Christianity vs Islam

[sindbad5]

What about Persia,Byzantium,Iraq

these 2 empires controlled tenth of nations by iron and fire, they oppress them, do you know what Byzanta did to christians in egypt? even after Byzanta become christian by itself?

at this time muslims were the saviors for these nations from the oppression and agony.
they are like america today when she says she invaded Iraq for librty and freedom, but with a diffrence, muslims were sincre at this purpose, not a greedy petrol seekers.

besides, byzanta who actually begin the war at Tabuk, north of arabia.

Persia and Byzantium would never let a new power emerges from the desert at there borders without eradicating it, man war was inevitable at these times.

tenth of messages sent to the rulers of these empires calling them to islam, or at least not to stand between islam and people.

event after war, muslims never destroyed the system or the infrastructure of these countries, never confiscate lands from thier owners, never become hostile toward people, they came to build not to destroy, and this pretty much what happened.

 

[Gharib]

these 2 empires controlled tenth of nations by iron and fire, they oppress them, do you know what Byzanta did to christians in egypt? even after Byzanta become christian by itself?

at this time muslims were the saviors for these nations from the oppression and agony.
they are like america today when she says she invaded Iraq for librty and freedom, but with a diffrence, muslims were sincre at this purpose, not a greedy petrol seekers.

besides, byzanta who actually begin the war at Tabuk, north of arabia.

Persia and Byzantium would never let a new power emerges from the desert at there borders without eradicating it, man war was inevitable at these times.

tenth of messages sent to the rulers of these empires calling them to islam, or at least not to stand between islam and people.

event after war, muslims never destroyed the system or the infrastructure of these countries, never confiscate lands from thier owners, never become hostile toward people, they came to build not to destroy, and this pretty much what happened.

very nice said bro.

 

[England my lionheart]

I'm not being touchy, I'm simply responding to a point that you yourself brought up. Anyway, none of the aforementioned conflicts occurred until 633, the year after Muhammad died.

The first Mosque was built in 629 in India,this was during his lifetime and the continued with the invasion which has resulted in partition of India ie Pakistan.

 

[Elessar]

The first Mosque was built in 629 in India,this was during his lifetime and the continued with the invasion which has resulted in partition of India ie Pakitan.

The partition of India was against the wishes of Indians on both sides, and undertaken by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United Nations; you cannot blame Mohammad for that.

 

[England my lionheart]

The partition of India was against the wishes of Indians on both sides, and undertaken by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United Nations; you cannot blame Mohammad for that.

But India was invaded during his lifetime was'nt it

 

[England my lionheart]

During his lifetime he led 27 invasions of neighbouring towns so what happened to only attack if attacked

 

[England my lionheart]

these 2 empires controlled tenth of nations by iron and fire, they oppress them, do you know what Byzanta did to christians in egypt? even after Byzanta become christian by itself?

at this time muslims were the saviors for these nations from the oppression and agony.
they are like america today when she says she invaded Iraq for librty and freedom, but with a diffrence, muslims were sincre at this purpose, not a greedy petrol seekers.

besides, byzanta who actually begin the war at Tabuk, north of arabia.

Persia and Byzantium would never let a new power emerges from the desert at there borders without eradicating it, man war was inevitable at these times.

tenth of messages sent to the rulers of these empires calling them to islam, or at least not to stand between islam and people.

event after war, muslims never destroyed the system or the infrastructure of these countries, never confiscate lands from thier owners, never become hostile toward people, they came to build not to destroy, and this pretty much what happened.

Just out of curiosity how many Arab countries are a Democracy,i think its more like oppertunist expansion.

 

[Elessar]

Just out of curiosity how many Arab countries are a Democracy,i think its more like oppertunist expansion.

The world didn't even have a single democracy until 1913. That was the Kingdom of Norway. Of course, I don't include nations which limited voting by property, by income, by gender, by race, by religion, or any other restriction. Hell, the United States wasn't a democracy until 1965.

 

[Sui]

But India was invaded during his lifetime was'nt it

During his lifetime he led 27 invasions of neighbouring towns so what happened to only attack if attacked

No, Muslims didn't have a strong presence in India until like the 11th century. In fact, no expansion into foreign territory occured during Muhammad's lifetime. It began under the Rashidun Caliphate.

I don't know about the 27 invasions thing. I'm just aware that Muhammad's forces won several key battles and in effect Arabia recognized Islam's strength.

 

[sindbad5]

During his lifetime he led 27 invasions of neighbouring towns so what happened to only attack if attacked

The first Mosque was built in 629 in India,this was during his lifetime and the continued with the invasion which has resulted in partition of India ie Pakistan.

Just out of curiosity how many Arab countries are a Democracy,i think its more like oppertunist expansion.

I have strong feeling you are not naive, am i wrong in this feeling?

 

[England my lionheart]

I have strong feeling you are not naive, am i wrong in this feeling?

I cetainly am not naive so you are right.

 

[sindbad5]

I cetainly am not naive so you are right.

very well

do the fact that prophet Mohamed (pbuh) run wars makes any muslim feel shame and try to hide this point so that non-muslims don't use it against him?
no at all :no:
he run wars to defend the new muslim society (or muslims allies ) or to deter others.

do he send an army to invade india?
i say no, not becuase i'm touchy about him, but because that's what history tells us.

do because muslims invade india someday in histroy, it divided into 3 countries?
maybe if no muslims (or no hindus) in india could been make it stay as one country,
but what's sure is the fact that the acts and policies of english occupier what took india in the separation way.

Just out of curiosity how many Arab countries are a Democracy

none, ofcourse no democrasy, or even wise rule, all are tyrants
thanks to efforts spent to raise and support those tyrants tenth of years ago from the former westren occupiers tell america nowdays.

 

[England my lionheart]

very well

do the fact that prophet Mohamed (pbuh) run wars makes any muslim feel shame and try to hide this point so that non-muslims don't use it against him?
no at all :no:
he run wars to defend the new muslim society (or muslims allies ) or to deter others.
do he send an army to invade india?
i say no, not becuase i'm touchy about him, but because that's what history tells us.

do because muslims invade india someday in histroy, it divided into 3 countries?
maybe if no muslims (or no hindus) in india could been make it stay as one country,
but what's sure is the fact that the acts and policies of english occupier what took india in the separation way.

The partition of India is a black day in our history but the reasons for it were the irreconcilible differences between what is now Pakistan an Islamic state and India a secular country.

none, ofcourse no democrasy, or even wise rule, all are tyrants
thanks to efforts spent to raise and support those tyrants tenth of years ago from the former westren occupiers tell america nowdays.

I agree with you about the west supporting such tyrants,but maybe if they were Democracies they would not have been so easily used.

 

[Luminous]

The reason those tyrants were there(as seen by the Occupiers) was because the people of India were massacring each other and needed a firm hand to stop thier childish foolishness.

 

[England my lionheart]

If we look at

Revelation 22:12 "And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last."

this is obviously in conflict with Muhammed being the last or seal of the Prophets and if you add The Bab to this and you were to believe any of it imo you would believe the Christian one as it was the first.
The Quran which has simmilarities with the texts of the Jews and Christians and the Bab who is compared to John the Baptist.

​

 

[simchatzvi]

To StripperClown:
... Dude! You're all right! Top-Marks. Ha'Kavod! [ "(with) The'Honor(s!)" ]
Simcha

 

[kai]

these 2 empires controlled tenth of nations by iron and fire, they oppress them, do you know what Byzanta did to christians in egypt? even after Byzanta become christian by itself?

at this time muslims were the saviors for these nations from the oppression and agony.
they are like america today when she says she invaded Iraq for librty and freedom, but with a diffrence, muslims were sincre at this purpose, not a greedy petrol seekers. so it was all out of kindness,

besides, byzanta who actually begin the war at Tabuk, north of arabia. then why did mohamed lead an army of 30,000 north to Tabuk to engage the Byzantines?

Persia and Byzantium would never let a new power emerges from the desert at there borders without eradicating it, man war was inevitable at these times.so the new power eradicated the sassanid and Byzantine empires to create a new one.

tenth of messages sent to the rulers of these empires calling them to islam, or at least not to stand between islam and people.yes its called extortion

event after war, muslims never destroyed the system or the infrastructure of these countries, never confiscate lands from thier owners, never become hostile toward people, they came to build not to destroy, and this pretty much what happened.

they never really destroyed it just assimilated it.



ah if ever there was a case for history beling wrote by conquerers, what a rosy tale indeed

 

[bamarcci]

Wow, so many posts out there.



That was just what appeared to those who *tried* to crucify him, so they didn't crucify Jesus because God wouldn't allow anyone to humiliate his Prophets. It didn't happen to any other great Messenger and it didn't happen to Jesus.

I guess I would need to hear your explanation of the resurrection then. If he did not really die, then he wasn't resurrected? There would be no point discussing the historicity of the resurrection without knowing how you view the entire event of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

The denial of the Jesus' crucifixion presents some problems. First, if Jesus was not crucified, how can we account for the conviction of every desiciple and writer of the New Testament that the crucifixion is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. Second, without the cross, there is obviously no resurrection. If someone else died on the cross (as suggested based on sura 4:157), then how do Muslims account for all the resurrection appearances in the Gospels and the foundational belief in the resurrection by all early Chrisitan communities? Finally, would God only making it appear that Jesus was crucified go against his very Character? This would seem to involve God in a great act of deception.

 

[kai]

I guess I would need to hear your explanation of the resurrection then. If he did not really die, then he wasn't resurrected? There would be no point discussing the historicity of the resurrection without knowing how you view the entire event of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

The denial of the Jesus' crucifixion presents some problems. First, if Jesus was not crucified, how can we account for the conviction of every desiciple and writer of the New Testament that the crucifixion is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. Second, without the cross, there is obviously no resurrection. If someone else died on the cross (as suggested based on sura 4:157), then how do Muslims account for all the resurrection appearances in the Gospels and the foundational belief in the resurrection by all early Chrisitan communities? Finally, would God only making it appear that Jesus was crucified go against his very Character? This would seem to involve God in a great act of deception.

its not a problem for muslims is it and they dont have to account for anything in the new testement. Jesus was a prophet he was not crucified, and the new testement is corrupted. and god can do as he pleases,he is god after all

 

[bamarcci]

its not a problem for muslims is it and they dont have to account for anything in the new testement. Jesus was a prophet he was not crucified, and the new testement is corrupted. and god can do as he pleases,he is god after all

I'm curious what's behind your reasoning as to why the new testament (or more particularly the Gospel from Jesus) is corrupted. If it is corrupt, then what is the uncorrupt word (the Torah and the Injil) which God promised to protect (29:46 ; 15:9 ; 18:28 ; 2:36). Also, God (Yahweh) cannot nessarily do as he pleases (that's a different discussion), but I guess that would depend on what type of god you believe in.