Site Meter

Contact Us

For enquiries, questions, or anything else, please contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Newsletter Subscription

The double standards of Christian apologists

Share

 

When one listens to the arguments and methodology put forward by Christian apologists against Islam, one is left to amaze as the double standards in their methodology, and one will find how they’re not so willing to judge their own faith by the same standards they use against Islam.

For example on the issue of Muslims and violence, Christian apologists like to use Muslim extremists, and Muslim acts of terrorism as proof that Islam itself is a violent faith. So the reason you have these Muslim extremists, is because they’re simply following Islam, and it’s Islam that’s the root cause of their violence.

The argument is very simple, a Muslim goes and blows something up, and the Christian apologists will say “see this proves Islam is violent” and “the Muslim did this because such acts are ordained in the Quran and hadith”.

Now the problem is that they’re not willing to apply the same methodology on their own faith, for example, if a Christian goes out there and does something bad in the name of Christianity, they’re not willing to condemn their own faith as violent now. They will now conveniently say that when a Christian does something bad, it’s not because of the Bible or because of Christianity, but it’s because that Christian was simply a sinner.

This indeed is very convenient, so when a Christian in the name of Christianity does something bad, it’s because they’ve misunderstood or misinterpreted the Bible, but when a Muslim does something bad, the Christian apologists aren’t willing to grant the same standard for the Quran. No, the Muslim must have done his bad actions because he interpreted the Quran rightly, unlike the Christian who did something bad, because he interpreted the Bible incorrectly. This is the epitome of trying to have your cake and eat it.

So whenever any Christians in the past or present did heinous acts in the name of Christianity, they all just misinterpreted and went against the Bible, but whenever Muslims in the past or present did something wrong, it’s because they were being good Muslims following the Quran. In academia, such arguments and such type of methodology is flat out rejected, and this type of argumentation is considered to be very narrow-minded.

One only has to look into the past of the Church, to see the amounts of violence and oppression they carried out under the name of Christianity, such as the inquisition. All of this was done while they held the Bible in their hands, according to the Church, they were acting by God’s word and will, but Christian apologists would now have us believe that they just read the Bible wrongly. But if a Muslim holds up the Quran and says he’s acting on God’s word while he commits a wrong action, oh well he must surely be following the Quran, unlike the Christian in the very same situation.

Another major inconsistency with the Christian argument is the inconsistency, according to Christian apologists, Islam must indeed be a violent religion because of the actions of Muslim extremists, but what about the peaceful non-violent actions of the majority of Muslims? It’s a fact of life that Muslim extremists who carry out acts of violence compromise a tiny percentage of the Muslim population, while the majority of Muslims are peaceful law abiding citizens where they reside.

So if Islam is violent because of the actions of a few, then by this logic, Islam is actually a very peaceful non-violent faith because of the peaceful actions of the majority! Christian apologists though aren’t willing to accept this, highlighting their inconsistency, they literally want to judge Islam and the faith of 1.5 billion people (and growing) on the actions of a few, how very convenient.

Another major problem and inconsistency of Christian apologists is their analysis on Muslim extremism and violence is extremely is completely flawed. To put it simply, most academics, and the scholarly research itself, rejects the narrow-minded conclusion Christian apologists reach at, which is that their actions are simply based on Islam. This very simple black and white analysis by Christian apologists is rejected by academia.

If one were to actually examine the root causes of Muslim extremists who carry out violence, one would see the underlying reasons stem from political reasoning more than anything. It wasn’t that a Muslim simply read the Quran one day and said “I want to go fight infidels”, rather what happens is that the Muslim looks at the foreign policy being conducted in Muslim countries, but western governments, which cause the anger and extremism in the Muslim causing them to commit acts of violence.

For example, many Muslim extremists have cited the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as the reasons behind resorting to violence, they did this as revenge for those wars, and they didn’t simply do it because they just want to fight the infidels. Now obviously this doesn’t justify their actions, yes there is a bad foreign policy going on here, but 2 wrongs do not make a right. But nonetheless it does not change the fact that the underlying reasoning behind their violence is down to political issues, rather than then simply reading the Quran one day and deciding to go fight.

Now Christian apologists simply ignore all of this, they ignore all the reasoning and motivations by the Muslim extremists, they ignore it all and simply put it down to Islam itself, their conclusion is that “Islam is violent, and that’s why you have these violent Muslims” when that conclusion is obviously false, from the very own words of the extremists themselves! The extremists themselves have said we have done these attacks because of the wars and so on, they have clearly stated out their reasoning for what they have done, and it’s not because they just want to fight the ‘infidel’ and convert everybody to Islam.

Now moving onto the religion itself, Christian apologists argue that Islam itself is violent because of certain verses in the Quran and the hadith, so for example they will quote a verse that talks about fighting, and they will say this is one proof that Islam is violent. However when it comes to violent passages in the Bible, violent passages that talk about God ordering his people to wipe out entire cities, which includes killing women and children. When it comes to these verses, Christian apologists are no longer willing to follow their methodology; they will not condemn their own faith as being violent, even though the Bible has clear violent passages.

When it comes to violent passages in the Bible, they will try to explain them off, and give an interpretation to such verses. Yet they’re not willing to follow this criteria when it comes to Islam, when they view a passage in the Quran talking about violence, they don’t give that verse the same standard they give the Bible, they automatically say that this verse proves Islam is violent, and that’s that.

So in conclusion, the methodology of Christian apologists towards Islam and Muslims is very inconsistent, the fact is they are not willing to follow their own criteria and standard if applied to themselves. 

 

Who's Online

We have 53 guests and no members online

Visitors Counter

4674071
Today
Yesterday
All days
3274
2838
4674071

Server Time: 2017-11-18 19:11:23