Conversion by the Sword and other misconceptions.

[Amadeus85]

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.

 

[- Qatada -]

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.

 

[Amadeus85]

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.

 

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


Okay!!! 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

 

[vpb]

Fi Sabililah , do you know why they talk bad about Jihad??? bc they don't have one in their religion hahaha

 

[Keltoi]

Fi Sabililah , do you know why they talk bad about Jihad??? bc they don't have one in their religion hahaha

What exactly are you talking about? No, Christianity doesn't have "jihad"...and somehow that doesn't bother me.

 

[Amadeus85]

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?)

 

[Keltoi]

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.

 

[Amadeus85]

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.

 

[Keltoi]

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.

 

[- Qatada -]

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?

 

[duskiness]

“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?
[/COLOR]

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.

 

[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

 

[- Qatada -]

: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.

 

[duskiness]

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

 

[Keltoi]

: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.

 

[- Qatada -]

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.