When studying history, both in a professional and academic sense, we try to make connections between civilizations and time periods. Historians have attempted to discover universal conezts of human nature, a bond that forms from continent to continent, human being to human being. Is there a conezt quality that all peoples posses, and is reflected in all civilizations? Indeed, it is extremely difficult to make generalizations about centuries of modern history. To say that something is true of all of history is virtually impossible, as a counter-example exists for just about anything that can be said of any group of civilizations. To say that all religions are spread by violence is equally unfair and untrue - because a contrasted religion has been spread in exceedingly diverse regions of the world, by vastly different cultures. Islam, as a prime example, has been characterized inequitably by historians and the media as a religion of violence. To put it bluntly, as this article does, "Islam was mainly spread through Arab territorial conquests (Sudo, 4)." However, upon examination, it is not fair to make the generalization that Islam is a religion of violence, and one notices when looking at world religion on a whole, one finds that Islam was no more violent than any other religion. In fact, not only is Islam not a fundamentally violent philosophy, but we can also see that many other religions normally considered "non-violent," such as Christianity or Hinduism, have been spread through bloody conquest. Thus, in searching for a universal conezt of history, we ought not fall into the "fallacy of abstractions," as Sydney J. Harris keenly puts it, and assume that because of isolated incidents and conflicts of territorial ambitions, that all religions have violent tendencies.
             Islam has, throughout the centuries, been somewhat a victim of circumezce - indeed it has been perceived by many as oppressive and cruel. This ...