Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon

Sure but the aim of the Empire was not conversion. And we only call it Muslim Empire because most people here are black and white thinkers. :p
Their intent isn't relevant here.

I don't think the Mongols who conquered the Persians and Arabs had a desire to spread or undermine religion, do you?
Hmm I think they did. Isn't 'spreading the word' an important facet of religion ?
 
That only strengthens my case. Surely you don't believe the Mongols were aiming for that..

Actually, that was deliberate. Unlike the Arabs who wanted to maintain their separateness by discouraging conversion, the Mongols who (like the Arabs were also foreigners in Persia etc) deliberately embraced the religion and language.
 
Actually, that was deliberate. Unlike the Arabs who wanted to maintain their separateness by discouraging conversion, the Mongols who (like the Arabs were also foreigners in Persia etc) deliberately embraced the religion and language.

As opposed to be forced to adopt a religion yes.. but they deliberately embraced this new religion only because they came into contact with it. It's not like they were out looking for new religions..
 
I am asking u to just to comment on slavery and the westward movement
Slavery was a heinous Institution perpetrated by "Western" people from Ancient times. Although, I'd like to note, slavery may not have been practiced in Egypt as portrayed by the OT Bible. Certain Jewish people most certainly did not "Build the Pyramids" - Pffff that one would be more funny if not for all the idiots that think it true)

Anyway, Greece had Slaves, Rome had Slaves, probably a lot of the Germanic people didn't as they didn't have the institutions to uphold Slavery. In Greece Slaves were branded with the Delta, Δ, for Δουλος doulos "slave". In Rome if a Slave got caught trying to flee their forehead was branded with the letter F for fugitivus and could even have a metal collar riveted around their neck.

After the colonization of the Americas Slavery was big business. It was justified by certain passages in the Bible. people accepted it and no one was willing to stand up to the vile institution until Xians in England finally grew the balls to stand up and say this shit is wrong, evil, vile and in their opinion went against the very nature of Christianity. BUT, because some arse-hole 2500 years ago thought it was normal it was continued to be justified and perpetrated based on this superstitious bullshit.

Slavery is dead-wrong and the Bible is asinine for suggesting anything other than that.

Michael
 
lQQk,

this is the Muslims apologist view as I understand it and we've been over this whole Slavery thing many many many many many many times.

Let me summarize

Apologist View A:
Mohammad never owned any Slaves. It never happened. It's a Xitian conspiracy to tarnish name of The Profit
Done.

Apologist View B:

- In the "real world" Slaves were normal back then, can't go changing things too quickly.
i) The Qur'an is perfect and so Slavery was, instead of banned, Institutionalized; this is the "perfect" solution.
ii) Islamic Slaves were treated so so so lovingly and humanely, they were never harmed - NEVER, but instead were kept safe by their Masters who looked after all their needs. They even refused freedom life was soo sooo sooooo grand for them. Perfect really.
RED HERRING ALERT
Look you Capitalistic Pig YOU are the Slave! Your system is worse then the Islamic one. Your Masters don't love you! Islam is Perfect. Qur'an is Perfect. All Hail to the Führer! Hail to The Prophet! Allahu Akbar!!! *BOOM*
iii) POW were always kept by the victors back then and so this was the natural order of things as Allah commanded.
iv) By following Islamic principals perfectly, as the perfect Mohammad and Perfect Righteous Caliphs did, Slavery would have been ended shortly. "The" Prophet tried to make an example himself by freeing many of His Slaves.
v) People stopped being "true" Muslims and didn't follow the ways of the Mohammad and thus Slavery continued (aka it's the peoples fault).
RED HERRING ALERT
European Slavery was worse WAY WORSE. *blab on about Xian and Slavery for a bit as if is somehow relevant* Islam is Perfect. Qur'an is Perfect. All Hail to the Führer! Hail to The Prophet! Allahu Akbar!!! *BOOM*
vi) How General Mao was able to ban Slavery is under ten years using the Communist Manifesto is because he was really a Muslim. Islam is Perfect. Qur'an is Perfect. All Hail to the Führer! Hail to The Prophet! Allahu Akbar!!! *BOOM*

Apologist View C:

It never happened. Islamic people never owned Slaves. The banning of Slavery in the mid 1900s by most Islamic countries was not due to European pressure. "We" never had Slavery. It never happened. La La La La LA LALALALLALALALALALALA Islam is Perfect. Qur'an is Perfect. All Hail to the Führer! Hail to The Prophet! Allahu Akbar!!! *BOOM*

:D
Michael
 
Evidence for what? For people dieing when at war?!?!

What exactly is your position, that Muslims conquered Persia, Egypt, Syria, Spain, Crete, Sicily, etc... and no body was killed?

That's asinine.

Arsalan is it your opinion that during the Muslim Crusades into Persia, Egypt, Byzantine, Syria and Spain that many many many people died or not? If not then explain how war of aggression can occur without many many people dieing. Magic?

First of all youre saying they were wars of aggression and the "conquest" of North Africa, which you mentioned, has virtually no record whatsoever according to your fave site. No historical record supports that theory. Fact of the matter is that the Byzantines and the Persians saw Arabia as their land and saw Islam as a rebellion against them. They instigated fighting and when they lost their land fell under Muslim rule. The Romans were beaten and then tried to come by sea and were again beaten and the ports were taken as well. And so it went on. Why? Because the Roman empire and other empires saw the Muslim empire expanding and saw Islam as a rebellion and tried to beat the Muslims. So when the Muslims were attacked, they fought back and won. And when they won those countries came under Muslim rule. And no, the Muslims did not fight or kill the innocent civilians, just the armies.

And stop calling these battles "Crusades"
 
Arsalan, Since you brought up the Crusades, check your facts. I looked it up, tell me what you think.

I did not bring up the Crusades. And labelling these wars of defense as "Crusades", a term which is associated with Europeans slaughtering innocent masses, be they Jew or Muslim, in the Holy Land, is unfair and incorrect as well.
 
Fine, but obviously these Muslims went to those countries/areas to conquer them. It is inevitable that because of that Islam got some foothold in those areas. Simply by just being there the locals would have come in contact with the new religion and some of them must have converted, encouraged or not.

Also, it was a Muslim empire.. that in itself says enough.

it was only about 300 years after that Islam became the main religion in the "conquered" areas. They were not forced to convert. If they embraced Islam, they did it because of preaching. I suggest you read Hitti on this.
 
lQQk,

this is the Muslims apologist view as I understand it and we've been over this whole Slavery thing many many many many many many times.

Let me summarize

Apologist View A:
Mohammad never owned any Slaves. It never happened. It's a Xitian conspiracy to tarnish name of The Profit
Done.

Apologist View B:

- In the "real world" Slaves were normal back then, can't go changing things too quickly.
i) The Qur'an is perfect and so Slavery was, instead of banned, Institutionalized; this is the "perfect" solution.
ii) Islamic Slaves were treated so so so lovingly and humanely, they were never harmed - NEVER, but instead were kept safe by their Masters who looked after all their needs. They even refused freedom life was soo sooo sooooo grand for them. Perfect really.
RED HERRING ALERT
Look you Capitalistic Pig YOU are the Slave! Your system is worse then the Islamic one. Your Masters don't love you! Islam is Perfect. Qur'an is Perfect. All Hail to the Führer! Hail to The Prophet! Allahu Akbar!!! *BOOM*
iii) POW were always kept by the victors back then and so this was the natural order of things as Allah commanded.
iv) By following Islamic principals perfectly, as the perfect Mohammad and Perfect Righteous Caliphs did, Slavery would have been ended shortly. "The" Prophet tried to make an example himself by freeing many of His Slaves.
v) People stopped being "true" Muslims and didn't follow the ways of the Mohammad and thus Slavery continued (aka it's the peoples fault).
RED HERRING ALERT
European Slavery was worse WAY WORSE. *blab on about Xian and Slavery for a bit as if is somehow relevant* Islam is Perfect. Qur'an is Perfect. All Hail to the Führer! Hail to The Prophet! Allahu Akbar!!! *BOOM*
vi) How General Mao was able to ban Slavery is under ten years using the Communist Manifesto is because he was really a Muslim. Islam is Perfect. Qur'an is Perfect. All Hail to the Führer! Hail to The Prophet! Allahu Akbar!!! *BOOM*

Apologist View C:

It never happened. Islamic people never owned Slaves. The banning of Slavery in the mid 1900s by most Islamic countries was not due to European pressure. "We" never had Slavery. It never happened. La La La La LA LALALALLALALALALALALA Islam is Perfect. Qur'an is Perfect. All Hail to the Führer! Hail to The Prophet! Allahu Akbar!!! *BOOM*

:D
Michael

I dont know what "apologists" youve been talking to then.
 
So whose is true?

How does one find out what the "true" interpretation is? (should it be just truth - full stop?

Also, it seems rather silly that something as important as killing wouldn't be settling as to what is exactly "true" - you know, given that people have been reading The "Perfect" Qur'anic-entanglement for Ooooo about 1000+ years...

funny that - I mean, being a "perfect" book an all...

Michael

If you ever have the time, I suggest going through some law cases. There you will find that although the law is clear, various courts put their own interpretations depending on the case in question. Its a universal practice.
 
Fine, but obviously these Muslims went to those countries/areas to conquer them. It is inevitable that because of that Islam got some foothold in those areas. Simply by just being there the locals would have come in contact with the new religion and some of them must have converted, encouraged or not.

Also, it was a Muslim empire.. that in itself says enough.

Well, actually, the Arabs tried very hard to prevent Islamization of the areas they conquered. As the number of Muslims increased over the centuries, the less money they had because the jizya couldn't be imposed on them. While becoming Muslim enabled them to collect the zakat from the new converts, they still preferred the jizya (as the money went directly to them, rather than charity).
 
arsalan said:
Because the Roman empire and other empires saw the Muslim empire expanding and saw Islam as a rebellion and tried to beat the Muslims. So when the Muslims were attacked, they fought back and won. And when they won those countries came under Muslim rule. And no, the Muslims did not fight or kill the innocent civilians, just the armies.
I'll bet you can find people describing almost every wave of conquest ever launched on this planet in pretty much similar terms.

A modern example - Israel. It defends itself and defends itself, and after each defense it's bigger.

The Japanese were defending themselves when they struck Pearl Harbor.

The United States was defending itself when it invaded first Afghanistan and then Iraq. (note: lack of forcible conversion, freedom of religion as far as the US is concerned - the virtue claimed for the Muslims, who were defending themselves by conquering this or that rich country, trade rival, etc).

And if the Japanese had won Hawaii would have come under Japanese rule - sort of automatically, you know, like the rain falling, as a consequence of self defense. When the Muslims won - defending themselves, naturally - their armies were in possession of the other country and that country "came under Muslim rule". Of course.
kadark said:
To restore order, there are no limits as to what people can do.
What kind of order will you create, by removing all limits to evil action by people ?

Your love of order, any order at any price, is not shared by everyone. Someone faced with your army would be well advised to fight very hard, before falling under that kind of jackboot.
 
Micheal and others

i would like that u coment on the following passages that show that although some charge islam with barbarity and agression , it can not be compared to what happened to bihops and priests that were killed in the name of religion.I never and will never hear that a muslim ruler orders the killing of non muslims worshippers.
Cromwell and there followed a bloody, battle, completely decimating the town and its inhabitants. Bishop French, who wrote of the scene was quoted as saying:

"There before God's altar fell many sacred victims, holy priests of the Lord; others who were seized outside the precincts of the Church were scourged with whips; others hanged; and others put to death by various and cruel tortures - the best blood of the citizens was shed; the very squares were inundated with it, and there was scarcely a house that was not defiled with carnage and full of wailing."

During the battle of Wexford, Colonel Sinnott and two of his brothers were felled in the defense of the town, and the town was lost. Cromwell, enraged by the opposition he had encountered from the Sinnott's, confiscated their lands and destroyed all records of the Sinnott family then existing. Walter Sinnott, Esq. of Orristown, Killinick, County Wexford, Ireland, said in one of his letters:
taken from
http://www.newhampshireclimbing.com/about.shtml

u can also read these passages

Execution of Mennonites in the Netherlands
In the Netherlands, David van der Leyen and Levina Ghyselins , described variously as Dutch Anabaptists or Mennonites, were executed by Catholic authorities in Ghent in 1554. Strangled and burned, van der Leyen was finally dispatched with an iron fork. Bracht’s Martyr’s Mirror is considered by modern Mennonites as second only in importance to the Bible in perpetuating their faith.

Jesuit persecution in Great Britain
Jesuits like John Ogilvie (Ogilby) (1580-1615) were under constant surveillance and threat from the Protestant governments of England and Scotland. Ogilvie was sentenced to death by a Glasgow court and hanged and mutilated on March 10, 1615.

Brian Cansfield (1581-1643), a Jesuit priest was seized while at prayer by English Protestant authorities in Yorkshire. Cansfield was beaten and imprisoned under harsh conditions. He died on August 3, 1643 from the effects of his ordeal. Another Jesuit priest, Ralph Corbington (Corby) (ca. 1599-1644), was hanged by the English government in London, September 17, 1644, for professing his faith.

The Expulsion of the Salzburgers from Austria
On October 31, 1731, the Catholic ruler of Salzburg, Austria, Archbishop Leopold von Firmian , issued an edict expelling as many as 20,000 Lutherans from his principality. Many propertyless Lutherans, given only eight days to leave their homes, froze to death as they drifted through the winter seeking sanctuary. The wealthier ones who were allowed three months to dispose of their property fared better. Some of these Salzburgers reached London, from whence they sailed to Georgia. Others found new homes in the Netherlands and East Prussia.

Persecution of Huguenots by Catholics
The slaughter of Huguenots (French Protestants) by Catholics at Sens, Burgundy in 1562 occurred at the beginning of more than thirty years of religious strife between French Protestants and Catholics. These wars produced numerous atrocities. The worst was the notorious St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in Paris, August 24, 1572. Thousands of Huguenots were butchered by Roman Catholic mobs. Although an accommodation between the two sides was sealed in 1598 by the Edict of Nantes, religious privileges of Huguenots eroded during the seventeenth century and were extinguished in 1685 by the revocation of the edict. Perhaps as many as 400,000 French Protestants emigrated to various parts of the world, including the British North American colonies.

Persecution of Catholics by Huguenots
In the areas of France they controlled, Huguenots at least matched the harshness of the persecutions of their Catholic opponents.

Drowning of Protestants in Ireland
Approximately one hundred Protestants from Loughgall Parish , County Armagh, were executed by mobs at the bridge over the River Bann near Portadown, Ulster . This atrocity occurred at the beginning of the Irish Rebellion of 1641. Having held the Protestants as prisoners and tortured them, the Catholics drove them "like hogs" to the bridge, where they were stripped naked and forced into the water below at swordspoint. Survivors of the plunge were shot.

Massacres of Catholics in Ireland
Thousands of Catholic residents were massacred by Oliver Cromwell's protestant troops at Drogheda, Wexford and Waterford during the Irish campaign of Autumn and Winter 1649. All of the survivors of Drogheda, and many from other places were sold as slaves to the West Indies. In 1652 all catholic-owned estates east of the River Shannon were confiscated, and their residents evicted en-masse amid plague and famine that killed an even greater number. The penal laws of 1690 caused still more destitution and emigration.

http://www.historymania.com/american_history/United_States_religious_history



The contents of this article are licensed from Wikipedia.org under the
GNU Free Documentation License.
 
Last edited:
So, religion is really just an excuse for persecution, torture, oppression, and all those other nice things about the human race.

I believe the "inmates" at Gitmo are being held as political captives, and persecuted, not because they might be terrorists, but because the Christian US needs to make examples, like every other persecutory event in history, it's not about religion or "intelligence" or anything to do with either; it's about revenge.
 
Back
Top