That's just not a historically accurate view. For centuries Christianity existed within the pagan Roman Empire. There were periods of toleration and there were periods of persecution, at no point during the early church period did Christians ever use violence even to defend themselves, let alone as a means of forcing anyone to convert.
I realize that. I've studied my fair share of Christian history and am a history major myself.
My point is that if you look at Islam, it isn't inherently violent - the violent conflict originated from the persecution of Muhammad and his followers in Mecca, it followed them to Medina at which point the situation evolved into a larger conflict between Medina and Mecca.
On the other hand, Mohammad's use of violence started when he was displeased that Jews in Medina were unwilling to convert to Islam. The last 10 years of his life he spent in a war with the pagan state of Mecca, eventually it was conqurered and the population forced to convert to Islam. The caliphs that followed Mohammad merely embraced his example and took it to the next logical step.
Sources please?
Because my research has shown that Muhammad was no proactively violent, only
reactively so. When Muhammad and his followers lived in Mecca, prior to the Hijra, they faced persecution from the pagan Quaraish tribe. So he and his followers migrated to Medina. From that point on Medina was locked in a state of conflict with Mecca that was initiated by the pagan forces of Mecca.
Islam evolved from there to be intertwined with violence. That's my point. It didn't originate as a violent faith but grew as such because of provocation and the geopolitics of the time.
The middle ages often get a bad rap because protestants tend to use them as a means of demonizing the Catholic church. At any rate, the history of early Christianity and it's spread by evangelism is radically different from the history of early Islam and it's spread by military conquest.
I should inform you that I'm not attempting to demonize the Catholic Church. In fact, I was exploring joining the RCC or the EO last year. At any rate, I have the utmost respect an admiration for both churches and do not view the crusades or the inquisition, for example, as the fault of any of the ancient churches but a product of religious, philosophical and political motivations at the time. Though, that's neither here nor there.
My argument is that neither religion, upon it's foundation, had violence or conquest inscribed into it's theology at the core. In Christianity's case, the violence arose several centuries later. In the case of Islam, it's own relationship to conquest was much more accelerated because of it's relationship with Mecca.
The point is Islam has a pretty comfortable relationship with violence. Largely because violence is a necessary component of government control. Where other faith systems are spiritual in nature, Islam is not only a religion by a political system. Thus the relationship and comfort Islam has with violence are intrinsic aspects of the Muslim religion.
I'm not convinced that Islam itself has a "comfortable relationship with violence" as you put it. If anything, it's extremists do. In the same way that we disregard Christian extremists as not properly representing the faith, so do most Muslims when regarding extremists in their faith. I think we can offer them the common courtesy of accepting that.
