Conversion by the Sword and other misconceptions.

  • Thread starter Thread starter vpb
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 136
  • Views Views 17K
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Who is the Trinity to Christians & Muslims?

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
"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.
 
:rollseyes
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.



 
Please, Fi_Sabilillah, any amount of useful knowledge is appreciated.
 
:w:

Excellent information Bro. Fi
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
: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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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...
 
^^ 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! :(
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top