Lets switch the words...

DiamondHearts said:
In short, this is exactly what islam teaches about war.
but should'nt any holy book, from an all loving creator, say absolutely nothing about war killing, murder, should'nt an all powerful being, eradicate war murder killing from the human mind set, if it is that powerful, why have these things in the first place, unless it is an evil creature and enjoys it.

should'nt the main words of any religious book be "dont harm any person, dont kill any person, directly or indirectly ever, this is the worst sin imaginable, and is punishable by a like for like, penance for eternity."
 
DiamondHearts said:
Allah (swt) tells us what He told the angels who were in the battle to help the Muslims. Allah (swt) says anyone who wars with him or challenges him, Allah (swt) Alone will deal with them.

If any army comes to fight your people, Allah (swt) says to prepare the Muslims for battle and make them ready to take on the enemy even if they are outnumbered because victory comes from Allah (swt).

Again, a verse about war.

Again, a verse about war. Sounds much different in its entirety, doesn't it.

In short, this is exactly what islam teaches about war.

Peace.

A religion that teaches war cannot possible have anything to do with peace.
 
Why if islam teaches peace did muhammeds followers wage so many wars of conquest? Kind of contradictory isn't it, and who would know muhammeds intentions with the quran better than his compatriots who knew him personally.
 
Islam spread by its ideals and virtues in a hostile environment and was immediately put on the defensive by both the Romans and Persians, yet due to faith in Allah (swt) and truth Islam spread like wild fire and is still continuing to spread.

Islamic religion is a way of life and describes in detail when it is right to fight and when it is right to be at peace. Islamic culture and history is based on the noble virtues of the Islamic religion, so we have much pride in our history.

If someone invades, colonizes, kicks you out (ex. Israel) = Fight back until you recover your land

If someone tries to kill you = Fight back, and either kill them, or if they stop and repent, you may forgive them

This is common sense.

Peace.
 
DiamondHearts said:
Islam spread by its ideals and virtues in a hostile environment and was immediately put on the defensive by both the Romans and Persians, yet due to faith in Allah (swt) and truth Islam spread like wild fire and is still continuing to spread.

Propaganda.

Islamic religion is a way of life and describes in detail when it is right to fight and when it is right to be at peace. Islamic culture and history is based on the noble virtues of the Islamic religion, so we have much pride in our history.

Do you mean the pride in murdering, raping and plundering that Islam has plagued mankind over the centuries?

If someone invades, colonizes, kicks you out (ex. Israel) = Fight back until you recover your land

If someone tries to kill you = Fight back, and either kill them, or if they stop and repent, you may forgive them

More violence, more killing.

This is common sense.

That is laughable. A religion that teaches one to kill will only lead to the destruction of mankind.
 
DiamondHearts said:
Islam spread by its ideals and virtues in a hostile environment and was immediately put on the defensive by both the Romans and Persians, yet due to faith in Allah (swt) and truth Islam spread like wild fire and is still continuing to spread.

Islamic religion is a way of life and describes in detail when it is right to fight and when it is right to be at peace. Islamic culture and history is based on the noble virtues of the Islamic religion, so we have much pride in our history.

If someone invades, colonizes, kicks you out (ex. Israel) = Fight back until you recover your land

If someone tries to kill you = Fight back, and either kill them, or if they stop and repent, you may forgive them

This is common sense.

Peace.

You are so utterly full of shit and ignorant of your own history it boggles the mind. Muslims armies INVADED the byzantine empire, the sassanin empire (that's right they did not invade arabia) and kept on going til they reached india in the east and france in the west.

Followers of a peaceful religion do not wage war in distant lands arabs burst out of the arabian peninsula bent on conquest in the name of thier new religion and gee what do you know allah even included instructions for dividing up war booty :eek:


632 - 634 Abu Bakr, one of the Prophet's first converts and his father-in-law, established the caliphate (khilaafa, or, "succession"), initiating the first dynasty of caliphs (sing. khalifa, plural, khulafaa ). These first four caliphs became known as al-rashidoon ("the rightly-guided ones"), and, they ruled from their capital in Medina. All four were, like the Prophet himself, members of the leading clan of Mecca, the Quraysh, and, thus, were close relatives of the Prophet. The period of the Muslim conquest dates from this time. Abu Bakr sent Muslim armies into Syria and Iraq.

636 Battle of Yarmuk: The Byzantine army was defeated by the Muslims. Muslim sovereignty over Palestine begins. An historical sidenote the peaceful and merciful muslim army spent two days after the battle hunting down and killing every last byzantine soldier 24,000 in all.

637 Battle of Qadisiyya: The Sasanian army was defeated by the Muslims. After the Muslim victories over the Byzantine and Sasanian armies, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and Persia fell under Muslim control.

639-641 Egypt was conquered by the Muslim general Amr, who built a new capital, Misr al-Fustat, ("city of the tent"): the future Cairo.

Also in 639, Arab invaders led by Abu Musa al-Ashari conquered Khuzestan (southwest province in modern Iran -- see also).

669 - 718 The Umayyads, under the banner of jihad, mounted a series of sieges against Christian Byzantine Constantinople all of which failed. Since the Muslim understanding of jihad demanded that successful conquest, as ordained by God, must be inevitable, the cognitive dissonance these defeats engendered was difficult to explain and endure especially as they came at the hands of Christians. A technological factor in the Byzantines' success resisting these attacks was their use of "Greek fire": crude oil or tar from natural wells along the Black Sea which, on board Byzantine warships, was used with devastating results in flamethrowers directed against enemy vessels. (See Roger Crowley, 1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West (New York: Hyperion, 2005), 11-15)

698 The Muslim conquest of North Africa was completed.

710 A Berber named Tariq ibn Malik led a Muslim raiding party across the narrow eight mile straits from North Africa into Spain, or, al-Andalus, as the Muslims called it (the word is etymologically linked to "Vandals" -- Philip Hitti, History of the Arabs, Tenth Edition (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1970), 498). Several months later, he was followed by Tariq ibn Ziyad who landed at Gibraltar (Arabic: Jebel Tariq, "Tariq's Mountain") with an invasionary force of 7,000. By 718, the Muslims had subjugated the Iberian peninsula despite resistance from the Visigoth Christians under King Roderick

732 In October, Charles Martel ("the Hammer") halted Muslim expansion northward into Europe at the "battle" of Poitiers-Tours on the banks of the Loire. In actuality, this was a great non-event. After days of posturing at one another, the parties fought a single, light skirmish after which the Muslims retreated south under cover of night.

A brief tip of the iceberg, do I really need to go on in the west all the way to the second siege of Vienna in the 17th century?

In other parts of Asia and Europe, the conquered nations quickly opted for conversion to Islam rather than death. But in India, because of the staunch resistance of the 4000 year old Hindu faith, the Muslim conquests were for the Hindus a pure struggle between life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and their populations massacred. Each successive campaign brought hundreds of thousands of victims and similar numbers were deported as slaves. Every new invader made often literally his hill of Hindu skulls. Thus the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000, was followed by the annihilation of the entire Hindu population there; indeed, the region is still called Hindu Kush, 'Hindu slaughter'. The Bahmani sultans in central India, made it a rule to kill 100.000 Hindus a year. In 1399, Teimur killed 100.000 Hindus IN A SINGLE DAY, and many more on other occasions. Koenraad Elst quotes Professor K.S. Lal's "Growth of Muslim population in India", who writes that according to his calculations, the Hindu population decreased by 8O MILLION between the year 1000 and 1525. INDEED PROBABLY THE BIGGEST HOLOCAUST IN THE WHOLE WORLD HISTORY. (Negat.34)

Use your common sense.

peace my ass
 
Last edited:
Now a comparative lesson for you. The above is a shortlist of muslim campaigns and conquests(can provide more or more details upon request) in the 100 years immediately following Mos death
Here we have a list of battles and campaigns fought by christians in the first 300 years after the purported death of Jesus.







Oh wait there weren't ANY and it spread anyway. :eek:
 
Last edited:
DiamondHearts said:
Why is Israel so important to you, even though the Jews were the ones who tried to kill Jesus (peace be to him) and persecuted his followers?

I don't understand this at all.

Oh-my-god, are you freaking kidding?

You're blaming the Jews for killing Jesus. What, all of them? What kind of an utter lunatic does it take to make this monstrous assertion?

Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable. A throwback to the 8th century, writing with her paws on a 20th or 21st-century instrument. At least you don't make any bones about translating "Israelis" as "Jews".

Let me illustrate something for you: by Christian tradition, Jesus was supposed to die on the cross. You know, that whole bit about saving mankind from their sins etc. And now you want to try the Jews again?

Save it for the white-hood rallies, sister.

Geoff
 
DiamondHearts said:
If someone invades, colonizes, kicks you out (ex. Israel) = Fight back until you recover your land

If someone tries to kill you = Fight back, and either kill them, or if they stop and repent, you may forgive them

You forgot to add: "And pay an oppressive tax, and wear distinctive clothing, and/or convert to islam."

Using your logic, however, do you then support the Reconquesta? It was the repulsion of a brutal and vicious colonizer, after all.

Geoff
 
Some refutation this is.

DiamondHearts said:
Allah tells of what happened in a battle against the Pagan army which initiated hostilities with the Muslims for no provocation other than to conquer them and destroy Islam. Allah tells us what He told the angels who were in the battle to help the Muslims. Allah says anyone who wars with him or challenges him, Allah Alone will deal with them.

First off, we have only your word and the word of people a thousand years dead to confirm what you are saying. I don't find you a very trustworthy source of information, frankly. Secondly, you first claim that the muslims fought the pagans, but now you're saying that allah will deal with the non-believers himself.

So which is it? And if Q 8:12 is only a message meant for angels, should it even be in the Quran? After all, islam means you follow the Quran. But you say that message is only for angels. So humans should just ignore it then? Maybe muslims should just let allah fight his own battles?

Awliya means comes form root wali, basically someone who has power over you, and someone who can dictate or force you to live your life the way they want.

So muslims shouldn't take Christians or Jews as Awliya...and yet, muslims want to be awliya for Christians and Jews...to "dictate or force [them] to live [their lives] they way they want".

Anyone see a sort of problem with the above?

Again this Surah is talking of the situation of the Pagan Makkans who were at war with the Muslims. If any army comes to fight your people, Allah says to prepare the Muslims for battle and make them ready to take on the enemy even if they are outnumbered because victory comes from Allah

Oh. So muslims should fight, then. I wish you'd make up your mind. First Allah's going to take everyone on himself, then he's not...gets confusing. Another question: 8:62 seems to suggest peace, but in what order is Sura 8 revealed as compared to, say, Sura 9?

This basically means do not allow Non-Muslims to control your lives, especially those who dislike Islam and have no respect for it because they will make a Muslims life miserable. This talks of protection only, Allah (swt) also says in the Quran to the effect 'you are not forbidden to be kind to your parents and relatives who do not wrong you.'

So - again - muslims should never be under the protection of non-muslims, but - from Sura 9 - it's all right for non-muslims to be under the protection of muslims...forgive me, but that seems just a little one-sided and bigoted. The whole of Sura 9, frankly, is one gigantic insult. It accuses non-muslims of a variety of offenses towards a god that - frankly - appears to be a derivation of an old 'pagan' moon-god. Your posting of Sura 9 was not very convincing of your position. I don't find Jesus anywhere telling people to cut people's heads off or "fight them until all religion is for Christ". I think I prefer the Christians' story far more than yours.

In simple, disbelievers aren't allowed to enter the Holy Mosque.

Again - non-muslims can't enter islamic holy places. Yet the Christians allow anyone to visit their holy places. The islamic perspective seems quite bigoted, a little supremacist.

Again, a verse about war. Sounds much different in its entirety, doesn't it.

No, it doesn't. It sounds exactly like what I already know about islamic teachings: "bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom". Take prisoners, ransom them, subjugate non-muslims. No obligation to love your enemies or anything; no requirement to return them. Everything left to the good will of men - and we know how that always turns out.

In short, this is exactly what I thought about islam.

Geoff
 
DiamondHearts said:
Read on a Muslim Scholar who has argued with and completely destroyed the credibility of Ali Sina.

I read. Ali Sina pwned him.

Geoff
 
You're blaming the Jews for killing Jesus. What, all of them? What kind of an utter lunatic does it take to make this monstrous assertion?

How about a pedophile loving jack ass!. :eek:
 
DiamondHearts said:
If someone invades, colonizes, kicks you out (ex. Israel) = Fight back until you recover your land

This is common sense.

Should we then fight all Muslims who colonize the US?
 
Godless said:
How about a pedophile loving jack ass!. :eek:

As Happeh was banned, we may never know. :bugeye:

Oh you mean the OTHER one - right, right.

Geoff
 
(Q) said:
Should we then fight all Muslims who colonize the US?

See that's what she won't answer me about, either. She just claims there's no mosque-hate etc. and shies away from the contemplative question.

If it's all good and reasonable for islamic countries to attack non-muslims and suppress non-muslim citizens, is it ok for non-islamic countries to do the same?

Geoff
 
Back
Top