Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The US has not always been the good Guy and Muhammad was not always wrong. However comparing what you mentioned with what I mentioned Muhammad was indeed the bad guy. No one but Christ was all good. There is evil and good in all of us. My contention is that Muhammad had a lot of evil in him for a prophet, though he was not always wrong or bad. You brought up a specific action and I brought up a specific time frame. I can condemn Muhammad and you cannot condemn the US on those terms.Hello 1robin.
Thats it,US were justified whereas prophet Muhammad was a bad guy.
Islam did much good in Spain but that is not an excuse to invade it. Spain did not ask them to conquer their way through the Mediterranean so they could help the. If I came take over your house and make improvements does that justify what I did and no Europe in general did not benefit much from Islam. I don't know about Cambyses but Palestine was better off under the Romans prior to the rebellion.
Don't know. I do know Indonesia is the only democratic Islamic nation and one of the most civil. Muslims did fight in Malaysia but I can't remember who they fought against. Muslims fight against everyone including themselves. I can't think of a culture that has fought as many other cultures in the history of the world. There may be one or two but not many. They even fight those that help them. Maybe they are mostly mad because their leaders take all the money they produce. Something has made them perpetually ill tempered.
The quran is amazing in it's own language and the meaning behind its words.
Try yourself to make a better words than the quran even in the English language,lets try this
Then We made the drop into a leechlike structure (alaq), then of that leechlike structure, we made a chewed lump. then We made out of the chewed lump, bones, and clothed the bones with flesh, then We developed out of it another creature. Surah 23: 14
The verse is describing in very few words the embryonic period,so we can see that the drop in the womb will become as a leech structure and then it proceed to be like a chewed lump,then from it the bones which will be clothed with flesh then that will be developed to a new creature.
Now we are in the 21th century and we got better information than prophet Muhammad,so try by your own words to make a better description for the embryonic period and by using very few words.
I have a degree in math and have studied theology for 20 years, yet I know three times as much about military history as the two combined.
This is far too generalized to debate. You need to narrow it somewhat. I suggest either we discuss what is occurring today, what out Holy texts allow for (this is the most relevant), or what was done outside normal wars for land or power. Only what was done in a God's name is relevant here. I do not blame Allah for Afghanistan's defense against Russia for example.
Well they can't fight to start with. When a nation you outnumber 80 - 1 whips you every decade or two you have to start asking who's side God is own.
Hello Tom. I suggest you narrow your broad claims down to something that can be resolved, giving a list of nations with no details and generalized wars where one side happened to have Christians in it is not meaningful. You were to all over the place here, but I think you can be a challenging debater if you narrow down your claims.
It is my opinion and generally the opinion of anyone with a sufficient interest in history. There are no proof tests but the evidence stacks up on my side quite high.
Islam did make advancements in those times while Europe did not. However you ruin your credibility claiming they brought Europe out. They did not, it was the enlightenment Christians and secularists that revived science in Europe and had almost nothing at all to do with Islam. You also fail to note it was Islam's building on Greek and Roman learning that made that possible. Catholic Europe suppressed pagan learning and so did not advance. It was not Islamic brilliance but acting on Greek and Roman brilliance that made the difference here. If Islam had some kind of inherent intellectual advantage what happened to it. The West quickly over took them and the rest of the world and is still on top. The middle east is a crescent of ignorance and misery and as soon as the oil runs out it will be the bronze age again there. Mentioning the Visigoths is not an argument. Islam began in the middle east what did Spain do to force them to march 1000 miles and attack them?
That was kind of an unofficial determination. Every single day I turn on talk radio and hear the Muslims are fighting someone knew. That may be a more recent phenomena but it is certainly true today. I hear of them fighting people I had no idea even existed or were anywhere near the middle east. It is easy enough to account for given this prophecy:
The great tyrannical Roman empire would have wiped Israel off the earth in a year. It no longer existed when Islam attacked it. All that was left of it was Constantinople and Islam almost could not defeat it alone. The great Roman empire ended over a hundred years before Muhammad was born. I do not know about Indonesia but Alexander defeated the Persians not Islam. Darius would also have wiped out Islam in his day. If the US took over Canada and south America we could not call it resisting persecution. Islam can't invade other nations and call it a defense.
This "write something better" argument is the worst argument for anything, anywhere, of any kind. I have done it several times and I am a grammatical idiot, there are countless sites that do it, Muhammad even killed an old man in his day that was constantly writing better stuff. In fact Muhammad or his companions snuffed out any one that wrote stuff he did not like, they would even kill them without asking Muhammad and when told he would rejoice. This challenge has no criteria. Better according to who? According to what standard?The quran is amazing in it's own language and the meaning behind its words.
Try yourself to make a better words than the quran even in the English language,lets try this
Then We made the drop into a leech—like structure (alaq), then of that leech—like structure, we made a chewed lump. then We made out of the chewed lump, bones, and clothed the bones with flesh, then We developed out of it another creature. Surah 23: 14
The verse is describing in very few words the embryonic period,so we can see that the drop in the womb will become as a leech structure and then it proceed to be like a chewed lump,then from it the bones which will be clothed with flesh then that will be developed to a new creature.
Now we are in the 21th century and we got better information than prophet Muhammad,so try by your own words to make a better description for the embryonic period and by using very few words.
I do not see that. I have mentioned Muhammad's acts, the character of the Quran, Islamic history, and the tendencies of jihadists and average Muslims. I am not making any anthropomorphic arguments at all. I will answer one question. I hate Islam as a faith for reasons based on evidence but every Muslim I know personally I have liked. My sisters housemate is a Muslim and I have even dated one.
I think that is what matters. Yeah, Hell with islam now. Lets go back to the arguement.
But it was not a Christian fight. It was a war over land and greed. That was my point. There were groups on both sides from most religions. However Many of the Islamic divisions sided with Hitler solely because of his stance on the Jews and they committed some of the worst atrocities of the war. It was not really an argument as a counterpoint.
I thought Islam was the argument or at least the Quran.I am sure they liked you as well.
it wont also die or walk away or even sit silently with you after a while as long as your thoughts are that strong on it.