This is Islam

[Contarini]

mike182d:

The reason being is that Jews did not suffer similar persecution during this time.

You are completely wrong. Heraclius, the Byzantine emperor at the time when the Muslims invaded, was a vicious persecutor of Jews (he also tried to wipe out the remaining pagans). Granted, he had some cause–when the Persians had invaded, the Jews had risen up in support.

Actually, I’m not sure where the claims that Muslims were being persecuted prior to the invasion are coming from. I side with you on that one–there were no Muslims in the Byzantine Empire by definition, so they weren’t being persecuted. Bedouin Arabs from the desert had been raiding both Roman and Persian empires for years, and vice versa. The Muslim invasions should be understood in that context. What had been petty raids back and forth became a war to conquer what the Muslims understood to be “tyrannical” empires and impose the law of God on them. Until the capture of Constantinople, the Byzantine emperor was regularly referred to by Muslims as the “tyrant” and war against him was considered a sacred duty. The Muslims unquestionably waged wars of aggression in the name of Allah. But they waged these wars against empires that were themselves highly aggressive and which saw themselves as ordained by God to rule the world. That doesn’t justify the wars of Islamic conquest. But we need to put them in perspective.

Edwin

 

[deen]

Irenicist:

There are millions of well educated Arabic-speaking Christians. The argument hasn’t convinced them because no Muslim is ever going to admit that a verse can be textually improved, for fear of blaspheming.

Irenicist

Did they even try? There was a Christian missionary named Shuroosh who presented a sample in public. The Muslims welcomed it and the guy is still alive and enjoying his freedom. Besides, if they are afraid, let them present it in the net using another name.

peace,

deen

 

[deen]

mike182d:

Who in Spain was being oppressed or had attacked Muslims? Did the whole of Asia Minor oppress Muslims or try to attack them? The first millenia of Islamic war was about conquest. Otherwise, why would Muhammed have sought expansion after “liberating” Mecca? Muhammed didn’t take a walking stick to try to evangelize the truth of Islam to the rest of the world; he created a military powerhouse.

What historical evidence do you have that any of the battles and wars Muhammed and Abu Bakr involved themselves in were in defense or to free oppressed peoples? I have a hard time finding any accurate resources apart from mere conjecture by proponents.

Oppressed peoples include the non-Muslims who live under tyranny. Thanks for citing Spain because it is a perfect example. Did’nt the Christians and Jews at that time enjoyed better life, education, legal and social systems when Islam governed them?

Note also how Islam spread in asia like Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines without any Muslim army going there.

peace,

deen

 

[mike182d]

Contarini:

You are completely wrong. Heraclius, the Byzantine emperor at the time when the Muslims invaded, was a vicious persecutor of Jews (he also tried to wipe out the remaining pagans). Granted, he had some cause–when the Persians had invaded, the Jews had risen up in support.

Well, there were isolated instances of persecution, I won’t deny that. Jews and Christians had quite a few tussles after Constantine, although I’m sure a lot of it had to do with their rebellion and the Romans unwillingness to tolerate their insubordination to the Empire any more.

Yes, it is true that Jews were persecuted by certain Christians and Christian kingdoms, but the Christian faith maintained that amicable relationships were to be maintained with the Jews and they were to be respected - formally proclaimed by Pope Gregory the Great in 590.

However, Christianity has an advantage in this discussion because the religion is able to make a clear distinction between faith and government rule. With the Muslims, the Islamic rule of faith is also the rule of law and there is no seperation. Thus, when an Islamic nation goes to war, there’s a greater connection to the religion than if, say, Theodosis goes to war.

 

[deen]

Was Islam Spread by the Sword?

For those who insist that Islam was spread by the sword (i.e. by forced conversion), we would like to ask:

**a. ** How is it that there are estimated to be up to 14 million indigenous non-Muslims (mainly Christians and Jews) in the Middle East, living in the predominantly Muslim countries? If Islam was spread by the sword, such a number could not have still existed. (By contrast, when the Christians conquered Spain after 8 centuries of Muslim rule, not a single Muslim or Jew was allowed to survive and live there.)

b. What explains the historical fact that Islam spread faster during times of peace than of war (e.g. after the Treaty of Hudaibiyyah)?

c. What explains the fact that people who conquered Muslims’ lands themselves converted to Islam after coming to know it (e.g. the Mongols).

d. What explains the fact that the majority of Muslims live in places where not a single Muslim soldier went (e.g. Indonesia which has the highest Muslim population in the world - more than 120 million).

**e. ** Which “Sword” is it that has made Islam presently the fastest growing religion in the world (especially in the West where Muslims are a minority with no military strength)? While there may be instances where Muslims failed to follow the teachings of Islam and attempted to convert by force, the **historical records show that Christianity has a far worse history of religious violence and forced conversions for example, the Spanish Inquisition (see (a) above), the Crusades and the conquest of the Americas. **

peace,

deen

 

[mike182d]

deen:

Did’nt the Christians and Jews at that time enjoyed better life, education, legal and social systems when Islam governed them?

Prior to the fall of Rome, no. After the fall, of course. The whole of the West was in shambles and anything would have been better for some kingdoms.

Furthermore, I have a hard time believing that the whole of Islamic conquest during the middle ages was a mission of liberating all persecuted people in the Byzantine Empire. What reason would a fledgling religion have to want to rid the world of tyranny shortly after its humble beginnings? If you can provide writings by the first caliphs, or even Muhammed himself, claiming that they were on a quest to rid the world of tyranny, I would be *very *surprised. In their writings they seem pretty focused on spreading the faith, not liberating people they’ve never met.

 

[Irenicist]

deen:

Did they even try? There was a Christian missionary named Shuroosh who presented a sample in public. The Muslims welcomed it and the guy is still alive and enjoying his freedom. Besides, if they are afraid, let them present it in the net using another name.

peace,

deen

You misunderstood. It’s not that Christians fear blaspheming or Muslim retaliation. It’s that they don’t believe any Muslim will ever acknowledge a verse has been improved, because for a Muslim to do so would be to blaspheme. Would Muslims be willing to let a commission of non-Muslim Arabic poets act as impartial judges and accept their determination? And if the verse was ruled as having been improved, would Muslims then abandon the claim that the orignial verse was the word of God? I think not. It’s a silly test.

Irenicist

 

[deen]

mike182d:

With the Muslims, the Islamic rule of faith is also the rule of law and there is no seperation. Thus, when an Islamic nation goes to war, there’s a greater connection to the religion than if, say, Theodosis goes to war.

Peace mikey!

Islam does not separate religion from politics because they all belong to The Creator. That’s why even in war, we have rules to follow so that we will not be mistreating the civilians, weak people and the prisoners. Islam is a complete way of life (deen) and it covers all the aspects of man’s life.

peace,

deen

 

[Contarini]

mike182d:

However, Christianity has an advantage in this discussion because the religion is able to make a clear distinction between faith and government rule. With the Muslims, the Islamic rule of faith is also the rule of law and there is no seperation. Thus, when an Islamic nation goes to war, there’s a greater connection to the religion than if, say, Theodosis goes to war.

I agree. This is a huge difference and it has allowed Christianity to develop a tradition of religious tolerance. But bear in mind that the Catholic Church only officially endorsed religious tolerance at Vatican II. Previously, the Catholic position was not that different from the standard Muslim one–nonbelievers were not to be forcibly converted, but false religions were to be restricted Catholicism imposed as the order of society whenever possible.

Edwin

 

[mike182d]

deen:

Islam does not separate religion from politics because they all belong to The Creator.

I don’t necessarily disagree with this belief either. Sometimes I wish America wouldn’t falsely make such a distinction…but alas.

 

[deen]

Irenicist:

You misunderstood. It’s not that Christians fear blaspheming or Muslim retaliation. It’s that they don’t believe any Muslim will ever acknowledge a verse has been improved, because for a Muslim to do so would be to blaspheme. Would Muslims be willing to let a commission of non-Muslim Arabic poets act as impartial judges and accept their determination? And if the verse was ruled as having been improved, would Muslims then abandon the claim that the orignial verse was the word of God? I think not. It’s a silly test.

Irenicist

Let them just try. Muslims are confident that they will always fail because even God mentioned it in the Koran. I dont see any problem if non_muslims will judge as long as they are using the same standard of arabic grammar and style in the Koran.

silly test? I don’t think so. It is a way of proving to the disbelievers that the Koran is really from God if they take the challenge.

peace,

deen

 

[Seeks_God]

deen:

Why did the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland resort to violence? Those ignorant Muslims can do whatever they think is right BUT it does not automatically mean that it is from Islam.

ISLAM IS NOT WHAT MUSLIMS DO. ISLAM IS WHAT MUSLIMS SHOULD DO.

deen

I think that is eloquently stated. When athiests use the Inquisitions, pedophilic priests, witch-hunts and other violent actions of Christians they also make the argument that “this is why religion is wrong.” Catholicism is what Christians should do…

SG

 

[Contarini]

deen:

**e. ** Which “Sword” is it that has made Islam presently the fastest growing religion in the world (especially in the West where Muslims are a minority with no military strength)? While there may be instances where Muslims failed to follow the teachings of Islam and attempted to convert by force, the **historical records show that Christianity has a far worse history of religious violence and forced conversions for example, the Spanish Inquisition (see (a) above), the Crusades and the conquest of the Americas. **

Christianity has also condemned forced conversion, though some instances can be found. The Inquisition itself had nothing to do with forced conversion–it applied only to people who had already become Christians. However, the Spanish government did compel Muslims and Jews to leave the country, so that they only way they could stay was to convert. Many (especially Jews–Muslims could just go across to North Africa) converted outwardly but continued to practice their religion in secret. The Inquisition went after these people brutally. This is unquestionably one of the nastiest episodes in Christian history, and you are right to hold it up to shame us.

The Crusades are a different story. They were no more instances of forced conversion than the initial Muslim wars of conquest. All the territory conquered by the Crusaders had originally been conquered by Muslims from Christians. While the Crusaders did massacre the inhabitants of Jerusalem after a difficult siege, they did not forcibly convert the inhabitants of the Holy Land. They adopted the same policy that Muslims had been using. So I see no grounds on which you can use the Crusades to show that Christians have forcibly converted people.

As for the Americas, the Catholic Church repeatedly condemned forced conversion, and many illustrious theologians held that the wars of conquest were unjust and that the Indian nations had a right to their land. (On the whole, Protestants have a worse record here.) However, there were a lot of atrocities and abuses, and I’m sure that on the ground the priests and friars often went along with some horrible stuff.

It seems pretty clear that today most of the religious violence in the world involves Muslims. While historically Muslims have had a relatively admirable record in terms of carrying out their mandate to conquer the world within fairly humane and honorable limits, today they are experiencing serious difficulties in adapting to a democratic and pluralistic world. Christians are having similar problems, but far less acutely. That isn’t an obvious knock-down argument against Islam. In many ways Islam’s resistance to modernity is admirable–most people on this board will agree with me that modernity is not always a good thing. But with regard to religious freedom, most of us think that it is. And Christianity has unquestionably found it easier to adopt principles of religious freedom than Islam has. Indeed, modern ideas of religious freedom derive from Christian, not Islamic civilization (even though those ideas did not originate with mainstream Christian churches, and until this century were opposed at least to some extent by the Catholic Church). I’m afraid you will not be able to persuade us Christians that this is pure coincidence.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

deen:

Why did the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland resort to violence? Those ignorant Muslims can do whatever they think is right BUT it does not automatically mean that it is from Islam.

deen:

I don’t think there’s any reasonable dispute that the “greater jihad” (i.e., war against non-Muslim regimes with the aim of imposing the shari’ah) has historically been regarded by most Muslims as a sacred calling. To claim otherwise is PC revisionism. On the other hand, I recognize that bin Laden’s atrocities violate historic Muslim consensus about legimate jihad. So I am certainly not claiming that 9/11 or similar acts are representative of Islam. Still, the willingness of many Muslims to condone some form of terrorism (even if not atrocities on the scale of 9/11) is disturbing, and has no parallel in contemporary Christianity. No parallel on a similar scale, I mean. You’re right that the religious/ethnic conflict in Ulster is very similar. But it’s an aberration taking place within the boundaries of one small province in one corner of Christendom.

deen:

ISLAM IS NOT WHAT MUSLIMS DO. ISLAM IS WHAT MUSLIMS SHOULD DO.

deen

As a historian, I have to reject this principle completely. And as a Christian, I don’t consider myself entitled to use it in defense of my own religion. People will often claim that the conflict in Ireland has “nothing to do with religion.” That’s total bunk. The conflict is not purely religious by any means, but it is indeed the last vestige of what was once a Europe-wide conflict between Protestants and Catholics. Christianity as a historic institution is responsible for Northern Ireland, and Islam as a historic institution is responsible for Bin Laden.

Of course this is a matter of definition. I prefer to look at religions as concrete historical realities, rather than as abstract ideals that we can shape as we will.

Edwin

 

[Eden]

Contarini:

deen:

Why did the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland resort to violence? Those ignorant Muslims can do whatever they think is right BUT it does not automatically mean that it is from Islam.

deen:

I don’t think there’s any reasonable dispute that the “greater jihad” (i.e., war against non-Muslim regimes with the aim of imposing the shari’ah) has historically been regarded by most Muslims as a sacred calling. To claim otherwise is PC revisionism. On the other hand, I recognize that bin Laden’s atrocities violate historic Muslim consensus about legimate jihad. So I am certainly not claiming that 9/11 or similar acts are representative of Islam. Still, the willingness of many Muslims to condone some form of terrorism (even if not atrocities on the scale of 9/11) is disturbing, and has no parallel in contemporary Christianity. No parallel on a similar scale, I mean. You’re right that the religious/ethnic conflict in Ulster is very similar. But it’s an aberration taking place within the boundaries of one small province in one corner of Christendom.

As a historian, I have to reject this principle completely. And as a Christian, I don’t consider myself entitled to use it in defense of my own religion. People will often claim that the conflict in Ireland has “nothing to do with religion.” That’s total bunk. The conflict is not purely religious by any means, but it is indeed the last vestige of what was once a Europe-wide conflict between Protestants and Catholics. Christianity as a historic institution is responsible for Northern Ireland, and Islam as a historic institution is responsible for Bin Laden.

Of course this is a matter of definition. I prefer to look at religions as concrete historical realities, rather than as abstract ideals that we can shape as we will.

Edwin

This thread is not about Northern Ireland but I’ll address your statement. No, religion is not the reason for the conflict in Northern Ireland. It is about ethnicity and politics. The religious strife is a symptom of the larger conflict as it is one of the few ways in which the two sides are easily identified and identify themselves. I mentioned before the idea of “narcissism of differences”. It is about the colonialization policies of Ireland by the British Crown which were unique to Ireland. I studied Political Science for four years under the tutelage of a “Northern Ireland expert” in which a trip to Northern Ireland was one facet of our studies. I’m also descended from the Ulster O’Neills (Catholic), Scotch-Irish (various Protestant faiths) and my dad is from England (C of E). This is not a foreign topic to me. If you’d like to start a new post on this, I’d love to join in.

 

[Deus_Vult]

Was Islam Spread by the Sword?

the **historical records show that Christianity has a far worse history of religious violence and forced conversions for example, the Spanish Inquisition (see (a) above), the Crusades and the conquest of the Americas. **

deen

No Roman Catholic will deny the violence of the past…the point is Muslims deny not only past but present violence that is so prevalent in its precepts. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.

 

[tmaconway]

As the Crusades were fought with the sword and rosary, so
must we fight Islam today.
Our brave soldiers are on the front lines with the sword.
We here at home must pray for the conversion of all Muslims
and that we will prevail in this fight.
We must pray that they denounce Allah and accept Jesus as
their Lord and Savior.
Until then Islam will be like a cancer on this earth.

 

[elizabeth4truth]

tmaconway:

As the Crusades were fought with the sword and rosary, so
must we fight Islam today.
Our brave soldiers are on the front lines with the sword.
We here at home must pray for the conversion of all Muslims
and that we will prevail in this fight.
We must pray that they denounce Allah and accept Jesus as
their Lord and Savior.
Until then Islam will be like a cancer on this earth.

As a Catholic I would never want anyone to denounce Allah. It is our Muslim brother’s and sister’s name for God. There are good and holy people in all religions. There are also those who make their religious affiliation look bad.

Peace,
Elizabeth

 

[Contarini]

tmaconway:

As the Crusades were fought with the sword and rosary, so
must we fight Islam today.
Our brave soldiers are on the front lines with the sword.
We here at home must pray for the conversion of all Muslims
and that we will prevail in this fight.
We must pray that they denounce Allah and accept Jesus as
their Lord and Savior.
Until then Islam will be like a cancer on this earth.

Are you going to make Arabic Christians denounce Allah as well? How can they denounce the Father of their Lord Jesus Christ? (Or didn’t you know that Arabic Christians use the term “Allah” for the Triune God, and were doing so long before Muhammad was born?)

Edwin

 

[Faith101]

exoflare:

Yeah, but only when you factor in the 72 virgins for each man that are inexplicably present there already.

EDIT: Okay, I’ll be objective then. In the whole history of planet earth it’s safe to say there will have been about 50% males and 50% females.

To keep up with this great scholar’s theory, let’s say for example, 60% of those in hell were females. 40% would be male, then.

By extension, 60% of those in heaven would have to be males, but yet the remaining 40% of all women that have ever lived on the planet (who didn’t end up damned) are going to outnumber them too somehow? Something’s gotta give.

It just means that eventually, there will be more female births than male…the end of that scholars statement went something like this “there are just more women” but i didnt include that b/c i didnt think it was relevant…but i guesss it is