Understanding Islamic Views

[swariffin]

Islam means “submission to the will of God and obedience to His law”.
so according to this meaning , they are all muslims

Nowhere in the Bible will you find God saying to Prophet Moses’ people or their descendants that their religion is Judaism, nor to the followers of Christ that their religion is Christianity.

The religion of Islam is not named after a person as in the case of Christianity which was named after Jesus Christ (AS). Buddhism after Gotama Buddha, and Confucianism after Confucius. Nor was it named after a tribe like Judaism after the tribe of Judah and Hinduism after the Hindus. Islam is the true religion of “Allah (God)” and as such, its name represents the central principle of Allah’s religion: the total submission to the will of Allah (God).

Man possesses the quality of intelligence and choice, thus he is invited to submit to the good will of God and obey His law (i.e. become a Muslim).

If all man submissive to Allah is Islam, then why Muhammad require you to mention the shahada?

You are wrong saying tha Christian called themselves as Christian. It was the Anthiokian did (not necessarily Anthiokian Christian). See Act 11:26.

You are wrong saying Confucius taught religion. Confucianism is not religion. It is Philosophy. The teaching is called Di Ji Gui. You don’t know much about Chinese then.

If Islam is submission to God and follow His laws. What law did Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and all people prior to Muhammad followed? The Thorah? Thorah said that camel is Haram, but Muhammad allowed you to eat camel. Thorah said that crabs, squids, shrimps are Haram, and yet muslims eat those.

If I use my intelligence, and seeing myself that muslims are burning churches in the name of God, it is more and more unintelligent for me to become muslims. You people are robbing the power of God. Therefore, you cannot be submissive to God.

 

[swariffin]

may be

So, who is more submissive to God. Omar or modern muslims?

BTW, you still have not answer my question:
Why muslims has to face Kabah during praying? => Answered, a good one
Does Allah stay/live in Kabah? => The answer is no, an honest one
Why Allah order the muslim to face Kabah where Allah is not there? => deflected into the presence of Allah, while you agree with me that Allah can be anywhere.

Now the rephrased question. Why Allah ordered the muslim to face Kabah while Allah can be anywhere? Human being must always face God when praying, don’t you agree? You can’t point your “AXX” to God, can you?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Elwill,

My understanding is that between 632 AD and 800 AD all of what we now call the middle east, parts of India, north Africa and parts of Spain were conquered by Arabs - spreading Islam as the main reason for conquest. friesian.com/islam.htm Now, there were Arab pirates who may have had personal enrichment as a prime motivator, but their contribution to the spread of Islam is not exactly clear to me.

This is not to say that Arab traders did not spread Islam through peaceful means. But, when one simply looks at a map describing how this group of believers in Mohammad took over such a large tract of land - in such a short time period and then reads about Islamic conquest - it fits together. Here is a link: friesian.com/islam.htm

But, please, let us not get bogged down in discussing historic items - just look around at the news that presents itself every day to those who have eyes and ears to see and hear. For a Muslim to stand and while holding the Koran, procliam that Mohammad was a prophet in any US city would not be a cause for his arrest and execution. For a Christian to stand while holdig the Bible and proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God would have dramatically different results in a Mulsim controlled country. If you were to buy a Bible in your country and publically burn it in the US (assuming you were not creating a fire hazard!) no one would arrest you or call for your death. If someone were to buy a Koran and do the same in a Mulsim country again we would have different results.

The point is not to show that there are differences between countries - of course there are. The point is to show that Islam and tolerance (even for ‘people of the Book’) is virtually non-existant today. Those who would advocate tolerance are not heard and those who would condemn violance against others are effectively silenced. The way it looks to me is that the only ones being heard are the ones calling for our death.

So, while you may have difficulty finding a link identifying that people were killed during the Islamic Conquest of the middle ages (don’t forget to look at the one I just provided) I am confident you will not have trouble finding current links to Islamic violence. My idea is that there is a historic link between the violence first seen in the Islamic Conquest and the violence we see today. The only real difference is that the violence has usually benefitted from advanced technolgy and explosives.

Surely there must be a warning bell going off somewhere that people who are encouraged to strap on suicide vests and kill innocent women and children - non-combatants - is doing something morally wrong.

If this feeling of revulsion for such wanton slaughter of innocents is missing - then I truly do not understand Islamic views.

God bless

i just asking about these reports which says that muslims were murdering anyone who didn’t choose islam through their conquests , i didn’t say it’s fantasy yet , i just need to read it
you gave us a link and said that it’s usefull , unfortunatly i didn’t find the link support your view

my objection was about this statement exactly
“And, for hundreds of years unknown numbers of people were simply murdered for not agreeing that Mohammad was what the Muslims claimed him to be”
which period and which country , and what is your reference for this clear indictment

well , i was just describe the root meaning of the word “islam” and the word " muslim"
although i believe that people convert to islam with a free a choice but actually it wasn’t my point at all

i’m sure that you trying to be fair in your conclusions , i’m trying to be fair either , that’s why i’m trying to verify from what you said

for the sake of benefits and exchange true knowledge and history , read carefully this link , it contains various openions about spread of islam
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam

 

[Cinette]

*Elwill I hope you will read Tom’s post carefully and with an open mind. If you should refute its contents then I really don’t know!

Tell me - if you were to convert to Christianity what would your family and friends say? What would they do? Would you still be welcome in their midst?

Do you have freewill?

Cinette*

 

[elwill]

Who destroyed the first KaBah built by Adam, Angels, Whoever?

It seems to me there is no agreement on who build KaBah at the first time. Who knows that it was only a myth.

i don’t know how it was destroyed in the first time

 

[Kitsune633]

So, who is more submissive to God. Omar or modern muslims?

BTW, you still have not answer my question:
Why muslims has to face Kabah during praying? => Answered, a good one
Does Allah stay/live in Kabah? => The answer is no, an honest one
Why Allah order the muslim to face Kabah where Allah is not there? => deflected into the presence of Allah, while you agree with me that Allah can be anywhere.

Now the rephrased question. Why Allah ordered the muslim to face Kabah while Allah can be anywhere? Human being must always face God when praying, don’t you agree? You can’t point your “AXX” to God, can you?

Allow me to answer that question:

When Muhammed started his religion, he told his followers to pray towards Jerusalem, but then he changed his mind and said to his followers to pray towards Mecca. Of course, Mecca back then was full of pagan idols until Muhammed came and destroyed them, but he couldn’t bring himself to destroy the Black Rock, the supreme symbolism of the Arabian earth and rock god. He couldn’t destroy this last idol because Muhammed participated in the Hajj long before Islam was founded. So in a sense, when Muslims pray towards Mecca, they don’t pray towards Allah/God, instead, they pray towards the shrine of a pagan idol.

 

[elwill]

If all man submissive to Allah is Islam, then why Muhammad require you to mention the shahada?

quran said that abraham and mosa and jachob and jesus and followers of jesus and joseph and many other prophets that they are muslims
they didn’t see mohammed (pbuh) and they never talked arabic to say shahada , that’s why i described for you what the quran means in general when it mentions “islam” or " muslim"

whatever i believe that all prophets came with the same core massage " to worship God alone and obey him "
when mosas came with this massage his followers surely believed in mosas as prophet from God
followers of abraham surely believed that abraham is a prophet from God
followers of jachob surely believed he is a prophet from God
from islamic point of view . followers of jesus believed that jesus is a prophet from God

the same with muslims who are followers to the last prophet of the same relegion of allah "islam " , they witnessed that mohammed is their prophet from God

from another point of view
in the judgment day , we believe that only muslims will enter paradise
who are muslims ?
true followers of jesus and true followers of mosas and true followers of mohammed and true followers of each prophet are muslims

 

[scipio337]

…for the sake of benefits and exchange true knowledge and history , read carefully this link , it contains various openions about spread of islam
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam

This other article is not so generous:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion#Practice

I would say the spread of Islam was due to a variety of reasons: better economic/social standing in lands conquered by armed Muslim conquest, better social mobility than in say, the Hindu caste system, forced conversions, avoiding paying the jizya, etc, but forced conversions was one of the contributing factors.

For the record, I don’t condone treating people of other faiths as a different class, or giving them different rights, or restricting their free worship. It surprises me to find many Muslims who do (support of the death penalty for apostacy, the jizya, etc).

 

[elwill]

So, who is more submissive to God. Omar or modern muslims?

BTW, you still have not answer my question:
Why muslims has to face Kabah during praying? => Answered, a good one
Does Allah stay/live in Kabah? => The answer is no, an honest one
Why Allah order the muslim to face Kabah where Allah is not there? => deflected into the presence of Allah, while you agree with me that Allah can be anywhere.

Now the rephrased question. Why Allah ordered the muslim to face Kabah while Allah can be anywhere? Human being must always face God when praying, don’t you agree? You can’t point your “AXX” to God, can you?

may be it was imposed by God to maintain unity and uniformity among worshipers.

 

[elwill]

This other article is not so generous:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion#Practice

I would say the spread of Islam was due to a variety of reasons: better economic/social standing in lands conquered by armed Muslim conquest, better social mobility than in say, the Hindu caste system, forced conversions, avoiding paying the jizya, etc, but forced conversions was one of the contributing factors.

For the record, I don’t condone treating people of other faiths as a different class, or giving them different rights, or restricting their free worship. It surprises me to find many Muslims who do (support of the death penalty for apostacy, the jizya, etc).

the section which talking about islam in this link have a note from wiki says
“The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (July 2010)”

try to visit the discussion on this article , you will read the following

“The sources for this article are at present nowhere near what is required in Wikipedia. As this is largely a historical article, can I suggest we stick to books and scholarly articles by historians.”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Elwill,

You realize that there is nothing out there that can not be disputed…

the section which talking about islam in this link have a note from wiki says
“The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (July 2010)”

try to visit the discussion on this article , you will read the following

“The sources for this article are at present nowhere near what is required in Wikipedia. As this is largely a historical article, can I suggest we stick to books and scholarly articles by historians.”

You did not like the sites I gave you and you are questioning this one … Elwill… this is not getting any easier.

Sword? What sword??? I guess we could say that during the mid 4th - 9th Centuries Arab traders - with unbeatable bargains and incredible goods - and the sheer force of their persuasive salesmanship - took over the middle east, north Africa and Spain! Grateful shoppers just handed over their government to these incredible traders. And to this day they still talk about the “Great Islamic Sales Event” that changed the world… I really do not have a link for this … and, obviously, I have gotten carried away trying to hide the fruits of the Islamic Conquest…!

What I did ask you to do was to look at the current world news - and the positive contribution that radical Muslims with suicide vests are making to the world’s grave yards. Can you envision Popes John Paul II or Benedict XVI screaming for the heads of Muslims?, sending believers out to blow themselves up and take as many Muslims with them as possible? Maybe calling for someone to fly a hijacked plane into the Dome of the Rock? But, somehow screams for blood from the local mosque are OK? (well that is just talk!) People blowing up children (mistakenly one assumes) instead of targeted politicians (this is almost regretable BUT, somehow, no one condems this!) This is today’s news out of Kabul: articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/02/world/la-fg–afghanistan-children-killed-20100803 Go to your own sources for news and see if this event is reported - and, then how it is reported. Are the children at fault?

So, not to put too fine a point on this … but, just what is it that you want understood? Can’t we at least agree that killing innocent non-combatants - 6 children in this case - is evil. In my opinion someone should be taking a serious stand to condemn these actions - but, what we hear is that they have been promised 40 virgins. No one can do evil to bring about a good. Evil is evil and what you are witnessing and reading about is pure evil - the hatred for life - not only the lives of others who may not agree with you but even your own life (as evidenced by the suicides that are encouraged and paid for by those supporting radical Islam). In my view, your religion has been kidnapped … I will let you figure out just who is responsible for this.

God bless

 

[cathdoki]

Tom,

It’s pointless. You’re shoveling against the tide. Being blind to the truth is being blind to the truth. That is why the CC looks at non-Christians and uses the term invincible ignorance. If you are told the truth. If you are shown the truth, it is no longer invincible ignorance. It is a total rejection of Christ. That’s where this thread was going.

 

[elwill]

Hi, Elwill,

My understanding is that between 632 AD and 800 AD all of what we now call the middle east, parts of India, north Africa and parts of Spain were conquered by Arabs - spreading Islam as the main reason for conquest. friesian.com/islam.htm Now, there were Arab pirates who may have had personal enrichment as a prime motivator, but their contribution to the spread of Islam is not exactly clear to me.

This is not to say that Arab traders did not spread Islam through peaceful means. But, when one simply looks at a map describing how this group of believers in Mohammad took over such a large tract of land - in such a short time period and then reads about Islamic conquest - it fits together. Here is a link: friesian.com/islam.htm

i understand your point , i just wanted to make sure that’s it’s not more than conclusions , not historical facts

if you can’t believe that it’s very possible for islam to be spread peacefully , watch these news , it’s from your own media
youtube.com/watch?v=_l8EOvBIYQA
youtube.com/watch?v=_IflJv0agwI&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=Sttxum41Z08
youtube.com/watch?v=FYSHG5s6hiE&feature=PlayList&p=7FB090D5671488B5&playnext=1&index=23

youtube.com/watch?v=pzLhYwwFQKY&feature=related

But, please, let us not get bogged down in discussing historic items - just look around at the news that presents itself every day to those who have eyes and ears to see and hear. For a Muslim to stand and while holding the Koran, procliam that Mohammad was a prophet in any US city would not be a cause for his arrest and execution. For a Christian to stand while holdig the Bible and proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God would have dramatically different results in a Mulsim controlled country. If you were to buy a Bible in your country and publically burn it in the US (assuming you were not creating a fire hazard!) no one would arrest you or call for your death. If someone were to buy a Koran and do the same in a Mulsim country again we would have different results.

 

[scipio337]

the section which talking about islam in this link have a note from wiki says
“The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (July 2010)”

try to visit the discussion on this article , you will read the following

“The sources for this article are at present nowhere near what is required in Wikipedia. As this is largely a historical article, can I suggest we stick to books and scholarly articles by historians.”

That comment in the discussion is 4 years old, and a rebuttal is provided.

Do you see the sources?

“An Introduction to Islam” Cambridge University Press. p. 53

evidence relating to the process of Islamization in Palestine in the Early Muslim Period - The Case of Samaria", in: Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 43 (3), p. 257-276, 2000

etc.

I would call those “scholarly”. Do you dispute that forced conversions were practiced?

When I bring up the military expansion of the Caliphates, the only Muslim response I’ve received was “they attacked Muslims first, so the Muslims conquered them”.

 

[cathdoki]

That comment in the discussion is 4 years old, and a rebuttal is provided.

Do you see the sources?

“An Introduction to Islam” Cambridge University Press. p. 53

evidence relating to the process of Islamization in Palestine in the Early Muslim Period - The Case of Samaria", in: Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 43 (3), p. 257-276, 2000

etc.

I would call those “scholarly”. Do you dispute that forced conversions were practiced?

When I bring up the military expansion of the Caliphates, the only Muslim response I’ve received was “they attacked Muslims first, so the Muslims conquered them”.

What Elwil refuses to see is that the initial Crusades were wars of defense against heretics that invaded and subjected Christians.

 

[elwill]

Hi, Elwill,

You realize that there is nothing out there that can not be disputed…

theire is somethings called " facts"

You did not like the sites I gave you and you are questioning this one … Elwill… this is not getting any easier.

where did i said that your sites is bad , i just said that it dosn’t support your conclusions ,

What I did ask you to do was to look at the current world news - and the positive contribution that radical Muslims with suicide vests are making to the world’s grave yards. Can you envision Popes John Paul II or Benedict XVI screaming for the heads of Muslims?, sending believers out to blow themselves up and take as many Muslims with them as possible? Maybe calling for someone to fly a hijacked plane into the Dome of the Rock? But, somehow screams for blood from the local mosque are OK? (well that is just talk!) People blowing up children (mistakenly one assumes) instead of targeted politicians (this is almost regretable BUT, somehow, no one condems this!) This is today’s news out of Kabul: articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/02/world/la-fg–afghanistan-children-killed-20100803

Go to your own sources for news and see if this event is reported - and, then how it is reported. Are the children at fault?

So, not to put too fine a point on this … but, just what is it that you want understood? Can’t we at least agree that killing innocent non-combatants - 6 children in this case - is evil. In my opinion someone should be taking a serious stand to condemn these actions - but, what we hear is that they have been promised 40 virgins. No one can do evil to bring about a good. Evil is evil and what you are witnessing and reading about is pure evil - the hatred for life - not only the lives of others who may not agree with you but even your own life (as evidenced by the suicides that are encouraged and paid for by those supporting radical Islam). In my view, your religion has been kidnapped … I will let you figure out just who is responsible for this.

well , i allready gave you site which collect condemnations of muslims for terrorism

 

[elwill]

That comment in the discussion is 4 years old, and a rebuttal is provided.

Do you see the sources?

“An Introduction to Islam” Cambridge University Press. p. 53

evidence relating to the process of Islamization in Palestine in the Early Muslim Period - The Case of Samaria", in: Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 43 (3), p. 257-276, 2000

etc.

I would call those “scholarly”. Do you dispute that forced conversions were practiced?

When I bring up the military expansion of the Caliphates, the only Muslim response I’ve received was “they attacked Muslims first, so the Muslims conquered them”.

may be the rebutall wasn’t convinced to wiki site , that’s why that note still their

 

[scipio337]

What Elwil refuses to see is that the initial Crusades were wars of defense against heretics that invaded and subjected Christians.

A sad fact that many overlook.

While many in the Muslim world consider “the West” and more specifically, the United States (and/or Israel) as an oppressive, expansive, imperial power, Islam held the upper hand for well over a millenia. The Levant is the cradle of Christianity, where St. Paul established many of the first churches, Damascas was an early Christian center, St. Augustine’s North Africa, the birth of the monastic movement in Egypt, and birthplace of many of the names central to Christianity: St. John of Damascus, Eusebius, Origen, Athanasius, etc.

Spain was under Muslim rule for 781 years. Greece for 381. My parent’s native Sicily for 189 years. Compare to British control of Syria for 21 years, Egypt for 67, and Israel’s control of parts of the Levant for 62.

 

[scipio337]

may be the rebutall wasn’t convinced to wiki site , that’s why that note still their

Anyone can create a POV dispute on Wiki. All you have to do is open an account.

 

[cathdoki]

I have just received the August 9th Time Magazine in the mail. On the front Cover is an 18 year old girl (ironically) named Aisha. She had her nose and ears cut off last year on order from the Taliban (I think they’re muslims) because “she fled abusive in-laws”. Also inside is a picture of a woman and her baby. She was child bride and ran away from an abusive husband. The picture says it all.

I think I have a pretty good understanding of islamic views. Men are superior and women are property to be traded, used, abused, and have to cover themselves because the men around them can’t control themselves.