Islamic Prophecy

[cestusdei]

Somehow you always forget to mention the peaceful verses are abrogated by the warlike ones. They are vastly outnumbered. Then when you look at how muslims actually interpret those verses and act on them, well history is pretty clear. We have had to fend off attacks for 1400 years.

I would suggest you read about 1453, Mehmet took the city. Blood flowed through the streets far worse then anything the crusaders ever did. Mehmet demanded the son of a Greek admiral to be his new boytoy. Upon refusal he had both put to death. How many Christians live in Istanbul today? Islams history is drenched in the blood of Christians.

 

[pro_universal]

Somehow you always forget to mention the peaceful verses are abrogated by the warlike ones. They are vastly outnumbered. Then when you look at how muslims actually interpret those verses and act on them, well history is pretty clear. We have had to fend off attacks for 1400 years.

Yeah, I have looked at how Muslims interpret these verses, and I do study history. There is no abrogation of the command to be peaceful. Your claims are simply wrong-anyone else who has read the book and knows the history will recognize that.

I would suggest you read about 1453, Mehmet took the city. Blood flowed through the streets far worse then anything the crusaders ever did. Mehmet demanded the son of a Greek admiral to be his new boytoy. Upon refusal he had both put to death. How many Christians live in Istanbul today? Islams history is drenched in the blood of Christians.

I would suggest you read up-Constantinople fell in 1215, not 1453. It was sacked and destroyed by Latin Christians, based on the principle that it was okay for the Latins to steal from Eastern Christians.

Christianity’s history is drenched in the blood of just about everyone: Jews, Blacks, Asians, Mexicans, Andeans, Carribeans, Heretical Europeans, Central Asians, Indians, Aboriginees, etc etc…in fact there’s not a single large country that Christianity went to without Christians declaring a war there. So I think, at least as far as Jesus defines Hypocrisy, you are clearly a hypocrite on this matter.

Want to provide some documentation about Mehmet and the Greek admiral? Let’s see the historical proof.

 

[cestusdei]

Yeah, I have looked at how Muslims interpret these verses, and I do study history. There is no abrogation of the command to be peaceful. Your claims are simply wrong-anyone else who has read the book and knows the history will recognize that.

I have only to point to history. How did Jerusalem end up in muslim hands, Constantinople, Sicily, Spain etc.? Not voluntarily. Plenty of muslims have no problem killing us for anything. The Pope says something you don’t like? Well shoot a nun for Allahs sake. All I have to do is pick up the newspaper and read about the latest muslim attack on us.

I would suggest you read up-Constantinople fell in 1215, not 1453. It was sacked and destroyed by Latin Christians, based on the principle that it was okay for the Latins to steal from Eastern Christians.

Christianity’s history is drenched in the blood of just about everyone: Jews, Blacks, Asians, Mexicans, Andeans, Carribeans, Heretical Europeans, Central Asians, Indians, Aboriginees, etc etc…in fact there’s not a single large country that Christianity went to without Christians declaring a war there. So I think, at least as far as Jesus defines Hypocrisy, you are clearly a hypocrite on this matter.

Want to provide some documentation about Mehmet and the Greek admiral? Let’s see the historical proof.

The Pope actually condemn the attack. When was the last time you heard a muslim apologize for attacking Spain or anyone for that matter? Christianity was peaceful in the very beginning. We didn’t learn religious war until muslims taught it to us. We are no longer in that business. YOU ARE. As for proof read about it in Norwich.

 

[Montalban]

Even Arabic-speaking Christians don’t seem to be able to understand the Koran . Only through submitting and just accepting it, does one ‘understand’ it (*understand *in an Islamic sense of the word)

 

[Montalban]

Yeah, I have looked at how Muslims interpret these verses, and I do study history. There is no abrogation of the command to be peaceful. Your claims are simply wrong-anyone else who has read the book and knows the history will recognize that.

You claim you’re not a Moslem, but you can understand the Koran correctly. Amazing!

 

[pro_universal]

The Pope actually condemn the attack. When was the last time you heard a muslim apologize for attacking Spain or anyone for that matter? Christianity was peaceful in the very beginning. We didn’t learn religious war until muslims taught it to us. We are no longer in that business. YOU ARE. As for proof read about it in Norwich.

Wait, you are honestly claiming that Christians didn’t learn religious war before Islam?

Surely you’re kidding. What did the Muslims have to do with Theodosius brutal wars against the heretics?

How about Clovis’s barbarian frankish regime?

Did Charlemagne order the Saxons executed for being pagans because of Islam?

This is just beyond belief.

Uh, btw…John Julius Norwich is like the Tom Clancy of historical writers on Byzantium. If you want to read something academic, you should read Ostrogorsky-his is the authoritative history of Byzantium.

 

[cestusdei]

pro, google is at your disposal. It is your consistant tactic to demand proof. I give it to you and then you change the subject. You never acknowledge that I was correct and I am.

Sure they fought. But the idea that you primarily spread the faith through war is an islamic ideal not a Christian one. We didn’t have a word like “jihad” in our theological lexicon. Holy War was islams contribution.

But the real problem is that islam still does it today. That you cannot deny and refuse to face.

 

[pro_universal]

pro, google is at your disposal. It is your consistant tactic to demand proof. I give it to you and then you change the subject. You never acknowledge that I was correct and I am.

You can’t get Ostrogorsky’s main work on the internet, so no, google is not at my disposal. You will have to go to a library to follow up that reference. What I know from my education in Byzantine history is who the professionals are.

Sure they fought. But the idea that you primarily spread the faith through war is an islamic ideal not a Christian one. We didn’t have a word like “jihad” in our theological lexicon. Holy War was islams contribution.

Okay, name a major country in the world where Christianity arrived without also having the barrel of a colonialist gun shooting down the natives.

I will repeat: there is not a single notable country on the planet where Christianity has gone without warfare. And in some places, Christians are still killing-they murdered more people in Rwanda than all Muslim terrorist attacks combined.

And the word “crusade” is like the word Jihad, except that crusade doesn’t also have peaceful meanings. It means holy war, not struggle generally.

 

[cestusdei]

You can’t get Ostrogorsky’s main work on the internet, so no, google is not at my disposal. You will have to go to a library to follow up that reference. What I know from my education in Byzantine history is who the professionals are.

Type www.google.com. Then type fall of constantinople mehmet. You will find it.

Okay, name a major country in the world where Christianity arrived without also having the barrel of a colonialist gun shooting down the natives.

I will repeat: there is not a single notable country on the planet where Christianity has gone without warfare. And in some places, Christians are still killing-they murdered more people in Rwanda than all Muslim terrorist attacks combined.

And the word “crusade” is like the word Jihad, except that crusade doesn’t also have peaceful meanings. It means holy war, not struggle generally.

Okay, Armenia. Ironic since the muslims tried to kill of the Armenians. Rwanda was tribal warfare not religious. Oh and let me see your figures from a source that I will accept. We didn’t use the word crusade until 1095. Jihad means holy war, the struggle bit is just some disinformation to throw us off and let our guard down.

 

[pro_universal]

Okay, Armenia. Ironic since the muslims tried to kill of the Armenians.

Again, your history is lacking. The Young Turks were ANTI-Muslim-they banned praying in Arabic, forbade the wearing of Muslim traditional garb, and dismantled all state-funded religious centers…those were the same people who killed the Armenians and drove the Greeks out of Turkey.

Which explains why, when Turkey was a Muslim country for 700 years, those things did not happen. When the secularists took over, however, they thought that immitation of the European model meant killing everyone who wasn’t the same race as themselves.

Rwanda was tribal warfare not religious. Oh and let me see your figures from a source that I will accept. We didn’t use the word crusade until 1095. Jihad means holy war, the struggle bit is just some disinformation to throw us off and let our guard down.

English did not exist as a language until well after 1095. Yet when it finally coalesced, it certainly had a word for holy war-crusade. Your argument here makes no sense.

 

[Montalban]

Wait, you are honestly claiming that Christians didn’t learn religious war before Islam?

Appeals to incredulity don’t hep you

Surely you’re kidding.

Ditto

What did the Muslims have to do with Theodosius brutal wars against the heretics?

Which ‘wars’ ?

How about Clovis’s barbarian frankish regime?

Which clovis

Did Charlemagne order the Saxons executed for being pagans because of Islam?

Certainly this is AFTER Islam, therefore out of the scope of your own rebuttal

This is just beyond belief.

Still the appeal!

Uh, btw…John Julius Norwich is like the Tom Clancy of historical writers on Byzantium. If you want to read something academic, you should read Ostrogorsky-his is the authoritative history of Byzantium.

Do you have a paritcular part in mind, or are you seeking to have people go and research a point for you?

One can tell the ‘quality’ of an historian by the use of the word “Byzantine”, which even you uncritically use (western-ispired terms such as “Byzantium”, rather than “Roman”) (the Roman empire thought of itself as Roman throughout the time people like yourself call “Byzantine”) The term is itself only releatively new.

PS if anyone is in the mind to look for his books, please note his name is sometimes rendered as Ostrogorski

 

[Montalban]

pro_universal:

Again, your history is lacking. The Young Turks were ANTI-Muslim

It would be more correct to say that they were pro-nationalist. Islam still exists in Turkey.

pro_universal:

they banned praying in Arabic,

This is insignificant because one can pray in Turkish.

pro_universal:

forbade the wearing of Muslim traditional garb,

I think you’ll find Kemal Attaturk was more responsible for that.

pro_universal:

and dismantled all state-funded religious centers…those were the same people who killed the Armenians and drove the Greeks out of Turkey.
Which explains why, when Turkey was a Muslim country for 700 years, those things did not happen. When the secularists took over, however, they thought that imitation of the European model meant killing everyone who wasn’t the same race as themselves.

That’s simply false. There was centuries of oppression of Christians, including pogroms under Islam, and ethnic cleansing.

And this brings us back to Armenia…
“During 1894-1923 the Ottoman Empire conducted a policy of Genocide of the Christian population living within its extensive territory. The Sultan, Abdul Hamid, first put forth an official governmental policy of genocide against the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire in 1894.”
serfes.org/orthodox/memoryof.htm

Or you can argue is that the bigoted Turks continued these policies after they became more secularist. They didn’t START these policies after this time.

pro_universal:

English did not exist as a language until well after 1095. Yet when it finally coalesced, it certainly had a word for holy war-crusade. Your argument here makes no sense.

That’s simply false. Beowulf was written in English before then. So was the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (although this was ‘completed’ after the time you have chosen upon)

 

[pro_universal]

That’s simply false. Beowulf was written in English before then. So was the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (although this was ‘completed’ after the time you have chosen upon)

I’ll tell you what: Pick up a copy of Beowulf in its original script (ie, not translated into English) and try to read it.

Old English is not the same as English. You couldn’t understand it; it needs to be translated into the English that we speak.

 

[Montalban]

I’ll tell you what: Pick up a copy of Beowulf in its original script (ie, not translated into English) and try to read it.

Old English is not the same as English. You couldn’t understand it; it needs to be translated into the English that we speak.

I don’t disagree that “Old English” is difficult, and unlike Modern English.

Many people find the language of Shakespeare difficult too.

However, it is all English.

You said

English did not exist as a language until well after 1095.

and that is wrong.

You should have said “Modern English”. But then your use of terms is very loose, or lackadaisical, as you determine when “Islamic” Turkey ceased to be, and also use a relatively modern term “Byzantine”.

I note again that you only respond to my posts when you think you’ve scored a point.

 

[Kadaveri]

Sorry for changing the flux of the argument, but someone with a great interest in Anglo-Saxon linguists I must object to this ‘Old English’ is ‘English’ comment, as it’s terribly misleading. Old English may be ‘English’ in an etymological sense, but it’s very far from being modern English. You might as well say English and German are the same language, since there’s just as much difference.

HERE’s a copy of Beowulf as it was originally written, even if you don’t know nothing about Old English you can tell that it quite clearly isn’t English as we know it today, which didn’t exist then.

 

[Montalban]

Sorry for changing the flux of the argument, but someone with a great interest in Anglo-Saxon linguists I must object to this ‘Old English’ is ‘English’ comment, as it’s terribly misleading. Old English may be ‘English’ in an etymological sense, but it’s very far from being modern English.

I was a baby, then a boy, then a teen, and now a man. Yet my name has remained the same. It always described ‘me’.

Old English is different in degree, to Modern English. Middle English is different (though less in degree) from Modern English. It is still English. I don’t deny that it has changed, but it is still English. It was English then, and it is now. English is the term used to describe the language.

Further your argument is like saying England now has a constitutional monarchy. In 1100 it didn’t therefore it can’t be called England!

As English has grown, it has borrowed more and more words from outside (see…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Influencegraph.PNG so that there are words in it that are not of Germanic etymology, but it is still ENGLISH!

Here’s the English dictionary’s definition of English
the Germanic language of the British Isles, widespread and standard also in the U.S. and most of the British Commonwealth, historically termed Old English (c450–c1150), Middle English (c1150–c1475), and Modern English (after c1475). Abbreviation: E
dictionary.reference.com/browse/english

Note that the term “Old English” is used not to describe a different language, but a different period in the development of English.

You might as well say English and German are the same language, since there’s just as much difference.

English, whilst not German, is a Germanic language. It is related. The differences between Old English and Modern English don’t detract from the term “English” common to the name of both of them. That alone is so patently obvious I’m amazed you would come up with your argument.

Look at it another way. When Chaucer wrote, it was called “English”. It was then, and it is now.

HERE’s a copy of Beowulf as it was originally written, even if you don’t know nothing about Old English you can tell that it quite clearly isn’t English as we know it today, which didn’t exist then.

I counter by asking you to read this Middle English…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ChaucerPortraitEllesmereMs.jpg
or
molcat1.bl.uk/treasures/caxton/pagemax.asp?page=2r&strCopy=1&vol=
By your definition the Canterbury Tales aren’t English! There are sites that ‘translate’ it into Modern English.

Things can change in degree, but still be termed the same thing.

 

[George_Waters]

Okay, what you said was “I read it years ago and don’t really remember.” That is the same thing as having not read it-if it’s not in your mind, there’s no point in talking about what is or isn’t in the book.

Maybe that’s because you are talking with Muslims who believe it. What has that got to do with understanding the book itself?

Okay, I see that you’re trying to weave insults to the Islamic holy text into this, but I don’t see how it’s relevant. Are you hoping I’ll take it personally and feel offended if you say bad things about the Quran? What was the point of that?

Okay, then surely you aren’t well equipped to discuss the text or the history of Muhammad’s life critically at this point, right?

So why do it? Why not spend your time reading about Muhammad and rereading the Quran, before arguing about what it means and what Muhammad did with others?

Again, to discuss what the book means, you have to know what it says. And to make claims about what Muhammad did in his life, you’d have to actually know about his life…

Why is this so controversial?

Please show me exactly where I said “I read it years ago and don’t really remember.” I did read it years ago, but I did not say “…and don’t really remember.” Seems like that is just a convenient way for you to dismiss the fact (contrary to what you claimed) that I have read it.

The whole Issue here is that you (and some Muslims) simply can not accept that I have read the Quran, I have read about Mohammed and I have rejected Islam.

As far as insults go you have twice now accused me of things that are not true 1) that I have not read the Quran and 2) that I said I don’t remember anything about it. Frankly I could care less what you think I am trying to do. I read the Quran and have found it and all supporting “evidence” lacking. But you can’t accept that, can you?

You ask a lot of question, yet fail to ever answer questions don’t you? If Islam is the truth then the evidence should support it. I do not believe it does. My lack of belief is based on a lack of compelling evidence, not my unwillingness to believe. Claim you must believe to is sophomoric non-sense.

I’m sorry am I in a “Must have a Doctorate to discuss” forum? I have read several posts asking for your credentials yet I have yet to see a response. I have an opinion based on my knowledge and experience, I am sorry that does not meet your criteria or your apparent vast knowledge, wisdom and understanding. I guess I am just an ignorant American who has had the audacity to state his contrary opinion.

 

[cestusdei]

Again, your history is lacking. The Young Turks were ANTI-Muslim-they banned praying in Arabic, forbade the wearing of Muslim traditional garb, and dismantled all state-funded religious centers…those were the same people who killed the Armenians and drove the Greeks out of Turkey.

Which explains why, when Turkey was a Muslim country for 700 years, those things did not happen. When the secularists took over, however, they thought that immitation of the European model meant killing everyone who wasn’t the same race as themselves.

English did not exist as a language until well after 1095. Yet when it finally coalesced, it certainly had a word for holy war-crusade. Your argument here makes no sense.

You asked for a country where Christianity took root without violence and I gave it. Thanks for ignoring it. The Armenians see things different since the people killing them did so for religious reasons ie. islam. The Turks brutally repressed Christians of all kinds, they still do. Latin doesn’t have a word for jihad either. It is an islamic concept.

 

[pro_universal]

You asked for a country where Christianity took root without violence and I gave it. Thanks for ignoring it. The Armenians see things different since the people killing them did so for religious reasons ie. islam. The Turks brutally repressed Christians of all kinds, they still do. Latin doesn’t have a word for jihad either. It is an islamic concept.

Sorry, but I didn’t see the country. Which one was it?

FYI-Turkey represses Islam as well.

And…“infidel” is a latin word. It has no equivalent in Arabic.

 

[Angelos]

Again, your history is lacking. The Young Turks were ANTI-Muslim-they banned praying in Arabic, forbade the wearing of Muslim traditional garb, and dismantled all state-funded religious centers…those were the same people who killed the Armenians and drove the Greeks out of Turkey.

Which explains why, when Turkey was a Muslim country for 700 years, those things did not happen. When the secularists took over, however, they thought that immitation of the European model meant killing everyone who wasn’t the same race as themselves.

You are in the mood as usual. I somehow fail to understand if you are serious or just playing the Devil’s advocate to sound funny

“Young Turks were anti-Muslim”: this is a basic assumption without proof. This assumption is the product of fundamentalist Muslims hating the Turkish Republic, which kicked all the lunatics of the Ottoman ideology out of the new-founded Republic! More, Turks were encouraged to pray in their mother tongue so that they could understand the Koran better without the need of Islamic clerics giving fatwas. It was one of those young Turks who gave an end to the Islamic regime of the Ottoman Empire, which dedicated itself to the conversion of Balkan people to Islam. What a peaceful ideology those Turks had indeed! Invade, levy heavy taxes, castrate the nice-looking Slavic boys, bring the beautiful girls to the Sultan’s harem as sexual toys and slaves. Clap clap clap!

The problems we have today in the Balkans is what your beloved and peaceful Ottomans did during their long-term administration. Your mind allows Muslims to kill Christian communities in the Balkans - Islam asks peaceful relations with neighbours??? - , but condemns Serbs struggling to take their territory back from the Muslim Albanian invaders. Congratulations on your understanding of the notion of justice

Peace,
ANgelos N.