Christianity or Islam?

format_quote Originally Posted by Turin Turambar

To azim:

I am afraid you made some mistakes:

1.No, azim, the truth is that countries become more prosperous when they develop the RIGHT MINDSET and today most countries already have or are adopting the right mindset. The big glaring exception are the Muslim countries and it is easy to understand why. The rest of the world is creating scientists and businessmen but the Muslim countries are creating "warriors for Allah". As long as they do the same they will remain poor and underdeveloped.


3) Finally you say that "Islam asks for wealth for all rather than riches for the few". That must be a different Islam than the Islam practiced by the princes in Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states. I don't see them rushing to distribute their oil wealth among the rest of the Muslims. And please don't tell me that "this is not real Islam". How can we believe in the Islam practiced centuries ago being so different from the Islam practiced today by people who swear day and night that they are following your religion in every little detail?

No azim, I am sorry but Abu Bakr wasn't any better than the avarage Saudi prince of today. The main reason is that they both follow the same prophet.

1. THATS OBSERD... OBVIOUSLY THATS YOUR POINT OF VIEW, NO FACTS TO BACK THAT UP, MUSLIMS HAVE MANY DOCTORS, LAWYERS AND SO FORTH..

2.THEY DO ACTUALLY DISTRUPUTE WEALTH, AND GIVE TO THE POOR , WHO HAS TOLD YOU DIFFERENT??

AND IF SOME BODY DOESNT DO WHAT THEY SHOULD , SINCE WHEN DOES THAT REPRESENT THE RELIGON OF ISLAM ITS SELF????

YOU ACTIONS ARE YOUR OWN ONES...WE ARE FOLOWING THE "SAME ISLAM"....SINCE 1400 YEARS AGO, THANK GOD, AND OUR SOURCES ARE STILL INTACT THANK GOD..

format_quote Originally Posted by izmi

Among monotheist religions you find other prophets after Muhammad, for example the Bahai Bab or Mormon Joseph Smith.

One question ....are you saying that Bahai Bab or Mormon Joseph Smith.(jim jones) are prophets???? Please show proof

Lol

format_quote Originally Posted by Turin Turambar

To azim:

3) Finally you say that "Islam asks for wealth for all rather than riches for the few". That must be a different Islam than the Islam practiced by the princes in Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states. I don't see them rushing to distribute their oil wealth among the rest of the Muslims. And please don't tell me that "this is not real Islam". How can we believe in the Islam practiced centuries ago being so different from the Islam practiced today by people who swear day and night that they are following your religion in every little detail?

No azim, I am sorry but Abu Bakr wasn't any better than the avarage Saudi prince of today. The main reason is that they both follow the same prophet.

And tell me, do I define Catholicism through the eyes of a pedophile priest? Do they follow Jesus? If I take your logic, than I can rigthly say that Catholicism advocates pedophilia and it has been practiced widely. So, was Jesus, Paul, Mark and the other apostles pedophiles wearing masks?

or, Christianity through pastors who swindled money? from their congregation?


or, Judaism through Isaac Mizrahi? [who was proud of what he did during the Golden Globes]

Your arguments are typical of those who attack Islam based on the PRACTICE of muslims. They don't carry any weight at all to qualify as an intelligent and smart discussion.

If you want to talk about Islam, tell us what's wrong with our CORE beliefs not the practice of muslims. Because if you dwell with the latter, let me assure you, I can bring tons of practices of Christians, Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and all the other plethora of denomination that you have out there, to discredit Christianity.

Lol

Hello Turin Turambar,

format_quote Originally Posted by Turin Turambar

I DO think that what he did was the right thing at that time...but he lived approximately 3,200 years ago.

Can you show me an action that he did which was right then but wouldn't be right today?

He is not an example for us today anymore. He lived in a barbarous time, among savage peoples who were exterminating each other.

We live in a barbarous time. We live in a time when the so-called civilized nations of the world utilize all their technological capabilities for the destruction and subjugation of human beings around the world. Civilization is not a measure of a nation's scientific or technological advancements, but their adherence to a higher standard of morality and humanity.

Today, and thanks to the advance of Western (Christian) countries we live in a civilized era

The western nations which ravaged the world in their colonial rampage? Your attempt to credit them as christian is most amusing. The seperation of church and state in the west is well known to any educated individual. The western nations are now governed through secular laws, not biblical.

And somebody behaving like Muhammed has even less of a role.

You know nothing about who Muhammad was. I suggest you educate yourself:
http://www.islamonline.net/English/I...nd/index.shtml

Since Muslims around the world are following the wrong example, they are in trouble every day.

Muslims around the world are being butchered.

2) You say that Muhammad never used violence, defined as the "unjust use of force". But the problem is that the definition of "unjust" that you use is always from the point of view of Muslims.

Not so! Shall we bring out the pages of quotes from non-muslim historians?

Thomas Carlyle in 'Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History,' 1840
"The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only."
"A silent great soul, one of that who cannot but be earnest. He was to kindle the world, the world’s Maker had ordered so."

A. S. Tritton in 'Islam,' 1951
The picture of the Muslim soldier advancing with a sword in one hand and the Qur'an in the other is quite false.

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

Gibbon in 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' 1823
The good sense of Muhammad despised the pomp of royalty. The Apostle of God submitted to the menial offices of the family; he kindled the fire; swept the floor; milked the ewes; and mended with his own hands his shoes and garments. Disdaining the penance and merit of a hermit, he observed without effort of vanity the abstemious diet of an Arab.

Edward Gibbon and Simon Oakley in ‘History of the Saracen Empire,’ London, 1870
"The greatest success of Mohammad’s life was effected by sheer moral force."
“It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran....The Mahometans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. ‘I believe in One God and Mahomet the Apostle of God’ is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honours of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion.”

Reverend Bosworth Smith in 'Muhammad and Muhammadanism,' London, 1874.
"Head of the State as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without the Pope's pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man ruled by a right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the powers without their supports. He cared not for the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life."
"In Mohammadanism every thing is different here. Instead of the shadowy and the mysterious, we have history....We know of the external history of Muhammad....while for his internal history after his mission had been proclaimed, we have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation....on the Substantial authority of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt."

Edward Montet, 'La Propagande Chretienne et ses Adversaries Musulmans,' Paris 1890. (Also in T.W. Arnold in 'The Preaching of Islam,' London 1913.)
"Islam is a religion that is essentially rationalistic in the widest sense of this term considered etymologically and historically....the teachings of the Prophet, the Qur'an has invariably kept its place as the fundamental starting point, and the dogma of unity of God has always been proclaimed therein with a grandeur a majesty, an invariable purity and with a note of sure conviction, which it is hard to find surpassed outside the pale of Islam....A creed so precise, so stripped of all theological complexities and consequently so accessible to the ordinary understanding might be expected to possess and does indeed possess a marvellous power of winning its way into the consciences of men."

Alphonse de LaMartaine in 'Historie de la Turquie,' Paris, 1854.
"Never has a man set for himself, voluntarily or involuntarily, a more sublime aim, since this aim was superhuman; to subvert superstitions which had been imposed between man and his Creator, to render God unto man and man unto God; to restore the rational and sacred idea of divinity amidst the chaos of the material and disfigured gods of idolatry, then existing. Never has a man undertaken a work so far beyond human power with so feeble means, for he (Muhammad) had in the conception as well as in the execution of such a great design, no other instrument than himself and no other aid except a handful of men living in a corner of the desert. Finally, never has a man accomplished such a huge and lasting revolution in the world, because in less than two centuries after its appearance, Islam, in faith and in arms, reigned over the whole of Arabia, and conquered, in God's name, Persia Khorasan, Transoxania, Western India, Syria, Egypt, Abyssinia, all the known continent of Northern Africa, numerous islands of the Mediterranean Sea, Spain, and part of Gaul.

"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astonishing results are the three criteria of a human genius, who could dare compare any great man in history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws, and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples, dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and the souls.

"On the basis of a Book, every letter which has become law, he created a spiritual nationality which blend together peoples of every tongue and race. He has left the indelible characteristic of this Muslim nationality the hatred of false gods and the passion for the One and Immaterial God. This avenging patriotism against the profanation of Heaven formed the virtue of the followers of Muhammad; the conquest of one-third the earth to the dogma was his miracle; or rather it was not the miracle of man but that of reason.

"The idea of the unity of God, proclaimed amidst the exhaustion of the fabulous theogonies, was in itself such a miracle that upon it's utterance from his lips it destroyed all the ancient temples of idols and set on fire one-third of the world. His life, his meditations, his heroic revelings against the superstitions of his country, and his boldness in defying the furies of idolatry, his firmness in enduring them for fifteen years in Mecca, his acceptance of the role of public scorn and almost of being a victim of his fellow countrymen... This dogma was twofold the unity of God and the immateriality of God: the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with words.

"Philosopher, Orator, Apostle, Legislator, Conqueror of Ideas, Restorer of Rational beliefs.... The founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?"

Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924.
I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.

Sir George Bernard Shaw in 'The Genuine Islam,' Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.
"If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam."
“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savoir of Humanity."

"I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”

Michael Hart in 'The 100, A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons In History,' New York, 1978.
My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the secular and religious level. ...It is probable that the relative influence of Muhammad on Islam has been larger than the combined influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on Christianity. ...It is this unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I feel entitles Muhammad to be considered the most influential single figure in human history.

Dr. William Draper in 'History of Intellectual Development of Europe'
Four years after the death of Justinian, A.D. 569, was born in Mecca, in Arabia, the man who, of all men, has exercised the greatest influence upon the human race... To be the religious head of many empires, to guide the daily life of one-third of the human race, may perhaps justify the title of a Messenger of God.

Arthur Glyn Leonard in 'Islam, Her Moral and Spiritual Values'
It was the genius of Muhammad, the spirit that he breathed into the Arabs through the soul of Islam that exalted them. That raised them out of the lethargy and low level of tribal stagnation up to the high watermark of national unity and empire. It was in the sublimity of Muhammad's deism, the simplicity, the sobriety and purity it inculcated the fidelity of its founder to his own tenets, that acted on their moral and intellectual fiber with all the magnetism of true inspiration.

Philip K. Hitti in 'History of the Arabs'
Within a brief span of mortal life, Muhammad called forth of unpromising material, a nation, never welded before; in a country that was hitherto but a geographical expression he established a religion which in vast areas suppressed Christianity and Judaism, and laid the basis of an empire that was soon to embrace within its far flung boundaries the fairest provinces the then civilized world.

Rodwell in the Preface to his translation of the Holy Qur'an
Mohammad's career is a wonderful instance of the force and life that resides in him who possesses an intense faith in God and in the unseen world. He will always be regarded as one of those who have had that influence over the faith, morals and whole earthly life of their fellow men, which none but a really great man ever did, or can exercise; and whose efforts to propagate a great verity will prosper.

W. Montgomery Watt in 'Muhammad at Mecca,' Oxford, 1953.
His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as a leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems that it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.... Thus, not merely must we credit Muhammad with essential honesty and integrity of purpose, if we are to understand him at all; if we are to correct the errors we have inherited from the past, we must not forget the conclusive proof is a much stricter requirement than a show of plausibility, and in a matter such as this only to be attained with difficulty.

D. G. Hogarth in 'Arabia'
Serious or trivial, his daily behaviour has instituted a canon which millions observe this day with conscious memory. No one regarded by any section of the human race as Perfect Man has ever been imitated so minutely. The conduct of the founder of Christianity has not governed the ordinary life of his followers. Moreover, no founder of a religion has left on so solitary an eminence as the Muslim apostle.

Washington Irving 'Mahomet and His Successors'
He was sober and abstemious in his diet and a rigorous observer of fasts. He indulged in no magnificence of apparel, the ostentation of a petty mind; neither was his simplicity in dress affected but a result of real disregard for distinction from so trivial a source.
In his private dealings he was just. He treated friends and strangers, the rich and poor, the powerful and weak, with equity, and was beloved by the common people for the affability with which he received them, and listened to their complaints.

His military triumphs awakened no pride nor vain glory, as they would have done had they been effected for selfish purposes. In the time of his greatest power he maintained the same simplicity of manners and appearance as in the days of his adversity. So far from affecting a regal state, he was displeased if, on entering a room, any unusual testimonials of respect were shown to him. If he aimed at a universal dominion, it was the dominion of faith; as to the temporal rule which grew up in his hands, as he used it without ostentation, so he took no step to perpetuate it in his family.

James Michener in ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,’ Reader’s Digest, May 1955, pp. 68-70.
"No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur’an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience."
“Like almost every major prophet before him, Muhammad fought shy of serving as the transmitter of God’s word sensing his own inadequacy. But the Angel commanded ‘Read’. So far as we know, Muhammad was unable to read or write, but he began to dictate those inspired words which would soon revolutionize a large segment of the earth: "There is one God"."

“In all things Muhammad was profoundly practical. When his beloved son Ibrahim died, an eclipse occurred and rumours of God 's personal condolence quickly arose. Whereupon Muhammad is said to have announced, ‘An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or birth of a human being'."

“At Muhammad's own death an attempt was made to deify him, but the man who was to become his administrative successor killed the hysteria with one of the noblest speeches in religious history: ‘If there are any among you who worshiped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it is God you Worshiped, He lives for ever'.”

Lawrence E. Browne in ‘The Prospects of Islam,’ 1944
Incidentally these well-established facts dispose of the idea so widely fostered in Christian writings that the Muslims, wherever they went, forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword.

K. S. Ramakrishna Rao in 'Mohammed: The Prophet of Islam,' 1989
My problem to write this monograph is easier, because we are not generally fed now on that (distorted) kind of history and much time need not be spent on pointing out our misrepresentations of Islam. The theory of Islam and sword, for instance, is not heard now in any quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that “there is no compulsion in religion” is well known.

I can keep on quoting more and more non-muslim historians, but there is no point when someone is narrow-minded and doesn't want to learn.

For instance, all of you Muslims take pride in the conquests of Umar (a close follower of Muhammad) whose armies invaded Egypt, Syria and Persia (Iran).

Do you know who initiated the agression here? It seems you are not so well acquainted with historical events. The Shah of Persia sent his men to arrest and execute the Prophet Muhammad and the Roman Governate in Ghassan killed one of the Prophet's diplomats. Both are open acts of war. The persian and roman empires sought to crush the new Islamic empire, but their tyrannical rule failed.

Was that use of violence "unjust" form THEIR point of view?

Let's find out! Once again, from Non-Muslim historians....

Quotations regarding the history of Islam:

“The Christian World came to wage crusades against Muslims but eventually knelt before them to gain knowledge. They were spellbound to see that Muslims were owners of a culture that was far superior to their own. The Dark Ages of Europe were illuminated by nothing but the beacon of Muslim Civilization.”
Author :F.J.C Hearushaw
Book Reference :The Science of History

"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."
Author :
De Lacy O'Leary
Book Reference :
ISLAM AT THE CROSSROADS, London, 1923, p. 8

“The Renaissance of Europe did not take place in the 15th century. Rather it began when Europe learned from the culture of the Arabs. The cradle of European awakening is not Italy. It is the Muslim Spain.”
Author :
Robert Briffault
Book Reference :
The Making Of Mankind

Incidentally these well-established facts dispose of the idea so widely fostered in Christian writings that the Muslims, wherever they went, forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword.
Author :
Lawrence E. Browne
Book Reference :
‘The Prospects of Islam,’ 1944

Despite the growth of antagonism, Moslem (Muslim) rulers seldom made their Christian subjects suffer for the Crusades. When the Saracens finally resumed the full control of Palestine the Christians were given their former status as dhimmis. The Coptic Church, too had little cause for complaint under Saladin's (Salahuddin) strong government, and during the time of the earlier Mameluke sultans who succeeded him the Copts experienced more enlightened justice than they had hitherto known. The only effect of the Crusaders upon Egyptian Christians was to keep them for a while from pilgrimage to Jerusalem, for as long as the Frank were in charge heretics were forbidden access to the shrines. Not until the Moslem victories could they enjoy their rights as Christians.
Author :
James Addison
Book Reference :
'The Christian Approach to the Moslem,' p. 35

The picture of the Muslim soldier advancing with a sword in one hand and the Qur'an in the other is quite false.
Author :
A. S. Tritton
Book Reference :
in 'Islam,' 1951

No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur’an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience.
Author :
James Michener
Book Reference :
‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,’ Reader’s Digest, May 1955, pp. 68-70

My problem to write this monograph is easier, because we are not generally fed now on that (distorted) kind of history and much time need not be spent on pointing out our misrepresentations of Islam. The theory of Islam and sword, for instance, is not heard now in any quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that “there is no compulsion in religion” is well known.
Author :
K. S. Ramakrishna Rao
Book Reference :
'Mohammed: The Prophet of Islam,' 1989

When Pococke inquired of Grotius, where the proof was of that story of the pigeon, trained to pick peas from Mahomet's (Muhammad's) ear, and pass for an angel dictating to him? Grotius answered that there was no proof!..
Author :
Thomas Carlyle
Book Reference :
‘Heroes, Hero Worship, and the Heroic in History,’ Lecture 2, Friday, 8th May 1840

A greater number of God's creatures believe in Mahomet's word at this hour than in any other word whatever. Are we to suppose that it was a miserable piece of spiritual legerdemain, this which so many creatures of the almighty have lived by and died by?...
Author :
Thomas Carlyle
Book Reference :
‘Heroes, Hero Worship, and the Heroic in History,’ Lecture 2, Friday, 8th May 1840

“A rugged, strife-torn and mountaineering people...were suddenly turned into an indomitable Arab force, which achieved a series of splendid victories unparalleled in the history of nations, for in the short space of ninety years that mighty range of Saracenic (i.e. Muslim) conquest embraced a wider extent of territory than Rome had mastered in the course of eight hundred.”
Author :
Simon Ockley
Book Reference :
in 'History of the Saracens'

We have never heard about any attempt to compel Non-Muslim parties to adopt Islam or about any organized persecution aiming at exterminating Christianity. If the Caliphs had chosen one of these plans, they would have wiped out Christianity as easily as what happened to Islam during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain; by the same method which Louis XIV followed to make Protestantism a creed whose followers were to be sentenced to death; or with the same ease of keeping the Jews away from Britain for a period of three hundred fifty years.
Author :
Thomas Arnold
Book Reference :
in 'The Call to Islam.'

This is why the God of vengeance, who alone is all-powerful, and changes the empire of mortals as He will, giving it to whomsoever He will, and uplifting the humble beholding the wickedness of the Romans who throughout their dominions, cruelly plundered our churches and our monasteries and condemned us without pity, brought from the region of the south the sons of Ishmael, to deliver us through them from the hands of the Romans. And if in truth we have suffered some loss, because the Catholic churches, that had been taken away from us and given to the Chalcedonians, remained in their possession; for when the cities submitted to the Arabs, they assigned to each denomination the churches which they found it to be in possession of (and at that time the great churches of Emessa and that of Harran had been taken away from us); nevertheless it was no slight advantage for us to be delivered from the cruelty of the Romans, their wickedness, their wrath and cruel zeal against us, and to find ourselves at people. (Michael the Elder, Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch wrote this text in the latter part of the twelfth century, after five centuries of Muslim rule in that region.)
Author :
Michael the Elder (Great)
Book Reference :
'Michael the Elder, Chronique de Michael Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’ Antioche,' J.B. Chabot, Editor, Vol. II, Paris, 1901

Despite the growth of antagonism, Moslem (Muslim) rulers seldom made their Christian subjects suffer for the Crusades. When the Saracens finally resumed the full control of Palestine the Christians were given their former status as dhimmis. The Coptic Church, too had little cause for complaint under Saladin's (Salahuddin) strong government, and during the time of the earlier Mameluke sultans who succeeded him the Copts experienced more enlightened justice than they had hitherto known. The only effect of the Crusaders upon Egyptian Christians was to keep them for a while from pilgrimage to Jerusalem, for as long as the Frank were in charge heretics were forbidden access to the shrines. Not until the Moslem victories could they enjoy their rights as Christians.[i]
Author :
James Addison
Book Reference :
'The Christian Approach to the Moslem,' p. 35

3) You finally say that the lamentable condition of Muslim countries today is derived from the influence of Western powers. Was that the only influence of Western powers?

That is certainly the only influence that they carried over to the Muslim countries. Were the colonial powers technologically advanced? Yes! What did they use their powers for? To aid them in their mindless subjugation and destruction of all other nations around the world. If you think Islam was so bad, why was the Islamic empire the leading civilization for several centuries? Why do you only judge Islam after the savage nations of the world ravaged and destroyed the Muslim countries?

Please, educate yourself:
http://www.1001inventions.com/index....tSectionID=309
http://muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm

Discover 1000 years of missing history.

And what about countries such as Japan, Korea and today China? They were also "oppressed" by western powers but now they are or are becoming leaders in many fields.

Wrong. When was China a colony of Britain? When were Japanese enslaved?

And why do you only compare Muslim countries after the fall of the Islamic empire??

Islam KEEPS YOU IN POVERTY AND TYRANNY.

Then how did Islam make the world greatest civilization for over a thousand years??

format_quote Originally Posted by Turin Turambar

1) Regarding Ibn Warraq, I have read his book and it surely does look like a well-written and well-researched book.

I don't care what your personal opinion about someone who's name is not even known. He has no standing amongst objective historians and researchers. He has already been refuted by Dr. Jeremiah D. McAuliffe Phd and many other Muslims.

If Islam is really true it will be able to resist his arguments in your mind.

It has not only resisted but refuted his arugments. As for putting his lfie at risk, he has done no such thing. He hides behind a pseudonym and we don't even know if his formal education extends past elementary school. Whatever the case, his ignorance concerning Islam is clearly manifest, and he has been soundly corrected by many Muslims including Dr. McAuliffe, Dr. Al-Azami, Dr. Philips etc.

On the contrary I think of him as a hero of our times.

Anyone who propagates hatred towards any human being is a criminal, and the fact that you consider hatred heroic, sickens me.

Regarding your assertion that today there are no Islamic countries so we don't really have an example of how Islam would look like if it was implemented. How is it possible that a country like Saudi Arabia, that says "the Quran is our constitution" doesn't qualify as an Islamic country?

Where is the Khalifa of Saudi Arabia? Even the Muftis of Saudi Arabia have said that there is no Islamic state in the world.

In many respects it was much worse. For instance it didn't have any modern technology

I'll excuse you for your ignorance once again:
http://www.muslimheritage.com/Default.aspx

Slavery was widely practiced.

And again:
http://www.islamicboard.com/179752-post85.html

If you want to debate me on these topics clearly you'll have to educate yourself first. And don't think I didn't see that stunt you tried to pull - you failed to comment entirely on the refutation I gave you from Bismika Allahuma.org. Don't skip it again. Here it is:
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archi...lim-viewpoint/

Regards

Wow Well That Was Well Said And Well Writen...jazakallahkhair Ahki

amen

Hi Turin,

format_quote Originally Posted by Turin Turambar

In your case, what you did was to mention everybody who has a favorable opinion of Islam but you failed to mention that the number of writers or thinkers in the West with an unfavorable opinion of Islam is much larger.

I gave you a list of educated non-muslim scholars or historians who testified to some basic historical facts, such as the nobility of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh or the historical spread of Islam.

Your list reminded me of that little trick that somebody else was playing in another thread by saying that the proportion between the number of times the word "land" and the word "sea" are mentioned in the Quran is exactly the proportion in which we find land and sea in the world, and implying from that that the Quran must be the true word of God. It doesn't work with anybody who is a little familiar with logic, you see, because it is obvious that you are only using that argument after you have carefully checked that it will work in your favor.

Since you've raised the topic of numerical miracles, why not answer the point completely - how is it possible that the author of the Qur'an could have used all these words only an exact number of times eg.
http://www.islamicboard.com/170015-post7.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/171261-post12.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/172587-post14.html

If you show me that on one of THOSE lists the number of people who support Islam is greater than the number of people who don't, then I would begin to consider your argument seriously.

Unless we are examining Islamic scholars, then the argument is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. I never said Islam was true because so-and-so said so or that Prophet Muhammad pbuh was right because so-and-so said so. You asked for the views of non-muslim historians and I provided you with them. So it refutes your argument.

He also mentions Thomas Carlyle in the first chapter of his book and he says that many Muslims make the mistake of believing he is a "Muslim" of sorts. In fact Carlyle said very clearly that the Quran is chaotic, full of unnecessary repetitions and clearly not a work of divine inspiration. So you cannot have it both ways, use Carlyle as a proof in favor of Islam because of what he said in the first page but ignore completely what he says in the second.

I cited Thomas Carlyle's view on Prophet Muhammad pbuh because you asserted that non-muslims thought ill of him. Now what Carlyle thought of the Qur'an is irrelevant to what non-muslims think of Prophet Muhammad pbuh. I'm citing his opinion as a HISTORIAN not a Qur'anic scholar.

Regards