So, suddenly, wikipedia is now a source for Muslims? When did that happen?
Anyway, from the link Sam provided:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests
Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
- Thread starter tresbien
- Start date
So, suddenly, wikipedia is now a source for Muslims? When did that happen?
Anyway, from the link Sam provided:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests
And this is now a history class?
I gave you the link from a respected American historian, a well known scholar of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies. We are discussing the spread of Islam, not certain conquerers.
Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years. . They never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and eradicate muslims as CROMWELL ERADICATED catholics in North ireland.
there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.
More than 80% non-Muslims in India. The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years
IN Indonesia and Malaysia ?the East Coast of Africa. Islam has spread rapidly.
the Qur’an says : "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error" [Al-Qur’an 2:256] 11. Sword of the Intellect. It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125: "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." [Al-Qur’an 16:125]
there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.
More than 80% non-Muslims in India. The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years
IN Indonesia and Malaysia ?the East Coast of Africa. Islam has spread rapidly.
the Qur’an says : "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error" [Al-Qur’an 2:256] 11. Sword of the Intellect. It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125: "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." [Al-Qur’an 16:125]
May ALLAH GUIDE Q and other nice people like him and also spidergoat whom i feel is a nice man.MAY ALLAH guide u and open u hearts to him.Amine.AMINE AMINE
I really want u only good , health and the same happine as we feel because i daily talk to u and enjoy discussing with u.Moreover, u are kindhearted.U say what u believe in not like hypocrytes who have double facets.
I really want u only good , health and the same happine as we feel because i daily talk to u and enjoy discussing with u.Moreover, u are kindhearted.U say what u believe in not like hypocrytes who have double facets.
One and the same.
Allah can go fuck himself. His guidance will be the downfall of mankind.
If I open my heart to anything, I'll die, considering the heart pumps blood.
Still stuck at Gibbons stereotype then?
No faith in modern scholars?
Maybe you could try the mirror cure instead. Unlearn some of your preconceived notions.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1780979&postcount=15
Last edited:
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Sorry if I use the word "tribalism" in a slightly different sense, but I thought I had defined it well enough. In my essays, tribalism is the pack-social instinct. Each of us has a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer deep inside us and our instincts are his. Mesolithic people lived in nomadic extended-family units of a couple or a few dozen people who had known each other intimately since birth and who depended on and cared for each other without question. This is what made the pack work. Since there was no agriculture resources were scarce and another pack was seen as hostile competitors, either for hunting and gathering territory or for the actual food that may have been stored during bountiful times. Times were not always bountiful and competition with a neighboring pack may have been necessary for survival, so this is why more than half of adult deaths were at the hands of other humans.
The invention of agriculture created the first surplus in history, and also required people to learn to live in larger groups with less intimately known neighbors. The enormous human forebrain was able to override the pack-social instinct with reasoned and learned behavior, and redirect it to include a new class of people in the "pack." Competition and raiding were still practiced, and outsiders were still regarded with suspicion as enemies. Eventually villages with similar dialects and customs formed tribes, trading with each other and working together as necessary, but still the expanded pack-social instinct regarded other tribes as enemies.
Civilization brought the need to learn to live in harmony and cooperation with total strangers, and the forebrain prevailed over the pack-social instinct to expand it to include first them, then people we didn't even know who lived in other parts of a nation-state, and ultimately to people who live at the opposite end of a country 3000 miles wide who, we are reassured, nonetheless share our values and our devotion to the same tribe. And we still regard outsiders as enemies.
But we have reached the point in history when the pack-social instinct is being completely sublimated. Europe, once one of the world's bloodiest battlegrounds, is congealing into a transnational community in which people who actually speak different languages and practice different social customs are learning to trust and care about each other. The same is happening in Latin America, which despite its national political revolutions has known international peace since before I was born, IIRC.
Even in the United States, a huge segment of our population, arguably a majority, are so outraged at the tribalist behavior of our leaders, wantonly killing people in a country so far away and so different from us that they are no more than statistical abstractions, that our government is about to fall in our peaceful democratic way. Many human beings have transcended tribalism and regard all other human beings as... well not exactly as pack-mates because this is the final step in the transition to a herd-social species. We really don't love everybody the way we used to love our pack-mates and we don't pretend to--and we don't even have to pretend to. But we give each other a minimal level of respect. We try to support our anonymous but harmonious and cooperative herd-mates' basic right to get along on this savannah, and we simply do not kill each other.
There will probably always be throwbacks, since that Mesolithic hunter-gatherer is still there inside us. Evolutionary changes in our DNA can't keep up with the rate at which we change our own environment. There will always be people who can't or don't want to overcome their tribal instinct. Occasionally one of them will rise to leadership. But on the balance, mankind is becoming herd-social, and that is the final step in creating a global civilization,
So you're talking about a phonetic writing system. English and French are probably the two worst examples of how not to use an alphabet phonetically. Try almost any other Indo-European language, such as the Indic languages you name, for a closer phoneme-to-grapheme correspondence. Or Finnish, everybody brags about it.
Au contraire. A religious upbringing just reinforces the archetypal beliefs and makes the world a worse place. As I mentioned above, our massive forebrain gives us the unique ability to overcome our instincts and to be a better person than the caveman inside us. Parents who use reason and learning to teach their children how to transcend the tribal behavior that is made appealing by their atavistic religious instincts are doing a much better job than parents who reassure their children that legends of a supernatural universe whose denizens sometimes tell us to kill each other are truths.
We're always taught that Hindi and Urdu are just two dialects of the same language, by the standard definition that dialects are intercomprehensible, if perhaps with a little effort. Just as Dutch and Flemish are often referred to as separate languages for political reasons, despite the fact that scientifically they are just dialects, is not the same true of Hindi and Urdu?
Despite the fact that I agree with your attitude about religion, this inflammatory way of expressing it is hardly going to advance the discussion. Especially on the Religion board where we're trying to bring people together so we can understand each other.
I have criticized you before for your rude, insulting and confrontational style of discourse, which seems more calculated to goad someone into a flame war than an enlightened reappraisal of his own beliefs. And for anyone who's keeping score, even those of us who are on your team, it makes you look like a bigger jerk than the people you're flaming.
I know only English and (some) French from the "western" languages, so I was under the (mistaken) impression that they are all like that.
Urdu/Hindi spoken colloquially are very different from the pure forms. No ordinary Hindi speaker could pretend to understand Mirza Ghalib for instance (he defeats a lot of Urdu speakers too) because he follows a precise and very pure Urdu for his poetry. Similarly, no lay Urdu speaker could read Harivanshrai Bachchan's poerty without a dictionary (at least I needed one).
But the short stories of Qurrat-ul-Ain Haider (known for Aag ka Dariya or River of Fire) and the fiercely outspoken feminism of Ismat Chughtai would translate well to Hindi, just as the novels of Munshi Premchand and Gulshan Nanda did pretty well in Urdu (Both Premchand and Nanda were published in Urdu as well as Hindi).
But if I think about it, both Hindi and Urdu speakers would stumble while attempting to dissect the khadi boli (literary Hindi) of Kabir's dohas and yet he is also published in Urdu.
Kabir was a secularist of his time, btw.
I appreciate you wishing the goodwill of a fantasy being upon me. May unicorns lay piles of gold by your bedside, and fairies bless you with nightly sprinklings of good dream powder.
heh nice.
Hes talking about spreading terror in the land, spreading fear. Nowadays that can be done by bombing. Or didnt you know this?
You have still not provided me with any empirical evidence to support your theory that Muslims label everything persecution and then start wars because of that label and then I want to you dissect whether their argument is valid or not.. That is the proof I want
I have provided proof for my claims from the Quran. If you want proof of all what I have stated here then I will post that proof as well.
No one taking responsibility for their actions? What do you mean by that? And yes, after their country was raped and pillaged, their Museums and libraries looted, their houses bombed, they were tortured in prisons, they healthcare and education were completely destroyed and their oil, which constitues 95% of Iraqs income, was sold off to major oil companies with the new constitution preventing any future government from challenging or reversing these contracts, unemployment soared sky high because all the jobs and reconstruction went to US firms they protested in their 100s of 1000s. When theyre protests were still unheard and they saw their countries being further raped economically, they turned to violence to reclaim what is rightfully theirs.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Theres a difference between the empire that expanded and the spread of the religion. That is my point
The "Muslim" Empire moved from the Arabs to the Persians to the Mongols to the Turks (Ottomans).
At the end of a century of Arab rule, most of the Muslims were still in Arabia (rest of the Empire had less than 10% Muslims The Arabs discouraged conversion as they were afraid it would dilute their status. It was only later that Islamisation occured, once the latter Umayyads built schools to teach Arabic, and because of the organised development of the society under the Persians (who initially adopted Sunni Islam) and then the Mongols (one of whom adopted Shia Islam and as the administrator of Persia, encouraged Shia Islam, leading to teh present day Iran). It was the Turks who built madrasas and standardised religious education.
Classic tresbien.
This sentence has everything.
1) Sometimes Muslims made war and conquered people?
Yes or No?
2) If yes then: Of those people conquered by war, sometime Muslims coerced the people to change their superstitions belief?
Yes or No?
3) Just a note on something I find interesting:
When it's "Muslim" Terrorists blowing up women and children in Pakistan all while screaming God is Great and shooting 20year old soviet machine guns in the air Oooo Hooo hoooo they're not Muslims - Islam is a Religion of Peace. BUT, when it's Europeans that's a different story - THAT my friend is called ChristianCrusades. When it's Muslims invading the Byzantine or Persian Empires that's called proactive Defense (GW Bush does those too - but then again he is a descendant of The Prophet, some even say GW IS the reincarnation OF Mohammad - a Second Coming .. hahahahaaa haaaaa!!!) but it's all good cause it's all sweets and lolly's - liberation, when it's the Europeans then it's Christian Crusades and rivers of blood.
You're too funny tresbien!
4) Muslim Spain
Tell me tresbien, looking back on it, do you think it was a good thing for Muslims to have invaded Spain? Oh, yeah, you're Muslim so of course it was. Lets look for an excuse, I know - someone invited them huh?!? Yeah, that's a good enough excuse - but, really, any will do. What about Iraq? Was it good for the USA to invade Iraq - I mean, hey, many Kurdish Muslims invited the USA, many Shiia Muslims invited the USA - so what it? Oooo that's completely different - of course not Michael, they're Christians and Iraq is Muslim. They just wanted the oil while Muslims in Spain just wanted to spread the good word and liberate the Spaniards...:roflmao: Oh, and did I mention how the world was perfect living under the four righteous Caliphs and everyone was happy and got along and art and sculptor and science under Islam blossomed as never before and Europe only learned how to do math and Greek philosophy and Opera and Ballet and painting from Muslims.... hold on a sec Michael I have to smoke a bit of hash rolled up in a page from the Holy Qur'an - God's words Man ... God's ....very ........own ............words...mmmmmmm :m:
Did the Muslims that were "invited" into Spain raid Christian Monastery's?
Yes or No?
If YES did the Muslims who raided Christian Monastery's kill people and steal the gold and treasure therein?
Yes or No?
You know tresbien, I wonder why it was the Spainish people themselves who fought against the Muslims and expelled them from Spain? HuH??? Why, that doesn't make sense because tresbien just said things were so great for your average Spaniard? Geee who'd have thunk that the people who invented ZERO would not be welcomed? Really Really weird - well, lets not think about that too much when we could just smoke a bit more of God's word and think about this mystical Islamic Golden Age where Muslims flew to the moon, which is made of cheese, and invented everything... and plan our little jihad so we can be on the BBC for 30sec and maybe get a post here on Sciforums ... *puffs hash*
Oh, and just to be sure:
When it's Muslims invading Spain - that's called liberation.
When it's Christians retaking old Byzantine territory - that's called blood-dripping Christian crusades.
I think it beat the Spanish Inquisition hollow. The Golden Age of the Jews in Spain was just not the same after the Muslims left.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_the_Iberian_Peninsula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_the_Iberian_Peninsula