Question for Muslims about the radicals who use the name

  • Thread starter Thread starter GregoryPalamas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GregoryPalamas

Guest
If I’m understanding most of the Muslim posters here they contend that Islam (pure, traditional, etc.) is not violent by nature and those who are aren’t truely Muslim. Am I correct?

If so what does this imply? Let’s assume that this assumption is correct. All violent people who claim the name Islam and claim to follow Allah are not real Muslims and are in fact the enemy of true Islam.
  1. What percentage of those claiming to be Muslims are really not Muslims at all because of their violent behavior? I know that several have shown a penchant for not answering questions but rather make ignore the question and then attack the quesioner. I ask that you please resist this temptation. My question is a serious one.
  2. If in fact those who are violent are not really Muslims how far do you carry that distinction? Was Abu Bakr a true Muslim? Was Muhammad a true Muslim when he oversaw the destruction of the first three Jewish villages before he declared the Dhimma? Did he become a Muslim again after the Dhimma was declared? What of the series of empires that killed and enslaved countless numbers of Christians and Jews? Were the Ummayads and Ottomons truly Muslim or were they actually enemies of Islam? Are the Wahhabists truly Muslim? What about the Sufi Ayatollah Khomeini? Are these examples of true Muslims or are they in fact the enemies of Islam? After eliminating those who aren’t true Muslims who is left?
Schwartz claims that only about 10% of those claiming to be Muslim are actually enemies of Islam, ie, they are actually violent radicals who kill almost anyone who disagrees with them. If this is true, why do they seem to have such widespread support among so many in Islam? Are most who support these violent acts actually unaware that trying to wipe out entire populations of people actually anti-Islamic? Schwartz also claims that 90% of Islam is actually peace loving traditional Muslims. If so, where do the traditional peace loving Muslims live?
  1. Finally, if you are correct that true Islam is actually only trying to convert the world by peaceful means and that the violent people claiming to be Muslims must be resisted how do you propose doing that? Are there efforts afoot to counteract the terrible and nearly ubiquitous influence of the Wahhabists? Are there efforts afoot to retake Medina and Mecca from these nutballs? If traditional Islam, peace loving to be sure, are making efforts to drive out the Wahhabists and to renounce the violent actions of those claiming to be Muslim but aren’t is there anything than non-Muslims can do to help you do this?
One thing I can think of is to stop buying oil from any country that supports violence and to boycott those nations so they can’t sell oil to anyone else. Would you support that action? What else might we do?

Let’s cut to the chase. I’m quite serious. If you are peace loving and want the truth about peace loving Islam to get out there must be some ways to do this? After all, we don’t wish to be blown to smithereens by these nutballs either. Moreover, I think in a fair exchange of ideas without threats of violence that some wonderful things can happen.

Dan L
 
Mohammed was certainly violent. He set off to spread Islam by the sword. Even one of his wives was a warrior. Is this another rewrite of history ?
 
Tom,

Quit so. I was tip toeing around that issue but I did refer to his violent ways if obliquely. I’m really trying to understand how peaceful Muslims today support their position and if they believe they represent the appropriate expression of Islam how do they plan to standardize it.

Personally, I have little or no respect for Islam because its history is thoroughly violent. Yet, I’d love to be convinced that violence can be extracted from Islam…or better yet, that the Church has a plan to peacably evangelize Islamic peoples.

Dan L
 
tom.wineman said:
Mohammed was certainly violent. He set off to spread Islam by the sword. Even one of his wives was a warrior. Is this another rewrite of history ?
Click to expand...

Hello tom.wineman

Islam was spread by the sword? Please back this up.

Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion, here in the US and elsewhere. What is the reason for this? Are these people forced to convert?
 
40.png
Faith101:
Hello tom.wineman

Islam was spread by the sword? Please back this up.

Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion, here in the US and elsewhere. What is the reason for this? Are these people forced to convert?
Click to expand...
If Tom is able to show this or even if he isn’t I’d like you to be able to substantiate your assertion that Muhammad led Americans to convert.

Dan L
 
40.png
GregoryPalamas:
If Tom is able to show this or even if he isn’t I’d like you to be able to substantiate your assertion that Muhammad led Americans to convert.

Dan L
Click to expand...
Mohamed’s message is what many Americans are recognizing as TRUTH.

I dont understand what you mean when you ask me to get evidence for the idea that Mohamed is leading Americans to convert.

The message of truth that those of 7th century Arabia recognized and were then willing to submit fully to God, is the same message that those of 21st century americans are recognizing as truth.

Please rephrase your question. Thanks 🙂
 
No need to. You claimed that Muhammad was not violent because Americans are converting. Prove the connection.

Muhammad was a very violent warrior. There’s no secret about that. Many towns converted without too much bloodshed but many that didn’t convert found themselves at the end of the sword at M’s hand.

Read: Bat Ye’or, “The Dhimmi” or “The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam.”

Now prove Muhammad’s connection to America.

Dan L
 
40.png
Faith101:
Islam was spread by the sword? Please back this up.
Click to expand...
Faith101,

How about the first 25 years after the death of Muhammad to start?
633 Conquest of southern Mesopotamia.

634 Victory against the Byzantines in Palestine (Ajnadayn).

634-44 The caliphate of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. The Muslims subjugate Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia and Persia. Garrisons established in the conquered lands, and the Muslim rulers begin to take control of financial organisation.

635 Damascus submits to the Muslims.

636 Defeat of a powerful Byzantine army (Yarmuk River) delivers Syria to the Muslims. Muslims occupy Damascus.

636 (?) The Arabs under Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas defeat a Sasanian army in the battle of Qadisiyya (near Hira), gaining Iraq west of the Tigris. A second victory follows at Jalula, near Ctesiphon.

638 Council of Jabiya (Syria): 'Umar confers with the Prophet’s companions on the division and organisation of the domains acquired in the conquests; thereafter the setting up of the Diwan (army lists) that become the basis of pensions around 640.

Conquest of Jerusalem.

The garrison towns of Basra (founded 635) and Kufa become centers for the military government of Iraq, and the starting point for further campaigns of conquest east and north.

639-42 Conquest of Egypt (642 taking of Alexandria) by 'Amr ibn al-'As. Taking of the sea port of Caesarea in Palestine - end of the Byzantine presence in Syria.

640-42 Conquest of Persia (640 Khuzistan; 641 decisive battle of Nihavand in the Zagros).

641 Conquest of Mosul (upper Mesopotamia) and of Babylon in Egypt (Arab garrison, Fustat, established south of the future Cairo).

642 Conquest of Alexandria. Campaign to Barqa (Tripolitania, 642-43)

643 Campaigns to the coast of Makran and southeast Iran.

644-56 Murder of the Caliph 'Umar (644). Caliphate of 'Uthman. Continuation of the conquests in north and east Iran and North Africa. Inter-tribal conflicts within the Islamic state over who will rule. from 645 Beginnings of Arab sea-power, directed against Byzantium.

645-6 Alexandria reconquered by the Byzantines, retaken by the Muslims.

647 Conquest of Tripolitania. First Arab campaigns in North Africa.

649 Beginning of war at sea against Byzantium and the conquest of Cyprus .

649 - 50 Conquest of Persepolis, the capital of south central Iran (Fars) and center of Zoroastrianism.

Need more? It is unquestionable that Islam conquered the middle east at the tip of the sword, and forced Islam on the conquered. Christianity conquered Rome, but did so with the blood of martyrs who did ***not ***fight their enemies. Rather, they loved them, and they died at their enemies hands. And with love, Christianity conquered the biggest empire the world has ever known. No armies. No swords. No spears. Only love, and that from God. This is the first three centuries of Christianity. Islam shed blood with violence on a ghastly scale within the first three decades. Huge difference. I say this not to offend, but to show history. If you can show that Islam is a religion of peace, please show it.

Peace be with you,
RyanL
 
There is no central place of muslim rule any more on this earth like the catholics have with the vatican. When someone stands on their soapbox and starts saying whatever they what, there is no offical central body that can stop them. I not sure if I am saying this right. Here is an example; in latin america when the leaders of the catholic chruch started preaching liberation theology the vatican and john paul ll made the stand that liberation theology was not apart of chruch teachings.
nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Liberation-theology
You see the catholic chruch can do something about radicals but the only ones that can stop the radicals and bring the truth about islam are ordinary muslims who are sick and tried of having are religion taken over by other people. This is why I and others are on this form.
I hope this answers your question.
wa salam
 
oh and RyanL be nice, :tsktsk: , the answer you gave to faith101 is a double edge sword, Anybody can easily start listing what the chruch did to the Indians in north and south america.

wa salam
 
40.png
RyanL:
Faith101,

How about the first 25 years after the death of Muhammad to start?
Click to expand...
anyone can quote timeline events. but unless you actually read the historical accounts of these events you’ll never truly know whether islam spread by the sword or not. and people will be able to put whatever twist or apply whatever interpretation they wish to these events.

as for the assertion that islam was forced upon those the muslims conquered, this is not true and forcing people to accept islam is against what Allah mentions in the Quran, “there is no compulsion in religion.” (2:256). anyone who checks the Quranic exegisis will find that this is what this verse refers to: forcing peope to accept islam.

back to the spread of islam, when the muslims set out and the islamic empire began to grow, the muslims had strict instructions and procedures with respect to conduct of war against non-muslims and fighting them. the first of which was to call them to islam. to send people to them inviting them to accept Allah’s word and embrace islam. if they refused, then they were given other options: fight or surrender and pay the jizyah.
 
40.png
r.gonzales:
to send people to them inviting them to accept Allah’s word and embrace islam. if they refused, then they were given other options: fight or surrender and pay the jizyah.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, that’s sooo much more compassionate.
 
40.png
fatuma:
There is no central place of muslim rule any more on this earth like the catholics have with the vatican. When someone stands on their soapbox and starts saying whatever they what, there is no offical central body that can stop them. I not sure if I am saying this right. Here is an example; in latin america when the leaders of the catholic chruch started preaching liberation theology the vatican and john paul ll made the stand that liberation theology was not apart of chruch teachings.
nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Liberation-theology
You see the catholic chruch can do something about radicals but the only ones that can stop the radicals and bring the truth about islam are ordinary muslims who are sick and tried of having are religion taken over by other people. This is why I and others are on this form.
I hope this answers your question.
wa salam
Click to expand...
It follows then that you support: 1. America’s protection of the Shias and Kurds in Iraq and the overthrow of Sadaam; 2. America’s overthrow of the Taliban and disruption of Al Qaeda; 3. America’s diplomatic efforts to get Khartoum to stop slaughtering people; and 4. America’s efforts to get Hezbolla, Hamas, and the PLO to stop blowing people to hell. It also follows that you condemn the West’s continued reliance upon Middle Eastern oil which only goes to shore up the Wahhabists and the House of Saud.

Now, show us what the average Muslim is doing to stop tyranny and oppression.

Dan L
 
40.png
r.gonzales:
anyone can quote timeline events. but unless you actually read the historical accounts of these events you’ll never truly know whether islam spread by the sword or not. and people will be able to put whatever twist or apply whatever interpretation they wish to these events.

as for the assertion that islam was forced upon those the muslims conquered, this is not true and forcing people to accept islam is against what Allah mentions in the Quran, “there is no compulsion in religion.” (2:256). anyone who checks the Quranic exegisis will find that this is what this verse refers to: forcing peope to accept islam.

back to the spread of islam, when the muslims set out and the islamic empire began to grow, the muslims had strict instructions and procedures with respect to conduct of war against non-muslims and fighting them. the first of which was to call them to islam. to send people to them inviting them to accept Allah’s word and embrace islam. if they refused, then they were given other options: fight or surrender and pay the jizyah.
Click to expand...
In other words, “convert or die”. How is this not spreading Islam by the sword? There are documents upon documents showing that entire Jewish and Christian towns were wiped out or the people were systematically killed by Muslims before the people “converted” to even begin to take seriously your denial that such happened.

The issue is not whether Islam grew by attacking with the sword. The issue is “When will you stop?” When you will Muslims stop killing people in order to “convert” the survivors? Christians are more than willing to forgive but you also must stop.

Dan L
 
40.png
GregoryPalamas:
If I’m understanding most of the Muslim posters here they contend that Islam (pure, traditional, etc.) is not violent by nature and those who are aren’t truely Muslim. Am I correct?

If so what does this imply? Let’s assume that this assumption is correct. All violent people who claim the name Islam and claim to follow Allah are not real Muslims and are in fact the enemy of true Islam.
  1. What percentage of those claiming to be Muslims are really not Muslims at all because of their violent behavior? I know that several have shown a penchant for not answering questions but rather make ignore the question and then attack the quesioner. I ask that you please resist this temptation. My question is a serious one.
  2. If in fact those who are violent are not really Muslims how far do you carry that distinction? Was Abu Bakr a true Muslim? Was Muhammad a true Muslim when he oversaw the destruction of the first three Jewish villages before he declared the Dhimma? Did he become a Muslim again after the Dhimma was declared? What of the series of empires that killed and enslaved countless numbers of Christians and Jews? Were the Ummayads and Ottomons truly Muslim or were they actually enemies of Islam? Are the Wahhabists truly Muslim? What about the Sufi Ayatollah Khomeini? Are these examples of true Muslims or are they in fact the enemies of Islam? After eliminating those who aren’t true Muslims who is left?
Schwartz claims that only about 10% of those claiming to be Muslim are actually enemies of Islam, ie, they are actually violent radicals who kill almost anyone who disagrees with them. If this is true, why do they seem to have such widespread support among so many in Islam? Are most who support these violent acts actually unaware that trying to wipe out entire populations of people actually anti-Islamic? Schwartz also claims that 90% of Islam is actually peace loving traditional Muslims. If so, where do the traditional peace loving Muslims live?
  1. Finally, if you are correct that true Islam is actually only trying to convert the world by peaceful means and that the violent people claiming to be Muslims must be resisted how do you propose doing that? Are there efforts afoot to counteract the terrible and nearly ubiquitous influence of the Wahhabists? Are there efforts afoot to retake Medina and Mecca from these nutballs? If traditional Islam, peace loving to be sure, are making efforts to drive out the Wahhabists and to renounce the violent actions of those claiming to be Muslim but aren’t is there anything than non-Muslims can do to help you do this?
One thing I can think of is to stop buying oil from any country that supports violence and to boycott those nations so they can’t sell oil to anyone else. Would you support that action? What else might we do?

Let’s cut to the chase. I’m quite serious. If you are peace loving and want the truth about peace loving Islam to get out there must be some ways to do this? After all, we don’t wish to be blown to smithereens by these nutballs either. Moreover, I think in a fair exchange of ideas without threats of violence that some wonderful things can happen.

Dan L
Click to expand...
I would very much like to believe that Islam can take its place among the great religions of the world. I would very much like to believe that Islam can confine itself to reasonable discourse and use reason and pray rather than war to gain converts. I know that most of the Muslims I’ve met seem to be peace loving pursuers of truth. Yet, as more and more of my questions are ignored I suspect they are ignored because they cannot be answered. I suspect that world-wide Islam needs to clean up its act before it can be taken seriously by serious people.

But I’ll give it another try. Please answer my questions above.

Dan L
 
40.png
Faith101:
Mohamed’s message is what many Americans are recognizing as TRUTH.
Click to expand...
**The truth??? What a joke!:rotfl: **

The truth is that Mohammed was a false prophet!
 
40.png
Faith101:
Hello tom.wineman

Islam was spread by the sword? Please back this up.

Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion, here in the US and elsewhere. What is the reason for this? Are these people forced to convert?
Click to expand...
Islam is getting people like Mike Tyson to convert. They are not getting the devout people to convert.

One reason why it is the fastest growing in the US is because it is one of the smallest. Small religions grow fast. If you have 5 people, and you get 5 people to join you, that is 100% growth.
 
40.png
GregoryPalamas:
No need to. You claimed that Muhammad was not violent because Americans are converting. Prove the connection.

Muhammad was a very violent warrior. There’s no secret about that. Many towns converted without too much bloodshed but many that didn’t convert found themselves at the end of the sword at M’s hand.

Read: Bat Ye’or, “The Dhimmi” or “The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam.”

Now prove Muhammad’s connection to America.

Dan L
Click to expand...
hey Dan

Ahhh i see. So you believe that Islam started out by killing anyone who didnt convert? And now, astonishingly, thousands of people are accepting it as their way of life without any kind of force …sounds kind of odd.

What I am trying to tell you, is that it is the message of Mohamed (not his sword) that people hundred of years ago in arabia found to be the truth, and so they followed him and submitted to God. This is the same way people in America are coming to Islam…by recognizing the truth. No force then, no force now.

Mohamed (pbuh) never forced anyone to convert…it is against the teachings of Islam…In the Quran, God says:

**Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. ** ((THe Holy Quran 2:256)

I know i tend to babble on so please let me know if there is somthing you dont undestand in what i wrote… 🙂
 
Booklover said:
**The truth??? What a joke!:rotfl: **

The truth is that Mohammed was a false prophet!
Click to expand...

Mohamed’s message is the same message of Abraham and Moses and Jesus…so to a growing 1.2 billion people on this earth, he was not a false prophet, but the last messenger in a line of messengers
 
40.png
fatuma:
oh and RyanL be nice, :tsktsk: , the answer you gave to faith101 is a double edge sword, Anybody can easily start listing what the chruch did to the Indians in north and south america.

wa salam
Click to expand...
There is a difference. Ryan is talking specifically about the first 25 years of Islam. He does not mention anything after that. If you look at the begining of Christianity, you will not see violent Christians. Christianity was built on martyrdom. Islam was built by the sword. If you want to look later in history, yes you will find Christians doing evil things, but that is not how it was built.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top