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 Judaism people have corrupted the Covenant just to occupy lands. Quran does not take it to make it a scruple for occupying lands.
Regards
The Judaism people have corrupted the Covenant just to occupy lands. Quran does not take it to make it a scruple for occupying lands.
@ Post #2399
Posts containing impolite words need not be responded. Please be careful and only focus on giving the arguments, if any. It is a friendly discussion/debate, please don't make it unfriendly and distasteful.
Muslims have been taking land that belong to them since Muhammad, and they think it is their bloody birthright. So don't give this crap about Muslims not invading or conquering lands. They did so on peninsula, and after Muhammad's death, they attacked Syria and Persia, and claimed these lands as their own. They went all the way to Spain and India, and took lands as if they owned it.
Just because in some countries, people convert freely to Islam and I don't deny this, BUT that doesn't mean there were no wars, no invasions and no conquests in Islam's history, in which they took as their own.
Some of these terrorists and even non-terrorist Muslims want to go back to the days when Muslims were the leaders, when there were Islamic empires. Well, this can happen, but not without spilling a lot of blood.
Muhammad's time as prophet wasn't a bloodless one.
In fact, he is no better than a petty warlord, who started his prophethood in Medina as brigand in which he lead his fellow-believers in robbing merchant caravans. This is act of banditry or piracy. Whether you take only ONE item in loot, or one-fifth or one-tenth or all of it, plundering and looting are still STEALING. And the Qur'an enshrine a loophole to sin of stealing, by calling it the share of plunder of fifth.
And he doesn't always follow this own rule that he taught his followers. When he banished the Banu Qaynuqa from Medina, he and his people didn't just take a fifth, he took everything that the Qaynupa couldn't carry with them, another example, of Muhammad and Muslims robbing people.
He is a tyrant in Medina, when he banished whole tribes from Medina, and treating their reactions to his decision as treason; he sounds pretty much like a lot of dictators in Africa and the Middle East of the 20th century. He doesn't tolerate other people's religion, in which he order destruction of idols in Mecca and other parts of the Arabian peninsula.
It is claim that Muhammad had to leave Mecca, because of attempts of assassination. Then why didn't arrest or imprison assassination for a couple of Jews writing satire poems about him? If people trying to assassinate him is wrong, then Muhammad approving assassinations of others should also be considered wrong. Double-standard exist with Muhammad and his Muslim followers.
Which is worse, a satire or a murder?
The murders committed after the incidence of Danish cartoons drawing of Muhammad is just a repeat of what happened when Muhammad approved of the assassination committed on his behalf, except the Syrian Christian nun had nothing to do with the Danish cartoons.
You have of the expression "Two wrongs don't make it right", haven't you?
Yes, Islam was spread by the sword and by proselytizing. Is there something wrong with spreading something by the sword. Last I checked democracy was spread by the sword.
Indeed it was. And it's wrong; at least by today's standards.
As Christianity was spread at the point of a sword.
Just ask any native American. (as well as many native cultures.)
Yes its a fact no doubt about it but the notion here is that anything spread by the sword is considered bad, is that true or false?
I believe bad. It's wrong to force culture, religion, politics, etc. on people that
don't want it.
Would you consider Islamic conquest of India which liberated people from the dominant unfair caste system to everyone equal system a bad thing? Them people living in India at the time considered Islam as a liberator in fact.
Would you consider Islamic conquest of India which liberated people from the dominant unfair caste system to everyone equal system a bad thing? Them people living in India at the time considered Islam as a liberator in fact.
Yes, Islam was spread by the sword and by proselytizing. Is there something wrong with spreading something by the sword. Last I checked democracy was spread by the sword.
Yes Islam came by the sword but think about it for a second. When Islam came to India, they were considered liberators. Islam banished the caste system (which was reinstated by the british in the early 1800s) and made everyone equal.
You have not proven any such thing.I have proved that Islam is peaceful and due to its inner strength spread very naturally. No war was waged for spread of Islam, wars are fought for different reason by the rulers and dynasties, spread of Islam was no reason that was applied by Muhammad in his battles.
Regards
Plenty of times, for the latest one should see post #2405.You have not proven any such thing.
At least, not in this thread.
I understand you are not going to be able to comprehend this, but your false dichotomy is not impressing anyone outside your choir.