Bangladesh war muslims had enough time to stop killing each other to go on a genocide against the Hindus. Estimates vary from 1 to 3 million hindus slaughtered.

Guiness book of records for Islam.

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/i...

“American infidel”

Since: Sep 07

Windermere, FL

#5 Nov 2, 2007
Hindu Slaughter
April 27, 2007
By Ibn Iblis
----------

It is an often and conveniently ignored fact that the Persian term Hindu Kush, the mountain range that roughly forms the boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan, translates literally as 'Hindu Slaughter' or 'Hindu Killer'(the Hindu name for these mountains was 'Paariyaatra Parvat'). Many believe the name was given by Muslim conquerers of the Indian subcontinent as a warning to Hindus; still others believe it was given as a reminder of the Hindu slaves who died en route to Muslim courts in central Asia. Indeed, as historian Will Durant observed, the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history...a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within.

The Islamic empire had coveted India since the reign of the second Caliph Umar. However, unlike the decadent and aging Byzantine and Persian empires, the Muslims found in the Hindus stiff and latant in resistance, and for several decades their razzias into their territory met with disaster. Umar's expeditionary forces to Thana, Bharuch, and Debal in 636-37 C.E. were repulsed. The fourth Caliph Ali sent an expedition in 660 C.E. which also failed; the leader and most of his troops were slain in the rugged terrain of Kikanan. Ali's successor, Muawiyah, sent as many as 6 expeditions by land to Sindh, all except the last ending in great slaughter. He succeeded for a limited time in occupying Makran in 680, but for the most part it remained independant of Islamic rule. Subsequent attempts to control Hindu territory met with various success initially, but were fruitless in the long term.
http://www.geocities.com/ibniblis/hindukush.h...

snip

The slaughter he wrought at the temple of Somnath alone, at which Muslim chroniclers claim a toll of 50,000 Hindus, appoints him a place of infamy in Indian history. After his conquests of Varanasi, Ujjain, Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi, and Dwarka, not one temple was left standing. In Kangra, besides over 10,000 other temples destroyed by Mahmud:

In the middle of the city there was a temple larger and finer than the rest, which can neither be described nor painted. The Sultan [Mahmud] was of the opinion that 200 years would have been required to build it. The idols included "five of red gold, each five yards high," with eyes formed of priceless jewels. The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire, and leveled with the ground.

Hinduism's losses

There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like "punishing" the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty. The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526). The Moghuls (1526-1857), even Babar and Aurangzeb, were fairly restrained tyrants by comparison. Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million under the Sultanate, but that would be hard to substantiate; research into the magnitude of the damage Islam did to India is yet to start in right earnest.

http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/siii/ch7.h...

7561
Liberty

Surbiton, UK

#6 Nov 3, 2007
And let's not forget the genocide that is going on in Sudan now. Islam should hang its head in shame for not doing anything about it.
Boomer

Indianapolis, IN

#7 Nov 3, 2007
Easter Bunny wrote:
<quoted text>
Marxism is just a religion too, because it's based on the groundless claims of one man.
Also, when atheists kill people, I doubt it's because the victims are not atheists, whereas both major religious traditions explicitly call for going after non-believers.

So, I'm here to agree with you about all manner of nasty things that some people have done even though they were not religious. Thing is, this doesn't establish the truth of religious belief.
Marxism is not a religion. It has ardent followers as does Atheism. Communism had several atheistic mass murderers. Nasty things have been done in the name of religion but have gone against the teachings of the Jesus as given in the Bible.

Islam seems to have some built in violence if adherents want to look for it.

It seems to me that there is a large outcry on any topic from Atheists in this day. They seem so ardent and wanting to proove there is no God. Why is that? Why does an Atheist take so much time to prove something he believes does not exist? There are a lot of things I do not believe in but I do not pursue them on the internet.
Boomer

Indianapolis, IN

#8 Nov 3, 2007
KAOSKTRL wrote:
Hindu Slaughter
April 27, 2007
By Ibn Iblis
----------
Umar's expeditionary forces to Thana, Bharuch, and Debal in 636-37 C.E. were repulsed. The fourth Caliph Ali sent an expedition in 660 C.E. which also failed; the leader and most of his troops were slain in the rugged terrain of Kikanan. Ali's successor, Muawiyah, sent as many as 6 expeditions by land to Sindh, all except the last ending in great slaughter. He succeeded for a limited time in occupying Makran in 680, but for the most part it remained independant of Islamic rule. Subsequent attempts to control Hindu territory met with various success initially, but were fruitless in the long term.
http://www.geocities.com/ibniblis/hindukush.h...
snip
The slaughter he wrought at the temple of Somnath alone, at which Muslim chroniclers claim a toll of 50,000 Hindus, appoints him a place of infamy in Indian history. After his conquests of Varanasi, Ujjain, Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi, and Dwarka, not one temple was left standing. In Kangra, besides over 10,000 other temples destroyed by Mahmud:

There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like "punishing" the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty. The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526). The Moghuls (1526-1857), even Babar and Aurangzeb, were fairly restrained tyrants by comparison. Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million under the Sultanate, but that would be hard to substantiate; research into the magnitude of the damage Islam did to India is yet to start in right earnest.
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/siii/ch7.h...
7561
I know history has many examples of violence by several different religions. Let's talk about modern times. The Hindus are not with clean hands in today's world.

Consider Hindu violence on Christians. A Hindu mob poured gasoline over the car Graham Staines and two sons were in and burned them to death. Their crime was physically helping lepers in India who then converted to Christianity.(At their trial Mrs. Stains made nationwide headlines by saying, "I forgive you."
Boomer

Indianapolis, IN

#9 Nov 3, 2007
Liberty wrote:
And let's not forget the genocide that is going on in Sudan now. Islam should hang its head in shame for not doing anything about it.
And so should we.

“American infidel”

Since: Sep 07

Windermere, FL

#10 Nov 3, 2007
Liberty wrote:
And let's not forget the genocide that is going on in Sudan now. Islam should hang its head in shame for not doing anything about it.
It is jihad that is happening in Sudan thats what ISlam is doing.

9477
eris

Southampton, UK

#11 Nov 3, 2007
Boomer wrote:
<quoted text>
I know history has many examples of violence by several different religions. Let's talk about modern times. The Hindus are not with clean hands in today's world.
Consider Hindu violence on Christians. A Hindu mob poured gasoline over the car Graham Staines and two sons were in and burned them to death. Their crime was physically helping lepers in India who then converted to Christianity.(At their trial Mrs. Stains made nationwide headlines by saying, "I forgive you."
There should be a differentiation between individual acts of violence and institutionalised acts of violence. Hinduism like Buddhism & Christianity is based on a philosophy of love or enlightenment. There may be sections of Hinduism who behave criminally but that is not part of the teaching.
That is different with a philosophy that extols violence and has at its fountainhead a man who murdered, raped, plundered and tortured people. The jihad going on in Sudan is not some renegade organisation. That is islam. The genocide that took place in bangladesh in 1971 was carried out by the muslim govt. We are talking of institutionalised violence that is approved of by the doctrines of the state and is founded on the teachings of a mass murderer and assasin.
eris

Southampton, UK

#12 Nov 3, 2007
Boomer wrote:
<quoted text>
And so should we.
When Hitler came to power it was christian countries that fought against that abomination. It is the moral obligation of muslim countries to do the same. If they do not have the military might. They should be banging on the UN door demanding action. I hear a deafening silence.
If western countries went into Sudan there would be an outcry from the liberal PC people that we were interfering in another country.
33 export

France

#13 Nov 3, 2007
well said eris
zap

Manchester, MI

#14 Nov 3, 2007
Hitler was not a Religion he was nutz
eris

Southampton, UK

#15 Nov 3, 2007
zap wrote:
Hitler was not a Religion he was nutz
Muhammad was not a Religion he was nutz.

“American infidel”

Since: Sep 07

Windermere, FL

#16 Nov 3, 2007
eris wrote:
<quoted text>
When Hitler came to power it was christian countries that fought against that abomination. It is the moral obligation of muslim countries to do the same. If they do not have the military might. They should be banging on the UN door demanding action. I hear a deafening silence.
If western countries went into Sudan there would be an outcry from the liberal PC people that we were interfering in another country.
The ones who fight in allahs cause and kill have the moral high ground in Islam the "not fighting cheerleaders get to silently cheer yet benefit from the tolerance of Islam .
The real scriptural muslims have a plan for making them shake off their lethargy and joining jihad

http://infidelnation.org/DOWNLOADS/Management...

6324
Boomer

Ingalls, IN

#17 Nov 4, 2007
eris wrote:
<quoted text>
There should be a differentiation between individual acts of violence and institutionalised acts of violence. Hinduism like Buddhism & Christianity is based on a philosophy of love or enlightenment. There may be sections of Hinduism who behave criminally but that is not part of the teaching.
That is different with a philosophy that extols violence and has at its fountainhead a man who murdered, raped, plundered and tortured people. The jihad going on in Sudan is not some renegade organisation. That is islam. The genocide that took place in bangladesh in 1971 was carried out by the muslim govt. We are talking of institutionalised violence that is approved of by the doctrines of the state and is founded on the teachings of a mass murderer and assasin.
The comments throughout the nation after the trial were about the forgiveness given by the wife and mother. That forgiveness seemed alien to the culture cultivated by Hindus.
Certainly there have been many institutionalized cases of violence by atheists such as Pol Pac (spelling?) in Cambodia. I am troubled about your seperation of the actions from the teaching. Would you separate the actions of the Inquisition from the teachings of Christianity?- I would.
eris

Brighton, UK

#18 Nov 5, 2007
Boomer wrote:
<quoted text>
The comments throughout the nation after the trial were about the forgiveness given by the wife and mother. That forgiveness seemed alien to the culture cultivated by Hindus.
Certainly there have been many institutionalized cases of violence by atheists such as Pol Pac (spelling?) in Cambodia. I am troubled about your seperation of the actions from the teaching. Would you separate the actions of the Inquisition from the teachings of Christianity?- I would.
The inquisition is contadictory to the teachings of Jesus. The actions of Al-Qaeda are not contradictory to the teachings and life of Muhammad.
Muhammad killed, raped, robbed & enslaved people. Islamic terrorists are muslims.
Jesus did not kill, did not rape and did not enslave anyone.
The inquistion was not christian.
Boomer

Lapel, IN

#19 Nov 6, 2007
eris wrote:
<quoted text>
The inquisition is contadictory to the teachings of Jesus. The actions of Al-Qaeda are not contradictory to the teachings and life of Muhammad.
Muhammad killed, raped, robbed & enslaved people. Islamic terrorists are muslims.
Jesus did not kill, did not rape and did not enslave anyone.
The inquistion was not christian.
I agree.
Tom

UK

#20 Nov 25, 2007
I had written a longer comment, but the page expired. Here's the abridged version:

Atheists do not commit 'evil' in the name of atheism, for atheism is merely the absence of belief.

The religious do, and have, committed heinous deeds, inluding murder, genital mutilation and rape, in the NAME OF RELIGION.

So your question is misleading and is consequently confusing many of the contributors to this discussion.

Atheism is not a religion.

I hope you enlighted folk can grasp this. I don't expect the ignorant mind of the religious believer to understand.

Become atheist. Religious people, on average, have lower IQs than non-believers.

Please comment.
zap

Manchester, MI

#21 Nov 25, 2007
Tom if what you say is true how can you expect an answer?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Islam Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Fascism & Racism rising in America & England 1 min Thinking 41
News Fireman Sam's shocking scene 4 min naman 4
Will islam be finished in 10 years? 7 min george whyte 287
Do and Don't do rules for Muslim women (Nov '09) 7 min Thinking 444
News Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 12 min Thinking 253,545
84 year old priest beheaded in France 17 min george whyte 32
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 37 min naman 1,138
News Islam Will Conquer Italy and the Entire West (Sep '10) 1 hr Causeless Rebellion 490,412
More from around the web