Was Islam spread by the sword?

[1robin]

Except, I must point out, against Africans. After all, it was a freed black Ethiopian slave who started the tradition of the call to prayer.

I can't figure out why some think one or two exceptions defeat the rule. Muhammad called African's, raisin heads, and considered them inferior.

Under Islamic laws, slavery is explicitly permitted.[145] As Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan, a member of the Senior Council of Clerics had said in 2003, those who argue that slavery is abolished are “ignorant, not scholars. They are merely writers. Whoever says such things is an infidel.” [146] Muhammad himself was a slaver. He not only owned many male [147][148] and female [149] slaves, but he also sold, captured, and raped [150] his slaves. Even his wives owned slaves.

The manual demonstrated that Arabs were engaged in enslaving all peoples, not only Africans. Their travels around the world was not as much for mercenary purposes as to catch slaves and loot wealth. The manual also gave indications that Arabs actually created the entire slave export trade in Africa. Bits and pieces from history indicate that Muslims enslaved over 150 million African people and at least 50 million from other parts of the world. They also converted Africans into Islam, causing a complete social and financial collapse of the entire African continent apart from wealth attributed to a few regional African kings who became wealthy on the trade and encouraged it. This is a claim that is not well presented in Western information or education on slavery. You can find a lot of very interesting and original historical materials in Asia and the East which have never found its way to the West.
The Arab slave trade: 200 million non-Muslim slaves from all colors and nationalities | The Muslim Issue

Islam began enslaving Africans a thousand years before Christina Europeans did and well after Christian's had died to stop it.

 

[FearGod]

I am a red Indian. I am a member of one of the most devastated tribes, the Cherokees. First the Indians were never wiped out. They were assimilated and have generally mixed with the population. Second what did wipe out many of them was diseases carried by pigs used for food by Spanish settlers and stole or bought by the Indians. No where near as many American Indians died as did Indian Indians. There were less than 20 million Indians in the US and Canada combined to begin with. 90% of those that died, died as a result of a disease which was not used as a weapon. However even if it was it still killed less than one American Indian for every 1000 Indian Indians the Muslims killed intentionally. Third most of the deaths in battle were Indian against Indian. By the time Europeans got here tyrannical and dominant tribes had been suppressing their neighbors for decades. With their help the India's rebelled against the tormentors and did most of the killing, not the Europeans.

Not true.

Native American Genocide | The Espresso Stalinist

So far given two chances to explain the greatest genocide in history and Islam's role in it you have instead tried to compare it to Hitler which was not even close and the conquests which was not even in the same ball park even without apparently knowing anything about either of them. For instance the Muslims fought with Hitler not against him. Trying to cover a crime with a bigger crime (which in reality is a far smaller one) is rationalization and not a responsible defense.

At least we are sure about the authenticity of recent crimes than the one that we thought it happened before 1400 years ago.

Not with perfect certainty but easily within generalities. However if we can't then why are you using them as a defense? I have read about Cortez and his conquest since I was a kid. It is the greatest conquest in history and he one of it's greatest leaders (great as in capable not necessarily morally good) he conquered a nation of 20 million with less than 1000 soldiers. I have read enough about it to know in general how many and by what causes died. 80% unintentionally by diseases (BTW the Spaniards carried diseases back to Europe which wiped many of them out as well), 15% from the Indians that the Aztecs and Inca had enslaved and abused, and 5% from Cortez' men. Even if Cortez had killed every human on both continents of the Americans it would not have been half of what Islam did in India nor would it do the slightest thing to excuse it. But he didn't, he actually killed less than 10,000 people compared to Islam's hundreds of millions just in India alone.

How can you prove that the bad stories about the prophet is telling the truth, the Jews said that Jesus was a liar and son of a whore.

No the records show they had wide and varied beliefs usually concerning local Gods'. In Muhammad's ignorance he probably considered them all atheists so he could impose his will on them by some mandate to suppress the unbelievers that terrorist use to this day. I doubt he met a single person without belief in some God or another. Atheism just was not much of an option in his day or previous to it. The Arabs themselves were pagans not atheists and the only thing Muhammad did was chose on of their God's and compel by force of bribery all the tribes to unite under that one deity. What he did is mildly impressive military but deplorable theologically. It had been done many times before him and many times after and done on much larger scales. He did nothing new and most cultures have their day in the sun and then fade into obscurity. Nothing special about it.

You can say before the massage of Islam regardless of what kind of beliefs that existed at that time but the fact remains that they were ignorant and in dark ages and with Islam they conveyed science to the west which were still in the dark ages.

That is irrelevant, they did in fact destroy them a few days ago. I asked why? I guess your only response is to try and distract or cover up things. Never mind, you don't know apparently, fine.

I said that the one who did it weren't muslims, How to be a muslim and then disobey the messenger message.

"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.

No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.

Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."

reference : Letter to all Christians from Prophet Muhammad - National Islam | Examiner.com

 

[Ryujin]

I can't figure out why some think one or two exceptions defeat the rule. Muhammad called African's, raisin heads, and considered them inferior.

Under Islamic laws, slavery is explicitly permitted.[145] As Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan, a member of the Senior Council of Clerics had said in 2003, those who argue that slavery is abolished are “ignorant, not scholars. They are merely writers. Whoever says such things is an infidel.” [146] Muhammad himself was a slaver. He not only owned many male [147][148] and female [149] slaves, but he also sold, captured, and raped [150] his slaves. Even his wives owned slaves.

The manual demonstrated that Arabs were engaged in enslaving all peoples, not only Africans. Their travels around the world was not as much for mercenary purposes as to catch slaves and loot wealth. The manual also gave indications that Arabs actually created the entire slave export trade in Africa. Bits and pieces from history indicate that Muslims enslaved over 150 million African people and at least 50 million from other parts of the world. They also converted Africans into Islam, causing a complete social and financial collapse of the entire African continent apart from wealth attributed to a few regional African kings who became wealthy on the trade and encouraged it. This is a claim that is not well presented in Western information or education on slavery. You can find a lot of very interesting and original historical materials in Asia and the East which have never found its way to the West.
The Arab slave trade: 200 million non-Muslim slaves from all colors and nationalities | The Muslim Issue

Islam began enslaving Africans a thousand years before Christina Europeans did and well after Christian's had died to stop it.

Please remember that the bible, also, explicitly permits slavery and that many beloved biblical figures were also slavers. You could argue that it is meant to be taken in context and that it was appropriate at that time, but then you'd have to explain why that does not also apply to Islam. Note, too, that the Arab slave trade, the one that enslaved 200 million people, was perpetuated by individual Muslims many years after their prophet's death. It no more reflects on Islam than the Inquisition or Atlantic slave trade reflects on Christianity.

And please note, I don't follow the god of Abraham nor do I have a reason to defend Islam. My only point is that things must be kept in perspective and seen from multiple points of view, always.

 

[1robin]

Not true.

Native American Genocide | The Espresso Stalinist

What is not true? I scanned that article and saw nothing that refuted my claims except for some wild speculation. Like

American Holocaust: D. Standard (Oxford Press, 1992) - “over 100 million killed” “[Christopher] Columbus personally murdered half a million Natives”

This is not only false it is impossible. There is no record of this anywhere. Columbus did not have an army, did not have any special reasons to wipe out Indians, had no ovens, no gas chambers and no modern technology like trains and cars by which to round up all these supposed victims. It is a physically absurd and historically pathetic. The most generous estimates allow for less than 60 million natives from Canada to the southern tip of south America. Columbus could not have killed 3 times as many people as lived in this entire half of the planet. Come off it. Even that ridiculous source you gave said:

The biggest killers though were smallpox, measles, influenza, whooping cough, diphtheria, typhus, bubonic plague, cholera, and scarlet fever. All imported by the Europeans colonists.

So only 60 million existed to begin with (a figure less than 1/5th as large as just the ones Islam killed in on country) and 90% of them died of disease not violence. That leaves around 10 million left for Columbus to have killed but many of them died of inter tribal wars (the plains Indians massacred the agrarian Indians for generations alone) and other causes. This only leaves 5 million for Columbus. But he is not even among the great conquerors. Cortez, Pissarro, Narvaez, etc.... were the big players and fought the big battles. Columbus was simply a Genoese merchant looking for India and not much of a soldier or conquistador, your source is a historical nincompoop and you should no better than to accept claims that preposterous. I am an Indian and was raised on every resentful bit of anti-European propaganda you can imagine but even we did not make up evidence this absurd. This is not a contest about who killed the most but Islam would win if only India was included on their side and all our past mistakes are included on ours.

Using an estimate of approximately 30 million people in 1492 (including 6 million in the Aztec Empire, 8 million in the Mayan States, 11 million in what is now Brazil, and 12 million in the Inca Empire), the lowest estimates give a death toll due from disease of an astonishing 90% by the end of the 17th century (nine million people in 1650).
Demographic history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At least we are sure about the authenticity of recent crimes than the one that we thought it happened before 1400 years ago.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that hundreds of millions were not killed in India that time shows it was a simple mistake or something? The Gallic wars are taught as facts in every school on Earth and are over 200) years old. The events I am talking about in India are less than 1000 years old anyway, not that even 3000 years old is too old to not notice a hundred million people getting killed. Quit making excuses for mass murder. I do not deny the crusades, I do not try and pretend the conquests are too old to know what occurred, or that the Christian did not have any inquisitions for centuries so couldn't have ever had them.

How can you prove that the bad stories about the prophet is telling the truth, the Jews said that Jesus was a liar and son of a whore.

What does that have to do with Cortez? I did not use Muhammad's enemies to post his crimes as you did with Christ. I have used his own followers and his own words. Not to mention there is no evidence Jesus mother was promiscuous but no evidence that is not consistent with Muhammad's own claims he beheaded prisoners. History and my claims are identical.

You can say before the massage of Islam regardless of what kind of beliefs that existed at that time but the fact remains that they were ignorant and in dark ages and with Islam they conveyed science to the west which were still in the dark ages.

I have run out of patience with this belief. The atheist (I forget his name) who wrote the most revered multi-volume work on the history of science in his own words said he did not want to believe science had anything to do with faith but was forced to concede that abstract science was born by Christian faith. What you describing is not a scientific advance but a advance in invention witch occurred in China, India, and every where at one time or another and the fact Islam taught Greek and Roman science and made a few improvements but what is known as modern science is the revolution of abstract scientific thought and is 90% Christian and did not explode anywhere else as it did in Europe. Islam did not do anything except keep crawling forward when other stalled. Christianity exploded past them in leaps and bound and has Islam has never caught up. Islam did not do anything other cultures had before but no culture in human history ever had the explosion of abstract science like Christianity did. Most of the fields of modern science themselves were developed by Christians not Muslims. You had one brief mediocre moment of advancement, we have had hundreds of years of eclipsing it in every way. However no amount of Algebra borrowed from the Greeks and slightly improved for a few generations makes up for plaguing the world with death, slavery, darkness, and terror.

I said that the one who did it weren't muslims, How to be a muslim and then disobey the messenger message.

No you didn't. Muhammad never said do not destroy a tomb or Jonah's tomb specifically.

"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.

No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.

Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."

reference : Letter to all Christians from Prophet Muhammad - National Islam | Examiner.com

Then most of Islam is not Islamic because churches are banned in many Islamic nations. Muhammad also said:

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

(Apparently there are no true modern Muslims because they lose every war they begin).

Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..."

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

There are over a hundred more of these God-awful open ended calls for blood but there is a catch. Muhammad made peaceful statements like you quoted when outnumbered early on but when he was given arms and soldiers he instantly turned brutal and tyrannical his later violent verse abrogate or replace the earlier peaceful ones made for convenience. Precisely the actions of a petty tyrant and not a prophet of God.

 

[1robin]

Please remember that the bible, also, explicitly permits slavery and that many beloved biblical figures were also slavers. You could argue that it is meant to be taken in context and that it was appropriate at that time, but then you'd have to explain why that does not also apply to Islam. Note, too, that the Arab slave trade, the one that enslaved 200 million people, was perpetuated by individual Muslims many years after their prophet's death. It no more reflects on Islam than the Inquisition or Atlantic slave trade reflects on Christianity.

And please note, I don't follow the god of Abraham nor do I have a reason to defend Islam. My only point is that things must be kept in perspective and seen from multiple points of view, always.

The word slavery did not exist in biblical times. That word has 19th century baggage that gets retroactively imported into OT verses. There was no chattel slavery authorized by the bible, ever. It was servitude and almost always voluntary. Every record of slavery I have ever seen from OT time periods was debt slavery. One person got too far in debt and voluntarily served another man who paid his debts off. He was given a home, food, and had many rights and regardless of whether his had worked off his debt he was freed after 6 years and could live anywhere (which not even a Hebrew was allowed to do). There was another type of slavery that involved prisoners and the homeless from other lands but happened so infrequently as to be almost negligible. That is not to say Christians have not misused verses to do whatever they wish but slavery as we know it was not authorized by a single verse in the bible. The bible does contain less than ideal allowances because it says, of our sin. Divorce, killing, and servitude were allowed because of our imperfection but not a single passage allows for anything like Islam has practiced and authorized. Servitude or "slavery" was simply a given in biblical times but the bible's rules concerning it were the most benevolent set of laws on Earth at the time. For example in Hammurabi's code not turning in a runaway slave was punishable by death, in the Bible turning one in was punishable by death. I have written exhaustively on this in the past and it can easily be found if interested.

 

[Ryujin]

The word slavery did not exist in biblical times. That word has 19th century baggage that gets retroactively imported into OT verses. There was no chattel slavery authorized by the bible, ever. It was servitude and almost always voluntary. Every record of slavery I have ever seen from OT time periods was debt slavery. One person got too far in debt and voluntarily served another man who paid his debts off. He was given a home, food, and had many rights and regardless of whether his had worked off his debt he was freed after 6 years and could live anywhere (which not even a Hebrew was allowed to do). There was another type of slavery that involved prisoners and the homeless from other lands but happened so infrequently as to be almost negligible. That is not to say Christians have not misused verses to do whatever they wish but slavery as we know it was not authorized by a single verse in the bible. The bible does contain less than ideal allowances because it says, of our sin. Divorce, killing, and servitude were allowed because of our imperfection but not a single passage allows for anything like Islam has practiced and authorized. Servitude or "slavery" was simply a given in biblical times but the bible's rules concerning it were the most benevolent set of laws on Earth at the time. For example in Hammurabi's code not turning in a runaway slave was punishable by death, in the Bible turning one in was punishable by death. I have written exhaustively on this in the past and it can easily be found if interested.

Okay, accepting for a moment that the bible doesn't permit many of the more uncomfortable things that Islam does, what of my second point? That "the Arab slave trade, the one that enslaved 200 million people, was perpetuated by individual Muslims many years after their prophet's death. It no more reflects on Islam than the Inquisition or Atlantic slave trade reflects on Christianity." Why wouldn't that be correct?

 

[paarsurrey]

Please remember that the bible, also, explicitly permits slavery and that many beloved biblical figures were also slavers. You could argue that it is meant to be taken in context and that it was appropriate at that time, but then you'd have to explain why that does not also apply to Islam. Note, too, that the Arab slave trade, the one that enslaved 200 million people, was perpetuated by individual Muslims many years after their prophet's death. It no more reflects on Islam than the Inquisition or Atlantic slave trade reflects on Christianity.

And please note, I don't follow the god of Abraham nor do I have a reason to defend Islam. My only point is that things must be kept in perspective and seen from multiple points of view, always.

My point of view is also exactly the same.
One has a right to differ strongly with reasons; then the truth comes out shining like anything. Truth harms nobody.
That is exactly the dialogue is for.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Many churches were converted to mosques such as the Hagia Sophia. Iconoclast of mosaics is evident as well. One does not need to physically destroy a structure or figure to undermine another religion or to oppress it. Iconoclast was doctrine for many and was not for other as well. It is not a black nor white view.

Arabs were not solely atheist, they were Polytheist, Christians, Jews, etc. Also Arabs become a dominate power not because they were #1. They like all intelligent people assimilated previous knowledge and continued the progress of old ideas while developing new ideas. They conquered a vast area with many different ideas. Some views were accept, some views were not. Sorry but you are completely wrong about Pre-Islamic Arabia which is even supported with verses within the Quran and Hadith texts.

Back on topic

I think the idea that Islam was spread by the sword is not accurate. Now there are cases in India and the Caspian steppes of both forced conversion or rejection of conversion due to dependance on jizya and the goals of various rulers. However I would say Islam was spread in the wake of the sword. The sword of conquest rather than the sword of forced conversions. Also many of the systems implemented provide incentives for conversion such as the tax system. There is also the case of Arab Christians which paid zakat rather than jizya due to being a part of the military structure of the early 4/5 caliphs. There was also cultural assimilation of Christian in Spain in which many adopted the culture but not the religion. these people were later persecuted by Spain post-reconquest.

If people only take positive or negative examples while omitting the opposite history is distorted and generalization can be made to support either. This is honestly what I see between FearGod and 1robin. Individual cases should be analysed case by case. So while a case could be made for the harsh or positive treatment within locale. It should not be used as a generalization for or against. For example Muslim Spain in it's first few centuries was tolerant, it later centuries were not. So Islam within a locale was used to support both policies at different times. This is due to the fact that scripture is open to interpretation and has been used for both examples.

Sorry for butting into a conversation already in progress.

You are rather welcome to express you fully with good arguments; even if you differ with me.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Lesotho:

The muslim population of Lesotho in 2013 is about 3000 plus throughout the country. Most of the population are from South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri lanka), but there is also a significant population from the Middle East, such as Afghanistan.

South Asian muslims, being a more prominent and established community, settled in the country to conduct business and trade.[1] Their presence has been well noted since the early 1900s, when a few families migrated fromDurban,Kwazulu-Natal. There are various mosques and prayer halls in Lesotho at the Capital City Maseru to Butha-Buthe and other places around geography of Lesotho.

Jamaat Khana at Jackpot Market, Bus Stop Jamaat Khana and Thabong are the places where people offer their Friday Prayer in Maseru City. The vast majority of Muslims are Sunni. The Ahmadiyya Muslim community claims 350 members in the country.[2]

Islam in Lesotho - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I don't see any sword in spread of Islam in Lesotho.


Do you see any? Please

Regards

 

[1robin]

Okay, accepting for a moment that the bible doesn't permit many of the more uncomfortable things that Islam does, what of my second point? That "the Arab slave trade, the one that enslaved 200 million people, was perpetuated by individual Muslims many years after their prophet's death. It no more reflects on Islam than the Inquisition or Atlantic slave trade reflects on Christianity." Why wouldn't that be correct?

It could potentially be correct but given that Muhammad is said to take slaves, keep slaves, and authorize the abuse of slaves then what they do is largely consistent with their prophet. It is a legitimate type of argument but not one that works here. If your prophet chops of hands and feet and heads of bound captives until only exhaustion stops him and prays for people he killed to come back to life so he can hurt them some more then what can't be done is his name?

 

[1robin]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Lesotho:

The muslim population of Lesotho in 2013 is about 3000 plus throughout the country. Most of the population are from South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri lanka), but there is also a significant population from the Middle East, such as Afghanistan.

South Asian muslims, being a more prominent and established community, settled in the country to conduct business and trade.[1] Their presence has been well noted since the early 1900s, when a few families migrated fromDurban,Kwazulu-Natal. There are various mosques and prayer halls in Lesotho at the Capital City Maseru to Butha-Buthe and other places around geography of Lesotho.

Jamaat Khana at Jackpot Market, Bus Stop Jamaat Khana and Thabong are the places where people offer their Friday Prayer in Maseru City. The vast majority of Muslims are Sunni. The Ahmadiyya Muslim community claims 350 members in the country.[2]

Islam in Lesotho - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I don't see any sword in spread of Islam in Lesotho.


Do you see any? Please

Regards

Are you inventing countries now? Is the claim hat Islam did not enslave eastern Quebec between 1934 and 1939 an answer to what I have previously posted? Where in the world is Lesotho and why would it cancer what took place from Arabia to Spain? I could say Christians never burned any witches on the ant-arctic or the moon but that is one poor defense.

 

[paarsurrey]

Are you inventing countries now? Is the claim hat Islam did not enslave eastern Quebec between 1934 and 1939 an answer to what I have previously posted? Where in the world is Lesotho and why would it cancer what took place from Arabia to Spain? I could say Christians never burned any witches on the ant-arctic or the moon but that is one poor defense.

No; please read the following:

Lesotho ( i/lɨˈsuːtuː/ li-SOO-too), officially the Kingdom of Lesotho, is a landlocked country completely surrounded by South Africa. It is just over 30,000 km2 (11,583 sq mi) in size and has a population slightly over two million.[1] Its capital and largest city is Maseru. Lesotho is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. The nameLesotho translates roughly into the land of the people who speak Sotho.[5] About 40% of the population lives below the international poverty line of US $1.25 a day.[6]

Lesotho - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards

 

[1robin]

No; please read the following:

Lesotho ( i/lɨˈsuːtuː/ li-SOO-too), officially the Kingdom of Lesotho, is a landlocked country completely surrounded by South Africa. It is just over 30,000 km2 (11,583 sq mi) in size and has a population slightly over two million.[1] Its capital and largest city is Maseru. Lesotho is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. The nameLesotho translates roughly into the land of the people who speak Sotho.[5] About 40% of the population lives below the international poverty line of US $1.25 a day.[6]

Lesotho - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards

I was just joking. I was sure it was a real place as you would not make up a name like that but my point how do these random exceptions disprove the rule I stated with many examples. Reciting the names of people the plague did not kill does nothing to prove the plague is harmless.

 

[Shad]

You are rather welcome to express you fully with good arguments; even if you differ with me.

Regards

I am just trying to take a balance approach to the issues I addressed. It just seems to me those for both the pro/con views are taking individual cases and generalizing. As with my example of Spain there is evidence of both tolerance and intolerance directly related to the dynasty and school of thought dominate in the area at certain times. Too many treat religion as a monolithic entity at all times for all people in all places. Many forget that in the early centuries of Muslim Spain a different school of theology and philosophy was present compared to those of the Abbasid dynasty. Likewise people confuse the policies of the Seljuk dynasty with that of preceding and seceding dynasties. The Ottomans are not the Abbasids, Timur was not Harun al-Rashid.

 

[1robin]

I am just trying to take a balance approach to the issues I addressed. It just seems to me those for both the pro/con views are taking individual cases and generalizing. As with my example of Spain there is evidence of both tolerance and intolerance directly related to the dynasty and school of thought dominate in the area at certain times. Too many treat religion as a monolithic entity at all times for all people in all places. Many forget that in the early centuries of Muslim Spain a different school of theology and philosophy was present compared to those of the Abbasid dynasty. Likewise people confuse the policies of the Seljuk dynasty with that of preceding and seceding dynasties. The Ottomans are not the Abbasids, Timur was not Harun al-Rashid.

Doctrine is fairly monolithic, religion is rather arbitrary and vague. I defend doctrine, the bible, and God and not Christians in general as I find many of our own acts deplorable. When I discuss historical actions of Christianity or Islam it is usually a comparison not a one is right and the other wrong statement but exceptions exist. You did not address me but I wanted to throw this hat in the ring.

 

[Ryujin]

I am just trying to take a balance approach to the issues I addressed. It just seems to me those for both the pro/con views are taking individual cases and generalizing. As with my example of Spain there is evidence of both tolerance and intolerance directly related to the dynasty and school of thought dominate in the area at certain times. Too many treat religion as a monolithic entity at all times for all people in all places. Many forget that in the early centuries of Muslim Spain a different school of theology and philosophy was present compared to those of the Abbasid dynasty. Likewise people confuse the policies of the Seljuk dynasty with that of preceding and seceding dynasties. The Ottomans are not the Abbasids, Timur was not Harun al-Rashid.

I sense an advanced knowledge of The region's history!(though it might just be the name dropping) I also agree with your thoughts on taking a balanced look at both sides of the argument. Frubaled.

 

[Shad]

Doctrine is fairly monolithic, religion is rather arbitrary and vague. I defend doctrine, the bible, and God and not Christians in general as I find many of our own acts deplorable. When I discuss historical actions of Christianity or Islam it is usually a comparison not a one is right and the other wrong statement but exceptions exist. You did not address me but I wanted to throw this hat in the ring.

Not all doctrine is monolithic. Sure many schools of theology share common core values be it Jesus, Muhammad, a text, collection of text, etc. However it is the doctrine of the current system at the time which should be addressed for each case. Catholic doctrine is not Protestant doctrine. So to apply Catholic doctrine to all of Christianity is a mistake. Likewise Ash'ari doctrine is not Sufism so should not be applied to a period in which is was not the dominate in an area.

I sense an advanced knowledge of The region's history!(though it might just be the name dropping) I also agree with your thoughts on taking a balanced look at both sides of the argument. Frubaled.

I have been looking into history of different areas in which both Christian and Muslim influence were side by side. Such is the case of Spain. European history during this period are very Christian and Eurocentric. Likewise the same is true for history from Muslim sources. Reading both sides I feel one could find a middle-ground between history and the interpretation of history from various points of view. Only in modern times are historian reevaluating sources for bias or blunt propaganda in the support of a cause.

For example why did Timur enslave so many people even other Muslims. To lay blame at Islam's feet as a whole is a mistake. One should look at what was the dominate form of Islam he was influenced by how did this form come to dominance, what external/internal influenced this version. After all Timur is a hero and villain depending on who you ask or what sources you read.

 

[FearGod]

What is not true? I scanned that article and saw nothing that refuted my claims except for some wild speculation. Like This is not only false it is impossible. There is no record of this anywhere. Columbus did not have an army, did not have any special reasons to wipe out Indians, had no ovens, no gas chambers and no modern technology like trains and cars by which to round up all these supposed victims. It is a physically absurd and historically pathetic. The most generous estimates allow for less than 60 million natives from Canada to the southern tip of south America. Columbus could not have killed 3 times as many people as lived in this entire half of the planet. Come off it. Even that ridiculous source you gave said: So only 60 million existed to begin with (a figure less than 1/5th as large as just the ones Islam killed in on country) and 90% of them died of disease not violence. That leaves around 10 million left for Columbus to have killed but many of them died of inter tribal wars (the plains Indians massacred the agrarian Indians for generations alone) and other causes. This only leaves 5 million for Columbus. But he is not even among the great conquerors. Cortez, Pissarro, Narvaez, etc.... were the big players and fought the big battles. Columbus was simply a Genoese merchant looking for India and not much of a soldier or conquistador, your source is a historical nincompoop and you should no better than to accept claims that preposterous. I am an Indian and was raised on every resentful bit of anti-European propaganda you can imagine but even we did not make up evidence this absurd. This is not a contest about who killed the most but Islam would win if only India was included on their side and all our past mistakes are included on ours.

If Indians were forced to Islam and were genocide then how come that Hindus does exist and the population of India is 1.3 billion whereas the red Indian disappeared from north America and your reason that they died because of diseases is a silly one.

Using an estimate of approximately 30 million people in 1492 (including 6 million in the Aztec Empire, 8 million in the Mayan States, 11 million in what is now Brazil, and 12 million in the Inca Empire), the lowest estimates give a death toll due from disease of an astonishing 90% by the end of the 17th century (nine million people in 1650).
Demographic history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. Even before there were large numbers of Negroes on our shore, the scar of racial hatred had already disfigured colonial society. From the sixteenth century forward, blood flowed in battles over racial supremacy. We are perhaps the only nation which tried as a matter of national policy to wipe out its indigenous population. Moreover, we elevated that tragic experience into a noble crusade. Indeed, even today we have not permitted ourselves to reject or feel remorse for this shameful episode. Our literature, our films, our drama, our folklore all exalt it. Our children are still taught to respect the violence which reduced a red-skinned people of an earlier culture into a few fragmented groups herded into impoverished reservations.”

― Martin Luther King Jr.
Reference : Quote by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:

What are you talking about? Are you saying that hundreds of millions were not killed in India that time shows it was a simple mistake or something? The Gallic wars are taught as facts in every school on Earth and are over 200) years old. The events I am talking about in India are less than 1000 years old anyway, not that even 3000 years old is too old to not notice a hundred million people getting killed. Quit making excuses for mass murder. I do not deny the crusades, I do not try and pretend the conquests are too old to know what occurred, or that the Christian did not have any inquisitions for centuries so couldn't have ever had them.

And Hindus is still a major religion in India and their population is similar to China and they were genocide by Muslims.:sarcastic

What does that have to do with Cortez? I did not use Muhammad's enemies to post his crimes as you did with Christ. I have used his own followers and his own words. Not to mention there is no evidence Jesus mother was promiscuous but no evidence that is not consistent with Muhammad's own claims he beheaded prisoners. History and my claims are identical.

What evidences you have which prove that the stories were correct and not falsified, even though it says Mohammed said so and so or his friend said so and so, how can you know it is a real story, why not accepting the stories which say Mohammed is prophet of God, why you accept one story and reject the other.

I have run out of patience with this belief. The atheist (I forget his name) who wrote the most revered multi-volume work on the history of science in his own words said he did not want to believe science had anything to do with faith but was forced to concede that abstract science was born by Christian faith. What you describing is not a scientific advance but a advance in invention witch occurred in China, India, and every where at one time or another and the fact Islam taught Greek and Roman science and made a few improvements but what is known as modern science is the revolution of abstract scientific thought and is 90% Christian and did not explode anywhere else as it did in Europe. Islam did not do anything except keep crawling forward when other stalled. Christianity exploded past them in leaps and bound and has Islam has never caught up. Islam did not do anything other cultures had before but no culture in human history ever had the explosion of abstract science like Christianity did. Most of the fields of modern science themselves were developed by Christians not Muslims. You had one brief mediocre moment of advancement, we have had hundreds of years of eclipsing it in every way. However no amount of Algebra borrowed from the Greeks and slightly improved for a few generations makes up for plaguing the world with death, slavery, darkness, and terror.

The fact remains that Islam was in the golden age at the time Europe were in the Dark ages

No you didn't. Muhammad never said do not destroy a tomb or Jonah's tomb specifically.

Then most of Islam is not Islamic because churches are banned in many Islamic nations. Muhammad also said:

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

(Apparently there are no true modern Muslims because they lose every war they begin).

Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..."

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

There are over a hundred more of these God-awful open ended calls for blood but there is a catch. Muhammad made peaceful statements like you quoted when outnumbered early on but when he was given arms and soldiers he instantly turned brutal and tyrannical his later violent verse abrogate or replace the earlier peaceful ones made for convenience. Precisely the actions of a petty tyrant and not a prophet of God.

That is due to your ignorance about Islam and the quran.

[youtube]gFXFatsykF8[/youtube]
atheist of Jewish descent to defend the Qur'an Lesley Hazleton.flv - YouTube

 

[paarsurrey]

I was just joking. I was sure it was a real place as you would not make up a name like that but my point how do these random exceptions disprove the rule I stated with many examples. Reciting the names of people the plague did not kill does nothing to prove the plague is harmless.

It is OK; nevermind.

 

[gnostic]

why you accept one story and reject the other.

Well, the same can be said for many Muslims, who tried to deny parts of their own history, or make apologetic excuses of what happened, instead of seeing what is really there.

What evidences you have which prove that the stories were correct and not falsified, even though it says Mohammed said so and so or his friend said so and so, how can you know it is a real story, why not accepting the stories which say Mohammed is prophet of God,

No one is denying that Muhammad is a prophet for Islam (and the Bahai Faith).

Why must non-Muslims accept him as a prophet? Does it really matter to you that others don't accept him as a prophet or accept his miracles or his scriptures?

You acting like some fundamentalist Christians or evangelistic Christians, where they expect every non-Christians to Jesus as the messiah or Jesus as their god.

It is not pretty, when you (not "you" personally, but Christians and Muslims in general) tried to shove Muhammad or Jesus down other people's throats.

When the Danish cartoons came out, I think every Muslims have the rights to be offended or to be upset, but to go on protests...isn't that a bit of overkill?

Some of the protests were peaceful, but others weren't, and as many as 200 people were murdered (numbers are conflicting and unknown), who weren't even remotely with cartoonists or the Danish publishers. Houses, businesses and churches have been vandalised or burned.

And the naming-teddy-bear incidence, some Muslims were demanding the school-teacher's death or public flogging.

Sorry, but some Muslims get-in-your-face as much as some crazy Christians, but not as violent over some issues.

I have never heard of instance where some Christians or Jews go on rampage, hurting people or destroying prophets over satire or cartoons of their prophets or messiah.