Read all the texts of the jew, muslim, christians or another big religion and you will find violent parts.

Where's the conspiracy?

Interesting. Never looked at it that way. Cheers!

No religion is peaceful. Even the Buddhists are fighting now.

it's every bit as peaceful as Christianity was 1400 years after its founding.

they'll grow out of it.

Of course not. Any religion spread by the sword would take a significant amount of time to come down from that pedestal of violence. Look at Christianity. We are only a few hundred years from witch burning and the inquisition. Started even later. Will take another couple hundred to work it out of their system.

Islam was spread by force. Largely by conquering and forced conversion. Christianity was similar. After Constantine adopted christianity, it wasn't too awfully long before it was compulsory. It took less than 60 from the time of Constantine's baptism near his death, to Theodosius mandating christianity, banning peganism, destroying all pegan temples, killing the priests of pagan cults, and made not upholding the bans on paganism punishable by death.

Fast forward to the 7th century, Islam had learned from Christianity's success as a state religion. Islam was both a religion and a military state until itself, initiating and supporting the Muslim Conquests that eventually claimed much of Byzantium, Sassanid Empire, and the entire Arabian peninsula and surrounding area's.

Its is the way of the great mono-theological religions.

Muslims can say what they want. Jews claim a historic Israel with almost nothing archeological to back it up.

Look up the Umayyad Caliphate. There are historical documented battles that took place during this expansion. The conquest of Hispania in 711, the destruction of the Visogoths in the 8th century, and the invasion of Gaul that was temporarily halted at the Battle of Toulouse in 721 but ultimately succeed in 759.

Or what about the Arab Byzantine Wars that went on for over 100 years with the ultimate taking of land and forced conversion of its inhabitants? Also documented.

Now that was under Rashidun and not the Umayyads. Further, conquest of Georgia, conquest of Constantinople, Conquest of Crete, conquest of Southern Italy, Conquest of Persia, Conquest of Mesopotamia, conquest of Turkey and Afghanistan. These are all littered with well documented military conquests, not passive spreading of the faith. They had armies marching and in their wake they left Islam.

As for christians, you have to define treating them well. Because its rather nonsense. Christians in an Islamic nation, according to the Quran, should be allowed to practice their faith unless they are part of the conquered soldiers. Conquered soldiers are forced to convert and serve or die. Residents can maintain their faith. However, it is set that they have to pay a tax higher than all others for this right. It is called a Jizya. The tax is to basically make sure they are submitting and adhering to muslim law. To complain about the tax or refuse to pay it means you are refusing to submit, and that is a crime. So you tell me. How good do you have it if you are forced to submit to Islamic law, and pay a tax to prove you are submitting just to practice your faith. Taxes range in history from 20 and 33% to as high as 80% in some documented case for farm and produce profits. So you tell me how awesome they are treated.

And of course, how peaceful is a movement of a religion if they can and do impose taxes on people not of their faith? How do you enforce this tax if not with the sword? If I have nothing to fear from Islam, then why would I even bother paying a special tax for having my own faith.

How is almost every history book and source written and discovered on the issue as opposed to modern day Muslims trying to cover up the past?

Here's a good question. How did it ever become known that Islam was a violent religion? No other religion in the world is known to be inherently violent. The bible is littered with Jewish violence against their neighbors. Christianity is littered with violence and torture against unbelievers.

All monotheological religions are inherently violent. By the very nature of their existence, common sense tells you that with most religions and history being poly theistic, people didn't just change thousands of years of belief and start believing in one god. That doesn't make sense. Which means they had to be forced in the beginning.

Also, battle grounds don't exist for battles not fought.

We are well past the point in which forced belief would be necessary. All you need is a couple generations and it becomes just something everyone always believed in. Consider the great religions of Greece. It didn't take long before Thor was no longer believed in. And now he's a super hero in a comic book.

Most religious people are ignorant about their own religions past beyond what they are told. Do you know how many christians believe the Roman empire was doing dandy until they allowed homosexuality as opposed to the reality that they were powerful well into the christian era? Religious people regarding their own religion is only a witness to what it is like now.

Why would you say the belief in a single god predates the Greeks? All the earliest signs regarding Judaism indicate it started as a multigod religion. If you read the bible you can still find the remnants of multiple gods. If you read early jewish texts you find that Yahweh had a goddess wife which was later cut out of the other texts.

Nearly all other religions lumped in as monotheistic actually aren't monotheistic. Zoroastrianism claims it is, but has two gods that oppose each other and earliest text place them as equal gods. Many had beliefs in a "high god" like the babylonians, but still not only a single existing god.

Mecca and Medina housed many gods, Allah included. There is evidence to point to Hubal as the chief god at Mecca as opposed to Allah. It is difficult to assertain this specifically as Muslims, as their christian brethren before them, burned all heretical sources they could find. So we are dealing with sources citing sources, but it makes sense considering the history of the region prior to Islam. So yes, a belief in Allah existed prior to Islams spread, but it doesn't negate the verifiable battles that took place at the hands of muslim armies and their own scriptures that acclaim it.

but of course, reading the Quran reveals dozens upon dozens of scriptures calling for out right murder against unbelievers. Its not restricted by historical context either, its open ended and in many cases says its for all time. How can you not know that there would be tons of people who would take this literally? We have freaking christians who believe in a literal 6 day creation 6000 years ago. Its not unlikely to have some Muslims who believe in peace and some who believe in violence.

But as history shows us, its more likely that early interpretations were more literal and that they would have used violence to spread the faith. After all we are talking about tribal peoples who lived in a relatively violent region at the time. So we are stretching the imagination here.

There is a basic difference between Christianity and Mohammadism. Christianity was founded by a man of peace, and his message is one of charity, forgiveness, and non-violence. Mohammadism was founded by a man of war, and spread through military conquest, and his message is one of intolerance and brutality.

There is little about the early church that resembles Jesus at all. Even today,we see the church focusing on abortion and homosexuality, things Jesus didn't even mention. when you talk about helping the less fortunate, you get conservative responses that are political in nature instead of the acts of Jesus to help the poor, ignoring his words regarding pure religion.

Christianity didn't become huge until the Roman empire took it on, and didn't spread like wildfire until they enforced it by pain of death. Religion that spreads organically has no chance of long term staying power.

Religion that spreads organically has no chance of long term staying power.

This is interesting. I'm not sure that what spreads organically could really be called religion. It seems that the spirituality at the heart of a religion is what can spread organically, but the religion itself needs the power of the state to spread. Take Eastern spirituality in the West, for example. Namaste and chakras and love and all that, but castes and sacrifices? Hell no. You need an authority figure backed up by the sword to nudge you out of your comfort zone.

Good point. Without the state backing it, we inherently reject that which seems against our better nature. Of course once you have a religious hierarchy enforcing it and backed by the state, the state need no longer actively assert itself. With spiritual "authorities" that we recognize, we no longer listen to the state, but listen to those leaders, and as they go, so go the masses who follow.