PDA

View Full Version : Conversion by the Sword and other misconceptions.



vpb
06-06-2007, 04:47 AM
What evidence do you have for the claim that the copies of the Quran prior to Uthman varied in meaning? This "***********" website has the history of Quranic compilation.
my dear brother, they usually mixup the word 'different way of readings' to the 'different meaning', and they don';t understand the term 'qiryat'. So that's why the mix up a little bit things :D

Upon Muhammad's first contact with the Angel Jibrail, he did return to his only wife, Khadija, for comfort. Imagine for one moment your reaction to being squeezed by an Angel.
yeah that's the problem, the whole 23 years , she is describing them, with the first act, which nobody knew what was going on.

I am not going to reply back to this guy since I believe him to be a total nut case... but I speak Arabic fluently, and there is positively no confusion about the Arabic of the Quran and the Arabic that regular people speak. I speak a different Arabic from that of the Quran which is Arabic in its most eloquent and proper.. in fact any grammar we take in school, called Qawa3id, basis its Arabic on that of the Quran, so there is no confusion, Any Arabic speaking person will tell you that... He is just looking for excuses to be a moshrik... easy I suppose when your sins are forgiven to say and do as you fancy..
sometimes I'm thinking about that too, but sometimes I think I just owe to explain things due to their lack of knowledge. cuz it's funny when they make claims about something which they don't understand, but they think that we swallow stuff in Islam, and just say "ohhh i didn't know about that". It's like me going to tell a proffesional pingpong player, that don't throw the ball like this, cuz it spins, do this and that, without me even knowning what all those things mean.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Redeemed
06-06-2007, 04:49 AM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
How does this relate to your claim of alteration & corruption?

Yes, the original Arabic of the Quran is different from that spoken in conversation today. Similar to the difference between Shakespear and Southern USA slang. What is the point? What evidence do you have for the claim that the copies of the Quran prior to Uthman varied in meaning? This "***********" website has the history of Quranic compilation.

http://www.***********/history/quran_compiled.htm Website is not coming up - do a Yahoo search for "Quran history" and select the first one.

Prove it. Do you have the "original" to show this claim?

We have been arguing this point that to pray to someone or to ask blessings from anyone other than the One God is elevating that person to "God-hood".

Give me some examples. I would like to read them. Yes, either Paul or Muhammad (pbuh) was a false prophet that preached falsehood to mislead people from the Straight path. We just differ on who we believe was a true prophet.

Upon Muhammad's first contact with the Angel Jibrail, he did return to his only wife, Khadija, for comfort. Imagine for one moment your reaction to being squeezed by an Angel.
I don't believe it was Jibrail, it was an angel impersonating Jibrail. I can see a greater testimony of God in Paul's life. Here is a zealot who used to consent to the killing of Christians. He would hunt them down like animals having them killed and arrested. Suddenly, he is changed, because Jesus blinded him saying "You are persecuting me" The Christians Paul was hunting down believed in the deity of Jesus - they were Christians of the early church.
By the way, you want prove about the other thing. OK, but the proof is not going to convince you of anything, so why ask for it? Nevertheless, I ‘ll give it to you. I thought you would know about “Satanic Verse” It commanded them to worship idols: “ …Those swans are exalted; Their intercession is expected; Their likes are not neglected.” Muhammad cancelled these verses from Allah.
Reply

vpb
06-06-2007, 04:55 AM
I don't believe it was Jibrail, it was an angel impersonating Jibrail.
certainly we don't care about what you believe. otherwise show proof.

By the way, you want prove about the other thing. OK, but the proof is not going to convince you of anything, so why ask for it? Nevertheless, I ‘ll give it to you. I thought you would know about “Satanic Verse” It commanded them to worship idols: “ …Those swans are exalted; Their intercession is expected; Their likes are not neglected.” Muhammad cancelled these verses from Allah.
who says that? the book "Satanic Verses" ???

Nobody ever commaned to worship idols, this is a pure lie, which I can't believe how you can believe it, bc it is compltetely against the Tawheed which Islam is based on. you know your points are not even worthy of replying
Reply

Redeemed
06-06-2007, 04:59 AM
It was and is the trinity concept that has led to much bood shed. Islam is a religion of peace, but they believe in bringing it with the edge of the sword. For the first thousand years they were unchallenged. They would cut down Christians and anyone that stood in the way of Islam. That spirit is still there. It is dormant. It was the Christians that learned about Jihad from the Muslims. That was when the Catholics started to turn the tide.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
vpb
06-06-2007, 05:06 AM
It was and is the trinity concept that has led to much bood shed. Islam is a religion of peace, but they believe in bringing it with the edge of the sword. For the first thousand years they were unchallenged.
Islam is a religion of peace, but Islam also allowes to fight against oppression.
The trinity didn't exist, it was later introduced, bc the Biblle (Injeel) could not be preserved due to the constant opression of jews at that time, so people had no freedom, so it was not a very good situtation to preserve the bible, and that's why everyone changed it to their own desires.
And do uhave any problem with Jihad? any problems with protecting your own land???

They would cut down Christians and anyone that stood in the way of Islam. That spirit is still there. It is dormant.
haha, where did you get this?
first, if muslims killed veryone who stood their way, then can you please tell me how come in places like Kosova, Albania there are majority of muslims, but yet in Bulgaria there are majority of christians? while we know the ottomans came through Bulgari to go Balkan? or how come the biggest muslim community is in Indonesia were there was no war with muslims ?? or how come in malaysia the majority are muslims yet there was no war with muslims? also please watch:
When the Moors Ruled Europe
http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=...XggmIfVtzCHL9A

it's worthy of watching it.
It was the Christians that learned about Jihad from the Muslims. That was when the Catholics started to turn the tide.
look, whoever saw this statement in this forum, saw it. Don't repeat it again, or people will laugh at you, and you will look completely foolish. I dont' even think I should reply to this thread.

and btw, don't switch the subject :) jumping from revelation to wars. :) and please when u makek statement next time, post the proof straight away.
Reply

جوري
06-06-2007, 05:09 AM
here is a bit of history by A HISTORIAN who is non-muslim

Mohammed The Prophet
By Prof. K. S. Ramakrishna Rao, Head of the Department of Philosophy,
Government College for Women University of Mysore, Mandya-571401 (Karnatika).

Re-printed from "Islam and Modern age", Hydrabad, March 1978.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the desert of Arabia was Mohammad born, according to Muslim historians, on April 20, 571. The name means highly praised. He is to me the greatest mind among all the sons of Arabia. He means so much more than all the poets and kings that preceded him in that impenetrable desert of red sand.
When he appeared Arabia was a desert -- a nothing. Out of nothing a new world was fashioned by the mighty spirit of Mohammad -- a new life, a new culture, a new civilization, a new kingdom which extended from Morocco to Indies and influenced the thought and life of three continents -- Asia, Africa and Europe.

When I thought of writing on Mohammad the prophet, I was a bit hesitant because it was to write about a religion I do not profess and it is a delicate matter to do so for there are many persons professing various religions and belonging to diverse school of thought and denominations even in same religion. Though it is sometimes, claimed that religion is entirely personal yet it can not be gain-said that it has a tendency to envelop the whole universe seen as well unseen. It somehow permeates something or other our hearts, our souls, our minds their conscious as well as subconscious and unconscious levels too. The problem assumes overwhelming importance when there is a deep conviction that our past, present and future all hang by the soft delicate, tender silked cord. If we further happen to be highly sensitive, the center of gravity is very likely to be always in a state of extreme tension. Looked at from this point of view, the less said about other religion the better. Let our religions be deeply hidden and embedded in the resistance of our innermost hearts fortified by unbroken seals on our lips.

But there is another aspect of this problem. Man lives in society. Our lives are bound with the lives of others willingly or unwillingly, directly or indirectly. We eat the food grown in the same soil, drink water, from the same the same spring and breathe the same air. Even while staunchly holding our own views, it would be helpful, if we try to adjust ourselves to our surroundings, if we also know to some extent, how the mind our neighbor moves and what the main springs of his actions are. From this angle of vision it is highly desirable that one should try to know all religions of the world, in the proper sprit, to promote mutual understanding and better appreciation of our neighborhood, immediate and remote.

Further, our thoughts are not scattered as appear to be on the surface. They have got themselves crystallized around a few nuclei in the form of great world religions and living faiths that guide and motivate the lives of millions that inhabit this earth of ours. It is our duty, in one sense if we have the ideal of ever becoming a citizen of the world before us, to make a little attempt to know the great religions and system of philosophy that have ruled mankind.

In spite of these preliminary remarks, the ground in these field of religion, where there is often a conflict between intellect and emotion is so slippery that one is constantly reminded of fools that rush in where angels fear to tread. It is also not so complex from another point of view. The subject of my writing is about the tenets of a religion which is historic and its prophet who is also a historic personality. Even a hostile critic like Sir William Muir speaking about the holy Quran says that. "There is probably in the world no other book which has remained twelve centuries with so pure text." I may also add Prophet Mohammad is also a historic personality, every event of whose life has been most carefully recorded and even the minutest details preserved intact for the posterity. His life and works are not wrapped in mystery.

My work today is further lightened because those days are fast disappearing when Islam was highly misrepresented by some of its critics for reasons political and otherwise. Prof. Bevan writes in Cambridge Medieval History, "Those account of Mohammad and Islam which were published in Europe before the beginning of 19th century are now to be regarded as literary curiosities." My problem is to write this monograph is easier because we are now generally not fed on this kind of history and much time need be spent on pointing out our misrepresentation of Islam.

The theory of Islam and Sword for instance is not heard now frequently in any quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that there is no compulsion in religion is well known. Gibbon, a historian of world repute says, "A pernicious tenet has been imputed to Mohammadans, the duty of extirpating all the religions by sword." This charge based on ignorance and bigotry, says the eminent historian, is refuted by Quran, by history of Musalman conquerors and by their public and legal toleration of Christian worship. The great success of Mohammad's life had been effected by sheer moral force, without a stroke of sword.

But in pure self-defense, after repeated efforts of conciliation had utterly failed, circumstances dragged him into the battlefield. But the prophet of Islam changed the whole strategy of the battlefield. The total number of casualties in all the wars that took place during his lifetime when the whole Arabian Peninsula came under his banner, does not exceed a few hundreds in all. But even on the battlefield he taught the Arab barbarians to pray, to pray not individually, but in congregation to God the Almighty. During the dust and storm of warfare whenever the time for prayer came, and it comes five times a every day, the congregation prayer had not to be postponed even on the battlefield. A party had to be engaged in bowing their heads before God while other was engaged with the enemy. After finishing the prayers, the two parties had to exchange their positions. To the Arabs, who would fight for forty years on the slight provocation that a camel belonging to the guest of one tribe had strayed into the grazing land belonging to other tribe and both sides had fought till they lost 70,000 lives in all; threatening the extinction of both the tribes to such furious Arabs, the Prophet of Islam taught self-control and discipline to the extent of praying even on the battlefield. In an aged of barbarism, the Battlefield itself was humanized and strict instructions were issued not to cheat, not to break trust, not to mutilate, not to kill a child or woman or an old man, not to hew down date palm nor burn it, not to cut a fruit tree, not to molest any person engaged in worship. His own treatment with his bitterest enemies is the noblest example for his followers. At the conquest of Mecca, he stood at the zenith of his power. The city which had refused to listen to his mission, which had tortured him and his followers, which had driven him and his people into exile and which had unrelentingly persecuted and boycotted him even when he had taken refuge in a place more than 200 miles away, that city now lay at his feet. By the laws of war he could have justly avenged all the cruelties inflicted on him and his people. But what treatment did he accord to them? Mohammad's heart flowed with affection and he declared, "This day, there is no REPROOF against you and you are all free." "This day" he proclaimed, "I trample under my feet all distinctions between man and man, all hatred between man and man."

This was one of the chief objects why he permitted war in self defense, that is to unite human beings. And when once this object was achieved, even his worst enemies were pardoned. Even those who killed his beloved uncle, Hamazah, mangled his body, ripped it open, even chewed a piece of his liver.

The principles of universal brotherhood and doctrine of the equality of mankind which he proclaimed represents one very great contribution of Mohammad to the social uplift of humanity. All great religions have preached the same doctrine but the prophet of Islam had put this theory into actual practice and its value will be fully recognized, perhaps centuries hence, when international consciousness being awakened, racial prejudices may disappear and greater brotherhood of humanity come into existence.

Miss. Sarojini Naidu speaking about this aspect of Islam says, "It was the first religion that preached and practiced democracy; for in the mosque, when the minaret is sounded and the worshipers are gathered together, the democracy of Islam is embodied five times a day when the peasant and the king kneel side by side and proclaim, God alone is great." The great poetess of India continues, "I have been struck over and over again by this indivisible unity of Islam that makes a man instinctively a brother. When you meet an Egyptian, an Algerian and Indian and a Turk in London, it matters not that Egypt is the motherland of one and India is the motherland of another."

Mahatma Gandhi, in his inimitable style, says "Some one has said that Europeans in South Africa dread the advent Islam -- Islam that civilized Spain, Islam that took the torch light to Morocco and preached to the world the Gospel of brotherhood. The Europeans of South Africa dread the Advent of Islam. They may claim equality with the white races. They may well dread it, if brotherhood is a sin. If it is equality of colored races then their dread is well founded."

Every year, during the Haj, the world witnesses the wonderful spectacle of this international Exhibition of Islam in leveling all distinctions of race, color and rank. Not only the Europeans, the African, the Arabian, the Persian, the Indians, the Chinese all meet together in Medina as members of one divine family, but they are clad in one dress every person in two simple pieces of white seamless cloth, one piece round the loin the other piece over the shoulders, bare head without pomp or ceremony, repeating "Here am I O God; at thy command; thou art one and alone; Here am I." Thus there remains nothing to differentiate the high from the low and every pilgrim carries home the impression of the international significance of Islam.

In the opinion of Prof. Hurgronje "the league of nations founded by prophet of Islam put the principle of international unity of human brotherhood on such Universal foundations as to show candle to other nations." In the words of same Professor "the fact is that no nation of the world can show a parallel to what Islam has done the realization of the idea of the League of Nations."

The prophet of Islam brought the reign of democracy in its best form. The Caliph Caliph Ali and the son in-law of the prophet, the Caliph Mansur, Abbas, the son of Caliph Mamun and many other caliphs and kings had to appear before the judge as ordinary men in Islamic courts. Even today we all know how the black Negroes were treated by the civilized white races. Consider the state of BILAL, a Negro Slave, in the days of the prophet of Islam nearly 14 centuries ago. The office of calling Muslims to prayer was considered to be of status in the early days of Islam and it was offered to this Negro slave. After the conquest of Mecca, the Prophet ordered him to call for prayer and the Negro slave, with his black color and his thick lips, stood over the roof of the holy mosque at Mecca called the Ka'ba the most historic and the holiest mosque in the Islamic world, when some proud Arabs painfully cried loud, "Oh, this black Negro Slave, woe be to him. He stands on the roof of holy Ka'ba to call for prayer." At that moment, the prophet announced to the world, this verse of the holy QURAN for the first time.


"O mankind, surely we have created you, families and tribes, so you may know one another.
Surely, the most honorable of you with God is MOST RIGHTEOUS AMONG you.
Surely, God is Knowing, Aware."

And these words of the holy Quran created such a mighty transformation that the Caliph of Islam, the purest of Arabs by birth, offered their daughter in marriage to this Negro Slave, and whenever, the second Caliph of Islam, known to history as Umar the great, the commander of faithful, saw this Negro slave, he immediately stood in reverence and welcomed him by "Here come our master; Here come our lord." What a tremendous change was brought by Quran in the Arabs, the proudest people at that time on the earth. This is the reason why Goethe, the greatest of German poets, speaking about the Holy Quran declared that, "This book will go on exercising through all ages a most potent influence." This is also the reason why George Bernard Shaw says, "If any religion has a chance or ruling over England, say, Europe, within the next 100 years, it is Islam".
It is this same democratic spirit of Islam that emancipated women from the bondage of man. Sir Charles Edward Archibald Hamilton says "Islam teaches the inherent sinlessness of man. It teaches that man and woman and woman have come from the same essence, posses the same soul and have been equipped with equal capabilities for intellectual, spiritual and moral attainments."

The Arabs had a very strong tradition that one who can smite with the spear and can wield the sword would inherit. But Islam came as the defender of the weaker sex and entitled women to share the inheritance of their parents. It gave women, centuries ago right of owning property, yet it was only 12 centuries later , in 1881, that England, supposed to be the cradle of democracy adopted this institution of Islam and the act was called "the married woman act", but centuries earlier, the Prophet of Islam had proclaimed that "Woman are twin halves of men. The rights of women are sacred. See that women maintained rights granted to them."

Islam is not directly concerned with political and economic systems, but indirectly and in so far as political and economic affairs influence man's conduct, it does lay down some very important principles to govern economic life. According to Prof. Massignon, it maintains the balance between exaggerated opposites and has always in view the building of character which is the basis of civilization. This is secured by its law of inheritance, by an organized system of charity known as Zakat, and by regarding as illegal all anti-social practices in the economic field like monopoly, usury, securing of predetermined unearned income and increments, cornering markets, creating monopolies, creating an artificial scarcity of any commodity in order to force the prices to rise. Gambling is illegal. Contribution to schools, to places of worship, hospitals, digging of wells, opening of orphanages are highest acts of virtue. Orphanages have sprung for the first time, it is said, under the teaching of the prophet of Islam. The world owes its orphanages to this prophet born an orphan. "Good all this" says Carlyle about Mohammad. "The natural voice of humanity, of pity and equity, dwelling in the heart of this wild son of nature, speaks."

A historian once said a great man should be judged by three tests: Was he found to be of true metel by his contemporaries ? Was he great enough to raise above the standards of his age ? Did he leave anything as permanent legacy to the world at large ? This list may be further extended but all these three tests of greatness are eminently satisfied to the highest degree in case of prophet Mohammad. Some illustrations of the last two have already been mentioned.

The first is: Was the Prophet of Islam found to be of true metel by his contemporaries?

Historical records show that all the contemporaries of Mohammad both friends foes, acknowledged the sterling qualities, the spotless honesty, the noble virtues, the absolute sincerity and every trustworthiness of the apostle of Islam in all walks of life and in every sphere of human activity. Even the Jews and those who did not believe in his message, adopted him as the arbiter in their personal disputes by virtue of his perfect impartiality. Even those who did not believe in his message were forced to say "O Mohammad, we do not call you a liar, but we deny him who has given you a book and inspired you with a message." They thought he was one possessed. They tried violence to cure him. But the best of them saw that a new light had dawned on him and they hastened him to seek the enlightenment. It is a notable feature in the history of prophet of Islam that his nearest relation, his beloved cousin and his bosom friends, who know him most intimately, were not thoroughly imbued with the truth of his mission and were convinced of the genuineness of his divine inspiration. If these men and women, noble, intelligent, educated and intimately acquainted with his private life had perceived the slightest signs of deception, fraud, earthliness, or lack of faith in him, Mohammad's moral hope of regeneration, spiritual awakening, and social reform would all have been foredoomed to a failure and whole edifice would have crumbled to pieces in a moment. On the contrary, we find that devotion of his followers was such that he was voluntarily acknowledged as dictator of their lives. They braved for him persecutions and danger; they trusted, obeyed and honored him even in the most excruciating torture and severest mental agony caused by excommunication even unto death. Would this have been so, had they noticed the slightest backsliding in their master?

Read the history of the early converts to Islam, and every heart would melt at the sight of the brutal treatment of innocent Muslim men and women.

Sumayya, an innocent women, is cruelly torn into pieces with spears. An example is made of "Yassir whose legs are tied to two camels and the beast were are driven in opposite directions", Khabbab bin Arth is made lie down on the bed of burning coal with the brutal legs of their merciless tyrant on his breast so that he may not move and this makes even the fat beneath his skin melt. "Khabban bin Adi is put to death in a cruel manner by mutilation and cutting off his flesh piece-meal." In the midst of his tortures, being asked weather he did not wish Mohammad in his place while he was in his house with his family, the sufferer cried out that he was gladly prepared to sacrifice himself his family and children and why was it that these sons and daughters of Islam not only surrendered to their prophet their allegiance but also made a gift of their hearts and souls to their master? Is not the intense faith and conviction on part of immediate followers of Mohammad, the noblest testimony to his sincerity and to his utter self-absorption in his appointed task?

And these men were not of low station or inferior mental caliber. Around him in quite early days, gathered what was best and noblest in Mecca, its flower and cream, men of position, rank, wealth and culture, and from his own kith and kin, those who knew all about his life. All the first four Caliphs, with their towering personalities, were converts of this period.

The Encyclopedia Brittanica says that "Mohammad is the most successful of all Prophets and religious personalities".

But the success was not the result of mere accident. It was not a hit of fortune. It was a recognition of fact that he was found to be true metal by his contemporaries. It was the result of his admirable and all compelling personality.

The personality of Mohammad! It is most difficult to get into the truth of it. Only a glimpse of it I can catch. What a dramatic succession of picturesque scenes. There is Mohammad the Prophet, there is Mohammad the General; Mohammad the King; Mohammad the Warrior; Mohammad the Businessman; Mohammad the Preacher; Mohammad the Philosopher; Mohammad the Statesman; Mohammad the Orator; Mohammad the reformer; Mohammad the Refuge of orphans; Mohammad the Protector of slaves; Mohammad the Emancipator of women; Mohammad the Law-giver; Mohammad the Judge; Mohammad the Saint.

And in all these magnificent roles, in all these departments of human activities, he is like, a hero..

Orphanhood is extreme of helplessness and his life upon this earth began with it; Kingship is the height of the material power and it ended with it. From an orphan boy to a persecuted refugee and then to an overlord, spiritual as well as temporal, of a whole nation and Arbiter of its destinies, with all its trials and temptations, with all its vicissitudes and changes, its lights and shades, its up and downs, its terror and splendor, he has stood the fire of the world and came out unscathed to serve as a model in every face of life. His achievements are not limited to one aspect of life, but cover the whole field of human conditions.

If for instance, greatness consist in the purification of a nation, steeped in barbarism and immersed in absolute moral darkness, that dynamic personality who has transformed, refined and uplifted an entire nation, sunk low as the Arabs were, and made them the torch-bearer of civilization and learning, has every claim to greatness. If greatness lies in unifying the discordant elements of society by ties of brotherhood and charity, the prophet of the desert has got every title to this distinction. If greatness consists in reforming those warped in degrading and blind superstition and pernicious practices of every kind, the prophet of Islam has wiped out superstitions and irrational fear from the hearts of millions. If it lies in displaying high morals, Mohammad has been admitted by friend and foe as Al Amin, or the faithful. If a conqueror is a great man, here is a person who rose from helpless orphan and an humble creature to be the ruler of Arabia, the equal to Chosroes and Caesars, one who founded great empire that has survived all these 14 centuries. If the devotion that a leader commands is the criterion of greatness, the prophet's name even today exerts a magic charm over millions of souls, spread all over the world.

He had not studied philosophy in the school of Athens of Rome, Persia, India, or China. Yet, He could proclaim the highest truths of eternal value to mankind. Illiterate himself, he could yet speak with an eloquence and fervor which moved men to tears, to tears of ecstasy. Born an orphan blessed with no worldly goods, he was loved by all. He had studied at no military academy; yet he could organize his forces against tremendous odds and gained victories through the moral forces which he marshaled. Gifted men with genius for preaching are rare. Descartes included the perfect preacher among the rarest kind in the world. Hitler in his Mein Kamp has expressed a similar view. He says "A great theorist is seldom a great leader. An Agitator is more likely to posses these qualities. He will always be a great leader. For leadership means ability to move masses of men. The talents to produce ideas has nothing in common with capacity for leadership." "But", he says, "The Union of theorists, organizer and leader in one man, is the rarest phenomenon on this earth; Therein consists greatness."

In the person of the Prophet of Islam the world has seen this rarest phenomenon walking on the earth, walking in flesh and blood.

And more wonderful still is what the reverend Bosworth Smith remarks, "Head of the state as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but, he was pope without the pope's claims, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without an standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue. If ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by a right divine It was Mohammad, for he had all the power without instruments and without its support. He cared not for dressing of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life."

After the fall of Mecca, more than one million square miles of land lay at his feet, Lord of Arabia, he mended his own shoes and coarse woolen garments, milked the goats, swept the hearth, kindled the fire and attended the other menial offices of the family. The entire town of Medina where he lived grew wealthy in the later days of his life. Everywhere there was gold and silver in plenty and yet in those days of prosperity many weeks would elapse without a fire being kindled in the hearth of the king of Arabia, His food being dates and water. His family would go hungry many nights successively because they could not get anything to eat in the evening. He slept on no soften bed but on a palm mat, after a long busy day to spend most of his night in prayer, often bursting with tears before his creator to grant him strength to discharge his duties. As the reports go, his voice would get choked with weeping and it would appear as if a cooking pot was on fire and boiling had commenced. On the very day of his death his only assets were few coins a part of which went to satisfy a debt and rest was given to a needy person who came to his house for charity. The clothes in which he breathed his last had many patches. The house from where light had spread to the world was in darkness because there was no oil in the lamp.

Circumstances changed, but the prophet of God did not. In victory or in defeat, in power or in adversity, in affluence or in indigence, he is the same man, disclosed the same character. Like all the ways and laws of God, Prophets of God are unchangeable.

An honest man, as the saying goes, is the noblest work of God, Mohammad was more than honest. He was human to the marrow of his bones. Human sympathy, human love was the music of his soul. To serve man, to elevate man, to purify man, to educate man, in a word to humanize man-this was the object of his mission, the be-all and end all of his life. In thought, in word, in action he had the good of humanity as his sole inspiration, his sole guiding principle.

He was most unostentatious and selfless to the core. What were the titles he assumed? Only true servant of God and His Messenger. Servant first, and then a messenger. A Messenger and prophet like many other prophets in every part of the world, some known to you, many not known you. If one does not believe in any of these truths one ceases to be a Muslim. It is an article of faith.

"Looking at the circumstances of the time and unbounded reverence of his followers" says a western writer "the most miraculous thing about Mohammad is, that he never claimed the power of working miracles." Miracles were performed but not to propagate his faith and were attributed entirely to God and his inscrutable ways. He would plainly say that he was a man like others. He had no treasures of earth or heaven. Nor did he claim to know the secrets of that lie in womb of future. All this was in an age when miracles were supposed to be ordinary occurrences, at the back and call of the commonest saint, when the whole atmosphere was surcharged with supernaturalism in Arabia and outside Arabia.

He turned the attention of his followers towards the study of nature and its laws, to understand them and appreciate the Glory of God. The Quran says,

"God did not create the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in play. He did not create them all but with the truth. But most men do not know."
The world is not illusion, nor without purpose. It has been created with the truth. The number of verses inviting close observation of nature are several times more than those that relate to prayer, fasting, pilgrimage etc. all put together. The Muslim under its influence began to observe nature closely and this give birth to the scientific spirit of the observation and experiment which was unknown to the Greeks. While the Muslim Botanist Ibn Baitar wrote on Botany after collecting plants from all parts of the world, described by Myer in his Gesch. der Botanikaa-s, a monument of industry, while Al Byruni traveled for forty years to collect mineralogical specimens, and Muslim Astronomers made some observations extending even over twelve years. Aristotle wrote on Physics without performing a single experiment, wrote on natural history, carelessly stating without taking the trouble to ascertain the most verifiable fact that men have more teeth than animal. Galen, the greatest authority on classical anatomy informed that the lower jaw consists of two bones, a statement which is accepted unchallenged for centuries till Abdul Lateef takes the trouble to examine a human skeleton. After enumerating several such instances, Robert Priffault concludes in his well known book The making of humanity, "The debt of our science to the Arabs does not consist in starting discovers or revolutionary theories. Science owes a great more to Arabs culture; it owes is existence." The same writer says "The Greeks systematized, generalized and theorized but patient ways of investigation, the accumulation of positive knowledge, the minute methods of science, detailed and prolonged observation, experimental inquiry, were altogether alien to Greek temperament. What we call science arose in Europe as result of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of Mathematics in form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and these methods, concludes the same author, were introduced into the European world by Arabs."
It is the same practical character of the teaching of Prophet Mohammad that gave birth to the scientific spirit, that has also sanctified the daily labors and the so called mundane affairs. The Quran says that God has created man to worship him but the word worship has a connotation of its own. Gods worship is not confined to prayer alone, but every act that is done with the purpose of winning approval of God and is for the benefit of the humanity comes under its purview. Islam sanctifies life and all its pursuits provided they are performed with honesty, justice and pure intents. It obliterates the age-long distinction between the sacred and profane. The Quran says if you eat clean things and thank God for it, it is an act of worship. It is saying of the prophet of Islam that Morsel of food that one places in the mouth of his wife is an act of virtue to be rewarded by God. Another tradition of the Prophet says "He who is satisfying the desire of his heart will be rewarded by God provided the methods adopted are permissible." A person was listening to him exclaimed 'O Prophet of God, he is answering the calls of passions, is only satisfying the craving of his heart. Forthwith came the reply, "Had he adopted an awful method for the satisfaction of his urge, he would have been punished; then why should he not be rewarded for following the right course."

This new conception of religion that it should also devote itself to the betterment of this life rather than concern itself exclusively with super mundane affairs, has led to a new orientation of moral values. Its abiding influence on the common relations of mankind in the affairs of every day life, its deep power over the masses, its regulation of their conception of rights and duty, its suitability and adaptability to the ignorant savage and the wise philosopher are characteristic features of the teaching of the Prophet of Islam.

But it should be most carefully born in mind this stress on good actions is not the sacrifice correctness of faith. While there are various school of thought, one praising faith at the expense of deeds, another exhausting various acts to the detriment of correct belief, Islam is based on correct faith and righteous actions. Means are important as the end and ends are as important as the means. It is an organic Unity. Together they live and thrive. Separate them and both decay and die. In Islam faith can not be divorced from the action. Right knowledge should be transferred into right action to produce the right results. How often the words came in Quran -- Those who believe and do good thing, they alone shall enter paradise. Again and again, not less than fifty times these words are repeated as if too much stress can not be laid on them. Contemplation is encouraged but mere contemplation is not the goal. Those who believe and do nothing can not exist in Islam. These who believe and do wrong are inconceivable. Divine law is the law of effort and not of ideals. It chalks out for the men the path of eternal progress from knowledge to action and from action to satisfaction.

But what is the correct faith from which right action spontaneously proceeds resulting in complete satisfaction. Here the central doctrine of Islam is the Unity of God. There is no God but God is the pivot from which hangs the whole teaching and practice of Islam. He is unique not only as regards his divine being but also as regards his divine attributes.

As regards the attributes of God, Islam adopts here as in other things too, the law of golden mean. It avoids on the one hand, the view of God which divests the divine being of every attribute and rejects, on the other, the view which likens him to things material. The Quran says, On the one hand, there is nothing which is like him, on the other , it affirms that he is Seeing, Hearing, Knowing. He is the King who is without a stain of fault or deficiency, the mighty ship of His power floats upon the ocean of justice and equity. He is the Beneficent, the Merciful. He is the Guardian over all. Islam does not stop with this positive statement. It adds further which is its most special characteristic, the negative aspects of problem. There is also no one else who is guardian over everything. He is the meander of every breakage, and no one else is the meander of any breakage. He is the restorer of every loss and no one else is the restorer of any loss what-so-over. There is no God but one God, above any need, the maker of bodies, creator of souls, the Lord of the day of judgment, and in short, in the words of Quran, to him belong all excellent qualities.

Regarding the position of man in relation to the Universe, the Quran says:

"God has made subservient to you whatever is on the earth or in universe. You are destined to rule over the Universe."

But in relation to God, the Quran says:
"O man God has bestowed on you excellent faculties and has created life and death to put you to test in order to see whose actions are good and who has deviated from the right path."
In spite of free will which he enjoys, to some extent, every man is born under certain circumstances and continues to live under certain circumstances beyond his control. With regard to this God says, according to Islam, it is my will to create any man under condition that seem best to me. cosmic plans finite mortals can not fully comprehend. But I will certainly test you in prosperity as well in adversity, in health as well as in sickness, in heights as well as in depths. My ways of testing differ from man to man, from hour to hour. In adversity do not despair and do resort to unlawful means. It is but a passing phase. In prosperity do not forget God. God-gifts are given only as trusts. You are always on trial, every moment on test. In this sphere of life there is not to reason why, there is but to do and die. If you live in accordance with God; and if you die, die in the path of God. You may call it fatalism. but this type of fatalism is a condition of vigorous increasing effort, keeping you ever on the alert. Do not consider this temporal life on earth as the end of human existence. There is a life after death and it is eternal. Life after death is only a connection link, a door that opens up hidden reality of life. Every action in life however insignificant, produces a lasting effect. It is correctly recorded somehow. Some of the ways of God are known to you, but many of his ways are hidden from you. What is hidden in you and from you in this world will be unrolled and laid open before you in the next. the virtuous will enjoy the blessing of God which the eye has not seen, nor has the ear heard, nor has it entered into the hearts of men to conceive of they will march onward reaching higher and higher stages of evolution. Those who have wasted opportunity in this life shall under the inevitable law, which makes every man taste of what he has done, be subjugated to a course of treatment of the spiritual diseases which they have brought about with their own hands. Beware, it is terrible ordeal. Bodily pain is torture, you can bear somehow. Spiritual pain is hell, you will find it almost unbearable. Fight in this life itself the tendencies of the spirit prone to evil, tempting to lead you into iniquities ways. Reach the next stage when the self-accusing sprit in your conscience is awakened and the soul is anxious to attain moral excellence and revolt against disobedience. This will lead you to the final stage of the soul at rest, contented with God, finding its happiness and delight in him alone. The soul no more stumbles. The stage of struggle passes away. Truth is victorious and falsehood lays down its arms. All complexes will then be resolved. Your house will not be divided against itself. Your personality will get integrated round the central core of submission to the will of God and complete surrender to his divine purpose. All hidden energies will then be released. The soul then will have peace. God will then address you:

"O thou soul that art at rest, and restest fully contented with thy Lord return to thy Lord. He pleased with thee and thou pleased with him; So enter among my servants and enter into my paradise."

This is the final goal for man; to become, on the, one hand, the master of the universe and on the other, to see that his soul finds rest in his Lord, that not only his Lord will be pleased with him but that he is also pleased with his Lord. Contentment, complete contentment, satisfaction, complete satisfaction, peace, complete peace. The love of God is his food at this stage and he drinks deep at the fountain of life. Sorrow and defeat do not overwhelm him and success does not find him in vain and exulting.
The western nations are only trying to become the master of the Universe. But their souls have not found peace and rest.

Thomas Carlyle, struck by this philosophy of life writes "and then also Islam-that we must submit to God; that our whole strength lies in resigned submission to Him, whatsoever he does to us, the thing he sends to us, even if death and worse than death, shall be good, shall be best; we resign ourselves to God." The same author continues "If this be Islam, says Goethe, do we not all live in Islam?" Carlyle himself answers this question of Goethe and says "Yes, all of us that have any moral life, we all live so. This is yet the highest wisdom that heaven has revealed to our earth."

USC.EDU
Reply

جوري
06-06-2007, 05:12 AM
and another account from a Jew
Uri Avnery's Column

Muhammad's Sword

23/09/06



Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.
Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306 - exactly 1700 years ago - encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.


The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, "walked to Canossa", standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope's castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.

But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week's speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush's crusade against "Islamofascism", in the context of the "Clash of Civilizations".

IN HIS lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God's actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.

As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this "war of civilizations".

In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?

To support his case, the Pope quoted - of all people - a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had - or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) - with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?

WHEN MANUEL II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.

At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On May 29, 1453, only a few years after Manuel's death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.

During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.

In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim "Axis of Evil". Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.

IS THERE any truth in Manuel's argument?

The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur'an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith".

How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur'an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes - Christian, Jewish and others - in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.

Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits." The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to "spread the faith by the sword"?

Well, they just did not.

For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.

True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.

In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.

THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?

What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish") Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.

WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "peoples of the book". In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes.

Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.

THE STORY about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.

Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?

There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of "Islamofascism" and the "Global War on Terrorism" - when "terrorism" has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush's handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers' expedition becomes a Crusade.

The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/...ery/1159094813
Reply

vpb
06-06-2007, 05:21 AM
you know alpiana you give me an impression of someone, who has just learnt a new thing about computers, and he thinks now that he discovered the world, and he learned such an important thing and now all day he will talk about his, as nobody has ever talked before.
you know u have a guierilla posting type, cuz it seems you go and read from some non-islamic sources, and then come here for 10 mins, and just shoot shoot shoot, at least if you would have done that by brining proof, but you don't even do that but anywas, you just come and shoot, and then go back. I think your intention is not to learn about Islam, and try to understand the truth, but it's about pleasing yourself by trying to prove Qur'an is corrupted, and Muhammed had doubts on his reveleation etc... . so you feel secure with your bible.

Yeah ,definitely, I think that is what pleases you, to see those things, but keep in mind, that you will never be able to please youself with such things, bc Qur'an has remained unchanged and it will, and there is no contradiciton on it, or anything that u mentioned before.
so try to start have the intention of learning, and not the intention of refusing it :) get knowledge from proper sources.
I don't go to take knowledge about engineering from proffesors who study medicine. It's totally stupid.
Reply

MustafaMc
06-06-2007, 11:26 AM
Originally Posted by vpb
you know alpiana you give me an impression of someone, who has just learnt a new thing about computers, and he thinks now that he discovered the world, and he learned such an important thing and now all day he will talk about his, as nobody has ever talked before.
you know u have a guierilla posting type, cuz it seems you go and read from some non-islamic sources, and then come here for 10 mins, and just shoot shoot shoot, at least if you would have done that by brining proof, but you don't even do that but anywas, you just come and shoot, and then go back. I think your intention is not to learn about Islam, and try to understand the truth, but it's about pleasing yourself by trying to prove Qur'an is corrupted, and Muhammed had doubts on his reveleation etc... . so you feel secure with your bible.
This person has admitted that he is an avowed enemy of Islam that he is here only to do "spiritual battle" with Muslims in order to mislead them towards Christianity. He would rather believe the anti-Islam websites than the Truth that you, Sr. PurestAmbrosia, Br. Talha777, Br. Woodrow, and others post. One can clearly tell that he does not write as someone who understands what he is talking about, rather he is cutting and posting without referencing his sources.

We Muslims have a duty to counter falsehood and lies such as this with the Truth of Islam.
Reply

Woodrow
06-06-2007, 12:37 PM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
This person has admitted that he is an avowed enemy of Islam that he is here only to do "spiritual battle" with Muslims in order to mislead them towards Christianity. He would rather believe the anti-Islam websites than the Truth that you, Sr. PurestAmbrosia, Br. Talha777, Br. Woodrow, and others post. One can clearly tell that he does not write as someone who understands what he is talking about, rather he is cutting and posting without referencing his sources.

We Muslims have a duty to counter falsehood and lies such as this with the Truth of Islam.
Allah(swt) works in strange ways. I feel that it is good for us to hear and read the misbeliefs others have of us. Our joint responces do help remind us of the Truth of Islam and detractors can become part of the glue that helps solidify our Iman and make it stronger.

I do agree with you that the poster is an enemy of Islam, because he does not see the light. But, I see him as a friend of Muslims, because he serves as a reminder as to why Reverts have left Christianity. It is hard to remember that at one time we also believed those same falicies and now to see them in the light, their misguidance becomes clear. May, the Truth guide them from their ignorance.

It is a reminder of what it was like while we were lost in the darkness and now it is so clear as to see the shadows disappear, once we allow the light to shine brightly and show the path to truth.

We Muslims have a duty to counter falsehood and lies such as this with the Truth of Islam.
That is true, but we must keep in mind that the falsehoods come from blindness and ignorance. The Truth is the light that will allow the misguided to take away the shadows that are keeping the misguided from seeing the Message Allah(swt) has sent us.

May we keep our light shinning bright and do our best to increase the brightness when we see our lost friends stumbling in the dark and unable to find the path.
Reply

Talha777
06-06-2007, 12:49 PM
Originally Posted by alapiana
for instance, since Muhammad couldn't read or write, Scribes wrote for him. They wrote on anything that was available leaves, stones, leather and bones and many committed to memory his words that were killed and scattered.
Multitudes of the Holy Prophet's (sallallahu alaihi wa salaam) Companions memorized the entire Holy Quran by heart. Hazrat Usman (radhi Allahu anhu), whom you wrongly accuse of inventing a new Quran, memorized the Holy Quran by heart, and used to recite the entire Holy Quran, all 114 surahs, in one rakaat (unit of prayer). He used to stand all night reciting the entire Holy Quran in earnest worship so much so his feet would swell up.

Qoraishi dialect was supposed to be the standard Arabic, but there is confusion between that and modern Arabic. Moreover, copies of Zaid’s collection some twenty-four were burned. The final choice for a canon seems to have had little to do with authenticity. During the time of Uthman, “No two Qur’ans were alike, yet in one edit they were all destroyed - except one” There are also contradictions in the Qur’an.
The Holy Quran was revealed in the Quraishi dialect. The Holy Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salaam) was from the Quraish people, so he himself recited the Holy Quran in that dialect. But as Islam was spreading, the new Muslims began to read the Quran in other dialects, and this was a danger to the integrity of the Holy Quran. So the third khalifa, Hazrat Usman, ordered the authentic manuscripts which were in the possession of the wife of the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa salaam), whose name was Hafsa, were delivered to four Companions and professional scribes, who made standard manuscripts which could be disseminated to every province. To be safe, all the other manuscripts, whether they were authentic or not, were ordered to be burned in order to preserve the Holy Quran and rule out any possibility or doubt that it has been corrupted:

Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23)

Nowhere in the Bible is Mary considered part of a trinity.
And nowhere in the Holy Quran, not a single ayat, does it say Mary is part of the trinity. And the trinity is mentioned in the Holy Quran: They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. (Al-Maidah 5:73). However, the Holy Quran does say that Christians have taken Jesus (alaihi salaam) and his mother as gods beside Alalh (5:116), and to this day the majority of Christians (Roman Catholics), as well as Eastern Orthodox, pray to Mary ("Hail Mary") and commit what is known as "Mariolotry".

Sometimes he would change what Allah said by saying that Satan deceived him into thinking it was Allah.
An utter and complete lie. The Holy Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salaam) never claimed even once that he miscontrued Satan for Allah.

Yes, he would cancel some lines of what Allah said, because it was condoning or allowing the worship of idols.
If you are going to invent this kind of falsehood against the Prophet of Allah, than I must seriously warn you that you should fear the blazing furnace of hell.

And who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against Allah or rejects the Truth when it reaches him? Is there not a home in Hell for those who reject Faith? (Al-Ankabut 29:68)
Reply

Keltoi
06-06-2007, 01:42 PM
Originally Posted by vpb
you know alpiana you give me an impression of someone, who has just learnt a new thing about computers, and he thinks now that he discovered the world, and he learned such an important thing and now all day he will talk about his, as nobody has ever talked before.
you know u have a guierilla posting type, cuz it seems you go and read from some non-islamic sources, and then come here for 10 mins, and just shoot shoot shoot, at least if you would have done that by brining proof, but you don't even do that but anywas, you just come and shoot, and then go back. I think your intention is not to learn about Islam, and try to understand the truth, but it's about pleasing yourself by trying to prove Qur'an is corrupted, and Muhammed had doubts on his reveleation etc... . so you feel secure with your bible.

Yeah ,definitely, I think that is what pleases you, to see those things, but keep in mind, that you will never be able to please youself with such things, bc Qur'an has remained unchanged and it will, and there is no contradiciton on it, or anything that u mentioned before.
so try to start have the intention of learning, and not the intention of refusing it :) get knowledge from proper sources.
I don't go to take knowledge about engineering from proffesors who study medicine. It's totally stupid.
Ironic...that is exactly how I see many of the posts from Muslims on this thread.
Reply

Keltoi
06-06-2007, 01:55 PM
Yes Tahla 777, I am a Christian. If you have something to say to me, do it in a thread, not a little private message. Don't be a coward, post your true thoughts so all can see.
Reply

Grace Seeker
06-06-2007, 02:37 PM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
Are you sure you want to get me started on this? You could start reading what i wrote above.

If you do, please do it on another thread. To debate the Trinity and the Qur'an in one single thread would be way too much.
Reply

Woodrow
06-06-2007, 04:06 PM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
It was and is the trinity concept that has led to much bood shed.
I agree with that.


Islam is a religion of peace, but they believe in bringing it with the edge of the sword. For the first thousand years they were unchallenged.
Muhammad(PBUH) faced many challanges almost from day one. Historically I can find no conflict with Christians until after the arrival of the Crusaders as they began their search for the Holy Grail. Perhaps you have read another source, however the myth about Islam having been "Spread by the Sword" has been debunked many times even by Christian scholars. Just one example written by a Christian scholar.

"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths
that historians have ever repeated." De Lacy O'Leary, ISLAM AT THE CROSSROADS, London, 1923, p. 8.


They would cut down Christians and anyone that stood in the way of Islam. That spirit is still there. It is dormant. It was the Christians that learned about Jihad from the Muslims. That was when the Catholics started to turn the tide.
Interesting info. The problem is there is no historical verification for any of it.

"It should also be known that Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years. During this time, and up to when they were finally forced out, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Additionally, Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations. If Islaam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islaamic Empire?"

"Additionally, if one considers the small number of Muslims who initially spread Islaam from Spain and Morocco in the West to India and China in the East, one would realise that they were far too few to force people to become converts of a religion against their will. Additionally, the great empire and civilisation established by the Muslims had great staying power, its citizens were proud to be part of it."

Source: http://www.islaam.ca/faqs/faqs-on-is...the-sword.html
Reply

Grace Seeker
06-06-2007, 04:15 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
"It should also be known that Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years. During this time, and up to when they were finally forced out, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Additionally, Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations. If Islaam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islaamic Empire?"

"Additionally, if one considers the small number of Muslims who initially spread Islaam from Spain and Morocco in the West to India and China in the East, one would realise that they were far too few to force people to become converts of a religion against their will. Additionally, the great empire and civilisation established by the Muslims had great staying power, its citizens were proud to be part of it."

Source: http://www.islaam.ca/faqs/faqs-on-is...the-sword.html

Over a week ago I posted a thread in world affairs that would have been a good place to continue this discussion, but I guess it is still waiting for approval.
Reply

vpb
06-06-2007, 05:27 PM
Ironic...that is exactly how I see many of the posts from Muslims on this thread.
what? what's ironic about my post, do u want to say that it's not true what I said?

Yes Tahla 777, I am a Christian. If you have something to say to me, do it in a thread, not a little private message. Don't be a coward, post your true thoughts so all can see.
He sent u a private message, and now you want to make him "coward" and show to everyone that he sent you a private message?? is that how you try to put people down? is that what makes u think that he is a coward??
that's very bad thing what you did, some body trusted u by sending u a private message and u tell everyone?? :( very bad of you. and as for a muslim being a coward, :) a muslim fears Allah, that's when we become coward, and we are completely coward in front of Allah swt, but no everyone else.

Prophet saws said that a person is not considered brave if he can wrestle someone, but he is brave if he can controll yourself.

and you just made public that he sent u a private message :( very bad.
it's not a big thing, but it's just showing your character and morals. would Jesus a.s behave like how u did?
Reply

Phil12123
06-06-2007, 06:26 PM
Originally Posted by vpb
...Qur'an has remained unchanged and it will, and there is no contradiciton on it, or anything that u mentioned before.
so try to start have the intention of learning, and not the intention of refusing it :) get knowledge from proper sources.
I don't go to take knowledge about engineering from proffesors who study medicine. It's totally stupid.
I have a question. What would be the proper source for the Qur'an in English? I have read several that say basically the same thing but use different words. Is there a particular translator that any of you especially prefer?

Peace
Reply

NoName55
06-06-2007, 07:03 PM
yeah, oneself, failing that tafsir Ibn Kathir DOWNLOAD (.chm) with commentary.
Reply

Keltoi
06-06-2007, 08:24 PM
Originally Posted by vpb
what? what's ironic about my post, do u want to say that it's not true what I said?

He sent u a private message, and now you want to make him "coward" and show to everyone that he sent you a private message?? is that how you try to put people down? is that what makes u think that he is a coward??
that's very bad thing what you did, some body trusted u by sending u a private message and u tell everyone?? :( very bad of you. and as for a muslim being a coward, :) a muslim fears Allah, that's when we become coward, and we are completely coward in front of Allah swt, but no everyone else.

Prophet saws said that a person is not considered brave if he can wrestle someone, but he is brave if he can controll yourself.

and you just made public that he sent u a private message :( very bad.
it's not a big thing, but it's just showing your character and morals. would Jesus a.s behave like how u did?
You have no idea what the message was do you? My post was directed at the person in question. They know what message they sent. Trust had nothing to do with it. As for calling them a coward, I think it is quite cowardly to send insults via a private message...if you have something to say on the topic do it on the thread.
Reply

Phil12123
06-06-2007, 08:46 PM
Originally Posted by NoName55
yeah, oneself, failing that tafsir Ibn Kathir DOWNLOAD (.chm) with commentary.
That didn't work. The link had me downloading a .chm file, which I can't do anything with. Please try again.

Peace
Reply

NoName55
06-06-2007, 08:58 PM
Originally Posted by Phil12123
That didn't work. The link had me downloading a .chm file, which I can't do anything with. Please try again.

Peace
http://www.islamicboard.com/678332-post20.html

peace

edit:

online version
http://www.qtafsir.com/

Complete Maariful Quran - English PDF
Reply

vpb
06-06-2007, 09:01 PM
I have a question. What would be the proper source for the Qur'an in English?
well it depends, but the most popular translations are Pickthal, Yusuf Ali, Shakir, ......
but it's better to check different translations when you read Qur'an like:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
when you read the verses you have on three translations.

I have read several that say basically the same thing but use different words.
yes, bc there are many arabic words which you can't express 100% in english or other languages, so the translator tries to choose the closest meaning of that word.
ie. they translate the word Deen to religion, which actually deen is not same as religion, cuz deen is a way of life, while religion is not, but since there is no other word they translate it as 'religion'.
Is there a particular translator that any of you especially prefer?
myself I like Shakir bc he uses more modern english, since english is not my tounge, but it depends on you.
Reply

vpb
06-06-2007, 09:04 PM
You have no idea what the message was do you? My post was directed at the person in question. They know what message they sent. Trust had nothing to do with it. As for calling them a coward, I think it is quite cowardly to send insults via a private message...if you have something to say on the topic do it on the thread.
it doesn't matter what kind of message he sent you, you shouldn't tell us that he did that. that was between him and you. by your bible "Jesus taught you that you should love the one who does bad to you", so where is the practicing of this teaching? you are not returning bad with good.
Reply

Talha777
06-06-2007, 09:10 PM
I didn't send any private message. I just added a reputation, what's the big deal?
Reply

NoName55
06-06-2007, 09:11 PM
@ Keltoi
It used to happen to me from loonies of all sides, so I stopped it by blocking all from sending PMs, (you can exclude good people from the ban by adding them to your buddy list) problem solved

(in light of above post) edit: I still get an occasional nasty via repute system. (it can work both ways) got 1 last week
Reply

vpb
06-06-2007, 09:16 PM
I didn't send any private message. I just added a reputation, what's the big deal?
don't worry bro. it's just his lack of practicing christianity. if he would be a good christian, he would pracitice the whole concept which evolves around "LOVE of JEsus, love for jesus, love for enemy", but he failed to show us that.
myself I really think Eric H is a good christian, bc he never makes ridicilous posts. so far I haven't seen any.
Reply

Redeemed
06-06-2007, 10:21 PM
Originally Posted by vpb
my dear brother, they usually mixup the word 'different way of readings' to the 'different meaning', and they don';t understand the term 'qiryat'. So that's why the mix up a little bit things :D


yeah that's the problem, the whole 23 years , she is describing them, with the first act, which nobody knew what was going on.


sometimes I'm thinking about that too, but sometimes I think I just owe to explain things due to their lack of knowledge. cuz it's funny when they make claims about something which they don't understand, but they think that we swallow stuff in Islam, and just say "ohhh i didn't know about that". It's like me going to tell a proffesional pingpong player, that don't throw the ball like this, cuz it spins, do this and that, without me even knowning what all those things mean.
Ok, take it easy on me. I knew nothing about Muslims except the name Allah and Mohammad was associated with Islam when I first posted here. I felt a need for me to learn more about one of the fastest growing religions in the world. I am a Christian. Of course, I cannot accept Islam, but that doesn't mean I don't respect you and try not to offend. Sorry to say, I fail terribly at this. I take responsibility for that, but I would never say your a nut because you misunderstand Christianity. I have mistakes in my understanding about the deepest things in Islam, but you also have severe misconceptions about Christianity. In fact, so did the prophet Muhammad. That being the case, why are we not more tolerant toward one another; after all, we do have the same God. The God of Abraham and the Jews isn't that our God? And we are brothers of humanity. It is inevitable, that we will eventually clash severely, but it behooves us to teach each other the true concepts of what we believe in. I have already learned more than you can probably imagine, but I have a way to go yet. The more I learn about Islam, the more holes I find in your reasoning as well. You have to give me a chance to explain without getting on the defensive. You may not be able to help that because the defense system is built into your religion. That is why it is so difficult to articulate with Muslims especially being a Christian which is the only religion that posses the greatest threat to Muslims. Nevertheless, I have mentioned some of the holes, but this is another: Since you don’t believe in original sin, why do we continue to sin against our own will to do so? And what part does Allah take in our redemption if it is all contingent on our good works out weighting our bad?
Finally, why are Muslims so hard on reverts to Christianity:?
:scared:
Christian Convert Fights Malaysian Law
Lina Joy has been disowned by her family, shunned by friends and forced into hiding -- all because she renounced Islam and embraced Christianity in Muslim-majority Malaysia.
 Full story: Newsday , published Sunday May 27
Reply

Redeemed
06-06-2007, 10:52 PM
Originally Posted by vpb
Islam is a religion of peace, but Islam also allowes to fight against oppression.
The trinity didn't exist, it was later introduced, bc the Biblle (Injeel) could not be preserved due to the constant opression of jews at that time, so people had no freedom, so it was not a very good situtation to preserve the bible, and that's why everyone changed it to their own desires.
And do uhave any problem with Jihad? any problems with protecting your own land???

haha, where did you get this?
first, if muslims killed veryone who stood their way, then can you please tell me how come in places like Kosova, Albania there are majority of muslims, but yet in Bulgaria there are majority of christians? while we know the ottomans came through Bulgari to go Balkan? or how come the biggest muslim community is in Indonesia were there was no war with muslims ?? or how come in malaysia the majority are muslims yet there was no war with muslims? also please watch:
When the Moors Ruled Europe
http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=...XggmIfVtzCHL9A

it's worthy of watching it.
look, whoever saw this statement in this forum, saw it. Don't repeat it again, or people will laugh at you, and you will look completely foolish. I dont' even think I should reply to this thread.

and btw, don't switch the subject :) jumping from revelation to wars. :) and please when u makek statement next time, post the proof straight away.
It is documented in history books even Muslim scholars agree with this. Ok, take it easy on me. I knew nothing about Muslims except the name Allah and Mohammad was associated with Islam when I first posted here. I felt a need for me to learn more about one of the fastest growing religions in the world. I am a Christian. Of course I cannot accept Islam, but that doesn't mean I don't respect you and try not to offend. Sorry to say, I fail terribly at this. I take responsibility for that, but I would never say your a nut because you misunderstand Christianity. I have mistakes in my understanding about the deepest things in Islam, but you also have severe misconceptions about Christianity. In fact, so did the prophet Muhammad. That being the case, why are we not more tolerant toward one another. After all, we do have the same God. The God of Abraham and the Jews isn't that our God? And we are brothers of humanity. It is inevitable, that we will eventually clash severely, but it behooves us to teach each other the true concepts of what we believe in. I have already learned more than you can probably imagine, but I have a way to go yet. The more I learn about Islam, the more holes I find in your reasoning as well. You have to give me a chance to explain without getting on the defensive. You may not be able to help that because the defense system is built into your religion. That is why it is so difficult to articulate with Muslims especially being a Christian which is the only religion that posses the greatest threat to Muslims. Nevertheless, I have mentioned some of the holes, but this is another: Since you don’t believe in original sin, why do we continue to sin against our own will to do so? And what part does Allah take in our redemption if it is all contingent on our good works out weighting our bad? Christianity answers these questions.
Reply

vpb
06-06-2007, 10:55 PM
Ok, take it easy on me. I knew nothing about Muslims except the name Allah and Mohammad was associated with Islam when I first posted here. I felt a need for me to learn more about one of the fastest growing religions in the world. I am a Christian. Of course, I cannot accept Islam, but that doesn't mean I don't respect you and try not to offend. Sorry to say, I fail terribly at this. I take responsibility for that, but I would never say your a nut because you misunderstand Christianity. I have mistakes in my understanding about the deepest things in Islam, but you also have severe misconceptions about Christianity. In fact, so did the prophet Muhammad. That being the case, why are we not more tolerant toward one another; after all, we do have the same God. The God of Abraham and the Jews isn't that our God? And we are brothers of humanity. It is inevitable, that we will eventually clash severely, but it behooves us to teach each other the true concepts of what we believe in. I have already learned more than you can probably imagine, but I have a way to go yet. The more I learn about Islam, the more holes I find in your reasoning as well. You have to give me a chance to explain without getting on the defensive. You may not be able to help that because the defense system is built into your religion. That is why it is so difficult to articulate with Muslims especially being a Christian which is the only religion that posses the greatest threat to Muslims.
look I go to a university, and till now I had no problem whatsoever on talking with christians, we allways discuss, but the problem with you is that you just go somewhere get some information , paste here, without having proper knowledge of what's going on. do you get what i'm saying? I am glad that you are trying to learn about Islam, but try to learn in a better manner, cuz you can't learn about Islam through reading non-islamic sources and trying to paste stuff in here which make no sense.

Nevertheless, I have mentioned some of the holes, but this is another: Since you don’t believe in original sin, why do we continue to sin against our own will to do so?
we do sin bc we are not perfect, and also we do sins bc we choose to.
right now you are doing a constant unforgiven major sin of joining partnership to Allah swt? is this against your will?? no, it's your choice.

And what part does Allah take in our redemption if it is all contingent on our good works out weighting our bad?
can you please rephrase the question cuz I can't understand it properly what you're trying to say.

Christian Convert Fights Malaysian Law
Lina Joy has been disowned by her family, shunned by friends and forced into hiding -- all because she renounced Islam and embraced Christianity in Muslim-majority Malaysia.
 Full story: Newsday , published Sunday May 27
well, malysia is not an islamic state. but as the apostasy in Islam, many threads have been created. and brother Ansar Al-'Adl has explained it very clearly in the thread:

http://www.islamicboard.com/refutations/4738-islam-apostasy.html


EDIT: This post has been moved to the beginning of the thread.


In order to understand this issue, we need to examine the Islamic law on apostasy. Since religion is looked on as a personal affair in western society, the notion of state intervention in one's personal choice would naturally seem excessive. However, from the Islamic perspective, a number of points must be observed with regard to apostasy:
1. Islam has never compelled anyone to accept the religion. Anyone who becomes a Muslim does so purely through objective study of the religion. As Allah has informed us in the Qur'an:

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion.
10:99 So would you (O Muhammad) then compel people to become believers?


Likewise, Islam encourages its followers to reflect and contemplate upon the universe around us and to ponder over the beauty of the Qur'anic message:

47:24 Do they not ponder over the Qur'an or are their hearts locked up?

51:20-21. And on earth are signs for those endowed with inner-certainty; and [likewise there are signs] in yourselves, do you not observe?

29:20 Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.


Thus, Islam requires that one's faith be constructed upon logical investigation and study of the universe in which we live. Through logical contemplation, one realizes the supreme authority of the Creator and the veracity of Muhammad's (saws) claim to prophethood. Thus we find that, in the history of Islam, no knowledgeable Muslim has ever left Islam. The only cases we find of former Muslims are people who were never practicing Muslims in the first place, nor did they ever have a good understanding of Islam. Yet on the other hand, the list of educated converts to Islam is immense, and it includes educated leaders such as priests, rabbis and atheists.

2. Those who have left Islam have historically fallen under three categories: those who left having never properly understood the religion often due to social circumstances, those who faked a conversion into Islam in order to undermine the Islamic community from within, and those who left to support opposing forces in battle against the Muslims. Because of the first category, Islam requires that the person who has chosen to forsake the religion be consulted with in order that his doubts may be clarified to him if there is any specific issue of confusion, or so that he may learn the proper Islamic teachings that he may otherwise have not been exposed to. As for the second and third category, this was the original reason behind the Prophet's statement on apostasy. The Qur'an records (3:72) that the Jews of Madinah decided to initiate the practice of pretending to accept Islam and then publicly declare their rejection of it, so as to destroy the confidence of the newly-converted Muslims. Thus, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh ruled that a punishment should be announced so that those who decide to accept Islam do so because of a firm conviction not in order to harm the Muslim community from within.

3. Coming to the actual law of apostasy, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh did say, in the above historical context, "Whoever replaces his religion, execute him" (Bukhari, Abu Dawud) but how exactly do we understand this statement and does it conflict with the principles of freedom? The Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself clarified this statement in another hadith narrated in Sahih Muslim where he mentioned that the one who was to be fought against was the one who "abandons his religion and the Muslim community". It should be noted that every country has maintained punishments, including execution, for treason and rebellion against the state (See Mozley and Whitley's Law Dictionary, under "Treason and Treason Felony," pp. 368-369). Islam is not just a set of beliefs, it is a complete system of life which includes a Muslim's allegiance to the Islamic state. Thus, a rejection against that would be akin to treason. Rebellion against God is more serious than rebellion against one's country. However, one who personally abandons the faith and leaves the country would not be hunted down and assassinated, nor would one who remains inside the state conforming to outward laws be tracked down and executed. The notion of establishing inquisition courts to determine peoples' faith, as done in the Spanish Inquisition, is something contrary to Islamic law. As illustrated by the historical context in which it was mandated, the death penalty is mainly for those who collaborate with enemy forces in order to aid them in their attacks against the Islamic state or for those who seek to promote civil unrest and rebellion from within the Islamic state. When someone publicly announces their rejection of Islam within an Islamic state it is basically a challenge to the Islamic government, since such an individual can keep it to themselves like the personal affair it is made out to be.

4. From Islamic history, we can gain a better understanding of how this law has been implemented. Although the Prophet Muhammad pbuh threatened the death penalty in response to the attempts against the Muslim community, no such executions took place in his time (Imam Shawkani, Nayl Al-Awtar, vol. 7, p. 192) even though there is a report that a Bedouin renounced Islam and left Madinah unharmed in his time (Fath Al-Bari vol. 4, p.77 and vol. 13 p. 170; Sahih Muslim biSharh An-Nawawi, vol. 9, p. 391). Thus, we find that context plays an important role in determining how to deal with apostates. The case of one who enlists nations to fight against the Islamic state is more serious, for example. That is why the scholars of the Hanafi school of thought felt that the punishment only applies to the male apostate and not the female apostate because the latter is unable to wage war against the Islamic state. If someone simply has some doubts concerning Islam, then those doubts can be clarified.
So an Islamic state is certainly justified in punishing those who betray the state, committing treason and support enemy forces. As for anyone else, if they do not publicly declare their rejection of Islam, the state has no interest in pursuing them; if their case does become public, however, then they should be reasoned with and educated concerning the religion so that they have the opportunity to learn the concepts they may not have understood properly and they can be encouraged to repent.

From another of my posts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Quote:
Originally Posted by blunderbus
If a predominantly Christian country were going to execute a former Christian who converted to another religion (in this hypothetical case, Islam) would you be ok with that?

As a side note, this has already happened, examples include the spanish inquisition. But on to your question...

First of all, the law on apostasy has been explained here (My view on muslims) and here (Islam and Apostasy). It is commonly taken out of context, but the point to note is that the Prophet Muhammad (saws) clarified that the one to be punished was the one who rebelled against the community. This is quite similar to state laws on treason. A state is justified in taking action against those who pose a significant threat. But the idea of setting up an inquisition to examine the beliefs of the people is against Islamic teachings, so someone who personally changes their religious convictions will be insignificant in the eyes of the state. It is the one who publically announces his rebellion, stirring civil unrest, who must be opposed. While the Christian inquisitions were bent on examining (through the use of torture) the beliefs of those Muslims and Jews who outwardly professed conversion to Christianity, in an Islamic state, someone who even outwardly professes acceptane of Islam is left alone because they cause no harm to society, and the Islamic state is only interested in the security of its society.

If someone poses a threat to a state's security, then they are justified in taking action against them. But if someone changes their personal religious views, then it is quite extreme for the state to attempt to pry into the hearts of its citizens to determine their faith and punish them.


Reply

vpb
06-06-2007, 11:07 PM
well since you edited the post, i need to reply to other points


It is documented in history books even Muslim scholars agree with this.
BIG LIE, Islam was never spreaded by sword, which means that they never took the person and said to him "convert to islam or you're dead" . this is a big lie invented by the kuffar.

The more I learn about Islam, the more holes I find in your reasoning as well. You have to give me a chance to explain without getting on the defensive.
Allah swt says in the Qur'an :

Surah Al-Baqara 2:109
Many of the followers of the Book (Christians and Jews) wish that they could turn you back into unbelievers after your faith, out of envy from themselves, (even) after the truth has become manifest to them; but pardon and forgive, so that Allah should bring about His command; surely Allah has power over all things.

2:256

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

but it appears to you that they are holes. do you know why? bc you always go to learn about Islam from improper sources, instead of going to learn it from proper sources, so they twist the teachings of islam, without any proof ,so that's why you find holes, bc if you learn Islam from proper sources with open heart (as Khalid Yasin says without turning the glass upside down, and try to pour water on it) , then you will see that Islam is the perfect way without any holes.

Christianity answers these questions.
I know how Christianity answers question. :) yee I know ;D
Reply

Keltoi
06-06-2007, 11:10 PM
Originally Posted by vpb
don't worry bro. it's just his lack of practicing christianity. if he would be a good christian, he would pracitice the whole concept which evolves around "LOVE of JEsus, love for jesus, love for enemy", but he failed to show us that.
myself I really think Eric H is a good christian, bc he never makes ridicilous posts. so far I haven't seen any.
My lack of practicing Christianity? It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic respect. Act like an adult and you will be treated like an adult.
Reply

vpb
06-06-2007, 11:14 PM
My lack of practicing Christianity? It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic respect.
what? you are supposed to follow Jesus's teachings. If someone does bad to you, you should not return with the same, but you should return with the good. but anyways :)
Reply

Redeemed
06-07-2007, 12:13 AM
I asked if our salvation depends on us doing well or that our good tips the scale in our favor with Allah, then, what part is Allah's in our salvation. In other words, we can boast by saying it was my good works that saved me not my depending on Allah giving it to me. You say that I choose to sin, cause I ascribe a partner with God. I submit to you that you do the same. For instance, to be a Muslim (so you say) and to be saved for eternity, you must say the Shahabad along with living right. Do you realize that you are ascribing Muhammad to God for your salvation and your works? You are saying I believe in Allah and his prophet. In other words, you must mention Muhammad; in that, you ascribing to God a partner even though you don’t worship him, he still must be mentioned. I didn’t get this from any book; the Lord showed me this!
Reply

Redeemed
06-07-2007, 12:33 AM
Originally Posted by vpb
well since you edited the post, i need to reply to other points


BIG LIE, Islam was never spreaded by sword, which means that they never took the person and said to him "convert to islam or you're dead" . this is a big lie invented by the kuffar.

Allah swt says in the Qur'an :

Surah Al-Baqara 2:109
Many of the followers of the Book (Christians and Jews) wish that they could turn you back into unbelievers after your faith, out of envy from themselves, (even) after the truth has become manifest to them; but pardon and forgive, so that Allah should bring about His command; surely Allah has power over all things.

2:256

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

but it appears to you that they are holes. do you know why? bc you always go to learn about Islam from improper sources, instead of going to learn it from proper sources, so they twist the teachings of islam, without any proof ,so that's why you find holes, bc if you learn Islam from proper sources with open heart (as Khalid Yasin says without turning the glass upside down, and try to pour water on it) , then you will see that Islam is the perfect way without any holes.

I know how Christianity answers question. :) yee I know ;D
If you don't believe the facts & truths of history, how will you understand the spiritual truth I share with you?
Reply

Woodrow
06-07-2007, 01:01 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
If you don't believe the facts & truths of history, how will you understand the spiritual truth I share with you?
I don't doubt you believe Islam was spread by the sword. But the simple truth is it was not. That old chestnut was laid to rest a long time ago and it is only a few die hards that listen to urban legends that periodically resurrect it.

Of course we also feel very much the same way. We do not understand how you fail to perceive the spiritual truth that Jesus(as), Muhammad(PBUH) and all of the Prophets(PBUT) taught.

If you don't believe the facts & truths of history, how will you understand the spiritual truth we shared with you?
Reply

جوري
06-07-2007, 01:07 AM
we don't understand simply because you share no "spiritual truths"! and when you do ,it is in the most vile manner, that you can't help but bring out the worst in all of us!

What is your purpose here? To learn of Islam or to try in vain to convert Muslims-- Do you think a blind man who finally sees would willingly go back into darkness?

though I have many Christian friends and the topic of religion comes up between us on occasion only in the best of manners... I am always at a loss for appropriate words when it comes to G-D, sending himself to Mary in the form of a holy spirit, impregnating her with himself, being born, punishing himself, praying to himself and then dying for a few days to be raised unto himself and yet Christians proclaim monotheism... it is a conundrum, how in some sects of Christianity some members of the clergy choose celibacy, yet even their G-D, had a child with a mortal woman are priests above G-D when choosing celibacy when G-D himself took unto himself a mortal woman to impregnate with his own self?... the trinity is the crux of your religion and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, unless you are into Greek mythology? if in its center is a huge well let's say non-truth, then I can't imagine the rest being truthful either.
Religion should make sense to both heart and mind, in essence and in deeds. Christianity doesn't make sense.
Reply

Woodrow
06-07-2007, 01:22 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
I asked if our salvation depends on us doing well or that our good tips the scale in our favor with Allah, then, what part is Allah's in our salvation. In other words, we can boast by saying it was my good works that saved me not my depending on Allah giving it to me. You say that I choose to sin, cause I ascribe a partner with God. I submit to you that you do the same. For instance, to be a Muslim (so you say) and to be saved for eternity, you must say the Shahabad along with living right. Do you realize that you are ascribing Muhammad to God for your salvation and your works? You are saying I believe in Allah and his prophet. In other words, you must mention Muhammad; in that, you ascribing to God a partner even though you don’t worship him, he still must be mentioned. I didn’t get this from any book; the Lord showed me this!
The topic of Good works has been discussed many times. There are no Muslims that believe a lifetime of the works of the best man could "buy" one second of heaven.

Now look at the Shahadah.

"There is no God(swt) but the One God(swt) and Muhammad(PBUH) was his messenger"

Muhammad(PBUH) brought the truth to all of mankind. Muhammad(PBUH) was a man, the message is what is remembered.
Reply

Redeemed
06-07-2007, 01:44 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
The topic of Good works has been discussed many times. There are no Muslims that believe a lifetime of the works of the best man could "buy" one second of heaven.

Now look at the Shahadah.

"There is no God(swt) but the One God(swt) and Muhammad(PBUH) was his messenger"

Muhammad(PBUH) brought the truth to all of mankind. Muhammad(PBUH) was a man, the message is what is remembered.
Yes, but you completely missed the point
Reply

MustafaMc
06-07-2007, 01:52 AM
Originally Posted by Phil12123
I have a question. What would be the proper source for the Qur'an in English? I have read several that say basically the same thing but use different words. Is there a particular translator that any of you especially prefer?

Peace
I have 5 English translations of the Quran and the one that I like best is the Majestic Quran published by the Nawawi Foundation.

Title: The Majestic Quran
Author: Ali Ozek/Nureddin Uzunoglu/ Tevfik R. Topuzoglu/Mehmet Maksutoglu/Abdal Hakim Murad/ Mostafa al-Badawi/Uthman Hutchinson
Publishing House: Starlatch Press
ISBN: 1-929694-50-4
retails for ~$70 various websites
Reply

Woodrow
06-07-2007, 02:08 AM
Originally Posted by Phil12123
I have a question. What would be the proper source for the Qur'an in English? I have read several that say basically the same thing but use different words. Is there a particular translator that any of you especially prefer?

Peace
My personal preference is to use 2 Ali and Pickthall. Ali spoke Arabic as a Native and later became proficient in English. Pickthall spoke English as a native and later became proficient in Arabic. Reading the 2 of them I feel you get a better idea of what the Arabic means.

However, my Arabic is improving and nothing can replace reading it in Arabic.
Reply

Redeemed
06-07-2007, 02:19 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
The topic of Good works has been discussed many times. There are no Muslims that believe a lifetime of the works of the best man could "buy" one second of heaven.

Now look at the Shahadah.

"There is no God(swt) but the One God(swt) and Muhammad(PBUH) was his messenger"

Muhammad(PBUH) brought the truth to all of mankind. Muhammad(PBUH) was a man, the message is what is remembered.
"There is no God but Allah" is Ok and I agree, but you must say and "Muhammad his messenger" and that is ascribing something to Allah whether you admit it or not. There are dozen of prophecies that predicted centuries before the birth of Christ all that would preceed and happen to him and the probability of all them happening is tantamount to putting a silver dollar mixed in with all the galaxies and stars have you try to find it blind :blind: folded and you only have one chance to swoop down. If you are lucky enough to grab it than that is the same probability of Jesus not being the Son of God. I wouldn't want my eternal destiny riding on those odds.
Reply

Woodrow
06-07-2007, 02:24 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
"There is no God but Allah" is Ok and I agree, but you must say and "Muhammad his messenger" and that is ascribing something to Allah whether you admit it or not. There are dozen of prophecies that predicted centuries before the birth of Christ and the probability of all them happening is tantamount to putting a silver dollar mixed in with all the galaxies and stars have you try to find it blind :blind: folded and you only have one chance to swoop down. If you are lucky enough to grab it than that is how lucky Jesus was to be the Son of God.
I understand you believe that there were dozens of prophecies centuries before the birth of Christ(as). However, if you ever have a Jew explain the Torah(Which is what the OT is supposed to be) You will find that the OT does not correspond with what was written.

We do have several Jewish members that have addressed that problem with the OT. You may find some of the posts in the Jewish Q&A thread.
Reply

Redeemed
06-07-2007, 04:53 AM
:rollseyes
Originally Posted by Woodrow
I understand you believe that there were dozens of prophecies centuries before the birth of Christ(as). However, if you ever have a Jew explain the Torah(Which is what the OT is supposed to be) You will find that the OT does not correspond with what was written.

We do have several Jewish members that have addressed that problem with the OT. You may find some of the posts in the Jewish Q&A thread.
This makes absoultely no sense to me.
:rollseyes
Reply

vpb
06-07-2007, 06:51 AM
If you don't believe the facts & truths of history, how will you understand the spiritual truth I share with you?
I showed you proof, with Spain, Indonesia, Malysia, Balkan?? what more do you want? do you want me to go on detail about things which u should have already known? well then I think you have never studied history, bc if you did, you know that things I mentioned are true. Show me if there was any war in indonesia or malysia that muslims were one side of the battle??? show me the proof that muslims converted with force people in Spain to Islam??? show me. the only thing you can show me is those ridicilous writings by those "historians" , who their task is just to portray Islam as a violent religion.. and there is no spiritual truth here, step down on earth, we are talking here about history and facts, wars that happened., we are not talking here about spiritaul stuff.
Reply

NoName55
06-07-2007, 10:36 AM
any one (even a halfwit) who knew history of India, would relise that Muslims ruled India for a few centuries and at the end there were more non-Muslim population than at the begining.

My question is why was it so? since we converted people at the point of sword or beheaded them
Reply

vpb
06-07-2007, 10:39 AM
any one (even a halfwit) who knew history of India, would relise that Muslims ruled India for a few centuries and at the end there were more non-Muslim population than at the begining.

My question is why was it so? since we converted people at the point of sword or beheaded them
or maybe Wodroow is being forced by someone to accept Islam ;D
is it Wodroow :) ? cuz based on alpiana, people are forced to accept Islam?
lol
Reply

Woodrow
06-07-2007, 11:25 AM
Originally Posted by vpb
or maybe Wodroow is being forced by someone to accept Islam ;D
is it Wodroow :) ? cuz based on alpiana, people are forced to accept Islam?
lol
Yep, I was forced to accept Islam. I saw the truth of the Qur'an and Allah(swt) gave me no choice except to worship Him as a Muslim.

At the time I reverted I had no contact with any Muslims. I did not even know there were any Mosques in Texas. I was quite certain there were no Muslims in Anderson County, the county I lived in. I was pretty much an Agnostic, called myself a Buddhist and was attending an Assembly of God Church twice a week for worship and Bible Study.

The people I had contact with were Christians, so I guess my Christian Neighbors forced me to realize I was a Muslim and made me revert.

It is true my family had all reverted to Islam years before. However, I had little contact with them. I did not even know where my son and oldest daughter were living and had not spoken to my youngest daughter for several years.
Reply

- Qatada -
06-07-2007, 12:00 PM
I'm sorry if this wasn't needed, if it's not - then someone can just delete it insha Allaah. :)


:salamext:


Most people say that Islaam forced people from other lands to become muslim.

We usually get the muslim response that this isn't the case, and that 'there is no compulsion in religion':

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. [Qur'an 2:256]

Then people usually ask why islaam spread to other lands, why couldn't the people just go to the other lands and call the public to islaam. Why couldn't the muslims go in the streets of the other nation and give the people leaflets, pamphlets explaining the truth and reality of islaam?


The answer to this is simple; 1400yrs ago - nearly in every nation a person was bound to follow the religion of his/her ruler. If a person turned away from the religion of the nation/ruler, they were likely to be executed straightaway.


We know that this was the case when an arab [located on the border of Al-Sham/Greater Syria] who was a former ally with the Byzantinian Romans became muslim, he was executed by the Byzantinians. This shows that the people weren't allowed to follow another way of life other than what their ruler followed, otherwise they would face death.

This is also the case with Khisra, the ruler of Persia who tore up the letter recieved by the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) - because he never wanted his people to follow another religion, otherwise he could lose his authority.



Therefore if the ruler was christian, the people were forced to follow that religion. Anyone who was in Iraq/Iran would have to follow Zoroastrianism. Anyone who was in India would have to follow hinduism etc. This happened for many centuries in the world, it was also at the time of the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him), and continued for many centuries even after that.



What did Islaam come to do? It came to the oppressive rulers and gave them one of 3 options:


1) Become muslim.

2) Pay Jizya [a small tax] and you will be under the protection of the muslims.

3)
If you don't want to accept the above, then fight.

That might seem violent, but lets look at it this way - all the nations of the world would force the people to follow the religion of their ruler.


When islaam came, it abolished this ideology of following the faith of your ruler, and because the people were living under oppression anyway by these rulers, who were taking advantage of the people. At the same time these oppressive rulers may have taxed the people heavily, because all they had in their mind was to keep the poor - poor, and keep themselves rich.



So what options did the muslims give to these oppressive governments?


The government had one of the 3 choices mentioned above.



1) They could either accept islaam and become brothers and sisters in faith, the muslims would allow these people to keep their land and wealth etc. But at the same time they would have to rule with the justice of Islaam. This would give safety to those who wanted to accept islaam within the nation because no-one could harm them if they wanted to accept the truth.

2) They could pay Jizya [a small tax] and this would be used to strengthen the security of the state, and also to help the needy etc. The benefits with this tax would be that, the people who lived in the state - they would keep their land, wealth, their honor and blood would be protected - which means their oppressive rulers can't harm them no more, and if anyone waged war against them - the muslims would fight on their behalf.

Compare this to the oppressive rulers before who would tax the people heavily, take over their lands, take their wealth, even harm them physically and take away their honor because all these people wanted was this life, they wanted to keep their empire so keeping the poor - weak would make them feel superior and feel less under a threat.


3) Or the war would take place. The muslims would actually tell the enemy that within 3 days the opposing government has to make a decision. If they don't accept either terms 1 or 2, they will be fought against. This gave the enemy time to think carefully and the muslims trustworthiness meant that they weren't ready to be attacked at any moment, rather the muslims would fight only when they had said so, unlike other enemies who may have done a surprise attack without notice.

The muslims would fight the government until the muslims had authority in the land, and then the justice would be set for the public. 1400yrs ago, if a nation took over a land - the people there would become slaves of the rulers. However, when islaam had authority the people were still free and could either pay Jizya (option 2) or become muslim without the threat of being killed.




Muslims were only told to fight against those who fought them. The Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

[In the Context of War:]

Do not kill any old person, any child, or any woman.” [Abu Dawud]

Do not kill the monks in monasteries,” or “Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship.” [Musnad Ahmad]

Narrated Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Go in Allah's name, trusting in Allah, and adhering to the religion of Allah's Apostle. Do not kill a decrepit old man, or a young infant, or a child, or a woman; do not be dishonest about booty, but collect your spoils, do right and act well, for Allah loves those who do well. (Sunan Abu Dawud , Book 14, Number 2608)


It is narrated by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children.

[Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4320]

The people living in the state, whether muslim or non muslim were under the protection of the muslim government and like mentioned earlier, their blood and honor was protected. They weren't forced to become muslim, but due to this justice and fair treatment, alot actually became muslim.

Those who never accepted islaam were allowed to rule by their own scripture, and they even had their own courts. However the major crimes would be taken to authority, and would be dealt with justly. Even if a non muslim was wronged, they would have the right to equity.



If anyone mentions situations which may have happened in muslim history in which the muslims were unjust, realise that we don't take our example from them - rather we take it from the example of the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him), and the way of his companions, who all applied justice. It was only after that some people ruled with oppression. Islaam is perfect, muslims aren't.





Someone might claim that alot of countries today allow people to follow a religion of their choice without being executed for switching religions. So why is this rule of: 1) Become Muslim 2) Jizya 3) Fight. come into it? Why is it still an islamic rule? Isn't this just an ancient idea now?

We simply say that it has only been a few centuries since the idea of 'being executed' for not following the religion of the state has been abolished [Especially in the west.]

We have seen an increase in the amount of people from other parts of the world settling in other nations (especially the west) where you have the right to follow your religion and not be harmed. And this is a basic rule in islaam, that the muslims are allowed to live in a state which allows the muslims to practise their religion freely.





Why don't the muslims go to other nations to fight and have authority in the land like the past?


Allaah Almighty out of His Eternal Wisdom has made the world in a situation that the events leading to the final hour [i.e. Judgement Day] are coming to pass. One of these events has been prophecised by the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) who said:


Narrated Thawban:


The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The people will soon summon one another to attack you as people when eating invite others to share their dish.

Someone asked: Will that be because of our small numbers at that time?

He replied: No, you will be numerous at that time: but you will be scum and rubbish like that carried down by a torrent, and Allah will take fear of you from the breasts of your enemy and last enervation into your hearts.


Someone asked:What is wahn (enervation). Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him):

He replied: Love of the world and dislike of death.

Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4284.


We can see this today, where we have wahn in our hearts - when the love of this world has entered our hearts, over the love of the hereafter [i.e. Paradise.]

Where we have deviated from the religion of Allaah/God Almighty, so we have turned away from establishing Allaah's Just law on the earth. So the oppressors can oppress, and the weak stay poor. This is still taking place in the materialistic world we live in today. Where the people are put under pressure to get the latest things, in order to be respected or accepted by society. The media is our 'guidance' and if we turn away from this 'guidance' - we are looked down upon by the public. Then something new comes out and the gadget you got before is 'old' and you need to move forward, otherwise you're looked down upon again. Where if you don't move forward with society, you're left alone.. rejected.


It's a continous circle, and we as muslims have fallen into it. We've actually become the slaves of this society, even though the purpose of this life is to be the slave of our own Creator, Allaah Almighty.

Due to this attatchment to this world, we have turned away from the guidance which was revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him.) Which means we have stopped striving for Allaah's cause, and in return for that - we are facing the humiliation on earth we see today.



So - no, the establishment of justice with the law of Allaah, isn't 'ancient' - rather we are becoming slaves of society instead of slaves of Allaah. The real life is the afterlife, and the establishment of Justice for Allaah's sake holds a huge reward in this world and the hereafter. This can only come through striving in order to please Allaah, and with your sincerety - you will see the fruits inshaa'Allaah [God willing.] If not in this world, in the real life of the eternal hereafter.. where you can have all that you desire, and more. They are pleased with Allaah, and He is pleased with them. That is the great victory.


Reply

Muslim Knight
06-07-2007, 12:09 PM
Please, Fi_Sabilillah, any amount of useful knowledge is appreciated.
Reply

Woodrow
06-07-2007, 12:17 PM
:w:

Excellent information Bro. Fi
Reply

vpb
06-07-2007, 01:07 PM
Fi = Picky :p
Reply

Muslim Knight
06-07-2007, 01:51 PM
Had this posted on another thread but bro Fi_Sabilillah thought this was funny and requested it be posted here. Aye, I'd like to make children happy so here you go:


Heard this joke about the left-hand. A fellow Muslim debater was refuting the notion that Islam was spread by the sword. Some dejectors of Islam have claimed that Muslims conquered nations wielding sword in the right hand and holding the Quran in the other hand (i.e. the left hand). So this guy refuted, saying this wasn't true, Muslims don't hold their Qurans in the left hand because it's used to wash the backside and whatnot.

Here is the excerpt

During the time of Mohammad, Abu Bakar and Omar, the Quran had not been written down yet. It was mostly committed to memory and randomly recorded on bits and pieces of animal skin and so on. So there was no such thing as the Quran in the real sense of the word, at least not in the form that you see today, a book. Furthermore, there was no paper and printing press yet (which was invented in Germany hundreds of years later), so even if they did produce the Quran into a book form it would be a handful of hand-written copies and far short of the 100,000 copies they would need to arm each and every Arab soldier with a Quran. Anyway, no Arab would hold a Quran in his left hand and his sword in his right hand because the left hand is for ‘dirty’ things like washing your butt after answering the call of nature.
SOURCE


Well, some of the readers' comments on the article were so outright insulting and so offensive, they represent the true ugly face of the non-Muslim dejectors of Islam here in Malaysia, so be warned.
Reply

vpb
06-07-2007, 01:55 PM
Heard this joke about the left-hand. A fellow Muslim debater was refuting the notion that Islam was spread by the sword. Some dejectors of Islam have claimed that Muslims conquered nations wielding sword in the right hand and holding the Quran in the other hand (i.e. the left hand). So this guy refuted, saying this wasn't true, Muslims don't hold their Qurans in the left hand because it's used to wash the backside and whatnot.
lollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll, very nice joke.
Reply

- Qatada -
06-07-2007, 02:02 PM
:salamext:


lol subhan Allah.. bro but i think there was a copy collected by Zayd ibn Thaabit during Abu Bakr's time, but later on collected again during the companion of God's Messenger, Uthman ibn Affaan. :) And Allaah knows best.


It's a funny joke though lol.
Reply

vpb
06-07-2007, 02:11 PM
on the book of history of quranic text it says:

In the early days Mushafs were scribed on parchment of course, usually much heavier than paper, so that a full Mushaf may have weighted a few kilograms. And we have many examples where Qur'an is written in such large calligraphy that an entire Mushaf's thickness would easily exceed one metre.

Taking the Mushaf that is printed by the King Fahd complex in Madinah as a standard, we find that it contains some six hundred pages (approximately 9,000 lines) (he is talking about the today's printed Qur'an) . Interestingly, the entire text of the parchment in Figure 5.2 is half a line in the Mushaf printed at Madinah, meaning that an entire Mushaf written on that scale would require 18,000 pages.

The image that the author is talking about is with dimensions 18cm x 13cm.
Reply

جوري
06-07-2007, 02:22 PM
I found this thread and I think it is excellent... once the critics have read it, can they come pose their questions, it has excellent points from both sides..

Was Islam won by the sword?

:w:
Reply

duskiness
06-07-2007, 03:22 PM
well...I've read too much today on "World Affairs" today, so maybe that is why I'm posting here (and I really should be learning now...)
I think that most of us can agree that Muslims after conquering new lands didn't walk from door to door politely asking "Islam or death?".
Nevertheless Arab army under Islam flag conquered North Africa, Palestine, Persia, Spain, south France, Byzantium (and done this in incredible paste). Those territories were Christian and Zoroastrian (so - no, Muslim-Christian "harsh friendship" didn't start with Crusades...). Can we all agree that conquering is usually done with bloodshed, slaughter and being occupied by people of different nationality and faith is not something we all dream about? (side note: yes...I remember there were some Christians minority groups which preferred Muslim rules to Byzantium)

now about Islam and conversions:
The spread of the Muslim faith in the first centuries of the Islamic rule was mainly by persuasion and inducement though at times there were attempts at forcible conversions. Many Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians converted to Islam, however there were significant differences among the conversion rate and scale of these three religions. Most Zoroastrians converted rather rapidly[citation needed], while the conversion of Christians was gradual. Judaism however on the whole survived throughout Islamic lands. Lewis explains that the reason for rapid conversion of Zoroastrians was the close association of the Zoroastrian priesthood and the structure of power in ancient Iran, and also neither possessing "stimulation of powerful friends abroad by the Christians, nor the bitter skill in survival possessed by the Jews." For the Christians, the process of Arab settlement, of conversion to Islam and assimiliation into the dominant culture caused their gradual conversion. For many of them, transition from a dominant to a subject status, which involved disadvantages, was too much to endure. In some places, like the Maghreb, Central Asia, and southern Arabia, Christianity died out completely. Jews in contrast were more accustomed to adversity. For them, the Islamic conquest was just a change of master. They had already learnt how to adapt themselves and "endure under the conditions of political, social and economic disability."[6] Jewish Encyclopedia reports the high rate of conversion to Islam of informed Jews in the twelfth century. Kohler and Gottheil in Jewish Encyclopedia agree with Grätz who thinks the reason was 'the degeneracy that had taken hold of Eastern Judaism, manifesting itself in the most superstitious practises,' and also their being 'moved by the wonderful success of the Arabs in becoming a world-power.' Jewish Encyclopedia also reports outward conversions of Jews to Islam at around the year 1142 in southwestern Europe due to the rise of the Almohades.[52]From an Islamic legal perspective, the pledge of protection granted dhimmis the freedom to practice their religion and spared them forced conversions. Furthermore, the dhimmis were also serving a variety of useful purposes, mostly economic, which was another point of concern to jurists.[53] Indeed, in the first several centuries after the Islamic conquest and subsequently in the Ottoman Empire, forcible conversions were rare. Subsequently, rulers occasionally broke the pledge and dhimmis were forced to choose between conversion to Islam and death. Forced conversions occurred mostly in the Maghreb, especially under the Almohads, a militant dynasty with messianic claims, as well as in Persia, where Shi'a Muslims were generally less tolerant than their Sunni counterparts.[54]
In the 12th century, rulers of the Almohad dynasty killed or forcibly converted Jews and Christians in Al-Andalus and the Maghreb, putting an end to the existence of Christian communities in North Africa outside Egypt.[55][56] In an effort to survive under Almohads, most Jews resorted to practicing Islam outwardly, while remaining faithful to Judaism; they openly reverted to Judaism after Almohad persecutions passed.[57] During the Cordoba massacre of 1148, the Jewish philosopher, theologian, and physician Maimonides saved his own life only by converting to Islam; after Maimonides moved to Egypt, this conversion was ruled void by a Muslim judge who was a friend and patient of Maimonides.[58] As a result of Almohad persecutions and other forced conversions that took place in Morocco afterwards, several Muslim tribes in the Atlas Mountains, as well as many Muslim families in Fez, have Jewish origin.[56]
From entry on Dhimmi on wiki
Personally I think that conversions to Islam had much more to do with political, economical power and "dhimmi" status than naked power of sword. Before you will cast stones on me - I also know that after Constantine power of state was often behind christianization actions.
It was wrong in both cases.

Some of you mentioned also Al-Andalus referring to it as almost interfaith paradise on earth:
The treatment of non-Muslims in the Caliphate has been a subject of considerable debate among scholars and commentators, especially those interested in drawing parallels to the coexistence of Muslims and non-Muslims in the modern world. It has been argued that Jews (and other religious minorities) were treated significantly better in Muslim-controlled Iberia than in Christian western Europe, living in a unique "golden age" of tolerance, respect and harmony. Though al-Andalus was a key center of Jewish life during the early Middle Ages, producing important scholars and one of the most stable and wealthy Jewish communities, there is no clear scholarly consensus over whether the relationship between Jews and Muslims was truly a paragon of interfaith relations, or whether it was simply similar to the treatment Jews received elsewhere at the same time.
María Rosa Menocal, a specialist in Iberian literature at Yale University, has argued that "Tolerance was an inherent aspect of Andalusian society".[14] Menocal's 2003 book, The Ornament of the World, argues that the Jewish dhimmis living under the Caliphate, while allowed fewer rights than Muslims, were still better off than in other parts of Christian Europe. Jews from other parts of Europe made their way to al-Andalus, where they were tolerated - as were Christians of sects regarded as heretical by various European Christian states.
Bernard Lewis takes issue with this view, arguing its modern use is ahistorical and apologetic:
The claim to tolerance, now much heard from Muslim apologists and more especially from apologists for Islam, is also new and of alien origin. It is only very recently that some defenders of Islam have begun to assert that their society in the past accorded equal status to non-Muslims. No such claim is made by spokesmen for resurgent Islam, and historically there is no doubt that they are right. Traditional Islamic societies neither accorded such equality nor pretended that they were so doing. Indeed, in the old order, this would have been regarded not as a merit but as a dereliction of duty. How could one accord the same treatment to those who follow the true faith and those who willfully reject it? This would be a theological as well as a logical absurdity.[15]
Mark Cohen, Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, in his landmark 1995 book on the subject, Under Crescent and Cross, argues that the "myth of an interfaith utopia" was first promulgated by Jewish historians such as Heinrich Graetz in the 19th century as a rebuke to Christian countries (particularly in Eastern Europe) for their treatment of Jews. This view went unchallenged until it was adopted by Arabs as a "propaganda weapon against Zionism",[16] who wanted to show that the establishment of the modern State of Israel shattered an alleged previously existing harmony between Jews and Arabs in Palestine under the Ottoman Empire; they pointed to the supposed utopia of the so-called "golden age" as an example of previous harmonious relationships. This "Arab polemical exploitation" was met with the "counter-myth" of the "neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history" by historians such as Bat Yeor,[17] which also "cannot be maintained in the light of historical reality".[18]
Frederick Schweitzer and Marvin Perry agree that there are two general views of the status of Jews under Islam, the traditional "golden age" and the revisionist "persecution and pogrom" interpretations. They argue that the 19th century idealized view of Jewish historians was taken up by Arab Muslims after 1948 as "an Arab-Islamist weapon in what is primarily an ideological and political struggle against Israel", and ignores "a catalog of lesser-known hatred and massacres", including Muslim pogroms against Jews in Córdoba in 1011 and in Granada in 1066.[19]The Caliphate treated non-Muslims differently at different times. The longest period of tolerance began after 912, with the reign of Abd-ar-Rahman III and his son, Al-Hakam II where the Jews of Al-Andalus prospered, devoting themselves to the service of the Caliphate of Cordoba, to the study of the sciences, and to commerce and industry, especially to trading in silk and slaves, in this way promoting the prosperity of the country. Southern Iberia became an asylum for the oppressed Jews of other countries.[citation needed]
Christians, braced by the example of their co-religionists across the borders of al-Andalus, sometimes asserted the claims of Christianity and knowingly courted martyrdom, even during these tolerant periods. For example, forty-eight Christians of Córdoba were decapitated for religious offences against Islam. They became known as the Martyrs of Córdoba. Muslim sources consider that many Christians deliberately courted martyrdom by publicly declaiming against Islam inside mosques, insulting Muhammad and making declarations of Christian religious beliefs considered blasphemous in Islam.[citation needed] These deaths played out, not in a single spasm of religious unrest, but over an extended period of time; dissenters were fully aware of the fates of their predecessors and chose to protest against Islamic rule.[20]
With the death of al-Hakam III in 976, the situation worsened for non-Muslims in general. The first major persecution occurred on December 30, 1066 when the Jews were expelled from Granada and fifteen hundred families were killed when they did not leave. Starting in 1090 with the invasion of the Almoravids, the situation worsened further.[citation needed] Even under the Almoravids, however, it is believed that most Jews prospered.[citation needed]
During these successive waves of violence against non-Muslims, many Jewish and even Muslim scholars left the Muslim-controlled portion of Iberia for the then-still relatively tolerant city of Toledo, which had been reconquered in 1085 by Christian forces. Some Jews joined the armies of the Christians (about 40,000), while others joined the Almoravids in the fight against Alfonso VI of Castile.
source

there was no tolerance in our meaning of this word. Just smaller (mainly by Muslims) and bigger (mainly by Christians) degree of intolerance. There was no paradise. Maybe we are living in one but we are too blind to see it.
I'm not writing this to say that this or that side was "goodie good" and the other not. It is so not true!
but after reading what you wrote, it seemed to me that was what many of you wanted to say. Sword and conquer played it role in spreading Islam.
Reply

duskiness
06-07-2007, 03:25 PM
Originally Posted by NoName55
any one (even a halfwit) who knew history of India, would relise that Muslims ruled India for a few centuries and at the end there were more non-Muslim population than at the begining.

My question is why was it so? since we converted people at the point of sword or beheaded them
well, this isn't that black-and-white also. Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent

overall you weren't angels, you weren't beasts. as simple...
Reply

NoName55
06-07-2007, 03:31 PM
^^ nonsensical posts that should be removed are left like a festering sore,but my replies that may offend the kuffar or bidhati "muslims" vanish quicker than horns from a donkey's head, therefore I give up wasting time and effort in composing them only to be deleted by some upstart "Aalim"/"Aalima"

edit:
I am going into a corner and sulk/pout like a 4 year old that I am considered to be! :(
Reply

- Qatada -
06-07-2007, 03:35 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
If anyone mentions situations which may have happened in muslim history in which the muslims were unjust, realise that we don't take our example from them - rather we take it from the example of the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him), and the way of his companions, who all applied justice. It was only after that some people ruled with oppression. Islaam is perfect, muslims aren't.

:) By the way even if some things within them articles are true, i don't really trust wikipedia since anyone can edit the texts - whether its for the positive or negative.

And i'm sure there are many other articles in regard to the crusaders who took over Damascus for example, and caused so much bloodshed of the innocents that the blood was upto the knees of their horses.


I think you understand that if we're going to look at history, there has been evil from many sides, that's why i prefer sticking to the religious texts as proofs rather than looking at the actions of certain people who claim to follow the religion while doing actions which aren't necessarily part of it.



Regards.



Reply

جوري
06-07-2007, 03:38 PM
I think wikipdia has become a substitute for good solid history books, the same way Hollywood is substituting good solid reading for a quickie fix... People are becoming more and more ignorant-- truly this is the time where there is an abundance of books but small non reading minds... anyhow, the link I posted went into great details of how Islam was spread. and I think it should suffice... anything else at this point is rudimentary and taking up bandwidth! the subject has been covered here ad nauseam!

:w:
Reply

duskiness
06-07-2007, 04:47 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
:) By the way even if some things within them articles are true, i don't really trust wikipedia since anyone can edit the texts - whether its for the positive or negative.
I never claimed that wiki is infallible. It is quite reliable and has this advantage over many, many other sources on the net, that it usually presents at least 2 points of view and gives sources for statements. Personally, I always check the discussion tab - there you can see voice of "minorities"
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
And i'm sure there are many other articles in regard to the crusaders who took over Damascus for example, and caused so much bloodshed of the innocents that the blood was upto the knees of their horses.
wasn't that siege of Jerusalem? ;)
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
I think wikipdia has become a substitute for good solid history books, the same way Hollywood is substituting good solid reading for a quickie fix...
wikipedia is just encyclopaedia. Gives you quickly information you need and sources to look for more. Role of book is different. Not to mention, that searching trough it, copy-pasting and the fact that it is already in English makes life much easier :)
Reply

- Qatada -
06-07-2007, 05:07 PM
Originally Posted by duskiness
I never claimed that wiki is infallible. It is quite reliable and has this advantage over many, many other sources on the net, that it usually presents at least 2 points of view and gives sources for statements. Personally, I always check the discussion tab - there you can see voice of "minorities"

wasn't that siege of Jerusalem? ;)

wikipedia is just encyclopaedia. Gives you quickly information you need and sources to look for more. Role of book is different. Not to mention, that searching trough it, copy-pasting and the fact that it is already in English makes life much easier :)


Okay thankyou, then if we're to look at the source you provided:


The final assault and massacre


Throughout the siege, attacks were made on the walls, but each one was repulsed. The Genoese troops, led by commander Guglielmo Embriaco, had previously dismantled the ships in which the Genoeses came to the Holy Land; Embriaco, using the ship's wood, made some siege towers. These were rolled up to the walls on the night of July 14 much to the surprise and concern of the garrison. On the morning of July 15, Godfrey's tower reached his section of the walls near the northeast corner gate, and according to the Gesta two Flemish knights from Tournai named Lethalde and Engelbert were the first to cross into the city, followed by Godfrey, his brother Eustace, Tancred, and their men. Raymond's tower was at first stopped by a ditch, but as the other crusaders had already entered, the Muslim guarding the gate surrendered to Raymond.


Once the Crusaders had breached the outer walls and entered the city almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem was killed over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning. Muslims, Jews, and even a few of the Christians were all massacred with indiscriminate violence. Many Muslims sought shelter in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where, according to one famous account in Gesta, "...the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..." According to Raymond of Aguilers "men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins." The chronicle of Ibn al-Qalanisi states the Jewish defenders sought refuge in their synagogue, but the "Franks burned it over their heads", killing everyone inside.[1] The Crusaders circled the flaming building while singing "Christ, We Adore Thee!".[2] Tancred claimed the Temple quarter for himself and offered protection to some of the Muslims there, but he could not prevent their deaths at the hands of his fellow crusaders. The Fatimid governor Iftikar ad-Daula withdrew to the Tower of David, which he soon surrendered to Raymond in return for safe passage for himself and bodyguards to Ascalon. [1]


The Gesta Francorum states some people managed to escape the siege unharmed. Its anonymous author wrote, "When the pagans had been overcome, our men seized great numbers, both men and women, either killing them or keeping them captive, as they wished."[2] Later it is written, "[Our leaders] also ordered all the Saracen dead to be cast outside because of the great stench, since the whole city was filled with their corpses; and so the living Saracens dragged the dead before the exits of the gates and arranged them in heaps, as if they were houses. No one ever saw or heard of such slaughter of pagan people, for funeral pyres were formed from them like pyramids, and no one knows their number except God alone." [3]


So you see that these people never brought the peaceful message of Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) afterall. :) Infact, they went against his teachings and caused a massacre, while claiming that they love Jesus son of Mary. And not just that - claiming that the muslims are pagans when they themselves worship others instead of the One who Created them and gives them sight, hearing, health and all that they have!


According to the French historian Michaud, on the conquest of Jerusalem by the Christians in 1099 `the Saracens were massacred in the streets and in the houses. Jerusalem had no refuge for the vanquished. Some fled from death by precipitating themselves from the ramparts; others crowded for shelter into the palaces, the towers and above all, in the mosques where they could not conceal themselves from the Christians. The Crusaders, masters of the Mosque of Umar, where the Saracens defended themselves for sometime, renewed their deplorable scenes which disgraced the conquest of Titus. The infantry and the cavalry rushed pell-mell among the fugitives. Amid the most horrid tumult, nothing was heard but the groans and cries of death; the victors trod over heaps of corpses in pursuing those who vainly attempted to escape. Raymond d'Agiles who was an eye-witness, says :that under the portico of the mosque, the blood was knee-deep, and reached the horses' bridles.'

There was a short lull in the act of slaughter when the Crusaders assembled to offer their thanksgiving prayer for the victory they had achieved. But soon it was renewed with great ferocity. `All the captives', says Michaud, `whom the lassitude of carnage had at first spared, all those who had been saved in the hope of rich ransom, were butchered in cold blood. The Saracens were forced to throw themselves from the tops of towers and houses; they were burnt alive; they were dragged from their subterranean retreats, they were hauled to the public places, and immolated on piles of the dead. Neither the tears of women nor the cries of little children--- not even the sight of the place where Jesus Christ forgave his executioners, could mollify the victors' passion... The carnage lasted for a week. The few who escaped were reduced to horrible servitude'.

Another Christian historian, Mill adds: `It was resolved that no pity should be shown to the Mussalmans. The subjugated people were, therefore, dragged into the public places, and slain as victims. Women with children at their breast, girls and boys, all were slaughtered. The squares, the streets and even the un-inhabited places of Jerusalem, were strewn with the dead bodies of men and women, and the mangled limbs of children. No heart melted in compassion, or expanded into benevolence'.

These are the graphic accounts of the massacre of the Muslims in Jerusalem about ninety years before the reoccupation of the Holy city by Sultan Salahuddin in which more than seventy thousand Muslims perished.

On the other hand, when the Sultan captured Jerusalem in 1187, he gave free pardon to the Christians living in the city. Only the combatants were asked to leave the city on payment of a nominal ransom. In most of the cases, the Sultan provided the ransom money from his own pocket and even provided them transport. A number of weeping Christian women carrying their children in their arms approached the Sultan and said `You see us on foot, the wives, mothers and dauthers of the warriors who are your prisoners; we are quitting forever this country; they aided us in our lives, in losing them we lose our last hope; if you give them to us, they can alleviate our miseries and we shall not be without support on earth'. The Sultan was highly moved with their appeal and set free their men. Those who left the city were allowed to carry all their bag and baggage. The humane and benevolent behaviour of the Sultan with the defeated Christians of Jerusalem provides a striking contrast to the butchery of the Muslims in this city at the hands of the Crusaders ninety years before. The commanders under the Sultan vied with each other in showing mercy to the defeated Crusaders.
The Christian refugees of Jerusalem were not given refuge by the cities ruled by the Christians. `Many of the Christians who left Jerusalem', says Mill, `went to Antioch but Bohemond not only denied them hospitality, but even stripped them.


SOURCE


Now we see that these Crusaders weren't really heroes, they were the most evil of people. Even killing those who 'believed in Christ!'


Yet when Salahudeen came, he followed the teachings of God's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) - and he was more closer in following Christ son of Mary (peace be upon him) in his forgiveness more than those who claim to 'love the Christ'!


We also know the history of the Reconquista in Al Andalus [spain] - and what they did was even more evil to the believers compared to the articles which you post earlier. Infact, there's even a report by a Muslim scientist who explains his childhood, and how he saw muslims being killed by being crucified (which is supposed to be a sign of love? or dishonor?) and the killing of muslim women, by hanging them by their hair till they die. And cutting open the stomachs of pregnant women so their children don't live?

I'll let you read the article if you want to read the Muslim scientists [Mohummed Abd Al-Rafee Al-Andlosy's] experience:
http://www.islamicboard.com/general-...uisitions.html



I don't like arguing over who did what in the past since that can lead to debating over nothing, so if you want to continue this on - we can refer to the religious texts instead. And yes, there are many violent aspects in the context of war in the OT, even in the NT. So if you want to debate that, then i'm willing to insha Allaah (God willing.)

If not - then please don't post events which happened in Islamic history when there is evils done by many groups of people (including Jews, Christians, hindus etc.), so we use their authentic texts to see whether what they're doing is correct or justified or not.





Peace.
Reply

جوري
06-07-2007, 06:48 PM
Originally Posted by duskiness
book is different. Not to mention, that searching trough it, copy-pasting and the fact that it is already in English makes life much easier :)
easier but not necessarily accurate, it fits with a certain agenda! far be it from me to impose proper history on anyone who wishes a "good enough" substitute!

peace to you Dusky!
Reply

Keltoi
06-07-2007, 07:20 PM
Wiki picks up on major points and themes. If you want a detailed description of events a book is necessary, but I've found most Wiki entries are factual when it comes to major events, people, and dates.
Reply

Woodrow
06-07-2007, 07:30 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Wiki picks up on major points and themes. If you want a detailed description of events a book is necessary, but I've found most Wiki entries are factual when it comes to major events, people, and dates.
Correct. I find wiki to be pretty good on giving broad general info. But, if you want details or need a totally unbiased opinion you need to try other sources, fortunately wiki can often direct you to other sources.
Reply

duskiness
06-07-2007, 07:47 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Okay thankyou, then if we're to look at the source you provided
So you see that these people never brought the peaceful message of Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) afterall. :) Infact, they went against his teachings and caused a massacre, while claiming that they love Jesus son of Mary. And not just that - claiming that the muslims are pagans when they themselves worship others instead of the One who Created them and gives them sight, hearing, health and all that they have!

Now we see that these Crusaders weren't really heroes, they were the most evil of people. Even killing those who 'believed in Christ!'


Yet when Salahudeen came, he followed the teachings of God's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) - and he was more closer in following Christ son of Mary (peace be upon him) in his forgiveness more than those who claim to 'love the Christ'!
Please apply the same logic to it as here:
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
If anyone mentions situations which may have happened in muslim history in which the muslims were unjust, realise that we don't take our example from them - rather we take it from the example of the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him), and the way of his companions, who all applied justice. It was only after that some people ruled with oppression. Islaam is perfect, muslims aren't.
just change Muslim to Christian, Muhammad to Jesus...

We also know the history of the Reconquista in Al Andalus [spain] - and what they did was even more evil to the believers compared to the articles which you post earlier. Infact, there's even a report by a Muslim scientist who explains his childhood, and how he saw muslims being killed by being crucified (which is supposed to be a sign of love? or dishonor?) and the killing of muslim women, by hanging them by their hair till they die. And cutting open the stomachs of pregnant women so their children don't live?

I'll let you read the article if you want to read the Muslim scientists [Mohummed Abd Al-Rafee Al-Andlosy's] experience:
http://www.islamicboard.com/general-...uisitions.html

I don't like arguing over who did what in the past since that can lead to debating over nothing, so if you want to continue this on - we can refer to the religious texts instead. And yes, there are many violent aspects in the context of war in the OT, even in the NT. So if you want to debate that, then i'm willing to insha Allaah (God willing.)

If not - then please don't post events which happened in Islamic history when there is evils done by many groups of people (including Jews, Christians, hindus etc.), so we use their authentic texts to see whether what they're doing is correct or justified or not.
Peace.
But to be frank, I really don't understand what siege of Jerusalem and reconquista have to do with the subject of this thread?
In my original post, I stressed few time that Christians were not better. That we had our share of blood on our hands. At no point, did I say that crusaders were "heroes". I recognised quote you used, although it referred not exactly to the city you've mentioned. Is that not enough for you to prove that I know history (dark and bad parts included) and that I don't won't to play "you are worst than me"????
Or why did you have to remind me that there are "evils done by many groups of people"? I also DO know that!
But the thread was about spread of Islam, so I sticked to it. Don't blame me for that!
Why then we have to jump back to history of Christianity to look for black spots? We both know that they are not hard to find. But it's almost a rule that when you'll say something bad about Islam, subject of Crusades has to appear!!
I even can understand that probably you've heard so many bad things about your faith, that whenever you feel it is being critiqued, you attack back.
but, Fi_Sabilillah, sword has two edges. Even if one will hit the enemy, the other will hurt the innocent. That's how it is, and it completely doesn't depend on the faith of the person who holds this sword. Because both Islam and Christianity used sword and power, there are facts in history we have to accept.
And remember.
Just as I remember what happened in Jerusalem, you have few things to remember. Not because we accept them, but because those who did it shared our faith and did it with the name of God on their lips.
Maybe also because those events are example that faith can turn into fanatism. We both believe so there is (very small...) risk that one day we may accept hurting someone because of religious reason.
As a rule I don't start threads about things I don't like in Islam or your darker history. I came to the thread which some else started. I disagreed with some of posts, which depicted history in too light colours - at least for my taste. You don't want me to post about - well your the one to set rules, I'm the one to obey.

"The Lord bless you and keep you;
The Lord make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace"

...peace or salaam...

and if that's not too much to ask, make dua for my exam tomorrow ;)
Reply

- Qatada -
06-07-2007, 08:10 PM
Thankyou, :) the reason why i responded to the thread in such a manner was to show that it's not really a part of Islaam, even if later people did actions which contradicted it.


Infact, to have hypocrites in the religion is more of a threat than it is to have non muslims who oppose the religion. The reason for that is because the threat from the hypocrites is from the inside, these people may plot against the Muslim state and gradually spread corruption amongst them.

Whereas the opposing enemy is clearly against the believers and willing to harm them, so they can prepare against the clear opposition.


Infact, it was the hypocrites who caused alot of harm against the believers within Medina during the time of God's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him.) So forced conversions in reality 1) Aren't a part of Islaam 2) Cause more harm than benefit.



Anyway, i'm sorry if i caused offense. Thanks for your time.




Peace.
Reply

Redeemed
06-09-2007, 12:13 AM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Thankyou, :) the reason why i responded to the thread in such a manner was to show that it's not really a part of Islaam, even if later people did actions which contradicted it.


Infact, to have hypocrites in the religion is more of a threat than it is to have non muslims who oppose the religion. The reason for that is because the threat from the hypocrites is from the inside, these people may plot against the Muslim state and gradually spread corruption amongst them.

Whereas the opposing enemy is clearly against the believers and willing to harm them, so they can prepare against the clear opposition.


Infact, it was the hypocrites who caused alot of harm against the believers within Medina during the time of God's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him.) So forced conversions in reality 1) Aren't a part of Islaam 2) Cause more harm than benefit.



Anyway, i'm sorry if i caused offense. Thanks for your time.




Peace.
I wish you were right, but forced conversion works for the majority or all of the people who know little of the power of God. The Spanish forced their way of life on the Indians, and that culture turned into Mexicans who adopted Catholicism as their religion. Muslims have done the same; infact, it was the Catholics who learned from them about Jihad.
Reply

NoName55
06-09-2007, 05:32 AM
Is it not about time that you were asked to say goodbye? and were advised to get out and about to see the real world. Buy some real history books (even Encarta and Brittannica) and stop getting your knowledge from Faldwell types
Reply

vpb
06-09-2007, 05:32 AM
Muslims have done the same; infact, it was the Catholics who learned from them about Jihad.
interesting, I can't believe how no war happened, and all the catholics waited 4 centuries, for muslims to come at teach them about Jihad.
what a silly post. ;D
Reply

Redeemed
06-09-2007, 01:44 PM
Originally Posted by NoName55
Is it not about time that you were asked to say goodbye? and were advised to get out and about to see the real world. Buy some real history books (even Encarta and Brittannica) and stop getting your knowledge from Faldwell types
pretty singing what is it
Reply

Keltoi
06-10-2007, 03:56 PM
The Crusades, primarily the 1st, could be compared with the Muslim concept of "jihad". I'm referring to the religious nature of the action and the justifications for it by the Church. Of course the Church should have realized they weren't dealing with armies of good Christian knights, but armies of men whose lives revolved around warfare and violence. Actually they probably did, which leads to another element here, which is the promise of Heaven to those who kill and die in the name of God. These concepts can be found in both Christianity and Islam.
Reply

NoName55
06-10-2007, 04:22 PM
jihad as Holy war is Catholic invention as opposed to authentic Islamic meaning which is all encompassing and includes struggling against self as well as fighting the attacker
Reply

Keltoi
06-10-2007, 04:31 PM
Originally Posted by NoName55
jihad as Holy war is Catholic invention as opposed to authentic Islamic meaning which is all encompassing and includes struggling against self as well as fighting the attacker
Meanings and realities are usually two different things. Holy War is not a Catholic invention, which I think you know very well. Do these concepts of Holy War come straight out of our Holy Books?, no. We are dealing with human beings here, not books. The Church called for a Holy War to reclaim Jerusalem and the birthplace of Christ, later the Muslims would call for a Holy War to reclaim it from the Christians. It really isn't that complicated.
Reply

NoName55
06-10-2007, 04:38 PM
"The Church called for a Holy War to reclaim Jerusalem and the birthplace of Christ" or could it be the tales of wealth and opulence inspired them to go on an organized robbing spree. To build the numbers of armies the holy part was thrown in thus all the corrupt killers, highwaymen and other undesirables enlisted in droves in exchange for forgiveness of all past crimes
Reply

Amadeus85
06-10-2007, 04:50 PM
Originally Posted by NoName55
"The Church called for a Holy War to reclaim Jerusalem and the birthplace of Christ" or could it be the tales of wealth and opulence inspired them to go on an organized robbing spree. To build the numbers of armies the holy part was thrown in thus all the corrupt killers, highwaymen and other undesirables enlisted in droves in exchange for forgiveness of all past crimes
You are reffering to crusades right? So now you think, what if in middle ages christian armies conquered Mecca, wouldnt muslims try to take it back?
So how you can be suprised that, after muslims' conquest of Jerusalem , christian armies decided to take it back?
Reply

NoName55
06-10-2007, 05:11 PM
Don't talk rubbish, read history and check the time frame for both events.

Re: Mecca, England has been in control of entire country by proxy for quite some time now. do you remember twin towers? those fellows wer saudis. and England could not very well attack it self to please its matey bush, so what to do when public is clamouring for vengence? oh I know lets attack a 3rd country using weapons of mass deception thus is born WMDs

edit:

If the purpose was to "liberate" "Christ birthplace" then why murder Jews en route as well as in Palestin/Israel to the point of near extinction? for they were not in control of any government!
Reply

Woodrow
06-10-2007, 05:17 PM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
You are reffering to crusades right? So now you think, what if in middle ages christian armies conquered Mecca, wouldnt muslims try to take it back?
So how you can be suprised that, after muslims' conquest of Jerusalem , christian armies decided to take it back?
Which would explain why the Crusaders also killed all of the Jews who were living in Jeruasalem.



Jerusalem in the Crusader Period

In 1095 Pope Urban II called on Latin Christendom to rescue Jerusalem and the Holy Land from its infidel rulers. This was to lead to masses of people to set out across Europe on a series of barbaric military campaigns known as the Crusades.




Massacre of Jews and Moslems

The Crusaders savagely murdered the Jewish and Moslem inhabitants of Jerusalem. The dimensions of the massacre were so horrific that 'rivers of blood' flowed through the streets and even covered the horses hooves. William of Tyre described the victorious Crusaders 'dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which bought terror to all who met them'. The Jewish community was locked in the central synagogue and burnt alive. The few thousand survivors, out of a population of 40,000, were sold as slaves at the city gates. When they finished murdering thousands of innocent people the Crusaders gathered at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to give thanks.

The conquest of the city completed, the Crusaders selected Godrey de Bouillon as the city's ruler. He received the title 'Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre' and established Jerusalem as the capital of the country - 'The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem'. This was the first time in over one thousand years that Jerusalem functioned as the country's capital. The city underwent several major transformations as a result of the conquest, especially in terms of population, major edifices and economy, in addition to the change in political leadership.
Source:http://www.biu.ac.il/js/rennert/history_9.html





Events

In the First Crusade (1096) flourishing communities on the Rhine and the Danube were utterly destroyed by some crusaders (see German Crusade, 1096). In the Second Crusade (1147) the Jews in France suffered especially. Philip Augustus treated them with exceptional severity during the Third Crusade (1188). The Jews were also subjected to attacks by the Shepherds' Crusades of 1251 and 1320.

The atrocities were opposed by the local bishops and widely condemned at the time as a violation of the Crusades' aim, which was not directed against the Jews. However, the perpetrators mostly escaped legal punishment. Also, the social position of the Jews in western Europe was distinctly worsened, and legal restrictions increased during and after the Crusades. They prepared the way for anti-Jewish legislation of Pope Innocent III. The crusades resulted in centuries of strong feelings of ill will on both sides and hence constitute a turning point in the relationship between Jews and Christians.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...d_the_Crusades


Now what set off the Crusade?

Council of Piacenza
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Council of Piacenza was a mixed synod of ecclesiastics and laymen of the Roman Catholic Church, which took place from March 1 to March 5, 1095, at Piacenza.

The Council was held at the end of Pope Urban II's tour of Italy and France, which he made to reassert his authority after the investiture controversy with the Holy Roman Empire. Two hundred bishops attended, as well as 4000 other church officials, and 30,000 laymen; there were so many people that the council had to be held outside of the city. The massive number of attendees reflects the increased authority of the church in the wake of Pope Gregory VII.

Among the lay attendees were Praxedis, the wife of emperor Henry IV, who came to complain about her husband's affairs. Also in attendance were ambassadors from Philip I of France, who came to appeal Philip's recent excommunication over his illegal divorce and remarriage to Bertrade de Montfort: Philip was given until Pentecost to rectify his situation. The rest of the business of the council expressed fairly typical church concerns: there were at least 15 canons published during the council, including a condemnation of the Berengerian heresy; a condemnation of the Nicolaitan heresy; an affirmation of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist; denunciations of the Antipope Clement III and his supporters; and a prohibition of payment to priests for baptisms, burials, or confirmations.

In hindsight, the most important attendees were the ambassadors sent by Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenus. Alexius had been excommunicated by Gregory VII, and been through a series of reinstatements in the Church, but Urban had ultimately lifted the excommunication when he became pope in 1088, and relations between the east and west were at least temporarily friendly. The Byzantine Empire had lost much of its territory in Asia Minor to the Seljuk Turks in the aftermath of the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, and Alexius hoped western knights could help him restore it.

The ambassadors probably exaggerated the immediate danger to the empire, which was not so great, now that the Seljuks were fighting amongst themselves; Alexius also told them to remind them that Jerusalem was also held by Muslims, knowing that western Christians, too, attached a special significance to the city at the centre of the world.

Alexius' request was taken far more seriously than he had hoped. Urban may already have been thinking about a crusade to the east, and the request was interpreted as a sign of weakness in both the Eastern empire and the Orthodox church. If Urban sent help, perhaps he could also reunite the churches under his authority. News of the threat to the empire and the supposed threat to Jerusalem spread throughout France after the council ended; in November of 1095, Urban called an even bigger council, the Council of Clermont, where the organization of the First Crusade was formally announced.

Most of the information about the Council of Piacenza comes from the chronicler Bernold of Constance, who was probably there himself, as well as Ekkehard of Aura and Guibert of Nogent, who were at Clermont if not at Piacenza. No contemporary Byzantine sources felt the ambassadors were important enough to mention, but the council is mentioned by the 13th century chronicler Theodore Scutariotes, who quotes now-lost contemporary works.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Piacenza
Reply

duskiness
06-10-2007, 06:33 PM
Originally Posted by NoName55
edit:

If the purpose was to "liberate" "Christ birthplace" then why murder Jews en route as well as in Palestin/Israel to the point of near extinction? for they were not in control of any government!
Do you think than that the main aim and purpose of Crusades was to slaughter Jews?
There were many reasons for Crusades - social, economical, political, some were low, and some a bit higher (although put into action in very, very cruel and ungodly way).
But idea of liberating (or for you "liberating") Jerusalem was the main one.

as a side note: I don't believe in any "holy war", violence in the name of religion or God. "blessed are the peacemakers"; "turn the other chick"; "put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword". I bet, you've heard it many times....
btw: can you also say that that conquer of North Africa, Palestine, Persia, Spain was also wrong? Violence and sword were used here and here, people were killed here and here...

and to end:
Let us forgive and ask forgiveness!
While we praise God who, in his merciful love, has produced in the Church a wonderful harvest of holiness, missionary zeal, total dedication to Christ and neighbour, we cannot fail to recognize the infidelities to the Gospel committed by some of our brethren, especially during the second millennium. Let us ask pardon for the divisions which have occurred among Christians, for the violence some have used in the service of the truth and for the distrustful and hostile attitudes sometimes taken towards the followers of other religions.

Let us confess, even more, our responsibilities as Christians for the evils of today. We must ask ourselves what our responsibilities are regarding atheism, religious indifference, secularism, ethical relativism, the violations of the right to life, disregard for the poor in many countries.

We humbly ask forgiveness for the part which each of us has had in these evils by our own actions, thus helping to disfigure the face of the Church.

At the same time, as we confess our sins, let us forgive the sins committed by others against us.
apology by John Paul II on Ash Wednesday 2000
Reply

- Qatada -
06-10-2007, 06:39 PM
I found something interesting:
In this formulation the claim was that jihad was better than secular conquest. Unlike Alexander the Great, Mohammed incorporated people in a polity in which they had the option of being saved, in which they had the ability to see for themselves, in which they could choose to become true believers. But it left inner conviction as something over which the individual had full control.


This argument ought to be easy for modern people to understand, or at least Americans, for they also tend to think that war can be legitimated by a high moral purpose - as long as that purpose hasn’t got anything to do with individual faith. The moral purposes they have in mind are wholly secular, not the lower level of religion, and the salvation they talk about is in this world. But they too tend to be eager to rescue other people by enabling them to become more like themselves: richer, freer, more democratic.

What do you do when your fingers are itching to intervene, when you have the power to do it, when you are sure you are right and you are convinced that the victims will be grateful - quite apart from all the advantages that may redound to yourself from intervening? Aren’t you allowed to use force? Indeed, aren’t you obliged to use it? Is it right to save people against their will? Should you force them to be free? If you say yes to these questions, you are in effect a believer in jihad.

Anyway, give it a read.


“Jihad”: idea and history - Patricia Crone
Reply

Keltoi
06-11-2007, 12:26 AM
The brutality of the Crusades was part of my point. Holy War is in no way in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church, whether knowingly or unknowingly, spawned a massive army of knights and men-at-arms, men whose very purpose was war and death. The Crusade began as a "holy" endeavor, if you can call it that, but those who carried out the mission set out by the Church were not "holy" men. This points to the obvious fact that theology and the reality of men(and women) are two different things. Whether the "holy war" is Christian, Muslim, or whatever, there is nothing holy about any of it.
Reply

Redeemed
06-11-2007, 02:05 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Which would explain why the Crusaders also killed all of the Jews who were living in Jeruasalem.




Source:http://www.biu.ac.il/js/rennert/history_9.html







Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...d_the_Crusades


Now what set off the Crusade?



Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Piacenza
IN 627 the Muslims killed at the command of Muhammad 800 Jews because they were left defenseless by the Meccans that the Muslims put to flight. The excuse was the Jews conspired with the Meccans. The slaughter started in the morning and continued till late in the evening. Muhammad also killed a writer because someone said his writings were more interesting than the Qur'an. In fact, the writer said, "Oh Muhammad if you kill me, who will care for my children? He responds "Hell's fire." Now I know that all is fair in love and war philosophy, and both the Crusades and the Muslims committed atrocities. However, it is now a question of the leader’s worthiness; for example, Jesus never ordered such a slaughter. Therefore you cannot compare the Crusades murderous acts who disobeyed Scripture to the mandates of Muhammad. Do you see my point?
Reply

Woodrow
06-11-2007, 03:11 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
IN 627 the Muslims killed at the command of Muhammad 800 Jews because they were left defenseless by the Meccans that the Muslims put to flight. The excuse was the Jews conspired with the Meccans. The slaughter started in the morning and continued till late in the evening. Muhammad also killed a writer because someone said his writings were more interesting than the Qur'an. In fact, the writer said, "Oh Muhammad if you kill me, who will care for my children? He responds "Hell's fire." Now I know that all is fair in love and war philosophy, and both the Crusades and the Muslims committed atrocities. However, it is now a question of the leader’s worthiness; for example, Jesus never ordered such a slaughter. Therefore you cannot compare the Crusades murderous acts who disobeyed Scripture to the mandates of Muhammad. Do you see my point?
One thing I would like to see you do is post sources for your accusations. this not only gives them credibility but also kepps us all out of trouble from copy right laws. It is also only polite to give credit to original authors.

Needless to say there are always 2 sides to every story.


To argue that the Prophetic treatment of POWs was in fact violent, Mr. Bostom quotes from W.H.T. Gairdner, who tells us about "the greatest vindictiveness and bloodthirstiness" at the end of the Battle of Badr, which took place between Muslims and pagan Meccans in the year 624. Although Gairdner vaguely tells us there was some killing and "The Prophet checked these excesses," he doesn't explain that killings POWs after a battle was the standard Arab custom of the day and Prophet Muhammad intervened to preclude that norm. Karen Armstrong, a British historian and former nun, writes about the aftermath of the fighting at Badr:

The Muslims were jubilant. They began to round up prisoners and, in the usual Arab fashion, started to kill them, but Muhammad put a stop to this. A revelation came down saying that the prisoners of war were to be ransomed. He also stopped the Muslims squabbling over the booty, and the 150 camels, ten horses and pile of armour and equipment were divided up equally. Then the victorious army began the trek home with seventy prisoners of war . . . On the way home, Muhammad received a revelation for the prisoners themselves:

O Prophet, say to the prisoners in your hands: 'If God knows of any good in your hearts, He will give you better than what has been taken from you, and He will forgive you. Surely, God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.' (8:70)[ii]

Thus "the greatest vindictiveness and bloodthirstiness" that Mr. Bostom's source attributes to Islam was in fact a pre-Islamic practice stopped by the Prophet of Islam.



It is known that the Prophet allowed the execution of two specific POWs at Badr. These were Nadr bin el-Haris and Ukba bin Ebi Muayt, who were notorious for repeatedly persecuting Muslims and insulting Islam in Mecca. In today's terms, this would be tantamount to an execution of war criminals.
Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=15416

D - Harmony is a Goal for Every Muslim
In the year 627 CE, Quraysh of Mecca marched with thousands of men and women of Quraysh along with many other Arabian tribes to attack the Prophet Muhammad in Medina and wipe out the Muslims for good. As you have seen earlier, the Muslims and the Jewish tribes had agreed to protect their city against Quraysh.

Learning about Quraysh preparation to attack their city, the Muslims decided to dig a trench around the city to slow and confuse the enemy. After Quraysh and its allies arrived and camped outside Medina, they sent one of their tribal leaders, Huyay bin Akhtab Alnudairy to the Jewish tribe of Qurathah to entice them to break their agreement with the Muhammad and to join them in attacking the Muslims. Knowing Quraysh's intention, the Jewish tribe of Quraythah closed their castle gates and did not allow Huyay to enter the castle. Calling the tribe leader, Ka'ab bin Asad from outside the walls of the castle and insisting to speak to him proved to be another failure. Determined to speak to Ka'ab over the next several days, Huyay was finally permitted to enter into the castle. The tribe leader Ka'ib, however, told him" You are a cursed man, and I have an agreement with Muhammad that I am not breaking. I have not seen of him any thing other than trustworthiness and fulfillment of promise". Upon this Huyay had left disappointed.
It was reported , however that Huyay was not contended by this, but insisted on returning to Ka'ab with lucrative proposals and protection from Quraysh against Muhammad, until he changed his mind. See Ibn Katheer, Albidayah Wa Alnihayah, Volum 4, page 84.
Although it is unfortunate that Ka'ab broke the truce with Prophet Muhammad (p), this example is a proof of the extent of cooperation and good relation that took place between the Muslims and the Jews during this early period. Furthermore, this example is representative of the good relation, not hostility that both the Jews and Muslims experienced during this period of the rise of Islam.
Source: http://www.islamic-study.org/Islam%2...20Violence.htm
Reply

barney
06-11-2007, 03:32 AM
Islam expanded by diplomacy and by the sword.
The sword parts are explained away by "fighting against oppression".
Apparently you have to go into that persons country and take over it for 600 years to fight oppression.

you see as a "christian" or even just as a westerner, I can say that in times past, we have built empires and conquored by the sword and the lever action rifle. This was a wrong thing to do. When it was religiously motivated, then christianity was wrong.

Muslims cant say that. theyre 100% perfect 100% of the time, and they have never never never done anything wrong ever.

The expansion from Spain to China was totally peaceful, hardly anyone died, and if they did die, they were oppressers and it was all self defence.

Correct?
Reply

barney
06-11-2007, 03:44 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
The brutality of the Crusades was part of my point. .
In 500 years we fought half a dozen Crusades and killed 300000 muslims.

In 6 years muslims have killed well over a half Millon muslims just in the Sudan and Iraq.

600 years on from the crusades, it's pretty much all a lot of Muslims talk about. In 600 years time, they will still talk about it.

As it's still ongoing, the Massacer of muslim's by muslims isnt mentioned at all.
in 600 years time. It still wont be.
Reply

Redeemed
06-11-2007, 03:56 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
One thing I would like to see you do is post sources for your accusations. this not only gives them credibility but also kepps us all out of trouble from copy right laws. It is also only polite to give credit to original authors.

Needless to say there are always 2 sides to every story.




Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=15416



Source: http://www.islamic-study.org/Islam%2...20Violence.htm
Ibn Ishad. Sirat Rasul, The life of Muuhammad, trans. A. Guillaume (NY:Oxford UNI. Press 1980.) 106
surah6 :25 "fight and slay the pagans where ever you find them." I know that Muhammad did lots of merciful things as well, but it cannot be denied that he left a bloody trail as well. And as I mentioned, it is a question of worthiness. Jesus never told us to do such things! If they did it, it was on them, but Muhammad commanded such things as if they were an edict from God.
Reply

barney
06-11-2007, 03:59 AM
Originally Posted by alapiana1
he left a bloody trail as well. .
Meh, they prolly deserved it.
Reply

Redeemed
06-11-2007, 04:02 AM
Originally Posted by barney
Meh, they prolly deserved it.
WHY:?
Reply

barney
06-11-2007, 04:06 AM
Oppressing Muslims..



From Spain.



Anyway, Reminds me of the UK in the 1840's. We toddelled about with our missionaries blasting African Impi's with volley fire. Then we built churches.
Missionary to Villagers:
"Jesus says Love everyone, By the way can you bury those family members, theyre starting to rot, I'll do the service".

Politically driven sure, but much of a muchness.
Reply

evangel
06-11-2007, 04:12 AM
Originally Posted by barney
Meh, they prolly deserved it.
The world is sure lucky to have such a gracious and charitable person such as yourself to encourage and exhort us condemning and vicious Christians.
Reply

barney
06-11-2007, 04:17 AM
Originally Posted by evangel
The world is sure lucky to have such a gracious and charitable person such as yourself to encourage and exhort us condemning and vicious Christians.
Sheesh! Sarcasm mate, Sarcasm. I was being Ironic.:skeleton:
Reply

evangel
06-11-2007, 04:24 AM
Originally Posted by barney
Sheesh! Sarcasm mate, Sarcasm. I was being Ironic.:skeleton:
Yeah, I figured. It's just that I couldn't see the sparkle in your eye and the joy in your heart on my screen.
:D
Reply

barney
06-11-2007, 04:30 AM
I do have a deadpan delivery.

Anyroad up, I still havnt heard a muslim veiwpoint on my comment that Islam has never ever done anything wrong and it's all been peaceful. In the abcence of that, as a christian , can you hold your hands up and say "Yeah, Christianity has , in the past, got a lot of blood on it's hands.....we're trying to do better?"
Reply

vpb
06-11-2007, 04:34 AM
here we have a bunch of kaffirs talking about jihad, lollllllllllllllll

such a loss of time on this thread.
Reply

evangel
06-11-2007, 04:48 AM
Originally Posted by barney
I do have a deadpan delivery.

Anyroad up, I still havnt heard a muslim veiwpoint on my comment that Islam has never ever done anything wrong and it's all been peaceful. In the abcence of that, as a christian , can you hold your hands up and say "Yeah, Christianity has , in the past, got a lot of blood on it's hands.....we're trying to do better?"
Brother we all have blood on our hands to one extent or another and to quote Paul, "I am the chief of all sinners."
What I believe is that Jesus wasn't nailed to the cross by just the Jews or the Romans but by me and you and Woodrow and glo and snakelegs and vbp and Ansar. The only difference is some accept the gift and others leave it on the table.
But as far as the blood we're talking about here, yeah the church body has more than enough to convict us. Look at the Reformation and the Inquisition or North and South Ireland or the KKK and you'll see that we have committed atrocities worse than war on fellow believers. The only thing I can say is that whoever you are out there that the chuch (myself included) has run roughshod over, I for one would ask your forgiveness.
Reply

vpb
06-11-2007, 04:51 AM
What I believe is that Jesus wasn't nailed to the cross by just the Jews or the Romans but by me and you and Woodrow and glo and snakelegs and vbp and Ansar
;D;D;D what a silly post. ;D;D loll

actually I can't remember quit clearly, I though it was jut De Ja Vu, but it seems to be true. I was definitely there. ;D;D

Wodroow, do u remember anything? or it's just me?
Reply

barney
06-11-2007, 04:55 AM
Originally Posted by evangel
Brother we all have blood on our hands to one extent or another and to quote Paul, "I am the chief of all sinners."
What I believe is that Jesus wasn't nailed to the cross by just the Jews or the Romans but by me and you and Woodrow and glo and snakelegs and vbp and Ansar. The only difference is some accept the gift and others leave it on the table.
But as far as the blood we're talking about here, yeah the church body has more than enough to convict us. Look at the Reformation and the Inquisition or North and South Ireland or the KKK and you'll see that we have committed atrocities worse than war on fellow believers. The only thing I can say is that whoever you are out there that the chuch (myself included) has run roughshod over, I for one would ask your forgiveness.
I Diddnt do it! I SWEAR!, I was Fishing!

However, I'm not surprised that as a christian you can accept infallability and have humility.

<Hugs> You guys are great. Nuts...but Great.
Reply

evangel
06-11-2007, 04:55 AM
Originally Posted by vpb
;D;D;D what a silly post. ;D;D loll

actually I can't remember quit clearly, I though it was jut De Ja Vu, but it seems to be true. I was definitely there. ;D;D

Wodroow, do u remember anything? or it's just me?

Proverbs 17:21
He who begets a scoffer does so to his sorrow, And the father of a fool has no joy.
Proverbs 24:9
The devising of foolishness is sin, And the scoffer is an abomination to men.
Reply

vpb
06-11-2007, 04:56 AM
I Diddnt do it! I SWEAR!, I was Fishing!
no, you weren't fishing. I saw you there. You were having an ice cream :p
you are also going to jail with us.
Reply

vpb
06-11-2007, 04:59 AM
evange, I'm sorry, but what you posted is very silly, we are not living in dreams.

What I believe is that Jesus wasn't nailed to the cross by just the Jews or the Romans but by me and you and Woodrow and glo and snakelegs and vbp and Ansar. The only difference is some accept the gift and others leave it on the table.
read again what u wrote.
Reply

barney
06-11-2007, 05:01 AM
He's talking about the christian beleif that we have all sinned, and our sin nailed Jesus on the cross, but he went willingly as a gift to us to redeem that sin and give us the gift of eternal life.

Probably.
Reply

vpb
06-11-2007, 05:03 AM
He's talking about the christian beleif that we have all sinned, and our sin nailed Jesus on the cross, but he went willingly as a gift to us to redeem that sin and give us the gift of eternal life.
I understand what christians believe, I don't have a problem with that, but saying now, me Wodroow, etc.... are in some way guilty along with Romands and jews for "killing" Jesus, is just silly.
Reply

evangel
06-11-2007, 05:05 AM
Originally Posted by vpb
evange, I'm sorry, but what you posted is very silly, we are not living in dreams.

read again what u wrote.
I read it again and I still don't think it's silly. Tell you what, you read it again and then I'll read it again and maybe one of us will start rubbing off on the other.
Reply

vpb
06-11-2007, 05:06 AM
I read it again and I still don't think it's silly. Tell you what, you read it again and then I'll read it again and maybe one of us will start rubbing off on the other.
don't worry mate :) just forget about it.
Reply

evangel
06-11-2007, 05:07 AM
Originally Posted by vpb
don't worry mate :) just forget about it.
Aw, c'mon just a couple more times?
Reply

barney
06-11-2007, 05:11 AM
It's metaphorical yeah?
I might have not gone up the hill with my galvanised 3" roundhead's and my Clawhammer, but retroactively jesus after creating sinful man, contrived to get himself killed, because only shedding his blood could save me, now, from his wrath.

.......Oh , My Head Hurts.

y'know, if It made any sense to me I'd say "thanks jesus". i mean crucifixtion is a terrible torment. as bad as stoning to death.

I just wonder if he actually did put himself up there. And why. And i think he was a man not a man-god....
And lots of other stuff.
Reply

vpb
06-11-2007, 05:12 AM
Aw, c'mon just a couple more times?
Volume 8, Book 76, Number 421:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
The Prophet said, "There are two blessings which many people lose: (They are) Health and free time for doing good."


also going to get a quick nap. c ya later.



Reply

evangel
06-11-2007, 05:13 AM
Originally Posted by barney
It's metaphorical yeah?
I might have not gone up the hill with my galvanised 3" roundhead's and my Clawhammer, but retroactively jesus after creating sinful man, contrived to get himself killed, because only shedding his blood could save me, now, from his wrath.

.......Oh , My Head Hurts.
Dang it, I was aiming for your heart.
Reply

vpb
06-11-2007, 05:15 AM
It's metaphorical yeah?
I might have not gone up the hill with my galvanised 3" roundhead's and my Clawhammer, but retroactively jesus after creating sinful man, contrived to get himself killed, because only shedding his blood could save me, now, from his wrath.
whatever way u use, even if we assume Jesus died on corss, I wouldn't be held guilty for his death. but it seems you like to make people guilty all the time, Adam's sin, Jesus's death /.......
Reply

evangel
06-11-2007, 05:15 AM
Originally Posted by barney
It's metaphorical yeah?
I might have not gone up the hill with my galvanised 3" roundhead's and my Clawhammer, but retroactively jesus after creating sinful man, contrived to get himself killed, because only shedding his blood could save me, now, from his wrath.

.......Oh , My Head Hurts.

y'know, if It made any sense to me I'd say "thanks jesus". i mean crucifixtion is a terrible torment. as bad as stoning to death.

I just wonder if he actually did put himself up there. And why. And i think he was a man not a man-god....
And lots of other stuff.
Oh, He didn't create sinful man that was our choice.
Reply

barney
06-11-2007, 05:18 AM
Originally Posted by evangel
Dang it, I was aiming for your heart.
ohh! Double-meaning wordplay! Nice one.
(aiming for heart/ acceptance of jesus into the heart! i gettit!) :D
Reply

barney
06-11-2007, 05:18 AM
Originally Posted by evangel
Oh, He didn't create sinful man that was our choice.
Shouldnt have put the tree there!
Reply

evangel
06-11-2007, 05:18 AM
Originally Posted by vpb
whatever way u use, even if we assume Jesus died on corss, I wouldn't be held guilty for his death. but it seems you like to make people guilty all the time, Adam's sin, Jesus's death /.......
My guilt was nailed to the cross.
2 Corinthians 5:21
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Reply

evangel
06-11-2007, 05:20 AM
Originally Posted by barney
Shouldnt have put the tree there!
I'm starting to see that sparkle.
Reply

barney
06-11-2007, 05:34 AM
Topic: Sword converting.

The west is pretty much falling over itself to apologise for Imperialism of Britain , France, Holland. The US is very very sorry for massacering the Native "indians".

Any Muslims here sorry about conquoring a billion square miles of territory?
Reply

Woodrow
06-11-2007, 07:41 AM
I know the topic is "Conversion by the Sword and other misconceptions." and that by the nature of the title it is legitimate to say the thread covers all Misconceptions.

However, please refrain from making the discussions frivolous.
Reply

Keltoi
06-11-2007, 01:31 PM
Those who have a good understanding of history know that colonialism and conversion went hand in hand, particularly during the conquest of the New World. However, while those of us today have a hard time understanding this point, conversion to Christianity also saved many "Indians" from being killed outright. Many priests knew this very well. I'm not saying all conversions were done out of humanitarian kindness, but if one reads some of the books and letters written by Catholic priests during the conquest of South America, they continually point out that converting the "Indians" is the only way to stop the Spanish conquistadors from killing and enslaving the natives wholesale. While the Catholic Church wasn't innocent in the matter, they were at least more concerned with the lives of the native peoples than finding gold and riches.
Reply

- Qatada -
06-11-2007, 02:24 PM
Originally Posted by barney
Any Muslims here sorry about conquoring a billion square miles of territory?

We don't need to be, the majority of the places in the world where Islaam settled - the people within them countries still practise Islaam today.
Reply

Amadeus85
06-11-2007, 06:56 PM
After the conquest of North Africa in X century Almohads , as their cronics mention, gave Jews and christians a solution- convert to islam or death.

After the conquest of Constantinople sultan Mehmed the Conqueror took to his harem many christian women and boys that he prefered most.
Reply

- Qatada -
06-11-2007, 07:03 PM
Reconquista :? For some reason that echoes in my ears whenever i hear people claiming that Islaam forces others to convert.


I'm sorry, it's just that the tactic used is so low, and sometimes people don't be quiet until you remind them of their history either.
Reply

Amadeus85
06-11-2007, 07:04 PM
638 AD : The Islamic armies swarm Jerusalem after a 600 day siege of the city and soon control most of the Holy Land.

649 AD : Arabs take Cyprus and begin a naval war with the Byzantine Empire.

661-667 AD : Islamic armies besiege Constantinople for the first time. The city becomes a battleground between Islam and Christendom for the next 900 years.

732 A.D : with approximately 1500 soldiers Charlses Martel halts the muslim force of 40 000 cavalry under Abd el Rahman AL Ghafigi from moving further into Europe in the Battle of Tours. Many believe that this battle saved Europe from muslim control.


849 A.D : Aghlabid monarch Muhammad sends a fleet of ships from Sardinia to attack Rome . As the fleet prepares to land troops, powerful storm and alliance of christian forces destroy muslim ships.

902 A.D : Muslim armies take control of Sicily when the last christian stronghold , the city of Taorminia is captured . Muslim rule the Sicily for 264 years.

1012 A.D : Caliph Al Hakim bi amr Allah orders the destruction of all christian and jewish houses of worship in his lands.

1070 A.D : Seljuk Turks capture Jerusalem , and chrisdtian pilgrims begin returning to Europe with tales of persecution and oppression.
Reply

- Qatada -
06-11-2007, 07:06 PM
:salamext:


Okay!!! :D Now let's see, did the Byzantinian Romans allow people to follow a religion other than their rulers!? Nope, did Islaam - yes!!


Do people think that the US has the right to enter any land so long as it's doing it for a more 'moral purpose' ?? Yes!?


Let's see what a CHRISTIAN EVANGELIST says:



In this formulation the claim was that jihad was better than secular conquest. Unlike Alexander the Great, Mohammed incorporated people in a polity in which they had the option of being saved, in which they had the ability to see for themselves, in which they could choose to become true believers. But it left inner conviction as something over which the individual had full control.


This argument ought to be easy for modern people to understand, or at least Americans, for they also tend to think that war can be legitimated by a high moral purpose - as long as that purpose hasn’t got anything to do with individual faith. The moral purposes they have in mind are wholly secular, not the lower level of religion, and the salvation they talk about is in this world. But they too tend to be eager to rescue other people by enabling them to become more like themselves: richer, freer, more democratic.

What do you do when your fingers are itching to intervene, when you have the power to do it, when you are sure you are right and you are convinced that the victims will be grateful - quite apart from all the advantages that may redound to yourself from intervening? Aren’t you allowed to use force? Indeed, aren’t you obliged to use it? Is it right to save people against their will? Should you force them to be free? If you say yes to these questions, you are in effect a believer in jihad.

Anyway, give it a read.


“Jihad”: idea and history - Patricia Crone
Reply

vpb
06-11-2007, 07:20 PM
Fi Sabililah , do you know why they talk bad about Jihad??? bc they don't have one in their religion :p hahaha
Reply

Keltoi
06-11-2007, 07:27 PM
Originally Posted by vpb
Fi Sabililah , do you know why they talk bad about Jihad??? bc they don't have one in their religion :p hahaha
What exactly are you talking about? No, Christianity doesn't have "jihad"...and somehow that doesn't bother me.
Reply

Amadeus85
06-11-2007, 07:29 PM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
638 AD : The Islamic armies swarm Jerusalem after a 600 day siege of the city and soon control most of the Holy Land.

649 AD : Arabs take Cyprus and begin a naval war with the Byzantine Empire.

661-667 AD : Islamic armies besiege Constantinople for the first time. The city becomes a battleground between Islam and Christendom for the next 900 years.

732 A.D : with approximately 1500 soldiers Charlses Martel halts the muslim force of 40 000 cavalry under Abd el Rahman AL Ghafigi from moving further into Europe in the Battle of Tours. Many believe that this battle saved Europe from muslim control.


849 A.D : Aghlabid monarch Muhammad sends a fleet of ships from Sardinia to attack Rome . As the fleet prepares to land troops, powerful storm and alliance of christian forces destroy muslim ships.

902 A.D : Muslim armies take control of Sicily when the last christian stronghold , the city of Taorminia is captured . Muslim rule the Sicily for 264 years.

1012 A.D : Caliph Al Hakim bi amr Allah orders the destruction of all christian and jewish houses of worship in his lands.

1070 A.D : Seljuk Turks capture Jerusalem , and chrisdtian pilgrims begin returning to Europe with tales of persecution and oppression.

The list can go on and on..

But i wonder are all those muslim conquest Jihad and wars against unbelivers or something else ( just simple imperialism?)
Reply

Keltoi
06-11-2007, 07:31 PM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
The list can go on and on..

But i wonder are all those muslim conquest Jihad and wars against unbelivers or something else ( just simple imperialism?)
Sort of goes with the point I was trying to make earlier. Probably both. They usually go hand in hand. Holy war and imperialism.
Reply

Amadeus85
06-11-2007, 07:35 PM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
638 AD : The Islamic armies swarm Jerusalem after a 600 day siege of the city and soon control most of the Holy Land.

649 AD : Arabs take Cyprus and begin a naval war with the Byzantine Empire.

661-667 AD : Islamic armies besiege Constantinople for the first time. The city becomes a battleground between Islam and Christendom for the next 900 years.

732 A.D : with approximately 1500 soldiers Charlses Martel halts the muslim force of 40 000 cavalry under Abd el Rahman AL Ghafigi from moving further into Europe in the Battle of Tours. Many believe that this battle saved Europe from muslim control.


849 A.D : Aghlabid monarch Muhammad sends a fleet of ships from Sardinia to attack Rome . As the fleet prepares to land troops, powerful storm and alliance of christian forces destroy muslim ships.

902 A.D : Muslim armies take control of Sicily when the last christian stronghold , the city of Taorminia is captured . Muslim rule the Sicily for 264 years.

1012 A.D : Caliph Al Hakim bi amr Allah orders the destruction of all christian and jewish houses of worship in his lands.

1070 A.D : Seljuk Turks capture Jerusalem , and chrisdtian pilgrims begin returning to Europe with tales of persecution and oppression.

I posted this list to show some people that crusades didnt just appear from anything. Muslims actually tried to conquere many parts of Europe many times in history before crusades happen.
Reply

Keltoi
06-11-2007, 07:42 PM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
I posted this list to show some people that crusades didnt just appear from anything. Muslims actually tried to conquere many parts of Europe many times in history before crusades happen.
Most historians point to the flailing Byzantine Empire as the catalyst for Pope Urban calling for Crusade. Byzantium was probably the strongest buffer against Turkish invasion, and the lords and knights of Europe were too busy fighting each other to come to Byzantine's aid out of simple good will. I don't think it has been established that Pope Urban and the Byzantine emperor planned it that way, but a Crusade was probably the only way to stop the Franks, Germans, English, etc to stop killing each other and look to the protection of Byzantine.
Reply

- Qatada -
06-11-2007, 07:52 PM
Let me mention just a few verses from the Old Testament and New Testament and tell me what do you say about them:


“When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girga****es and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. (Deutronomy 7:1-2)


“When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you… Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes (Deutronomy 20:10-17)

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)


Even in the New Testament we read the following statement attributed to Jesus saying to his disciples:

“I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:26-27)


Once you can clarify that, then you can ask as much questions as you want about the Islamic texts, alright? :)
Reply

duskiness
06-11-2007, 09:10 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
“When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girga****es and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. (Deutronomy 7:1-2)


“When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you… Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes (Deutronomy 20:10-17)

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)


Even in the New Testament we read the following statement attributed to Jesus saying to his disciples:

“I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:26-27)[/indent]


Once you can clarify that, then you can ask as much questions as you want about the Islamic texts, alright? :)
It is Islamic forum, so it is Islam and Quran that are subjects of debates and not exactly Christianity and Bible.
As for your quotes from Luke:
first of all - it is part of parable,
secondly, you quoted it out of context, you gave it in such a manner that it looks like Jesus own words and not words of the king from that parable.
in context:
The Parable of the Ten Minas

11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'
14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'

17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'

19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'

20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'

22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."
There are violent parts in Old Testament. We hold different view on revelation than Muslims. We see it rather as a gradual progress, fulfilled in Jesus. He is the one to fulfil the Law of Old Testament. When he was captured, Peter while trying to defend him, injured one of soldiers. Jesus told him to hide sword and he healed the wounded man. Although he was one of those to take him to death.
Reply

NoName55
06-11-2007, 09:14 PM
strangely enough, if we ask for clarification of your scripture it is out of context and when you people post rubbish and lies its all okay
Reply

- Qatada -
06-11-2007, 09:29 PM
:salamext:


Agreed with bro NoName ^


Do you guys now understand why using historical accounts isn't sufficient to show that a religion is 'evil' etc? Rather we look at the original context of what the religion says, and then we define whether what the people who claimed to follow that religion did is acceptable or not.


If we keep going in circles, we might just have to close the thread.




Regards.
Reply

duskiness
06-11-2007, 09:29 PM
Originally Posted by NoName55
strangely enough, if we ask for clarification of your scripture it is out of context and when you people post rubbish and lies its all okay
wasn't it in here out of context?
Parables are that kind of literature genre that they have to be seen whole. If you cut them to pieces, you loose the whole point. I'm not speaking only about biblical parables...
I didn't say it is okay "to post rubbish". I also can't make those people stop posting. Or make them "wiser". But for example you can hold me responsible for things I wrote.
Last but not least...I've hear on LI many times not to quote out of context. I think it is a good rule. Just apply it equally
Reply

Keltoi
06-11-2007, 09:37 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
:salamext:


Agreed with bro NoName ^


Do you guys now understand why using historical accounts isn't sufficient to show that a religion is 'evil' etc? Rather we look at the original context of what the religion says, and then we define whether what the people who claimed to follow that religion did is acceptable or not.


If we keep going in circles, we might just have to close the thread.




Regards.
Maybe you weren't referring to me, but I never stated any religion was "evil". I agree that "holy wars" are not based in religion, at least not when it comes to putting that theory into action. Even if those who participate in the "holy war" truly and faithfully believe they are fulfilling a religious duty, as I'm sure Godfrey, Tancred, and Adhemar did during the First Crusade, war in the name of religion is nothing but bloodshed. I think you would agree that our God does not get satisfaction from His creations slaughtering each other.
Reply

- Qatada -
06-11-2007, 09:43 PM
Thankyou Keltoi, no i wasn't referring to you at all.

I was just saying that those who claim that a religion is evil purely on the basis that some people did certain acts under the name of that religion, they should realise that it's similar to taking verses out of context from the persons religious texts. Since that distortion isn't really a part of the religion, similarly those acts aren't part of the religion either. And we know that humans do have flaws, even if they belong to a perfect religion.


So what should we really do? We should refer to the religious textual proofs, and that's what i've been stating all this time. If someone blamed me for taking a verse out of context, then they need to stop using people who may have done certain acts in history, especially when they know that similar or even worser acts took place within anothers. And especially when they know that humans are bound to make mistakes and errors - no matter what religion they come from.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-30-2014, 07:21 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-08-2012, 12:59 PM
  3. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 05-10-2009, 09:20 AM
  4. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-13-2007, 01:37 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!