Mosques takenover by hardliners

Or avoided picking and choosing history based on our inherent biases:

Which one for example, do you believe here? And why?

Christians were also often dismissive of Muhammad, many producing negative and inflammatory accounts of his life that were claimed to be deliberately "malicious".[3] False reports on Muhammad's life and death includes reports circulated by Christian writers that Muhammad died while being drunk, or was killed by pigs. Such stories and opinions were circulated with the knowledge that Islam forbids both alcohol and pork. Such caricatures of Muhammad extended to works of literature and poetry. In Dante's Inferno, Muhammad and Ali are portrayed as being in Hell, subject to horrifying tortures and punishments for their sins of schism and sowing discord. In the Middle Ages Islam was widely believed to be a heresy of Christianity. In other works, he is described as a "renegade cardinal of the Catholic Church who decided to start his own false religion".[4] A less belligerent depiction occurs in 13th century Estoire del Saint Grail, the first book in the vast Arthurian cycle, the Lancelot-Grail. Here, Muhammad is portrayed as a true prophet sent by God to bring Christianity to the pagan Middle East; however, his pride causes him to alter God's wishes and he deceives his followers, though his religion is viewed as vastly superior to paganism.[5]

Martin Luther referred to Muhammad as "a devil and first-born child of Satan".[6] Maracci, who translated the Qur'an into Latin in 1698, held that Muhammad and Islam were not very dissimilar to Luther and Protestantism.[6] Gottfried Leibniz, while praising Muhammad and his followers for spreading monotheism and "abolishing heathen superstitions" in the remote lands where Christianity had not been carried, holds that belief in Muhammad, Zoroaster, Brahma, or 'Somonacodom' is not as worthy as belief in Moses and Jesus.[7] The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) states that Muhammad was inspired by an "imperfect understanding" of Judaism and Christianity.[6]

Gabriel Oussani in Catholic Encyclopedia states that the views of Luther and those who call Muhammad a 'wicked impostor', 'dastardly liar' and a 'willful deceiver' are an "indiscriminate abuse" and are "unsupported by facts: Instead, nineteenth-century Western scholars such as Sprenger, Noldeke, Weil, Muir, Koelle, Grimme and Margoliouth give us a more correct and unbiased estimate of Muhammad's life and character, and substantially agree as to his motives, prophetic call, personal qualifications, and sincerity."[6] Muir, Marcus Dods, and others have suggested that Muhammad was at first sincere but later became deceptive. Koelle finds "the key to the first period of Muhammad's life in Khadija, his first wife," after whose death he became prey to his "evil passions."[6] William Montgomery Watt, on the other hand, has stated his belief that there are no solid grounds for the view that Muhammad's character declined after Muhammad went to Medina. He argues that "in both Meccan and Medinan periods Muhammad's contemporaries looked on him as a good and upright man, and in the eyes of history he is a moral and social reformer."[8]

Zwemer, a Christian missionary, criticised the life of Muhammad on various grounds; first by the standards of the Old and New Testaments, second by the pagan morality of his Arab compatriots, and last, by the new law which he brought. Zwemer suggests Muhammad defied Arab ethical traditions, and that he personally violated the strict sexual morality of his own moral system. Quoting Johnstone, Zwemer concludes by claiming that his harsh judgment rests on evidence which "comes all from the lips and the pens of his [i.e. Muhammad's] own devoted adherents."[9]

Contemporary critics such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali have criticized Muhammad for preaching beliefs that are incompatible with democracy, and Ali has called him a "tyrant". [10] Daniel Pipes sees Muhammad as a politician, stating that "because Muhammad created a new community, the religion that was its raison d'etre had to meet the political needs of its adherents."[11] Ibn Warraq, another critic, laments that "unfortunately, as he gained in confidence and increased his political and military power, so the story goes, Muhammad turned from being a persuader to being a legislator, warrior, and dictator."


Also, if given two pieces of history collected by one author, one well cited and one not so well cited, which one do you logically believe?
 
Uh...splitting the moon?

Anyway, isn't the fascination with the moon thing a bit pagan?
Well the moon is the highest symbol on most Mosques and most "Islam" flags.

Geoffp, you wouldn't happen to know which major cities were founded and built by Muslim Arabs?
 
You will have to look up the citation for yourself SAM.

Also, I should note, even when Muslim Historians are sourced you poo hoo even them! Unless it's a case of splitting the moon, something absurd, then its-all-good. Even when it was explicable stated that the topic was not the voracity of the story but the moral contained therein - more poo hoo hooey hoo poo. That makes no sense. You argued for 10 pages about the historical validity of a commonly told story when that wasn't even the debate. Talk about a red herring fish fry.


Unless it's a magical fairy horse. Then all good.


Which is the point in the thread. These fundamental Imam's can get away with saying crap like saying the Qur'an is "scientific" because people are inclined to believe them. They want top believe there was an "Islamic" golden age that somehow is directly responsible and led to the Italian painting that sparked the European golden age. They will use example like the Qur'anic proscribed use of honey as an antiseptic (something that is true) without informing the listener that the use of honey during war as an antiseptic was common from China to Rome - for over 1000 years prior. The true observation (honey's antiseptic properties) are meshed in with some complete bulllooey about the moon being split and guess what: YOUr average Muslim will buy it hook, line and sinker.

NOW, IMO, an educated Muslim will think for a minute. Hey, somethings not right here because I was taught such and such as school... ex: honey.

Do you know how many Muslims that have told me that line about the honey and the Qur'an being scientific? At least 7. From the USA to AU the same line of shit. You should see their face drop when I inform them that it was a well known fact for 1000s of years all over the World. The I usually ask why do they suppose they were lied to? You can look into their eyes and see the gears ticking. They know why.


Yes, the moon split right in half.


Michael

Now about those major cities founded by Arab Muslims....
 
I just want to know your rationale for selectively picking one or the other piece of retrospective history to believe in. On what basis do you select the truth for logic option for any written historical data of that period.

You're a scientist, you use references all the time. So just explain to me, what is your logical basis for selecting this one piece of historical "fact" as true while rejecting other, better cited history by the same authors, using the same method of data collection and citations.
 
People in the west seem to be obsessed with self-interpretations of the Islamic teaching of Jihad and see it as a call for violence. Jihad is a holy war first with your inner tempting soul and then with the assaulting enemy who threatens your life, your family, your citizens, your honur and your land. You fight them to protect your valued ones or free the opressed ones from the tyrans. It is not an occupying assault or a preemptive strike in most cases. It is either a self-defensive measure or a liberating action. The main concept is not to shed as much blood as possible as many people out there may think. There are strict instructions by the prophet of islam himself (Peace Be Upon Him) regarding the initiation and the process of Jihad some of which being:

- you should not be the initiating side,
- trees, water resources, and corpses should not be damaged,
- houses should not be destroyed,
- women, the elderly and the children should be spared,
- the hostages should be dealt with dignity,
- Stop it when they surrender and do not exagerrate it...

And most importantly if one accepts that the teachings of the prophet Muhammed (P.B.U.H.) are based on the Quranic teachings, one can not consider him to be teaching bloodshed, simply because Quran openly instructs:
"Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance."
and it also instructs:
"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but DO NOT TRANSGRESS LIMITS; for Allah loveth not transgressors"
so the prophet can only teach bloodshed if he contradits the Quranic rulings which are divine orders and the basis of the religion we call Islam...this of course is totally out of question according to the Islamic teachings!

Also, I do not believe that Taliban belong to a sufi tradition or to a real islamic school. They follow the example of wahhabism in rejecting many old-established islamic traditions and sticking to certain details while overlooking some principles, and everybody knows that wahhabism renounces sufism. Taliban was an over-politicalization of an erroneous understanding of Islam supported and flattered by the decayed governments in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and UAE who, just by chance, have great ties with the western states, and thought such a regime would just be ideal for Afghanistan,but not for their own countries.

As a separate case, I should admit that my knowledge of Wahhabism (or Salafism as they call it) still has way to go; I actually intend to open a new thread in the religion subsection here to discuss it with people who can share hints... for or against it.


"To you be your Way, and to me mine."

Peace

Your interpritation of islam is like the traditions of catholicisim in relation to Christianity. A distortion of the truth and a compromise to the world.

True islam teaches the waging of jihad untill all the world submits to islam.

Qur’an 8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”

Qur’an 9:123 “Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you.”

Qur’an 8:39 “So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.”

Qur’an 8:7 “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.’”

Your teachings in a funny way are a kind of mirror to the false christians who have ignored the teachings of Jesus to not take part in warfare and to love their enemies. They also have developed traditions in rebellion against the Messiah's teachings to allow them to kill their enemies in carnal combat.

Most of the early muslims took these calls seriously and waged true jihad on their neighbours until they where muslims or they where dead. But even in those times the quran records that there where people like you within the islamic community.

Qur’an 9:38 “Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah’s Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place.”

Of course over the years comfortable muslims who's fathers has already slaughtered all resistance to islam became resistant to the calls for jihad and developed the kind of false interpretation of muhammad’s teachings as you have displayed here. People who have their land and goods and wealth don't want to go fighting and killing on some long distant far off land do they. No they want to enjoy the fruits of their fathers conquest. So they developed a tradition of jihad within and the BS about Jihad only being a defensive action against foreign non-believing aggressors.

The savage and murderous nature of true islam is clear and many muslims are today being inspired by the true teachings of islam to go and commit acts of murderous bloodshed. They are at this moment killing thousands if Iraqis whom the quran declares as false muslims one day they might get to you also chuuush they hate muslims like you with a passion greater than they hate infidel westerners.

You and muslims like you are in the most pitiful of positions, you believe in the false distorted traditions of a false prophet. You believe in the lies told about a liar's teachings. Your caught in a double lie.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
I just want to know your rationale for selectively picking one or the other piece of retrospective history to believe in. On what basis do you select the truth for logic option for any written historical data of that period.

You're a scientist, you use references all the time. So just explain to me, what is your logical basis for selecting this one piece of historical "fact" as true while rejecting other, better cited history by the same authors, using the same method of data collection and citations.
There is only one "true" history. The references I choose are chosen after careful consideration of all of the references I have read on any particular topic.

When I chose the above citation it was to illustrate to chuuush that these Imams calling for murder do not do so in a historical vacuum - they do so on the bases of what they believe to be "true" Islamic history and therefor think it is just. They don't pull this stuff out of thin air. I surprized you never find it interesting to seek out the historical references they base their twisted hateful ideas on. By demonstrating the true motivation for plundering the Persia and Byzantium empires perhaps chuuush will see how Religion, gosh even peaceful Islam, was used to motive idiots to go kill people and steal their stuff not different than what these Imams call for.

These idiot Imams are not asking any thing any different than what Khalid ibn Walid asked of his men when he proded them on to murder and steel from the hardworking people who had the misfortune living in that area. You wonder why marble craftsmanship disappeared - the artists were either killed or resorted to living off the land as their once beautiful cities were plundered.

When I chose the passage about the singing girl being ruthlessly murdered I did so because it is a VERY popular story passed down through the generation for nearly 1500 years. People read the story and come away with the idea that it's 1) natural to own a slave, as one is owned 2) natural to kill a man for apostate, as one is killed 3) natural to murder a women who made fun of Mohammad, as one was murdered. Whether or not the story is real is of no consequence. The reason I cited it was to discuss morality. Considering slavery was practice until the last 40 years, considering the inequality of women in many Islamic countries and considering the illegality in some "Islamic" countries for a person to apostate I'd say the "moral of story" was worth investigating.

When I ask you: Does the possibility exist of there not being a God. I am simply attempting to gage how open you are to rational discussion of Gods, Goddesses, fairy flying horses etc...

When I posted the topic regarding the "Islamic" golden age it was to challenge the common-as-antiseptic-honey assumption "Islam" somehow brought forth art, science and literature. As I know that this is as likely as the Chinese Golden Age, which preceded China's massive destruction by the Mongolians, being dependent on the religious beleif of the Mongolians - I think it is a topic worthy of discussion. We do not refer to the Tao golden age do we? The "European" Renaissance we do not refer to it as a Christian Golden Age do we? No we do not.

The references in regards to the conquest of Persia were simply to illustrate and make the point it is always wrong to kill people and steal their land. YOU SAM seem to have this fairytale lens that zooms past all the blood, death destruction it took to subdue the Persians to this mythical time when all was just peachy keen, people had plenty and oh what a joy it was for the conquered. You also seem to have this idea that it was OK because hey they enjoyed a kind of golden age, minus some of the art. Speaking of which, I'm still wondering which major cities were founded by Arab Muslims?

Michael
 
Last edited:
...And hey it ushered in the "Islam" golden age - you know the one that was so golden it resulted in the major loss of human art.

I'm not going to enter into an interminable discussion with you over your points. That will be a useless discussion with no end. But I just want to learn what you mean when you say that the Islamic golden age resulted in the major loss of human art?!!
 
There is only one "true" history. The references I choose are chosen after careful consideration of all of the references I have read on any particular topic.

Michael

So what was William Muir's reference for this piece of history? Since you studied it so carefully?
 
I'm not going to enter into an interminable discussion with you over your points. That will be a useless discussion with no end. But I just want to learn what you mean when you say that the Islamic golden age resulted in the major loss of human art?!!

No statues of naked men or women.:D
 
Your interpritation of islam is like the traditions of catholicisim in relation to Christianity. A distortion of the truth and a compromise to the world.

True islam teaches the waging of jihad untill all the world submits to islam.

Qur’an 8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”

Qur’an 9:123 “Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you.”

Qur’an 8:39 “So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.”

Qur’an 8:7 “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.’”

Your teachings in a funny way are a kind of mirror to the false christians who have ignored the teachings of Jesus to not take part in warfare and to love their enemies. They also have developed traditions in rebellion against the Messiah's teachings to allow them to kill their enemies in carnal combat.

Most of the early muslims took these calls seriously and waged true jihad on their neighbours until they where muslims or they where dead. But even in those times the quran records that there where people like you within the islamic community.

Qur’an 9:38 “Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah’s Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place.”


Qur'an 8:7: "Behold! Allah promised you one of the two (enemy) parties, that it should be yours: Ye wished that the one unarmed should be yours, but Allah willed to justify the Truth according to His words and to cut off the roots of the Unbelievers;"

Qur'an 8:39. "And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do."

Qur'an 9:123 "O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him."

Qur'an 9:38 "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter."

Some parts you have got mistranslated and some parts you have not reported all of the verse while they are compeleting the meaning of the verse.

The verse 8:7 came after the War of Badr and has dirert reference to that event. Of course, as I mentioned earlier fighting is sanctioned in Islam for defensive and liberating purpose in its broad meaning.

Your allegations, on the other hand, about raping and murder,etc during the islamic conquests are taken from a wrong historical context. Such barbarities happened in a later time in history during the Crusades, WWI, WWII, Bosnia genocide,etc. and certainly not by muslim forces.

All in all, one can not and should not reject the fact that some verses in Quran call for fighting the oppressors.
Besides, a religion that does not prescribe faighting the oppressors, and the perverts as a way to preach justice and establish the truth on earth looks like an imperfect one to me!

Peace
 
I'm not going to enter into an interminable discussion with you over your points. That will be a useless discussion with no end. But I just want to learn what you mean when you say that the Islamic golden age resulted in the major loss of human art?!!
Pre-Arab conquest of the cities along the eastern Mediterranean sea, there was a long history of Greek and then Greco-Roman artisans. Some of the best marble sculptures in the world. Post-Arab conquest most of city dwelling artisans were either killed, starved or reduced to subsistence farming. The craftsmanship was lost.

During the Middle East Golden Age (or Arab Golden Age - as some prefer) there is a distinct loss of the human form (human body) in art. Almost 1000 years prior we have Mediterranean artists producing this in 100 BCE "Laocoön and His Sons" in a matter of a few centuries.

laocoon.JPG



From this we see an almost complete loss of the human form even during the late period of the Middle Eastern Golden Age 1400 years later in the 13th century we have this example:

hb_66.23.jpg



Well we know that the people in the Middle East were pretty much converted to Islam at this point. Well, compare the two - pretty sad isn't it? To have fallen so low. Then again, I wouldn't say it was surprising, the Europeans had suffered similarly under Christendom after all. Any State based on monotheism could be expected to suffer so - and that's exactly what we see.

SAM sarcastic comment about nudes and belly dancers is a means to try and overlook the reality of the situation. In this case there's no Joos or Americans or Europeans or bla bla bla to blame - this is the Height of as SAM likes to put is the "Islamic" Golden Age.

Well chuuushm which do you think the more advanced? The Polytheistic Golden Age or the Islamic Golden Age?
 
Since SAM likes to name Golden Ages by the religion of the people in that time period lets compare the "Christian" Golden Age with the "Islam" Golden Age - similar time periods.

While I personally think this an even more absurd concept, some Muslims (including SAM) have that this notion that "Islam" itself somehow led to the Italian Renaissance?

Well, if we assume that only a master artisan would be allowed to create an image of Mohammad and then we compare two period peaces, one from Italy and one from the Middle East I think you would agree the notion is absurd. Do you think that the Middle Eastern painters somehow inspired the Italians. Again, go back to the Greek marble and just think on that for a moment.


773px-Sanzio_01.jpg


Maome.jpg



Also note that the "Islamic" master peace may actually be a later period. So not only did "Islam" inspire a Golden Age but somehow "Islamic" painters went back in time and with there marginal skills and inspired the Italian Masters. :bugeye:
 
The point is this: If people were educated properly about archaeological history and histoy in general they'd much less susceptible to the bull shit spouted by these fundamental Imams. They'd know, for example, that the honey line was a fib meant to make them think the Qur'an is "scientific". They understand the polytheistic bases for all Mideastern monotheisms and they realize that golden ages are not "religous" and that under religous rule (aka Theocracies) society regresses - not progresses.

When an educated person listens to an Imam it's like knowing the trick while the magician is pulling it. Bubble pops so to speak and the power and illusion the magic had over the observer is gone.

Get it now?
Michael
 
So what was William Muir's reference for this piece of history? Since you studied it so carefully?
SAM I gave you the reference. Surely you've read many articles that reference many articles. It's up to YOU to look it up.

OR you could continue with your fairytale fantasy that Arabs rolled into Persia, Egypt, Syria, Spain, North Africa, Constantinople ... offering them the "freedom" to venerate their Arab Prophet together with a lollipop and the people jumped for joy and all was right in the World.
 
Oh and chuuush, I had a question for you. Which major cities were founded and built by Arab Muslims?

Thanks
Michael
 
So you believe William Muir because he tells you what someone wrote (that someone wrote)[sup]n[/sup] someone said someone else said through someone else 100-300 years ago somewhere else?

Ah thanks; that explains your faith in this piece of history.
 
So you believe William Muir because he tells you what someone wrote (that someone wrote)[sup]n[/sup] someone said someone else said through someone else 100-300 years ago somewhere else?

Ah thanks; that explains your faith in this piece of history.
I didn't say I believe what William Muir researched.

I do think that, as part of a much larger body of evidence, the quotation supports the historical trend of a general offering booty to his people so that they remain united under his leadership and to murder and steal the wealth of some other people.

Why do you suppose the Arabs conquered the Persians? Oh, thats right, I forgot - it was in self defense :bugeye: it had nothing to do with subjugating Persian citizens and stealing their wealth. Why just look at all the major defensive cities the Arab Muslims built. Why, they're everywhere! All over the place!

America's war in Iraq is also purely defensive - right SAM? Not a single girl has been raped and not a single treasure looted. Oh, and it was also done to help those poor backwards Iraqis. Just like the Arabs needed to bring the Religious truth of Islam to the Persians (well actually other than the moon splitting it was just to inform Persians that an Arab was the last The Last of the Mohicans). The Americans needed to bring the Religious truth of how to extract oil and export it cheaply to the USA.

Making any sense yet? No - I didn't think so.

Michael
 
Back
Top