Was Islam spread by the sword?

[1robin]

That's ridiculous. There is no indication what so ever that a few thousand Muslim riders couldn't beat tens of thousand and even hundreds of thousand Eastern Roman Soldiers during their first invasions into Syria-Palaestina.

Really Muslim sources on these battles are the most hilarious thing you will ever read. The Muslims are always at an incredible disatvantage and yet slaughter their enemies almost every single time to the last man.


Totally not biased and nothing wrong here.

I am not familiar with this specific battle but Roman military might is a hard thing to question until a little later. Why do you rate it so poorly for this battle? Muhammad's days were long after Rome's Glory days but I doubt they were this weak.

 

[1robin]

In response to who you're responding to:

Look this stuff up

• Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE)
• Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192)
• Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526)

And that only covers 500 years...

I'd like Paarsurrey to give his explanation of how Islam became so prominent in Northern India - or maybe give us a little insight into the spread of Islam across North Africa and some background on the spread of it into Portugal and Spain, which had a hand in creating European racism towards brown and darker colored skin tones in... It's all History - but it all happened.

Christian History doesn't act like the atrocities of the Crusades never happened. I don't understand why this certain faith is so insecure about admitting things like this.

Probably because it isn't so secure. It is hard to stomach these Indian events. I can't imagine that level of carnage but it did occur over time I guess. Even Stalin would be jealous.

 

[Harikrish]

That's ridiculous. There is no indication what so ever that a few thousand Muslim riders couldn't beat tens of thousand and even hundreds of thousand Eastern Roman Soldiers during their first invasions into Syria-Palaestina.

Really Muslim sources on these battles are the most hilarious thing you will ever read. The Muslims are always at an incredible disatvantage and yet slaughter their enemies almost every single time to the last man.


Totally not biased and nothing wrong here.

Even the Jews have their mythical heroes who single handedly killed hundreds of their enemies with little more than a jaw bone of an animal or a stick.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Even the Jews have their mythical heroes who single handedly killed hundreds of their enemies with little more than a jaw bone of an animal or a stick.

And I think we all can agree that those claims are just as silly.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I am not familiar with this specific battle but Roman military might is a hard thing to question until a little later. Why do you rate it so poorly for this battle? Muhammad's days were long after Rome's Glory days but I doubt they were this weak.

I believe that was tongue-in-cheek.

 

[1robin]

And I think we all can agree that those claims are just as silly.

Maybe untrue but hard to call them silly if they potentially had God to help with tearing down a temple single handedly.
If God is in the equation nothing can be ruled out.

 

[1robin]

I believe that was tongue-in-cheek.

Then I withdraw my confusion and will find something else to be confused about.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Then I withdraw my confusion and will find something else to be confused about.

haha - it's all good.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Maybe untrue but hard to call them silly if they potentially had God to help with tearing down a temple single handedly.
If God is in the equation nothing can be ruled out.

Well, we're obliviously going to be on differing sides of this equation. Even if such stories could be validated historically, it doesn't do anything to solidify the interaction of a supernatural being.

 

[1robin]

Well, we're obliviously going to be on differing sides of this equation. Even if such stories could be validated historically, it doesn't do anything to solidify the interaction of a supernatural being.

I was attempting to use Samson to validate God. I made an if then claim. If God exists then superhuman feats would be expected. Until someone comes up with a convincing reason to deny God's potential existence then these stories are not deniable as silly. Maybe for other reasons but not silliness. The best arguments for God's existence are not ancient stories about jawbones, they are much more recent Gospel events, personal testimony, philosophy, etc.....

 

[jonathan180iq]

I was attempting to use Samson to validate God. I made an if then claim. If God exists then superhuman feats would be expected. Until someone comes up with a convincing reason to deny God's potential existence then these stories are not deniable as silly. Maybe for other reasons but not silliness. The best arguments for God's existence are not ancient stories about jawbones, they are much more recent Gospel events, personal testimony, philosophy, etc.....

No. No. I see what you're saying. I follow.

My point is that the ONLY source for such events come from biased cultural accounts, written by the people who needed them to be said. I've never come across a "Philistine" Historian who comments about this Sampson dude... Or anyone else, for that matter. Nowhere in Egypt is there evidence that some lowly mud-hut capable people bascially overthrew and entire regime and marched out of Egypt leaving behind what the Bible portrays as complete cultural wreckage.

The claim that superhuman feats could happen because God exists relies on a faulty premise.

The standard has to be, based on the vast wealth of recorded human history, that superhuman feats do not happen - thus placing the burden of proof on those claiming otherwise. It's not the other way around.

 

[Harikrish]

From what the Islamists are using to behead their captives, they look more like knives.

 

[1robin]

No. No. I see what you're saying. I follow.

I don't see how because my first sentence lacked a word that made it say the exact opposite of what I wanted. Maybe you riddled it out.

My point is that the ONLY source for such events come from biased cultural accounts, written by the people who needed them to be said. I've never come across a "Philistine" Historian who comments about this Sampson dude... Or anyone else, for that matter. Nowhere in Egypt is there evidence that some lowly mud-hut capable people bascially overthrew and entire regime and marched out of Egypt leaving behind what the Bible portrays as complete cultural wreckage.

I thought you were objecting to the ability of a biblical figure to perform a miracle. It seems you have instead rejected to the story on historical grounds. Since Samson is almost irrelevant to my faith I will not pursue it. It might prove interesting though, do you have any compelling reason to I investigate his story or one similar to it>

The claim that superhuman feats could happen because God exists relies on a faulty premise.

I did not make that claim. I said if God exist not because God exists miracles are possible.

The standard has to be, based on the vast wealth of recorded human history, that superhuman feats do not happen - thus placing the burden of proof on those claiming otherwise. It's not the other way around.

It might be the truth but that is a terrible way to ground the truth. The rule necessarily is powerless to indicate the exception. Miraculous events are by their nature, rare exceptions. What normally occurs is the worst possible thing to investigate for miracles.

 

[jonathan180iq]

....We may be completely agreeing and not seeing it... I'm not sure.

 

[1robin]

....We may be completely agreeing and not seeing it... I'm not sure.

I will agree to assume that is the case if you want.

 

[outhouse]

I was attempting to use Samson to validate God. I made an if then claim. If God exists then superhuman feats would be expected. Until someone comes up with a convincing reason to deny God's potential existence then these stories are not deniable as silly. Maybe for other reasons but not silliness. The best arguments for God's existence are not ancient stories about jawbones, they are much more recent Gospel events, personal testimony, philosophy, etc.....

You cannot use pseudo history to validate god. That only proves he is a mythological concept that evolved in mens minds only

 

[1robin]

You cannot use pseudo history to validate god. That only proves he is a mythological concept that evolved in mens minds only

I just got through explaining I was not trying to prove God. I also have no idea what your last sentence is based upon. Dumb it down or type slower or something.

Biblical history is so reliable it is a primary resource even for secular archeologists and has routinely embarrassed it's scholastic critics. Entire museums are full of artifacts from cultures the bible said existed that some scholars said never had. Luke's gospel is so historically accurate a historian who set out to prove it wrong converted (in his words because every bizarre and rare Roman title turned out to be perfectly factual) and some of the best historians claim it is as good a historical account as can be found from the period any many that followed. Jesus is the most textually attested figure in ancient history and the bible is by far the most textually accurate work of any kind of ancient history. It is not the most scrutinized book in human history because it has obvious flaws. What are you talking about?

 

[Harikrish]

I just got through explaining I was not trying to prove God. I also have no idea what your last sentence is based upon. Dumb it down or type slower or something.

Biblical history is so reliable it is a primary resource even for secular archeologists and has routinely embarrassed it's scholastic critics. Entire museums are full of artifacts from cultures the bible said existed that some scholars said never had. Luke's gospel is so historically accurate a historian who set out to prove it wrong converted (in his words because every bizarre and rare Roman title turned out to be perfectly factual) and some of the best historians claim it is as good a historical account as can be found from the period any many that followed. Jesus is the most textually attested figure in ancient history and the bible is by far the most textually accurate work of any kind of ancient history. It is not the most scrutinized book in human history because it has obvious flaws. What are you talking about?

Even Mohammad an illiterate was able to recreate the bible in the Quran in less that 25 years. He even corrected some of the mistakes in the Bible.

 

[outhouse]

I also have no idea what your last sentence is based upon. Dumb it down or type slower or something.

That is due to your ignorance of biblical text.

Biblical history is so reliable

Your factually wrong.


There was no flood, no Noah, No Moses, no Abraham. no Adan and Eve.


So stop promoting pseudo history, it is not honest.

 

[outhouse]

What are you talking about?

Right now?


Your severe historical ignorance. Your appealing to faith and have NOTHING to provide for evidence.

The gospel authors were al unknown, and are chocked full of errors and contradictions