Muhammad's Sword !!!

[Smoke]

True muslims do remonstrate against terrorists. Just because we choose not to hand them over to the authorities in the West does'nt mean they're not punished here. People who preach terror are improsined, and beaten here, in the Gulf. Furthermore, just because you don't see true muslims getting up rallying, like idiots, against these people (which btw never doeas anything) does'nt mean we're not fighting it in our schools, in our universities etc.

We do, however, see Muslims rallying against cartoons, so that gives us some idea what the scale of priorities is.

A Christian country? We believe, Islam, that a muslim country is one who use's the sharia Law FULLy (by saying fully, i mean that there is no country in the world today that does this.) Which country in the world does this with Christianity? Christianity is turning the other cheek? Yeah, i'm sure. Bush, the Christian, is doing a great job of turning the other cheek

I don't like Christianity much more than Islam. But the difference between Christianity and Islam is that if Chistians followed the teachings of Jesus -- something they've never shown much inclination toward -- they'd behave better than they do. If Muslims strictly followed the teachings of their religion, they'd still be stoning adulterers, oppressing non-Muslims, and killing apostates. A "true" Muslim country, where Sharia was FULLY implemented, would be horrific.

 

[Smoke]

So do you believe (in all honesty) that the war on Iraq was fuelled by religious motivation ?

No, not at all, but I think it's telling that the war is widely perceived by Christians -- or at least, by certain types of Christians -- as just.

However, I think the issue is a red herring. In a discussion about the spread of Islam by the sword, "So what? Look at George Bush!" is not a relevant response. Attempts to divert attention from Muslim violence by citing Christian violence are misleading, and do nothing to exculpate Muslim violence.

 

[michel]

No, not at all, but I think it's telling that the war is widely perceived by Christians -- or at least, by certain types of Christians -- as just.

However, I think the issue is a red herring. In a discussion about the spread of Islam by the sword, "So what? Look at George Bush!" is not a relevant response. Attempts to divert attention from Muslim violence by citing Christian violence are misleading, and do nothing to exculpate Muslim violence.

Oh, I agree with you about the red herring; there's no doubt that some debaters will write anything to clutch at straws.

I am surprised to hear that there is a kind of component of religion behind the war (from the American point of view). Are you sure that's not just coincidental ? I.e. Americans = Christianity(for the most part)
Americans = War in Iraq
Therefore Christianity = War in Iraq...........I am obviously not as well placed as you to make a judgement on this, but I never made that connection.

 

[AbuQuteiba]

That doesn't mean that there aren't some, still hidden. Besides, chemical weapons were found.

I am not so sure that it was a mistake; there is evidence that the British and Bush administrations were warned that the intelligence was beingblown up out of proportion. But that still has nothing to do with Christianity, which was the point you so badly tried to make.
You asked about Bush; what war has Bush been involved in, other than the war in Iraq ??

I call terrorism (guerilla warfare) a war....don't you ? And that war is aimed at anyone who has done anything that isn't pro-Islam (isn't it ?) QED.

If you are going to debate, please do so intelligibly; I am getting tired as answering red herrings and preposterous arguments.

Still some hidden? You're not so sure it was a mistake (thats what Bush said)?Yeah, ok. I'll do that.

 

[AbuQuteiba]

No, not at all, but I think it's telling that the war is widely perceived by Christians -- or at least, by certain types of Christians -- as just.

However, I think the issue is a red herring. In a discussion about the spread of Islam by the sword, "So what? Look at George Bush!" is not a relevant response. Attempts to divert attention from Muslim violence by citing Christian violence are misleading, and do nothing to exculpate Muslim violence.

(This is a reply to both this post 142 and the one before it 141).

I would agree if non-muslims on this forum were using Islamic Scripture (Qur'an, Hadeeth) with the CORRECT interpretation. Saying "O look at those Muslim "terrorists", and what they're doing = Islam is a violent religion", is the same as me saying "Look, Bush is violent = Christianity is Violent". I'm only fighting fire with fire, buddy.

As for the last sentence you made in post 141. Yes, we would STILL uphold Islamic teaching. For Islam was'nt sent down to us so we can sit and look at it. Islam was sent as a whole code of conduct, a way of Life. No, lets do what the U.S. is doing. We'll put God's teachings and orders aside, and build our own government, with Human made laws. Hehe, you're funny!!!

 

[AbuQuteiba]

Oh yeah, forgot to reply to this: "We do, however, see Muslims rallying against cartoons, so that gives us some idea what the scale of priorities is". The only muslims you see rallying are the one's in your country and in other European countries. They are using the same "freedom of speech" technique you are when you don't agree to something. I was talking about the muslims here in the Middle East. Btw, I would rally against all evil, if i knew it would actually do something.

 

[michel]

Still some hidden? You're not so sure it was a mistake (thats what Bush said)?Yeah, ok. I'll do that.

Well, I am so happy that you'll accept that. I wonder if you could find a pin in a haystack. If someone wants to hide something in a country as large as Iraq, do you not think they might be able to ?

I am not saying that there are WMD's; what I am saying is "If there were some, they could still be hidden"

Had it not been for the fact that he was doubble crossed, Saddam would never have been found in his little underground rat hole.

Beisdes, this is OFF topic; please return to the purpose of the thread.

 

[AbuQuteiba]

Well, I am so happy that you'll accept that. I wonder if you could find a pin in a haystack. If someone wants to hide something in a country as large as Iraq, do you not think they might be able to ?

I am not saying that there are WMD's; what I am saying is "If there were some, they could still be hidden"

Had it not been for the fact that he was doubble crossed, Saddam would never have been found in his little underground rat hole.

Beisdes, this is OFF topic; please return to the purpose of the thread.

I agree (note: it was you who went off topic buddy )

 

[michel]

I agree (note: it was you who went off topic buddy )

Hardly so, if I was replying to your question. Touche!:sarcastic

 

[AbuQuteiba]

Hardly so, if I was replying to your question. Touche!:sarcastic

Fine.

 

[michel]

Is that it then ?

 

[AbuQuteiba]

Is that it then ?

:cover: Alright. Since i started debating in the middle of the topic, why don't you get us back to the original one (PLS). ?

 

[michel]

:cover: Alright. Since i started debating in the middle of the topic, why don't you get us back to the original one (PLS). ?

Read my posts; I think I have made my case.

 

[TashaN]

The real issue is that Religion and Politics equally corrupt one and another. It creates a seat of far too much power.

In Islam, both can work together pretty well unlike Christianity, because the later (IMHO) tend to give the church power which surpass that one given to the actual ruler most of the time.

 

[TashaN]

And here it is!

Like snowbear has said, there is no denying the historical bloodshed in the name of
of the Christian religion; and as far as you comment about none such parallel in the Qu'ran concerning mentioning violence is concerned, I trashed that by a rather lengthy post way back in this thread, which showed verses the meaning of which were crystal clear.

My friend is right in how he interprets the meaning of my post; the Qu'ran advocates violence (as does the bible); historically, both followers of Islam and Christians have shed blood in the name of religion,

You know well Michel more than anyone else in here that we have been debating these verses and made many clearfications about it, which you think it's similar to the one in the bible, thinking by doing that, you will put us in the same boat, but sorry to tell you that you very mistaken in that.

You can read in here some of the verses which you have doubt about in the Quran in this thread for instance.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36419

but now, it would seems that whilst Christianity turns the other cheek, Islam tends to enjoy giving a good kick in the other cheek.........

So cheap, accusing Islam in this way Michel. I'm so disappointed because you proved to me that the good thing you were saying about Islam was just a "hypocrisy" and you showed now your true face to us.

You cannot deny the violence instigated by muslims (whether or not they represent their faith is immaterial)

Really?

You mean it doesn't matter whether they reperesent Islam or not just because they are Muslims?

This is a discrimination, because if people from other religions did anything so that have nothing to do with their faith, isn't it?

How absurd !!!

I repeat my last question to you; show me a Christian Country that preaches war (in the name of Christianity) agaist Muslims

I'll repeat my answer, i never heard of Christian countries except the Vatican.

Thank God, it would be a disaster if a christian country existed (ruled by the church as usual, by someone like the current Pope ).

It's up to you. And please, don't take the focus of the thread from past to future, back to past, in order to evade answering questions and commenting on posts simplty because you know you have nothing to offer in rebutall.

What are you talking about?

READ the title please (Mohammed's sword) and it talks about the past, present and the future and if you didn't like the OP then you can start a new thread by your own.

I have nothing to offer? LOL

You know? you remind me by myself when i was a teenager because i was seeing the world as WE and THEM the very same as you are doing now. Nevertheless, the more i was getting knowledge whether in school, or from newspapers and reading articles of many western writers i realized, it's not about WE and THEM as you are trying desperately to prove in here in order to let other think it's a clash between their civilization and the Muslims or Islam and to gain their support and emotions automatically just because you are speaking in their name saying "WE in the West".

How odd !!!

Stop being arrogant and narrow sighted Michel, because anyone with the a basic and general amount of knowledge know that the West is no more one country and one block and the same with the middle eastern countries nowadays.

If you want to debate in here so please stop this propaganda and start using (I) instead of (WE) as i instructed you in many threads before.

It's an old game Michel, GET OVER IT.

 

[Snowbear]

Stop being arrogant and narrow sighted Michel, because anyone with the a basic and general amount of knowledge know that the West is no more one country and one block and the same with the middle eastern countries nowadays.

Your indignant name calling does nothing to further your case and serves only to detract from the debate at hand....

 

[Snowbear]

In Islam, both can work together pretty well unlike Christianity, because the later (IMHO) tend to give the church power which surpass that one given to the actual ruler most of the time.

Please show me an example of a country where Islamic religion and politics 'work pretty well together.'

 

[TashaN]

Who was oppressing the Banu Qurayzah before Muhammad ordered the men slaughtered and the women and children enslaved? Were the women of the Banu Mustaliq being oppressed by their husbands? Was that why Muhammad and his followers enslaved them? Who was oppressing the Banu Nadir or the people of Khaybar? The Muslims fought for power, for booty, and to spread their religion. For early Muslims, the main source of income was booty; for later Muslims, it was the jizya.

I advice you to read this thread about the Banu Qurayzah and the other tribes issue then you can ask about it later on if the link i'll post didn't make you satisfied.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36918

It's been ten days, and nobody has answered my question:

Sorry, didn't notice.

What do the Qur'an and the hadith say about non-Muslims who refuse to accept Muslim rule?

There is no Muslim rule and Christian rule nowadays as you know.

Non-muslims can live normally amongest the Muslims as normal citizens if they weren't from those who fought the Muslims and they are still living amongest Muslims until today.

If you mean non-muslim countries so according to what happened in the past, the Muslims were offering Islam and if they accepted it so the Muslims will leave them alone, and if they said that they don't want to accept Islam so they were paying the Jizyah.

After that, If they refused accepting Islam nor paying the Jizyah and fought the Muslims, then the Muslims could enter the city for instance so they were also living amongest the Muslims and the men who can work ONLY were paying the Jizyah, that's all.

To know more about the Jizyah issue you can reffer to post # 44 & 48.

If you want it in details you can read post # 114 & 115.

 

[TashaN]

I don't like Christianity much more than Islam. But the difference between Christianity and Islam is that if Chistians followed the teachings of Jesus -- something they've never shown much inclination toward -- they'd behave better than they do. If Muslims strictly followed the teachings of their religion, they'd still be stoning adulterers, oppressing non-Muslims, and killing apostates. A "true" Muslim country, where Sharia was FULLY implemented, would be horrific.

Sorry to say that you are very mistaken in here.

Please read post # 114 & 115 to see which one is the horrific one.

 

[TashaN]

Your indignant name calling does nothing to further your case and serves only to detract from the debate at hand....

Let's see who is talking in here

You better check the last few posts of yours directed at me lately.

Please show me an example of a country where Islamic religion and politics 'work pretty well together.'

Are you kidding me?

Read the history about the early Muslims.

And if the reader entertains any delusions about a fine civilization, either Roman or Persian, Hellenic or Egyptian, being submerged by this flood, the sooner he dismisses such idea the better. Islam prevailed because it was the best social and political order the times could offer. It prevailed because everywhere it found politically apathetic people, robbed, oppressed, bullied, uneducated and unorganized, and it found selfish and unsound governments out of touch with any people at all. It was the broadest, freshest and cleanest political idea that had yet come into actual activity in the world, and it offered better terms than any other to the mass of mankind. H. G. Wells, in The Outline of History, 613-14.



Post # 114.