Do Muslims Want the whole world to be Muslim?

[Md Mashud]

Do Muslims Want the whole world to be Muslim?

LOL, STOPPED READING THERE!

 

[lolwatever]

Everything you say about Muslim rule is also true of Christian rule as well. You say that Jews had their Golden Age under the Muslims. They did in Algeria too under the French. There was a lot of scientific and technological devleopments in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries - while the Muslims were in a Dark Age - and European colonialism brought those to Muslim lands. European colonialism in the 19th century was much more tolerate than Muslim rule was.

erm Science started progressing especially during the renaissance, especially after state was seperated from religion. Before that, priests where labelling discoverers and researchers as heretics.

The difference is that with Muslims.. science adn technology advanced when state was bound to the guidelines of Islam. as soon as that bound began to break, so did the empire.. and in turn.. Muslims themselves.

I beg to differ about euro colonialism.. when the europeans colonised, their legal system was imposed on Muslims, when the Muslims conquered jerusalem (e.g. Under Umar) the Christians where allowed to keep their legal system and doctrine fully functioning within their communities.

For mroe detail, check out at-Tabari's encyclopedia of history as well as Ibn Kathir's "Beginning and End".. they go into alot of detail especially about Umar's rule...

sorry i keep using Umar as an example... it's just that i know alot about him in particular so i know very well he's an excellent point of reference..

So therefore we should all support a return of French rule to Algeria, no?

No, because the effects of french colonialism is pretty obvious on that country.

As long as you are a Christian or a Jew or a Zoroastrian. Historically Muslims have been tough on atheists and Buddhists.

Yep, because the criteria of tolerance is based on who Allah can tolerate.. not humans.. Atheists and Budhists are asked to keep away from the Islamic state if they want to keep their religion and no one will harass them as long as they don't cause any problems.

 

[kadafi]

Everything you say about Muslim rule is also true of Christian rule as well. You say that Jews had their Golden Age under the Muslims. They did in Algeria too under the French.

This is interesting since it is the first time I have heard someone referring the period of the French rule as a Golden Age for the Jews.

Historically, the only case that the Jewish people have achieved a Golden Age was during the Muslim rule in Spain (Andulsia). Some historians have also pointed out after they were expelled by the Christians in circa 1500, the Muslims helped them facilitate their Golden Age in North Africa (Maghreb) during the Ottoman rule, again a Muslim rule.

There was a lot of scientific and technological developments in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries - while the Muslims were in a Dark Age - and European colonialism brought those to Muslim lands. European colonialism in the 19th century was much more tolerate than Muslim rule was.

Indeed, those developments were as a result from the Islamic Golden Age. While you claim that the Muslim World was wandering in Dark Ages, you have failed the mention the cause of the decline in the period of Enlightenment. After the Muslims removed Europe from the Dark Ages, they were attacked, massacred, and had all their developments suppressed through warfare.

If the Muslim World did not intervene and incite Europe, then the decline would have never occurred. Libraries and maddrassas wouldn't have been sacked, hospitals ruined. The Christian pirates repeatedly attacked the city ports and jeopardised the trading infrastructure. The Tartars went on a holocaust spree. The Spanish, the Portuguese all contributed to the decay of the Islaamic presence in Europe.


It is also worthwhile to note that according to Norman Daniel, the notion of toleration in Christendom was borrowed from Muslim practice
N. Daniel: Islam, Europe and Empire, University Press, Edinburgh, 1966. p.12

 

[lolwatever]

There are so many hidden assumptions and prejudices in that I hardly know where to start. You assume that Islamic law is God's law, which may even be true, but you will have some work trying to convince any non-Muslims of that. You assume that God's law is perfect. See above. You ignore the fact that God's law has to be applied by very human Humans. So what you get is not God's justice, but human justice carried out by people who think they are carrying out God's law.

Well that's because you have no idea about God's law and Allah's criteria about who is to rule and how. I think you should have a bit of a read about the criteria for selecting a ruler and the many hadith that go on about this.

No doubt if a corrupt person is appointed as a ruler, he will fail to Apply Allah's law in full and consequently corrupt the empire.

Heigou, I think it's obvious that when you look at people like Umar who strove to apply God's rule in full, and compare them with some of the more corrupt guys towards the end, it becomes obvious that the corrupt ones didn't even try to justify what they where doing based on Quran and Hadith... whereas Umar done his best to insure that his application was in line with what God legislated.... hence the disparity between the two sorts of rules.. the rule of Umar which was perfectly what Allah had wanted, and the rule of the corrupt ones which was based on whms and desires.

All in all I would prefer a legal system based on reason - if Islamic law is better, you can make a case, we can study it, and if we like bits we can adopt them. If not we won't. Better than having a military coup and some dictator who insists that he knows what God wants.

I think it's your job to go take a good look into the books of Hadith and Quran and compare what the prophet said with reality... he made it clear to us that so long as our rulers will be good, so will the Muslims under them.... he also prophecised that there will be a Khilafah on his path right after his death.. followed by a dynasty that is followed by a kingdom which is followed by tyranny which will then be followed by another Khilafah on the path of prophecy....

implying that the Khilafah to come will be like the way it started out, a just one strictly following what Allah had ordered. And all in between these two points of time was a mixture of corruption and injustice.

He would have to pay 2.5 percent of the value of his possessions wouldn't he? Whereas in the West he has to pay 50 percent of his income. So a widow in an Islamic system might own a house left to her by her late husband, but have no income. In the West she would pay nothing even if her house was worth a million dollars. But in an Islamic system wouldn't she have to pay 25,000 each and every year? While a young man with no house but a Big Job in the City could earn a million dollars and pay little because he does not yet own anything?

Actually you're mixing a few things up there... a woman doesn't have to pay anything in the first place, let alone a widow... And if you read into Umar's incident with the old jew who was begging for money to pay his jizyah (poll tax), Umar demanded that people not be charged if they don't have the money, and that the tax should be waved from old people.

Of course you have to look at what people get for their 50 percent.

Not much, compared to what they would of got with the 2.5% they pay under Umar's rule.

 

[Musalmaan]

GURU NANAK puts emphasis in these Words:
He Is The ETERNAL GIVER and ‘There is no other.’

(There Is Only One GOD but There are many forms of worship)

‘There is no other’; this expression says than GURU NANAK is Alive, in this time and in the all the time. God ‘Is’ EK, THE ONE.

There Is Only One GOD; EK ON KAR.

hey, i hope you know that Guru Nanak visited Sheikh Ibrahim, the Muslim successor of Baba Farid, the great Sufi dervish of the twelfth century at Ajodhan. When asked by Ibrahim which of the two religions was the true way to attain God, Guru Nanak replied, "If there is one God, then there is only His way to attain Him, not another. One must follow that way and reject the other. Worship not him who is born only to die, but Him Who is eternal and is contained in the whole universe."

On his fourth great journey Guru Nanak dressed in the blue garb of a Muslim pilgrim and traveled to Makkah. He visited Madinah and Baghdad, too.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...sh-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE


Only Muslims are allowed to stay in Makkah and to enter the pilgrimage area, this obviously indicates that he must be a Muslim who accepted the way, as presrcibed by Allah SWT to attain His pleasure.

 

[manaal]

brother

i know. but i just think that the ayat sums it up nicely that we do not force people to follow or have faith. Each is entitled to follow their own and its only with the guidance of Allah that they will come to embrace Islam anyway.

jazakAllah kheir for your post



Rabi'ya:rose:

"All praise is due to Allah; we praise Allah and seek Allah’s help and forgiveness. And we seek refuge in Allah, Most High, from the evils of our own selves. Whomsoever has been guided by Allah, none can misguide him, and whomsoever is misguided, no one can guide him except Allah."

In the ayath: "Lakum dheenukum waliya dheen" (to you be your religion and to me be mine"

The word "dheen" does not mean only religion. we must understan that in the Arabic langugae and specially in the quranic language, a single word has several meanings. Therefore we must explore the ayath in several different angles.

Dheen also means way, way of life and path. You will find that different translation of the Holy Quran would translate each ayath in a different manner. (This is why we can never fully rely on a transaltion of the holy quran to fully understand it).

109.006
YUSUFALI: To you be your Way, and to me mine.
PICKTHAL: Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
SHAKIR: You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.

Therefore I don't agree that the above ayath means that one can be a kaafir if he chooses to.

And Allah knows best

 

[HeiGou]

erm Science started progressing especially during the renaissance, especially after state was seperated from religion. Before that, priests where labelling discoverers and researchers as heretics.

Well that is a gross generalisation, but so what?

The difference is that with Muslims.. science adn technology advanced when state was bound to the guidelines of Islam. as soon as that bound began to break, so did the empire.. and in turn.. Muslims themselves.

You can believe that if you like, but it is not true. Muslims inherited a great deal from Rome and Greece. The Persian converts added something to that but not much. As the Empire became more religious, scientific works dried up and stopped.

I beg to differ about euro colonialism.. when the europeans colonised, their legal system was imposed on Muslims, when the Muslims conquered jerusalem (e.g. Under Umar) the Christians where allowed to keep their legal system and doctrine fully functioning within their communities.

Well no that is not true at all. Virtually everywhere the Europeans went, and especially in the Muslim world, they left the Muslims under Islamic courts. In Algeria a Muslim could become a French citizen simply by rejecting the legal juridiction of the Qadi courts and accepting the French ones. India still operates the British-established Muslim court system for Indian Muslims. So does Malaysia oddly enough.

No, because the effects of french colonialism is pretty obvious on that country.

Sure. Roads, excellent agriculture, the wine industry, the oil industry, factories, Universities. The French left an excellent infrastructure behind. The enormous population as well. Better than the legacy left in Spain.

So can we all agree that French colonialism was an excellent thing?

Atheists and Budhists are asked to keep away from the Islamic state if they want to keep their religion and no one will harass them as long as they don't cause any problems.

That is hardly the history of Buddhists living near Muslims either but no matter.

 

[InToTheRain]

Sigh... if only it was so

 

[HeiGou]

You ignore the fact that God's law has to be applied by very human Humans. So what you get is not God's justice, but human justice carried out by people who think they are carrying out God's law.

Well that's because you have no idea about God's law and Allah's criteria about who is to rule and how. I think you should have a bit of a read about the criteria for selecting a ruler and the many hadith that go on about this.

I have tried my best to find out about it and I have to say I am less than impressed - it comes down to a committee of the Great and the Good appointing one of their own to rule for life doesn't it? Now ideally they should all be learned men and ideally the ruler ought to be the best of Muslims. But do you have any reason to think they will be? It sounds a lot like the way that dictators are appointed all over the world.

No doubt if a corrupt person is appointed as a ruler, he will fail to Apply Allah's law in full and consequently corrupt the empire.

What do you mean "if"? Unless God works constantly to protect the State a corrupt person will be appointed as a ruler. What will you do then?

I think it's obvious that when you look at people like Umar who strove to apply God's rule in full, and compare them with some of the more corrupt guys towards the end, it becomes obvious that the corrupt ones didn't even try to justify what they where doing based on Quran and Hadith... whereas Umar done his best to insure that his application was in line with what God legislated.... hence the disparity between the two sorts of rules.. the rule of Umar which was perfectly what Allah had wanted, and the rule of the corrupt ones which was based on whms and desires.

Hmmm, I am not so sure about that. It is not my field of course, but as far as I can see those later rulers just got qadis and muftis to agree what they were doing was Islamic. They asked for and got fataws as they needed them. Indeed some of the later regimes, the Abbasids for instance, were notably more respectful of the Ulama than earlier ones like the Umayyads. The Ottomans never had any problems finding Qadis who would allow them to murder their brothers or whatever usually on the basis of necessity. To this day most Arab regimes get support from some sections of the Ulama. Which is not to say that what they did was Islamic. I just don't think that they were so much the slaves of their whims and desires as you think.

All in all I would prefer a legal system based on reason - if Islamic law is better, you can make a case, we can study it, and if we like bits we can adopt them. If not we won't. Better than having a military coup and some dictator who insists that he knows what God wants.

I think it's your job to go take a good look into the books of Hadith and Quran and compare what the prophet said with reality

I think what you wrote is interesting, but does not really relate to what I said. I am happy to leave it if you like.

He would have to pay 2.5 percent of the value of his possessions wouldn't he? Whereas in the West he has to pay 50 percent of his income. So a widow in an Islamic system might own a house left to her by her late husband, but have no income. In the West she would pay nothing even if her house was worth a million dollars. But in an Islamic system wouldn't she have to pay 25,000 each and every year? While a young man with no house but a Big Job in the City could earn a million dollars and pay little because he does not yet own anything?

Actually you're mixing a few things up there... a woman doesn't have to pay anything in the first place, let alone a widow... And if you read into Umar's incident with the old jew who was begging for money to pay his jizyah (poll tax), Umar demanded that people not be charged if they don't have the money, and that the tax should be waved from old people.

But that was an old destitute Jew wasn't it? Surely rich old people are a different matter? Besides who says the widow is old?

Of course you have to look at what people get for their 50 percent.

Not much, compared to what they would of got with the 2.5% they pay under Umar's rule.

Now you are pulling my leg.

 

[lolwatever]

Well that is a gross generalisation, but so what?

You can believe that if you like, but it is not true. Muslims inherited a great deal from Rome and Greece. The Persian converts added something to that but not much. As the Empire became more religious, scientific works dried up and stopped.

Did i say anywhere up there that Science didn't exist before Islam and Muslims? what i did say was that they're the ones who pretty much brought it back to life and literally re-incarnated much of greek and roman literature and took on board what whoever else had to offer.

lol i find it hilarious that you're on the view that as the empire grew it became more religious, that's just hilarious lol.

Well no that is not true at all. Virtually everywhere the Europeans went, and especially in the Muslim world, they left the Muslims under Islamic courts. In Algeria a Muslim could become a French citizen simply by rejecting the legal juridiction of the Qadi courts and accepting the French ones. India still operates the British-established Muslim court system for Indian Muslims. So does Malaysia oddly enough.

Now talk of serious exagerations, bring me any shred of evidence that happened under Umar (no Muslim would dispute the Justice of Umar). Such things defiantely didn't happen with the knowledge of any other Just Khalifs who followed him, it's a matter of principle.

The courts you refer to (or what remains of them) is localised to family related matters, barely representative of the laws that Allah set to be applied.

Sure. Roads, excellent agriculture, the wine industry, the oil industry, factories, Universities. The French left an excellent infrastructure behind. The enormous population as well. Better than the legacy left in Spain.

You seem to think that there's no economic incentive behind doing all that for the french. How about taking a look at what the french decided to do when the Algerians wanted their religion to rule them via democratic elections, obviously no one bothers to remember that..

So can we all agree that French colonialism was an excellent thing?

It was an economic ingenuinity on part of the french no doubt, afterall it was a colony, and as rational economic thinkers, you don't colonise a country for no economic reason. whether it was done on any moral ground, just take a look at the relationship between the two countries today and answer for yourself. (If France had any sense of human rights, how could it support such a regime and not bother about the corruption going on).

But it comes down to one thing, you're picking and choosing segements of history to suit your purpose, instead of critically analysing the laws and actual legal system... you seem to find it easier to scavange through dark periods of history (who no Muslim approves off) and use that as evidence to disqualify Islamic rule.

But you're quite happy to ignore taking an example like Umar and trying to prove your claims using him as an example...

 

[HeiGou]

Did i say anywhere up there that Science didn't exist before Islam and Muslims? what i did say was that they're the ones who pretty much brought it back to life and literally re-incarnated much of greek and roman literature and took on board what whoever else had to offer.

I disagree. They are the ones that invaded Rome and Persia and eventually brought an end to their traditions of learning. Moreover Muslims were not that interested in Classical learning in their original languages - I am told there is not one single Muslim who translated anything into Arabic - which shows that the work that survived survived because Christians and Jews became Arabic-speaking, not because Arabs became interested.

lol i find it hilarious that you're on the view that as the empire grew it became more religious, that's just hilarious lol.

Do you? And yet. It is noticeable that some of the later Umayyads were more religious than the earlier ones - Umar II for instance - and that the Abbasids were clearly far more religious than the Umayyads. I am surprised that you dispute that but I don't see any need to argue over it. Deny it if you like.

Now talk of serious exagerations, bring me any shred of evidence that happened under Umar (no Muslim would dispute the Justice of Umar). Such things defiantely didn't happen with the knowledge of any other Just Khalifs who followed him, it's a matter of principle.

Again I do not see how that relates to what I said.

The courts you refer to (or what remains of them) is localised to family related matters, barely representative of the laws that Allah set to be applied.

Well that is mostly true, but why does that matter?

You seem to think that there's no economic incentive behind doing all that for the french.

And there wasn't for the Arabs in Spain?

Anatole France was once that the Law prevented the Rich man as well as the Poor sleeping under bridges. Of course he could have said that Bridges allow both the Rich man and the Poor man to walk over them.

How about taking a look at what the french decided to do when the Algerians wanted their religion to rule them via democratic elections, obviously no one bothers to remember that..

By that time France had left Algeria and all they did was support the government in power. I don't see the relevance.

It was an economic ingenuinity on part of the french no doubt, afterall it was a colony, and as rational economic thinkers, you don't colonise a country for no economic reason.

I replace the word "French" with "Muslim" and I don't see how that does not apply to Spain.

whether it was done on any moral ground, just take a look at the relationship between the two countries today and answer for yourself. (If France had any sense of human rights, how could it support such a regime and not bother about the corruption going on).

France does not rule Algeria anymore. It is not responsible for what goes on there, it just has to deal with whoever is in power. Why wouldn't it support a regime in power? French foreign policy is about French interests, not those of the Algerians. Name me a country that behaves any other way.

But it comes down to one thing, you're picking and choosing segements of history to suit your purpose, instead of critically analysing the laws and actual legal system... you seem to find it easier to scavange through dark periods of history (who no Muslim approves off) and use that as evidence to disqualify Islamic rule.

I am doing no such thing, or at least no more than you. You concentrate on Spain and on Umar - two very interesting and widely separated periods. What else is that but picking and choosing segements of history to suit your purpose, instead of critically analysing the laws and actual legal systems?

You will notice I am not using dark periods of history - and you are wrong about no Muslim approving of them - I am using your chosen period - Muslim Spain - and comparing it with a European equivalent - French Algeria. Why should you be the only one to pick and choose?

But you're quite happy to ignore taking an example like Umar and trying to prove your claims using him as an example...

So little is known about Umar and I know so little of what is known that there is no point for me to debate it. But as the old Jew issue shows I am also prepared to deal with that period too. Any second now I am going to ask how Umar died. Don't you think it odd that so many of the Rashudun died by violence?

 

[Malaikah]

Any second now I am going to ask how Umar died. Don't you think it odd that so many of the Rashudun died by violence?

yeh.. allah swt took mercy on them, honoured them, promised them paradise and made them martys...

thats assuming i know who you are talking about in the first place, whats Rashudun?

 

[HeiGou]

yeh.. allah swt took mercy on them, honoured them, promised them paradise and made them martys...

thats assuming i know who you are talking about in the first place, whats Rashudun?

الخلفاء الراشدون

 

[מדינת ישׂראל]

الخلفاء الراشدون

What does that mean?

 

[lolwatever]

I disagree. They are the ones that invaded Rome and Persia and eventually brought an end to their traditions of learning. Moreover Muslims were not that interested in Classical learning in their original languages - I am told there is not one single Muslim who translated anything into Arabic - which shows that the work that survived survived because Christians and Jews became Arabic-speaking, not because Arabs became interested.

You claim that the Arabs weren't interested in learning things in their original languages and that "the work that survived survived because Christians and Jews became Arabic-speaking" which doesn't sound right. Firstly, how do you know that the Muslims did not study things in their original languages, when they welcomed contributions from other civilisations? Secondly, the fact that non-Muslims translated their works does not mean that the work would otherwise have never survived. There could be many Muslim translators too that you don't know of. Perhaps you should bring some evidence for these claims, and not jump to poor conclusions.

There are few articles on this site about why the Golden Age declined (http://muslimheritage.com) - I think you will find it is more to do with corruption and attack from others than it is with "becoming more religious", if I understand that argument correctly! And the reason why it flourished was because of the faith, attitude and morals prevalent among the Muslims. Check this list: http://muslimheritage.com/topics/def...onomyTypeID=25

Do you? And yet. It is noticeable that some of the later Umayyads were more religious than the earlier ones - Umar II for instance - and that the Abbasids were clearly far more religious than the Umayyads. I am surprised that you dispute that but I don't see any need to argue over it. Deny it if you like.

I made it clear that there where other great Khalifs which could be used as examples, but what i found surprising was your claim that the general trend had a positive religious gradient all along which was inversely proportional to it's technological development! If you checkout this article it makes things alot clearer, http://muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?TaxonomyTypeID=25&TaxonomySubTypeID=-1&TaxonomyThirdLevelID=-1&ArticleID=419 , you've got very little evidence ot peg religion as teh cause of the fall of Grenada on the hands of Abu Abdullah "Boadbil" amongst most if not all other cases of the empire's collapse.

Again I do not see how that relates to what I said.

It's very relevent, you made the accusation that: "Virtually everywhere the Europeans went, and especially in the Muslim world, they left the Muslims under Islamic courts." And i asked you to prove that was teh case with Umar for example, who we all agree was a genuine just Khalif.

Well that is mostly true, but why does that matter?

Erm Muslim's believe that the Islam is a way of life, to be applied in all aspects, not in bits and pieces, so we don't pick and chose.. whether we like it or not. So having semi Islamic courts isn't a solution... otherwsie why would we sit here arguing that the Khalifs towards the end where mostly corrupt? i mean they still kept the family laws and other fragments intact, as long as it didn't interfere too much with their personal affairs...

And there wasn't for the Arabs in Spain?

Whether that was the primary aim is a different story, it might be hard for you to comprehend, but Muslim's have the duty to give everyone access to Islamic knowledge all over the world, so that everyone has the same opportunity to learn abotu Allah, at the same time, to uphold the laws that Allah has sent for humanity to apply on themselves.

So the primary aim is to spread Islam everywhere, whether the people choose to become Muslim or not is purely upto them, whether certain Khalifs broke that law is irrelevent because they are not our source of guidance. Following from that, Muslims are commanded to take care of the land and keep it in order, prior to Muslim's invasion of spain, the spanyards where lurking in dirty streets, majority bathing once in every god knows how long... by the time Muslims had establisehd themselves, things that where previously unkown to the rest of europe where common in the Islamic empire (street lighting, paved roads etc.)

With the french, it was obvious that their prime aim for colonising Algeria wasn't for any religious or moral reason... Pleven, the French Commissioner for the Colonies, stated:

"In [Algeria] there are no peoples to liberate, no racial discrimination to abolish...
The overseas populations do not want any kind of independence other than the independence of [rather than from] France."

Whereas in the case of the Spanish, when they where strict in their religion, even non-Muslim commentators agree that everyone was happy under them, (e.g. take a look at the documentary "Planet-Islam").

Anatole France was once that the Law prevented the Rich man as well as the Poor sleeping under bridges. Of course he could have said that Bridges allow both the Rich man and the Poor man to walk over them.

What's that got to do with anything?

By that time France had left Algeria and all they did was support the government in power. I don't see the relevance.

Which was a just and un-corrupt regime :?

I replace the word "French" with "Muslim" and I don't see how that does not apply to Spain.

From what i explained above, i think the difference is very obvious, the french came in primarily for their own benefit, the Muslims came in with a religious motive which was to spread Islam further, the economic prosperity came as a bypass product, not as a primary aim... afterall, there wasn't much that was exciting about spain before the Muslims entered it, compared to Algeria's strategic position and natural endowments as far as teh french where concerned.

France does not rule Algeria anymore. It is not responsible for what goes on there, it just has to deal with whoever is in power. Why wouldn't it support a regime in power? French foreign policy is about French interests, not those of the Algerians. Name me a country that behaves any other way.

I guess that explains half the stuff i mentioned above..

It's simple, every political entity acts in its own interests, the difference is, the Islamic legal system is designed to act in the interests of those who live within it from a hereafter point of view, all other entities act for personal gains.

I am doing no such thing, or at least no more than you. You concentrate on Spain and on Umar - two very interesting and widely separated periods. What else is that but picking and choosing segements of history to suit your purpose, instead of critically analysing the laws and actual legal systems?

Actually, what you're doing is, picking and choosing segments where the legal system was applied partially or in a corrupt manner, and relying on the fact that the rulers had under dogs who legitimised thier rule... to support your claim that the Islamic legal system is cactus.

It's like telling me that cars are pointless and can never function properly because of so and so incidents and drivers, as if the driver is related to the performance of the car.

You will notice I am not using dark periods of history - and you are wrong about no Muslim approving of them - I am using your chosen period - Muslim Spain - and comparing it with a European equivalent - French Algeria. Why should you be the only one to pick and choose?

The topic of the thread is about the world accepting Islam, so essentially the history of Muslims is being used to highlight their successes as an outcome of their faith. If the French invaded Algeria and were kind and helped its civilisation (which wasnt quite the case), that's all good and well , but what does it have to do with the topic - we should ask what were their beliefs and underlying goals and would such a belief system be a global success today?

So little is known about Umar and I know so little of what is known that there is no point for me to debate it. But as the old Jew issue shows I am also prepared to deal with that period too. Any second now I am going to ask how Umar died. Don't you think it odd that so many of the Rashudun died by violence?

I heard that Anwar awlaki has a very detailed series on him, listen to it and it'll be obvious that there isn't as little as you think there is about him... his primary referencse where at-Tabari's "history" as well as Ibn Kathir's "Beginning and End" (i think he used that im not sure) and a couple others...

His last days are also covered in that story (including his assasination). What cheese said about Khalif's dying is true, i think what's pivotal to this topic is a difference that exists between us...

You measure costs and benefits with a narrow scope, so if a Khalif is killed, you see that as a cost (a negative one) and a loss, whereas, with Muslims, they look at it relative to the hereafter, which means we see it as an honour and great rewards in the hereafter.

You're going to probably give me the response "you can believe that, but you'll have a hard time convincing non-Muslims of that", and that's exactly why Muslims would love their doctrine to be in control, because talk is cheap, it's only when you guys will see it in action that people will take things a little more seriously.

To sum this up, you're argument is that faith (for Muslims) is the cause of scientific decline, the question is, do you have any evidence from the Quran or hadith from that? Infact, from what i read in the quran, there's the opposite. It comes as no surprise that people like Khawarizmi made it clear that their inventions where for the sake of serving Allah and his religion, for example in the preface of his algebra book, he mentions that his discovery is to serve "The practical needs of people concerning matters of inheritance, legacies partition, law suits and commerce."

The challenge is for you to bring even the slightest evidence that Islam discourages scientific development which is of benefit to mankind, especially in the fields of physics, biology, chemistry and mathematics. Some people today may even claim that Islam is against that, just because they say so, is that representative of Islam's outlook on such matters?

Do you want the whole world to be Muslim? Yes, for the reasons mentioned a page or two ago.

 

[lolwatever]

What does that mean?

It means 'Guided Khalifs'

 

[מדינת ישׂראל]

It means 'Guided Khalifs'

Thank you.

 

[lolwatever]

no probs

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

^^ why?

let me pose a simple question... Muslims believe that disbelievers will go to hell right? So if Muslim's don't want everyone to become Muslim, that means they're selfish, stuckup and watn everyone else to go to hell except them...

and if they are loving and love the best for people, why wouldn't they want everyone to become Muslim to enter paradise with them

hence the purpose of prophets and messengers and messages.

salamz

Jews believe all that worship Jesus are going to hell...
Muslims believe all the non-believers will go to hell...
Christians beleive all those that don't believe in Jesus will go to hell...

It's all confusing is God goint around in cirlces or something as if your relgions are all 'of the book' why so many contradictions?

 

[lolwatever]

^^ Actually, in the case of Muslims, it's a bit different.

Non-Believers = People who hear of the message but ignore it.

Also, the followers of Musa (the Jews) are definately classified as believers, so are the followers of Jesus..

However, the people who decided to disbelieve in Jesus and stick to Musa's teachings when Jesus was around, they are classed as disbelievers because they are following their desires and not Allah's commands... And Christians/Jews who saw Muhammad and preferred their former religion over Islam are classified as disbelievers because they are rejecting Allah's commands and following their desires instead.

However, suppose if a christian never heard of Muhammad PBUH and they worship Allah sincerely, they will enter paradise because they where genuinely ignorant and where following whatever they knew, furthermore.. suppose someone had no idea about any religion btu decided to worship God in his own peculiar way.. he too will be accepted because Allah does not impose on a soul beyond its capacity.

So Muslim's are more pragmatic in their outlook of these things.. and anyway, the bible and tawrah make mention of the coming of a prophet, so if they where believers in their books.. they shouldn't have a problem in adapting to what Muhammad pbuh came with.

But that's not the topic of this thread... the question is, Do Muslims want the whole world to be Muslim... yes, for the reasons i mentioned in what you quoted

take care, All the best!