Muhammad's Sword !!!

[jewscout]

Tamerlane did commit some disgusting heinous crimes but wasn’t it for his own greed to maintain vast territories? He called himself "the scourge of God," believing he had been sent to earth to punish sinners. Though a Muslim, he drank and gambled in the tradition of a Mongol warrior. He is hardly a representative of Islam, or being a Muslim.

Hitler was a Catholic (and thought he was doing the Lords work) but he incinerated six million Jews during his reign of terror. Would you blame this on religion?

no, i would not blame catholicism anymore than i would blame islam for Tamerlane.

however one can not deny the fact that the spread of islam coincided with the military conquests of Mohammed and those who led after his death. I find it hard to believe that all those converts willingly chose Islam out of a pious faith in the quran.

 

[Laila]

no, i would not blame catholicism anymore than i would blame islam for Tamerlane.

however one can not deny the fact that the spread of islam coincided with the military conquests of Mohammed and those who led after his death. I find it hard to believe that all those converts willingly chose Islam out of a pious faith in the quran.

Out of all the converts some may have converted due to material gains or other, it is not logical to think all the converts chose out of pious faith in the Quran. Religion can however, never be forced and the Prophet Muhammed (SAWS) never forced religion. If people tried to force religion after him they would be going against the Noble Quran and the way of the Prophet.

 

[YmirGF]

Tamerlane did commit some disgusting heinous crimes but wasn’t it for his own greed to maintain vast territories? He called himself "the scourge of God," believing he had been sent to earth to punish sinners. Though a Muslim, he drank and gambled in the tradition of a Mongol warrior. He is hardly a representative of Islam, or being a Muslim.

Hitler was a Catholic (and thought he was doing the Lords work) but he incinerated six million Jews during his reign of terror. Would you blame this on religion?

Nope. Not at all. I think if Muslim's presented a more realistic view, rather than promoting the totally pristine image of Islam, more non-Muslims would take note. Essentially Muslim's are rather insistent on the growth of Islam as being virtually without blemish and we only get the Muslim point of view. Any dissenting view is immediately dismissed as being mistaken, exaggerated or outright lies. Something is just not right with this picture. Sometimes Islam did spread as described, but a lot of times, it did not. Why not just admit it and be done with it instead of continuing what amounts to a "white wash".

Catholics will not even try to deny that they have had a horrendous past. How can they? Germans do not even try to deny the Holocaust as they know perfectly well what they did. How can they deny it? Islam comes trotting along screaming "We are all Love, Peace and Beards" and "there is no compuslion in religion." and yet no one is permitted to state anything to the contrary without having "marginilized" Muslims, TOTALLY unreprestative of the Ummah as a whole, going right off the freakin' deep end.
It makes no sense.

 

[Laila]

To the extent that Hitler thought he was doing God's work, YES, I would.

B.

If you would, wouldn't that be a misconception of understanding the Catholic religion?

 

[Laila]

Nope. Not at all. I think if Muslim's presented a more realistic view, rather than promoting the totally pristine image of Islam, more non-Muslims would take note. Essentially Muslim's are rather insistent on the growth of Islam as being virtually without blemish and we only get the Muslim point of view. Any dissenting view is immediately dismissed at being mistaken, exaggerated or outright lies. Something is just not right with this picture. Sometimes Islam did spread as described, but a lot of times, it did not. Why not just admit it and be done with it instead of continuing what amounts to a "white wash".

Catholics will not even try to deny that they have had a horrendous past. How can they? Germans do not even try to deny the Holocaust as they know perfectly well what they did. How can they deny it? Islam comes trotting along screaming "We are all Love, Peace and Beards" and "there is no compuslion in religion." and yet no one is permitted to state anything to the contrary without having "marginilized" Muslims, TOTALLY unreprestative of the Ummah as a whole, going right off the freakin' deep end.
It makes no sense.

I am not interesting in 'white washing' Islam. People have called themselves Muslims, followers of Islam, and done some terrible things.
What I have an issue with is people thinking it is acceptable to say terrible things about Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), which are clearly untrue. What I have an issue with is people saying Islam is a terrible, violent religion when it is clearly untrue.
Defaming the Prophet causes some Muslims to go off the freakin' deep end (cause they know it is not freakin' true), and then the majority of Muslims that have nothing to do with the muslims just mentioned all get labelled as one, freakin' fanatics!

 

[YmirGF]

I am not interesting in 'white washing' Islam. People have called themselves Muslims, followers of Islam, and done some terrible things.
What I have an issue with is people thinking it is acceptable to say terrible things about Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), which are clearly untrue. What I have an issue with is people saying Islam is a terrible, violent religion when it is clearly untrue.
Defaming the Prophet causes some Muslims to go off the freakin' deep end (cause they know it is not freakin' true), and then the majority of Muslims that have nothing to do with the muslims just mentioned all get labelled as one, freakin' fanatics!

Trust me Laila, I am heartened to hear from Muslims like yourself, The Truth, Ezzedean and Djamila. I really am. I agree 100% that there HAS been a lot of lies foisted upon Islam. No doubt or argument there. I also was not saying YOU, personally, were "white washing" things. Clearly, you are not.

All I would like to see is a more balanced, less biased point of view about Islam AND Prophet Muhammed[pbuh]. If Muslim scholars gave realistic accounts of events from the murky past you would not find me being as critical of Islam. Frankly, there is good reason why Muslims are so horribly offended by those who are critical of Prophet Muhammed[pbuh]. Heaven forbid anyone look too closely. IF one looks too close, one might see things in a far different light.

Otoh, what would I know. I am just an unrepentant infidel.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

If you would, wouldn't that be a misconception of understanding the Catholic religion?

You asked, if I may paraphrase whether I would blame Hitler's actions on religion. And I replied "to the extent he thought he was doing God's work, yes" I stand by that statement. Do I personally think that exterminating 6 million Jews is a good thing? NO, Do I think it acceptable? NO, but IF Hitler truly beleived he was doing God's will by exterminating 6 million Jews, then why else, but for religious reasons would you say he was doing so?

If a person commits an atrocity because of a religious beleif, and there are no shortage of examples throughout history and today, then how can you say that religion was not a factor in said atrocity?

To give a parallel example. In the middle part of the last century Communism swept over Eastern Europe. Many countries were overtaken, governments overthrown and replaced by those loyal to the Communist Manifesto. Could you say that Communism had nothing to do with the overthrow of these countries?

Substitute religion for communism (or Nazi'ism to be more to the point) in either of the above scenario's and you will see that the ideology behind a person's acts of atrocity, be they genocide, torture, etc. . . . cannot be divorced from the bad acts or the bad actors.

I think there are very few Christians in the world who live like Christ, just like there are very few Buddhists who live like Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha) and no doubt there are Muslims who do not live up to the standards set forth in the Q'uran. But when a person is doing an act because of a religious or political ideology, whether that particular person is the most shining example of the tenets of that ideology or not does not mean that the person was not acting out of religious or political ideals.

There are, on occasion, Christians who murder abortion clinic doctors, or blow up abortion clinics. These people are doing these acts because of a feeling of religious conviction, and the church's that demonize the abortion doctors are, IMHO, partially to blame when some nutso from their congregation goes out and murders a doctor.

If you constantly demonize the Jews for killing Christ when they had the chance to let him live, you should not be terribly surprised when one of your followers does harm to a Jew. If I constantly go on and on about how terrible "****" and "homos" are (not sure I can even use those terms here) I should not be terribly surprised to find out my son and some of his friends went "Gay Bashing" or "Queer Stomping" and I would bear some of the responsibility even if I did not personally go out and commit that particular act of violence.

All religions that preach a "we're right and everybody else is wrong" concept, and this includes all Abrahamics, amongst others, sets up a possibility if not probability where those who are different will be oppressed and sometimes even injured and killed simply because they are different than the "right group."

So from that perspective, I absolutely think, if we are accepting the premise that Hitler thought killing Jews was God's will, that religion, along with Hitler, personally was to blame.

B.

 

[kai]

my objection to the article is that it is basically untrue, once again we see the total negation of history a whitewash a denial of vast tracks of europe invaded and empirialised by the Ottomans. now i am nor saying they carried out their imperialistic aspirations to spread Islam (well not entirely) but and its a big but Islam came with it, so the spread of islam was seeded wherever the ummayids, Abbasid,seljucks,Ottomans went Islam went ,under the armies of Sultan Sulayman the Magnificent, virtually all of the Balkan Peninsula became part of the empire in the sixteenth century. In South Asia, Babur, established the foundations for the Mughal empire. By the end of the reign of Babur's grandson, Akbar, in 1605, the Mughals ruled virtually all of India. and much much more it goes on and on for nearly one thousand years. its the same as me saying Oh the british empire was all built on trade the army was there just for self defence all the battles fought by the british were defending themselves. now heres the difference we are not continuously taught or told that as british until we believe it. if christianity was brought to some far flung outpost by the british then it came because of the empire . the same with islam

 

[Smoke]

The story about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend,

Are we to understand, then, that Muhammad conquered Mecca only to extend his own power, and not to spread Islam? That the Ridda Wars were not motivated by religion, but were only meant to extend the power of Abu Bakr? That Omar conquered Syria, Palestine, and Egypt not to spread Islam, but only because he coveted the wealth and land of other nations? That Uthman wasn't interested in spreading Islam, and conquered Cyprus and the Caucasus only because he was greedy and rapacious?

 

[shema]

Are we to understand, then, that Muhammad conquered Mecca only to extend his own power, and not to spread Islam? That the Ridda Wars were not motivated by religion, but were only meant to extend the power of Abu Bakr? That Omar conquered Syria, Palestine, and Egypt not to spread Islam, but only because he coveted the wealth and land of other nations? That Uthman wasn't interested in spreading Islam, and conquered Cyprus and the Caucasus only because he was greedy and rapacious?

Right, and Mecca was a land of agriculture while the medians were craftsmen, how long can you live in the land of agriculture without needing their resources? Just like the english settlers who were new to native american land. We all know how that one turned out.

 

[Peace]

Are we to understand, then, that Muhammad conquered Mecca only to extend his own power, and not to spread Islam? That the Ridda Wars were not motivated by religion, but were only meant to extend the power of Abu Bakr? That Omar conquered Syria, Palestine, and Egypt not to spread Islam, but only because he coveted the wealth and land of other nations? That Uthman wasn't interested in spreading Islam, and conquered Cyprus and the Caucasus only because he was greedy and rapacious?

Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and all his companions after him were doing their duties in spreading Islam since it is a universal message and a religion sent to all human beings. However, it is not by sword, for there is no compulsion in Islam. What they use to do is to explain Islam to people, and then they are free either to embrace it or reject it. For those who rejected Islam they had to pay "Jizya" in order to be proctected by Islamic rule. So they had to live in peace with the Muslims, however if they showed enmity then they are fought.

Peace

 

[shema]

Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and all his companions after him were doing their duties in spreading Islam since it is a universal message and a religion sent to all human beings. However, it is not by sword, for there is no compulsion in Islam. What they use to do is to explain Islam to people, and then they are free either to embrace it or reject it. For those who rejected Islam they had to pay "Jizya" in order to be proctected by Islamic rule. So they had to live in peace with the Muslims, however if they showed enmity then they are fought.

Peace

in order to be protected by who? and how were they getting along before islam that they had to be protected.

So did mohommed ever use his sword? and why?

 

[Peace]

in order to be protected by who? and how were they getting along before islam that they had to be protected.

So did mohommed ever use his sword? and why?

Go and read the history to see how people from other religions used to live under the islamic rule. All non-muslims had to pay jizya (a tax) in order to be protected by Islamic rule and had all their rights.
They had to pay that tax because they were protected and exempted from compulsory recruitment, also exempted from paying "zakat" (alms tax) that all Muslims must pay.
Prophet Muhammad pbuh used to fight but those who fought him. He fought for the truth and never wronged a person or killed a person who had no enmity towards Islam.

Peace

 

[shema]

Go and read the history to see how people from other religions used to live under the islamic rule. All non-muslims had to pay jizya (a tax) in order to be protected by Islamic rule and had all their rights.
They had to pay that tax because they were protected and exempted from compulsory recruitment, also exempted from paying "zakat" (alms tax) that all Muslims must pay.
Prophet Muhammad pbuh used to fight but those who fought him. He fought for the truth and never wronged a person or killed a person who had no enmity towards Islam.

Peace

Oh, Ive read the history. but you still havent answered the question, Protected by whom?
Because along with polytheists, there were also jews and christians before islam.
So what happened if they did'nt pay the jizya?

Who started fights with Mohommed?.....
could he have agreed to disagree in a peaceful way?

 

[shema]

Can anyone answer these questions?
Protected from whom?
Because along with polytheists, there were also jews and christians before islam.
So what happened if they did'nt pay the jizya?

Who started fights with Mohommed?.....
could he have agreed to disagree in a peaceful way?

 

[kai]

Can anyone answer these questions?
Protected from whom?
Because along with polytheists, there were also jews and christians before islam.
So what happened if they did'nt pay the jizya?

Who started fights with Mohommed?.....
could he have agreed to disagree in a peaceful way?

i think you will find only jews and christians were offered dhimmitude and payed the jisya, the option was not open to others

 

[michel]

He fought for the truth and never wronged a person or killed a person who had no enmity towards Islam.

Peace

You say he fought for the truth; I think what you should have said was "He fought for what he considered to be the Truth".

There are no absolutes; to me (without being in any way offensive to you or your faith), what Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) decided what was the truth is totally irelevent to me. After all I cannot remember the countless threads on this forum when we Christians have been told that we are Polytheists - how ever many times we have explained why that is not so.

 

[shema]

You say he fought for the truth; I think what you should have said was "He fought for what he considered to be the Truth".

There are no absolutes; to me (without being in any way offensive to you or your faith), what Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) decided what was the truth is totally irelevent to me. After all I cannot remember the countless threads on this forum when we Christians have been told that we are Polytheists - how ever many times we have explained why that is not so.

right, except nobody ever told us (without being in any way offensive to you or your faith)

 

[shema]

i think you will find only jews and christians were offered dhimmitude and payed the jisya, the option was not open to others

so what happened to the others? did they attack Mohommed?

 

[michel]

right, except nobody ever told us (without being in any way offensive to you or your faith)

Nobody ever told you what ? Sorry, I am confused...........