Christianity was also promulgated by the sword - redhen
Why is Islam #1 growing religion?

Originally Posted by paarsurrey:
Kindly quote from Quran in support of you claim.

Originally Posted by redhen:
Deeds are a better judge of character than words. History shows the violent spread of Islam. **Christianity was also promulgated by the sword **at one time. Those who deny these historical facts are in a psychological state of denial.

Paarsurrey says:

Well that is your comment.

I think you perhaps don’t know that Quran was revealed by God Allah YHWH on the heart of Muhammad bit by bit in 23 years of his life. All instructions were revealed on him as the events were faced by him; so it is the primary source of Muhammad’s deeds and his teachings , both of them. If you say something you shall have to support for your claims from Quran; that is the only way you can make Muslims understand.

I think you understand now?


The only sword in Christianity was the sword of defending itself against Muslim or others who tried and lost to take away Christianity.
Islam is NOT the fastest growing religion, Catholicism is. That is a fact. Although Islam is not far behind, we are still the leading religion that will never die. It is what it is.
Why is Islam #1 growing religion?

Originally Posted by redhen:
Christianity was also promulgated by the sword at one time


Originally Posted by paarsurrey:
Well that is your comment.

Redhen says:

No, those are the facts, and they are indisputable.
Here’s an example from the first Holy Roman Emperor:

“At any rate, the “Saxon Capitulary” (see Capitularies) of 781 obliged all Saxons not only to accept baptism (and this on pain of death) but also to pay tithes”

Karl Der Grosse also massacred 4,500 Saxons at Verden because they were infidels.

The thing is though that this kind of religious violence belongs in the Dark Ages of history, not two days ago……iref=hpmostpop


I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna


Hmm,. looks like CNN moved that story. But I found it again here:

To be fair, Charlemagne did not kill 4,500 Saxons at Verdun simply because they were infidels (which is a misnomer at any rate). Charlemagne had spent most of his career fighting the Saxons, whom he would try to control through oaths and symbols in the typical German way. Naturally, the strongest oaths would be religious and the continual rebellion of the Saxons (including the one that led to Verdun) could not help but take on religious dimensions. Conversion was a necessary solution to a political problem.

I don’t dispute that Catholic rulers used the spread of Catholicism as a means to different ends (in the pre-modern west, communal identities had to be based on something), but the use of conquest has been overated or oversimplified in moder discourse.


I think your observation is not wrong , it has been a general phenomenon that **Christianity of Paul **spread in the world in the wake of and in close collaboration with/through conlonialism. It suited them both, the Royal politicians and the clergy.

Those who don’t agree with me may write with reasonable arguments supported with evidences.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna



It seems that you like many others of your “faith” try to denigrate Christianity and use questionable acts and “facts?” to support your arguments.

Ok, fine: But, if Islam is so peaceful and wonderful and all special, how then do you justify all the bloodshed and forced conversions, or for that matter how can you justify the fact that Iran and Iraq slogged it out in war…pounding each other daily from 1980 to 1988 and killed an estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 people, and both countries are ISLAMIC? Uhhhhhh, wheres the “religion of peace”??

Tell us, who was the good guy, and who was the bad guy in that war, and tell us…why were two Muslim countries trying to slaughter each other?


This is a political questions; and sorry, we don’t discuss politics here.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna


Your statement here seems to prove my earlier point, you have oversimplified the issue. While I don’t know what you mean by “The Christianity of Paul” (versus the Christianity of Peter?), I categorically deny that Christianity’s “association” with “colonization” (again, proving my point, conquest is not colonization and most historians would avoid using this term before the 15th century) are " a general phenomena." Frankly, Christianity spread in opposition to any government to most of the Mediterranean world for centuries before it was even politically tolerated and not really until the Carolingians could it be associated with conquest. Even then, to say that the relationship between the church and the state was wholly singular is to miss most of the medieval period from the Gregorian Reform to conciliarism and national churches.

To go back hundreds of years and go “see your faith did it too!” does little to advance the discussion in the modern world. The Catholic Church not only admits it’s past, it has also appologized and has tried to correct the wrongs that were done as much as possible. The Church today works to spead the message of Jesus. One of dignity, and right of life for all peoples, the right to live and prosper in a peacefull world. You can argue all you want about history, discuss it, but most of all learn from it. The use of the sword has only brought hundreds of years of death and hate. It cannot and should not be tolerated by any person of any faith to be used today or in the future.


Thank God for the Crusades, a word Muslims cannot stand.

Christianity was not promulgated by the sword by its Founder or His apostles.

I read recently that Islam is now larger than Catholicism, but is Islam growing faster than all of Christianity?

Is Christianity contracepting itself into oblivion?

This is absolutely incorrect. Not only are there over 1.5 BILLION CATHOLICS in the world, but 1 MILLION converts just in Africa alone every year to Catholicism. Even Muslim are converting to Catholicism. You are hearing false information.

Well, in Islam, spreading the Islamic faith by the sword is part of the Koran; part of the religion itself.

In Christianity it is generally an aberration.

As for colonization, sure Christianity followed the colonizing powers, but those colonizing powers were responsible for the sword.


I’ve observed that you seem to be a kind and gentle natured person so I want you to understand that anything I say here is in the interest of discussion and isn’t meant to offend.

I think the difference between conquest in Christianity and conquest with much of Islam is in the details. Yes Christian monarchs like Muslim monarchs have spread their domains and in turn their faith by the sword. I don’t think any Christian would deny that. So in terms of wrongs being committed by Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists no doubt there is a lot of even playing field.

In the past it conquest was more or less considered a right of the strong. This was a universal concept for most nations. Powerful Kings, emperors and warlords stabilized, and protected their realms by crushing all of those in competition with them. Also most monarchs felt it conducive for those beneath them to share in their faith.

That said, the difference between Christ and Mohammed was that Mohammed himself led conquests to spread his religion. While Christ spread a message of forgiveness. Yes forgiveness is an aspect of Islam as well. However, submission to the religion has historically always been seen as more important than a free will decision to convert. In other words, while Christians have done horrible things throughout history they did so in opposition to their founder’s teachings. While conversion by the sword in Islam is in keeping with the practices of its founder.

Which brings us to the modern day. As Christianity developed and continues to develop it moves further away from the violence of its native cultures. Buddhists are the same way. While in Muslim countries and communities this transition is difficult.

I will agree that most Muslims I know are exceptionally kind and generous people. Yet despite this good nature in the average believer they find it hard to effectively dispute the Imams and religious leaders who teach death to other people and religions. This difficulty arises because Mohammed himself practiced violence. So in order to say that the Imams are wrong, Mohammed himself must be condemned. Obviously this is a difficult decision for any Muslim to make as it would call into question the entire religion. If Mohammed was so wrong in this aspect of his life, then what else might he have been wrong about?

In turn the above leads to outrage by non-Muslims when these violent acts are committed but there is no, or very little out cry from average muslim citizens. This is further compounded by the fact that in most non-Muslim’s experience the Muslims who speak against atrocities are the nominal ones. The ones who know very little about their religion and practice it in a more or less vague way. This then leads to a view point from non-Muslims that the further a Muslim is away from his/her religion the more enlightened they are. This isn’t universal of course, but I’m speaking to what we on the outside see.

Further, often it seems that when Muslims are being abused horribly by their own people, it is non-Muslims who often seem to be the only one’s who care. Again, I realize that there are exceptions to everything I’ve said. I don’t deny that. However, I think that for progress to be made it is important that Muslims understand what the rest of the world sees.

You are welcome to provide the evidence that there are Christianity ala Jesus and Christianity ala Paul. If you don’t have any, then you are just posting rubbish.


Thanks for the kind words you have used for me.

We have to see this scenario truthfully,as only that would result in promotion of peace in the world.

In my opinion no messenger of God Allah be it Buddha ,Krishna, Moses, Socrates, Zoroaster or Jesus worked for promotion of hatred or war as they were all chosen By God Allah Ahura-Mazda Parmesher YHWH to develop peace within humans and outside them; as that could only result to maximize to the full the human faculties created in him by God Allah so that a human could become a true image of the attributes of God Allah . All humanity should become one in God Allah; this is another way of expressing the same phenomenon.

I think nobody would disagree with me on the above. Is there anybody who want an improvement on my above understanding?

Then we would proceed further for more understanding in the matter.

I love Buddah and Krishna as I do love Jesus and Mary.

Thanks and regards

Yes, I would like to add one important thing. To develop peace among human, it does not mean that all human must accept Jesus, Muhammad, Siddharta Gauthama, Khrisna, or any Prophet or Self-Claim Prophet as a precondition to be so.

Here’s a link.

Again, are we contracepting ourselves into oblivion?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit