• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Muhammad's Sword !!!

kai

ragamuffin
fullyveiled muslimah said:
I went to the page but I didn't click on any videos. That whole thing is disturbung because of a few reasons. They make a distinction of palestinian Islam. What is that? I have never heard of it. The second problem is that one cannot attain the status of shuhadah through suicide. Suicide is a major sin in Islam and Allah does not reward it. There is no situation that I am aware of that Islam gives permission to commit suidicide. The status of a shaheed in islam can be attained in several different ways, but not suicide. A woman who has died giving birth to her child is considered a shaheed for the cause of Allah. A muslim who is killed in defense of the life, property, and or family of his neighbor can attain shaheed status. One who is supposedly fighting in the way of Allah can only attain shaheed status if the intention is good. He cannot have been the aggressor, nor could he have been the one in the wrong. Muslims dying or being killed does not automatically mean that they are martyrs for Islam.

I find it interesting that it is called Palestinian Islam. I guess they mean the type of Islam that the palestinians supposedly practice. One has not and cannot attain piety and righteousness through the wanton killing of themselves and innocent bystanders. In Quran Allah states clearly for us what He consideres al-birr or righteousness:

It is not Al-Birr that you turn your faces to the east and the west (in prayers) but al-birr is (the quality) of the one who believes in Allah, the last day, the angels, the book, the prophets and gives his wealth in spite of his love for it, to the kinsfolk, the orphan, and to the poor, and to the wayfarer and those who ask, and to set slaves free, perform salaat and give zakaat, and who fulfil their covenants when they make it, and who are patient in extreme poverty, ailments, and at the time of fighting. Such are the people of truth and they are righteous. (2:177)

This is the core of what piety means to a muslim who is trying to really practice Islam. Where the verse does mention fighting it also mentions to have patience when faced with a situation where one may have to fight. A muslim who is regurlary displaying the above-mentioned qualities cannot also be bloodthirsty killer and a terrorist.

To say that Islam supports the killing of any non-muslim whether they are combatants in a war or not, is to say that it is a very confused religion. On the one hand Quran contains verses like this. Many people would agree that many of the qualities listed above are desireable for any person to have. On the other hand Quran supposedly contains verses about the killing of innocent people in whatever situation you might find them in. That is very contradictory. Either Allah wants us to be good people who practice humanitarian actions, or He wants us to be cold-hearted killers. Can't be both. It only makes sense that where Quran does speak on war and when it could be acceptable to fight, that guidelines be given with that.

I think this is where the muslims and the non-muslims in this discussion part ways. I think the root problem is that non-muslims cannot reconcile that if Islam is said to be a peaceful religion why does the book on which it is based make any mention at all of fighting. My answer to that is that Islam as a whole is designed to deal with all facets of life, and all situations that can and will arise in life. Violence has always been apart of the human experience. It would have made no sense to leave out any and all rulings pertained to fighting from the Quran. If these laws and rules had been left out, then muslims would have no guidance if and when a time came that they are actually attacked due to their religion. If Allah were to have said that all fighting under any circumstance was prohibited, Islam would have died out a long time ago. That might actually be a good thing for some people, but not for the muslims.

However, Allah did prescribe fighting as can be seen in Quran, but also rules and limitations were established. Why did Allah set these rules? Because He knows that there will be those among the muslims who will trangress the limits set. Allah warns of the punishment for such offences. Do you all think that muslims believe we are exempt from the punishment of Allah? Of course not. We are just as suscpetible to being thrown into the hellfire as the next person for our gross trangression. There have been and will continue to be those muslims who go astray from the straight path, and committ all sorts of wrongdoings and injustices, including persecution of people for no reason, tyranny, oppression, murder, theft, etc. Any thing you can percieve as wrong I am willing to guarantee that a muslim somewhere has done it.

I accept the reality that everything muslims do is not golden and precious. Thats not logical anyway. What i reject is the blaming of Islam as a religion for the worngs of its so-called followers. Thats a major cop out to me, as I believe people are responsible for their own actions and must take responsibility for it. IF a muslim committs adultery then they must accept the consequence for it. We can't say that Islam teaches us to be adulterers when clearly it does not. If any person committ worngdoings then they can;t make excuses about it.

I think we have effectively established that terrorism and killing of innocents is wrong and inexscusable. Now what is going to be done? The honest answer for us muslims to give is that we dont know what is to be done. It is obvious to me that major changes should happen to the entire system of government in places where people feel the need to act so ugly with one another. How do I change a government? I think it is up to the citizens of these countries to unify and overthrow a corrupt government. I have no idea how to help with such a thing. I dont think just saying it's wrong is enough. All a rally does is let the people around me know that I do not support terrorism or whatever, but at the end of the day what will we accomplish? Will the terrorists be watching Fox news to see the rally? IF they could, do you all think that will effect them when the conditions that they feel are causing their behavior has not changed?
it puzzles me that the Quran can be so differently interpreted, your view of shahada is so different than the Palestinian Authorities

The believer was created to know his Lord - to fulfill Islam, to carry the banner, 'there is no god but Allah,' to be a shahid or intend to be a shahid. If the believer does not hope for Shahada, he will die as in the Jahiliya [i.e. the pre-Islamic, pagan faith in Arabian peninsula]. We must yearn Shahada and request it from Allah. If we truthfully request it of Allah, He will grant us its rewards, even if we die in bed... Allah planted within our youth the love of Jihad, the love of Shahada. Our youth have turned into bombs - they blow themselves up among [Israelis] day and night.
(transcript from a Palestinian authority religious leader)
http://www.pmw.org.il/
 

fullyveiled muslimah

Evil incarnate!
kai said:
it puzzles me that the Quran can be so differently interpreted, your view of shahada is so different than the Palestinian Authorities

The believer was created to know his Lord - to fulfill Islam, to carry the banner, 'there is no god but Allah,' to be a shahid or intend to be a shahid. If the believer does not hope for Shahada, he will die as in the Jahiliya [i.e. the pre-Islamic, pagan faith in Arabian peninsula]. We must yearn Shahada and request it from Allah. If we truthfully request it of Allah, He will grant us its rewards, even if we die in bed... Allah planted within our youth the love of Jihad, the love of Shahada. Our youth have turned into bombs - they blow themselves up among [Israelis] day and night.
(transcript from a Palestinian authority religious leader)
http://www.pmw.org.il/http://www.pmw.org.il/

I understand what you are posting, but since Palestinian authorities are not the be all end all of Islamic representatives it lacks relevance to me. I do not have a personal view of what being a shaheed means to me. I stated what some of the conditions were to become shaheed according to Islam. Suicide is not a way to attain such a status. So since I'm not the only muslim in the world that knows that, these statements that you are quoting smacks of complete ignorance of Islam. Islam is not under construction. There are no new definitions or ways to go about practicing Islam. Islam was completed over 1400 years ago, and no scholar or imam or whoever can remake the rules. They can break the rules, but that just makes them of those who go astray. If the leaders over there are preaching this type of nonsense then that is one of the biggest problems - ignorance of religion. So now education becomes one solutions to a part of the problem. Your average muslim knows that suicide is haram. So for a so-called religious leader to have such a lack of unserstanding of such a simple concept is unacceptable. However, I don't really believe that its alla big misunderstanding. I think they make bombs of themselves for a reason that lies outside of religion altogether. I think we cannot truly be able o understand the mindset of such a person until we live like them. When was the last time you saw a war take place on your home soil? I know I have never witnessed such a thing. I have never seen a bomb hit a building, or spot a daisy-cutter about to hit something. I've never had to run to a bomb shelter, or not been able to get to potable water. I don't believe for one second that this is all fun and games to them that some of the youth strap bombs to themselves and detonate them in a crowd. I think we just need to take a step back and analyse it as best we can. We should take into account that we do not live in these places, so anything we hear about it is second, third, fourth hand info. Neither do we have the personal experience to draw on. I don't think any of us have ever lived in such conditions, so it is hard to imagine what reaction I would have to it.
 

AbuQuteiba

Active Member
kai said:
it puzzles me that the Quran can be so differently interpreted, your view of shahada is so different than the Palestinian Authorities

The believer was created to know his Lord - to fulfill Islam, to carry the banner, 'there is no god but Allah,' to be a shahid or intend to be a shahid. If the believer does not hope for Shahada, he will die as in the Jahiliya [i.e. the pre-Islamic, pagan faith in Arabian peninsula]. We must yearn Shahada and request it from Allah. If we truthfully request it of Allah, He will grant us its rewards, even if we die in bed... Allah planted within our youth the love of Jihad, the love of Shahada. Our youth have turned into bombs - they blow themselves up among [Israelis] day and night.
(transcript from a Palestinian authority religious leader)
http://www.pmw.org.il/http://www.pmw.org.il/

The correct view of shahada comes from correct interpretation. As in using the Qur'an, and sunna. If a Palestinian authority religious leader thinks muslims will gain shahada by "turning into bombs, and blowing themselves up" thats his problem, not Islam's. And if the muslim youth believe this person/s, and turn away from the hundreds of rightly guided scholars that disprove suicide bombings, then i call that ignorance, not islamic interpretation.
 

kai

ragamuffin
fullyveiled muslimah said:
I understand what you are posting, but since Palestinian authorities are not the be all end all of Islamic representatives it lacks relevance to me. I do not have a personal view of what being a shaheed means to me. I stated what some of the conditions were to become shaheed according to Islam. Suicide is not a way to attain such a status. So since I'm not the only muslim in the world that knows that, these statements that you are quoting smacks of complete ignorance of Islam. Islam is not under construction. There are no new definitions or ways to go about practicing Islam. Islam was completed over 1400 years ago, and no scholar or imam or whoever can remake the rules. They can break the rules, but that just makes them of those who go astray. If the leaders over there are preaching this type of nonsense then that is one of the biggest problems - ignorance of religion. So now education becomes one solutions to a part of the problem. Your average muslim knows that suicide is haram. So for a so-called religious leader to have such a lack of unserstanding of such a simple concept is unacceptable. However, I don't really believe that its alla big misunderstanding. I think they make bombs of themselves for a reason that lies outside of religion altogether. I think we cannot truly be able o understand the mindset of such a person until we live like them. When was the last time you saw a war take place on your home soil? I know I have never witnessed such a thing. I have never seen a bomb hit a building, or spot a daisy-cutter about to hit something. I've never had to run to a bomb shelter, or not been able to get to potable water. I don't believe for one second that this is all fun and games to them that some of the youth strap bombs to themselves and detonate them in a crowd. I think we just need to take a step back and analyse it as best we can. We should take into account that we do not live in these places, so anything we hear about it is second, third, fourth hand info. Neither do we have the personal experience to draw on. I don't think any of us have ever lived in such conditions, so it is hard to imagine what reaction I would have to it.
i take your point about living conditions but at the risk of sounding argumentative which i am trying not to be, my point is that people from a young age are being taught that shahada (as taught in Palestine) is a noble thing to do,to people living in the conditions that the Palestinians do their religion would or could be their only comfort, so my point is, they are being told that this is good and will be rewarded in paradise by religious leaders. do you see how hard it is for people like me to accept Islam as the religion of peace when we find this so outrageous
 

kai

ragamuffin
champion said:
The correct view of shahada comes from correct interpretation. As in using the Qur'an, and sunna. If a Palestinian authority religious leader thinks muslims will gain shahada by "turning into bombs, and blowing themselves up" thats his problem, not Islam's. And if the muslim youth believe this person/s, and turn away from the hundreds of rightly guided scholars that disprove suicide bombings, then i call that ignorance, not islamic interpretation.
good glad to hear it! but these are adverts placed on Palestinian tv , do they have access to the other scholars with a differant view, and its not "his problem" because he isnt going to blow himself up is he.
 

AbuQuteiba

Active Member
kai said:
i take your point about living conditions but at the risk of sounding argumentative which i am trying not to be, my point is that people from a young age are being taught that shahada (as taught in Palestine) is a noble thing to do,to people living in the conditions that the Palestinians do their religion would or could be their only comfort, so my point is, they are being told that this is good and will be rewarded in paradise by religious leaders. do you see how hard it is for people like me to accept Islam as the religion of peace when we find this so outrageous

If you're talking about the "palestinian authority religious leader"'s (you qouted) interpretation of shahada, then i don't blame you for one second, not to accept Islam as the religion of Peace.
 

fullyveiled muslimah

Evil incarnate!
kai said:
i take your point about living conditions but at the risk of sounding argumentative which i am trying not to be, my point is that people from a young age are being taught that shahada (as taught in Palestine) is a noble thing to do,to people living in the conditions that the Palestinians do their religion would or could be their only comfort, so my point is, they are being told that this is good and will be rewarded in paradise by religious leaders. do you see how hard it is for people like me to accept Islam as the religion of peace when we find this so outrageous

You're not being argumentative so far Kai. The position of shaheed is noble. Every muslim understands that. However, in this particular case we're discussing it seems that the Palestianian people are being used to further an agenda that I am sure they are unaware of. A predator will always attack the weakest of its prey. The government and other "powers-that-be" are using religion to incite such action. It's a sad state of affairs but it would seem that Islam is being used to prey upon a people already weakened by whatever conditions they live under. Again, education is key here. If the citizens of these countries were more knowledgeable and had a stronger grounding in the teachings of Islam, they wouldn't succumb to such propoganda. I think you make a good point in your other post, that the religious leader will not be blowing himself up. If he feels so strongly about it, maybe he should set a physical example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kai

kai

ragamuffin
fullyveiled muslimah said:
You're not being argumentative so far Kai. The position of shaheed is noble. Every muslim understands that. However, in this particular case we're discussing it seems that the Palestianian people are being used to further an agenda that I am sure they are unaware of. A predator will always attack the weakest of its prey. The government and other "powers-that-be" are using religion to incite such action. It's a sad state of affairs but it would seem that Islam is being used to prey upon a people already weakened by whatever conditions they live under. Again, education is key here. If the citizens of these countries were more knowledgeable and had a stronger grounding in the teachings of Islam, they wouldn't succumb to such propoganda. I think you make a good point in your other post, that the religious leader will not be blowing himself up. If he feels so strongly about it, maybe he should set a physical example.
i agree , these kind of influence only fan the flames and do not help the Palestinians in gaining peace,
thanks to you and champion for an interesting discussion
 

AbuQuteiba

Active Member
kai said:
i agree , these kind of influence only fan the flames and do not help the Palestinians in gaining peace,
thanks to you and champion for an interesting discussion

You're very welcome, anytime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kai

fullyveiled muslimah

Evil incarnate!
kai said:
i agree , these kind of influence only fan the flames and do not help the Palestinians in gaining peace,
thanks to you and champion for an interesting discussion

And thank you for actually discussing things rather than being inflammatory just for the hell of it. I am thankful that while we really solved nothing, we were able to find things to agree upon.
 

kai

ragamuffin
fullyveiled muslimah said:
And thank you for actually discussing things rather than being inflammatory just for the hell of it. I am thankful that while we really solved nothing, we were able to find things to agree upon.
well its like you said its all about education, and finding things that we agree upon and working on it, is better than going round in circles arguing about things we dissagree on!:yes:
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
jewscout said:
if you have sources of a greater academic calaber, then why not use those? wouldn't such source material give greater weight and credibility to your arguement?

Fair enough, I'll do so "God willing". :)

MidnightBlue said:
Two questions:
1) Is the Qur'an the only source of Muslim belief?

The Quran and the Sunnah of prophet Mohammed "peace be upon him".

2) What are the proper Islamic reasons for killing people?

The general ruling is this:

On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our Messengers with Clear Signs, Yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. (Quran 5:32)

If anyone comitted a murder or he/she spread mischief in the land so he/she must be killed for that.

MidnightBlue said:
The thread was started by a Muslim,

Based on a Jew writer's "Uri Avnery" article called Muhammad's Sword.

and as far as I can tell, the purpose was to give a completely false impression of Muslim history and military conquest.

I'll prove to you that it's not false as you think.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
MidnightBlue said:
The Orientalists wanted to slander Islam by claiming that it was spread by the sword.

The orientalist Thomas Arnold wrote his book The Preaching of Islam with the aim of killing off the spirit of jihad among the Muslims and proving that Islam was not spread by the sword, rather that it spread by means of peaceful preaching, free from any use of force.

The Muslims fell into the trap that was set up for them. When they heard the orientalists’ accusations that Islam was spread by the sword, they said: You are mistaken, listen to a refutation from one of your own people, this Thomas says such and such.

As you can see, Muslims have their own opnions everywhere and i can feel in the writer of this article the frustration of being weak so he is trying to envoke the Muslims to be stronger, i reckon.

Each one of us has his own opnion and you can't just pick what a single muslim or a group muslims saying concluding that all muslims believe in the very same thing. It's not that easy and our religion is not 1+1=2 and that's all, but rather it's about flexibility and understanding for all time. You will find that most of Muslims will agree with what Thomas Arnold stated about Islam and others might not like it like the writer of the article at hand which you posted.

To understand more about the complexity in Islam and how deep our religion is i invite you to some thoughts written by NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF. I might not agree about all what he mentioned niether you have to but he will give the idea in how people see Islam and what really Islam preach.


Looking for Islam’s Luthers

Islam sometimes comes across the airwaves in the West as the faith of medieval fanatics wielding swords and wearing explosive vests. Western doubts are bolstered when the pope accuses Islam of violence and fundamentalists protest by killing a nun.
But the public images of Islam we sometimes see — the violence in the name of God, the intolerance, the obsession with the past — represent only some stones in a complex mosaic. And those images can’t explain why Islam appears to be in percentage terms the fastest-growing major religion in the world today.

Islam is on the rise for many of the same reasons evangelical Christianity is surging: they provide a firm moral code, spiritual reassurance and orderliness to people vexed by chaos and immorality around them, and they offer dignity to the poor.

While the thread of fundamentalism is real in Islam, so is the thread of reform. The 21st century may become to Islam what the 16th was to Christianity, for even in hard-line states like Iran you meet Martin Luthers who are pushing for an Islamic Reformation. One of the most surprising elements of this push for reform has to do with the emergence of a school called “feminist Islam.”

I’ve written often about the honor killings and other abuses suffered by women and girls in some Muslim countries, and many Westerners think Islam is inherently misogynistic. But Muslim women themselves naturally resent that kind of Western paternalism, for they want opportunities and equality — and yet they frequently don’t want to discard their faith (or even their head scarves).

“Yes, sexism exists in our culture, but that is not due to Islam,” says Rima Khoreibi, an author from Dubai who wrote a children’s book about an Islamic superhero who is female — Iman, a teenage girl with a cape, head scarf and deep religious convictions. That book, “The Adventures of Iman” (www.theadventuresofiman.com), was so successful that she is publishing a sequel in December.

Ms. Khoreibi says that she wrote “The Adventures of Iman” because of her “passion to promote Islamic feminism.” She cites Koranic verses that promote gender equality and call for treating sons and daughters equally.

A Koran-quoting female caped crusader is part of a broad ferment for more gender equality in the Muslim world. Islamic feminists often argue that the Koran generally raised the status of women compared to earlier Arabian society — banning female infanticide, for example, and limiting polygamy — and that what is needed today is that larger spirit of progress and enlightenment rather than precise seventh-century formulations that would freeze human society.

Often the battles are over Koranic verses. For example, some note that the Koran permitted up to four wives as a way to care for orphans after wars that had left many women widowed. So they turn the verse on its head and say that in today’s world where that situation doesn’t apply, the Koran actually bars polygamy.

Likewise, Saudi women sometimes argue that since the Prophet Muhammad’s wife drove camels, they should be able to drive cars.

“Islam, like any religion, is subject to interpretation,” Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate from Iran, writes in her autobiography. “It can be interpreted to oppress women or to liberate them.”

Female Muslim scholars like Fatima Mernissi of Morocco have also turned up evidence that Prophet Muhammad’s youngest wife (and the person he said he loved most in the world), Aisha, vigorously contested the chauvinism of early clerics. Indeed, she sometimes comes across as the first Islamic feminist.

A well-known statement once attributed to Prophet Muhammad says that a man’s prayers are ineffective if a woman, dog or donkey passes in front of the believer. Aisha denounced that as nonsense: “You compare us now to donkeys and dogs. In the name of God, I have seen the Prophet saying his prayers while I was there.”

Likewise, Aisha denied various suggestions that her husband considered menstruating women to be unclean.

Aisha had prepared a series of corrections to early Islamic writings, but these have been largely ignored. Finally, these days, they are beginning to get a hearing.

All this underscores that Islam is much more complex than the headlines might suggest. The violence and fundamentalism gets the attention — and should be more loudly condemned by ordinary Muslims — but we would be close-minded ourselves if we ignored the more hopeful rumblings that are also taking place within the vast Islamic world ... including, perhaps, steps toward a Muslim Reformation.


Source: http://donkeyod.blogspot.com/2006/10/looking-for-islams-luthers.html
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There is a good article By Sherif Mohammed called:

Islam spread by the sword? "The myth and the reality".
http://www.themodernreligion.com/convert/sword.html


And one more great article by another writer named: Toward an Islamic Theory of Meta-Religion
http://www.twf.org/Library/Meta-religion.html#History

Also, I have good articles originally in arabic and i didn't have the time to translate all of them myself, but rather, i used a translation tool and i hope that it didn't mess the whole meaning up. I guess it's good to read them and sorry if there is any problem in the translation.

These are the articles:

Illusions about Islam

Is Islam Saif consumptive and spearhead legislator?

What about the legacy of violence in others?


Finally, i want to conclude by the The Prophet's Farewell Sermon

I'll Quote some of it ...




The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) delivered this sermon on the 9 Dhul-Hijjah 10 a.h. in the valley of Mount `Arafat, during his final Hajj, known as the Farewell Hajj. The contents of the message were collected from different narrations, and there are other parts of it that are not mentioned here. After praising, and thanking Allah, he said:
O people, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether, after this year, I will ever be among you again. Therefore, listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and take these words to those who could not be present today.

O people, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you.

O people, it is true that you have certain rightswith regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Treat your women well and be kind to them, for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with anyone of whom you do not approve, as well as never commit adultery.


All mankind is from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black, nor does a black have any superiority over a white except by piety and good action.


O people, no prophet or messenger will come after me, and no new faith will be born. Reason well, therefore, O people, and understand my words that I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the Qur'an and my example, the Sunnah, and if you follow these you will never go astray.

All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others, and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly. Be my witness, O Allah, that I have conveyed Your message to Your people.



Peace and blessing,


The Truth :)
 

kai

ragamuffin
the truth your links provide a powerful argument for the basis that Islam was not spread by the sword ....but... this argument bends the facts to suit its own argument, lets agree that muslim armies didnt descend upon foreign lands and offer them Islam or death. but lets also agree that the muslim armies did descend and stayed for hundreds of years in some cases over a thousand years in syria or egypt up until the Ottomans well into the 20th century is it any wonder that these countries and their populations are muslim, this doesnt insult or belittle Islam in any way on the contrary the great empires of Islam were incredible.

can you see my point did not Roman catholicism come with the spanish and Portugese empires in south America , or the French, did not the protestant version of christianity come with the Dutch or British?

islam came with the Ubayyids,Abbasid, Ottoman and Mogul
 

fullyveiled muslimah

Evil incarnate!
kai said:
the truth your links provide a powerful argument for the basis that Islam was not spread by the sword ....but... this argument bends the facts to suit its own argument, lets agree that muslim armies didnt descend upon foreign lands and offer them Islam or death. but lets also agree that the muslim armies did descend and stayed for hundreds of years in some cases over a thousand years in syria or egypt up until the Ottomans well into the 20th century is it any wonder that these countries and their populations are muslim, this doesnt insult or belittle Islam in any way on the contrary the great empires of Islam were incredible.

can you see my point did not Roman catholicism come with the spanish and Portugese empires in south America , or the French, did not the protestant version of christianity come with the Dutch or British?

islam came with the Ubayyids,Abbasid, Ottoman and Mogul

Now it is very clear what you think Kai. I appreciate your honesty and I agree with what you have said here. Islam definitely was a by-product of conquest and it wasn't an accident either. I didn't take the time out to read any of Truths links but might in the near future. At first I was a little confused by what you were saying, but now in retrospect I see that you have been saying the same thing all along.
 

kai

ragamuffin
fullyveiled muslimah said:
Now it is very clear what you think Kai. I appreciate your honesty and I agree with what you have said here. Islam definitely was a by-product of conquest and it wasn't an accident either. I didn't take the time out to read any of Truths links but might in the near future. At first I was a little confused by what you were saying, but now in retrospect I see that you have been saying the same thing all along.
(sigh of relief) at last! perhaps it was the way i was trying to explain it .some people think that Islam was spread by the sword literally

islam or the sword this is not what i am saying!

my point is
Islamic empire =assimilation into Islam over time

no empire can stay in a region for hundreds of years and not leave influence
some peolpe say that the english are different now than the scots and Irish because the scots and Irish were never under roman rule so retained much of their celtic heritage where the english lost theirs and became romanised

the same with the great Islamic empires , Islam and the Arab language came with it part and parcel untill all the lands under the empire became the Ummah
 

gnostic

The Lost One
kai said:
some peolpe say that the english are different now than the scots and Irish because the scots and Irish were never under roman rule so retained much of their celtic heritage where the english lost theirs and became romanised
Actually, the Englishmen are of German descents.

The English people originated from several Germanic tribes - the Jutes, Angles and Saxons. The Jutes settled in south-east of England in what is now known as Kent, while the Saxons between the land of the Jutes (east) and Cornwall (west). The land of Saxons were called Sussex (South Saxony), Wessex (West Saxony) and Essex (East Saxony), which at that time, were separate Saxon kingdoms. It was Alfred the Great (the first famous Englishman), who would later unite the Saxons against the Vikings. And the Angles settled in north of the Saxons and the Jutes, up to the Hadrian walls. England was actually named after the Angles.

Although both Celtic and Germanic languages (being Indo-European) and cultures are similar, they are also different in so many ways.

The Celts in Britain are the Cornish and Welsh. Before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, most of the Britons spoke Welsh, all the way to the north in what we would later call Scotland, but at that time it was called Caledonia or Albany, during the Roman time. To the north, were the Picts were probably the true Caledonians.

Some time in 6th-8th century, Irish landed and settled in the north of Britain, fought against the Picts in the north, and the Angles in the south. These Irishmen were called Scots. The Scots (Irish) eventually made peace with the Picts, and intermarried and the northern Britain was renamed to Scotland. This is why both Irish and Scots spoke Gaelic Celtic language, whereas the Cornish and Welsh people spoke British Celtic language.

In Brittany, France, some of the Welsh-speaking Britons fled from Britain, during the Anglo-Saxon invasion and settled in Armorica, which is why "Armorica" was changed to Brittany, meaning "Little Britian", compared to "Great Britain" for the British Isle.

But you should understand also that Britain is not really Celtic or English name. It is actually Latin named. I can't remember which 1st century Roman emperor, named his Britannicus, and that name was applied to British Isle.
 

kai

ragamuffin
gnostic said:
Actually, the Englishmen are of German descents.

The English people originated from several Germanic tribes - the Jutes, Angles and Saxons. The Jutes settled in south-east of England in what is now known as Kent, while the Saxons between the land of the Jutes (east) and Cornwall (west). The land of Saxons were called Sussex (South Saxony), Wessex (West Saxony) and Essex (East Saxony), which at that time, were separate Saxon kingdoms. It was Alfred the Great (the first famous Englishman), who would later unite the Saxons against the Vikings. And the Angles settled in north of the Saxons and the Jutes, up to the Hadrian walls. England was actually named after the Angles.

Although both Celtic and Germanic languages (being Indo-European) and cultures are similar, they are also different in so many ways.

The Celts in Britain are the Cornish and Welsh. Before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, most of the Britons spoke Welsh, all the way to the north in what we would later call Scotland, but at that time it was called Caledonia or Albany, during the Roman time. To the north, were the Picts were probably the true Caledonians.

Some time in 6th-8th century, Irish landed and settled in the north of Britain, fought against the Picts in the north, and the Angles in the south. These Irishmen were called Scots. The Scots (Irish) eventually made peace with the Picts, and intermarried and the northern Britain was renamed to Scotland. This is why both Irish and Scots spoke Gaelic Celtic language, whereas the Cornish and Welsh people spoke British Celtic language.

In Brittany, France, some of the Welsh-speaking Britons fled from Britain, during the Anglo-Saxon invasion and settled in Armorica, which is why "Armorica" was changed to Brittany, meaning "Little Britian", compared to "Great Britain" for the British Isle.

But you should understand also that Britain is not really Celtic or English name. It is actually Latin named. I can't remember which 1st century Roman emperor, named his Britannicus, and that name was applied to British Isle.
thank you gnostic while agreeing with everything you say , i meant the people in geographic england or roman britain /romano/british rather than the actual English as in anglosaxon, another difference is anglosaxon and norman influence or lack of it in Scotland and Ireland have you wondered about the assimilation of the normans into English and Irish in (the pale etc) interesting subject but alas we are straying
 

gnostic

The Lost One
have you wondered about the assimilation of the normans into English and Irish in (the pale etc) interesting subject but alas we are straying

That's ok.:yes: I've oft strayed all the time. I'm hopeless at staying on the subject. Too many things are going around inside my head so it is hard to stand still for just one moment. That's what make life so interesting. Don't know where the next sentence will take me.

You've said:

some peolpe say that the english are different now than the scots and Irish because the scots and Irish were never under roman rule


What you said is true in that regards about the Scots and Irish, but you must also understand that the Romans have already left the British Isles before the English (Anglo-Saxons) arrived. The Celtic (Welsh-speaking) Britons were under Roman rule, yes; but not the English. They are two different people at that time. That's why I babbling in the previous post. :p

So maybe you should use different names to what you were referring to.
 
Top