Religious Conflict Quotes

This famous quotation has been attributed to Voltaire, 1694-1778, and French Philosopher, Denis Diderot, 1713-1784. Most quotation collections erroneously attribute it to Diderot in the version “Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” Both Voltaire and Diderot used the quotation as did many others opposed to monarchy and the then repressive church hierarchies. But the origin of the famous phrase was with Meslier. When the priest died, three handwritten manuscripts were found written and signed by him in which he attacked religion in general and the church and the Bible in particular. His Testament was read by Voltaire and Denis Diderot among others and he was very influential in their development as opponents of organized religion.

It is this verse that for some Muslims justifies terrorism against non-Muslims. See {584354} for a specific example. There are similar provisions in the Old Testament which a few extremely conservative Jews and Christians have used to advocate for blasphemy being a capital crime. Note that if an unbeliever repents and becomes a Muslim, he should be spared.

In the early stages of Islam, Muhammad had hoped to convert the Jews and others on the Arabian Peninsula. When they refused to be converted, he warred against them usually killing the men, and taking the women and children as slaves. The result was that non-believing tribes were “cleansed” from the Arabian Peninsula. The Muslims at the time preferred children as slaves. For then they could convert the children against their will. Adults in Islam must accept Islam in order to convert. Children are regarded as having no such maturity of decision making and therefore opposition to conversion may be ignored and they may be forced. Critics of Islam and those who argue that Islam is at odds with all other religions point to this quotation. They claim that it is the only religion whose founder and fundamental scriptures demand war against others for no other reason than that they believe in a different religion. The Catholic Church during the Crusades and the Inquisition had a similar philosophy as did Christian missionaries colonizing Africa later. One difference is that most Christians today repudiate the doctrine as against the true spirit and teachings of Christ and view it as historical error, while very few modern Muslims repudiate this quotation of the Prophet.

Later, as President in 1811, Madison vetoed a bill granting Federal land to build a Baptist church in the Mississippi territory.

This sura is one of the quotations that causes major anxiety on the part of the Israelis. If the Arabs ever win a major battle and invade Israel, they are instructed to kill the Israelis who in the view of the Arabs “turned them out” of Palestine. Not doing so would produce “tumult and oppression” which, in contrast to most religions, are considered to be worse calamities than slaughter of human beings. A little later in the sura, the Prophet tells the faithful that the infidels need not be killed if they cease to oppose Islam.

For the majority of the time of Christian History, it has been Catholic Christian History. Protestantism did not begin until the 16th Century.

This verse is one of those most often cited by Muslim militants justifying terrorism and war against non-Muslims. However, other more modern Muslim theologians cite the unique historical circumstances when the Muslims in Arabia were opposed by all else there. They also cite the end of the verse which tends to be ignored by the militants: “But know that God is with those who restrain themselves.”

The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has inhibited the use of atomic weapons since WWII. If one nuclear nation attacked another, the attacked nation would still have time to retaliate and both countries would be destroyed. However, Iran by their own statements and past history might not be inhibited by large losses and death in retaliation. Iran, a theocracy, has a religion that believes that any Muslim who is killed in defense of Islam will immediately go to heaven. They have sacrificed hundreds of thousands of their citizens in their war with Iraq. Iran is a much larger country than Israel where a single nuclear bomb would destroy the whole nation. One retaliatory bomb would do terrible damage to Iran but much more of the country and its people would survive. The Iran fanatics might make such a tradeoff as a religious obligation. This is why, most of the world is doing much to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon at all. Rafsanjani’s logic however assumes that if Iran fired one bomb, Israel would retaliate with one bomb. However, Israel has the capability of carpeting all of Iran with a nuclear muti-warhead retaliation so Iran would also be completely destroyed. However Israeli policy has been to never discuss anything about nuclear weapons and their policies. Some ultra-fanatical Muslims have argued that even of all of Iran and its people were destroyed, this would be a worthwhile “martyrdom” so that the remainder of the Muslim world would be free of Israel. This is illustrative of how difficult it is negotiating with religious fundamentalists who control a nation.

This particular quotation is very important. Khomeini was probably the most influential Muslim in the 20th Century. The fact that he wrote this in 1942—before there was an Israel as an enemy—shows how deep seated the requirement for world conquest is. To the Nazi’s world conquest was a justifiable goal. To Khomeini and his many followers, it is a religious obligation and duty and thus is every more dangerous. Extreme anti Muslims justify the attempted expulsion of Muslim immigrants on the grounds that they are a fifth column whose loyalty is and will be to the religion which will attempt to conquer their country. It gives Islamaphobia a veneer of respectability.

Churchill was reported to be so angry and exasperated that his face turned red and he was sputtering. During World War II, Gandhi, Nehru and other Indian Nationalists were leading protests against British control of India. This not only bogged down British soldiers surprising the nationalists rather than fighting in Burma or in other war theaters, but India supplied a huge number of battalions to the British Army the world over and if that manpower dried up, the allied war effort would suffer. The American State Department wanted Churchill to announce that after Japan was defeated, there would be a process toward self-government. This way, they thought, the Indians would redouble their effort to defeat the Japanese and stop the then current protests and strikes. Churchill was strongly opposed to any diminution of the British Empire, but beyond that, he knew India quite well and realized that at any hint of Independence the large Muslim minority in India would insist on autonomy or a partition of the country and use sectarian violence and terror to intimidate the Indian Congress party and the British, but the major victims of the terror—the Hindus and the Sikhs would not remain passive, but would retaliate in kind. President Roosevelt was in the midst of planning the Normandy Landings of the D-Day invasion and did not want to pressure Churchill and the British at this point in time, so the door to independence was not opened during the war and Britain had to deal with the protests throughout. However, when, after the war, the Labor Government, started a process toward Indian independence which resulted in exactly what Churchill predicted. At least 2 million Indians were slaughtered in the internecine terrorist cycles of fear and retaliation motivated terror attacks what were so extensive that the British military could not really control it.

See {582893} for Saladin's Reply. King Richard was the leader of all the Christian forces in the Holy Land for the Crusade. There was a belief, that a wooden cross in the possession of the Muslim force was the true cross of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ