The Pope speaks: Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things. !!!!!
- Thread starter vincent
- Start date
Outlandish:
Yes, I am sure I am quite wrong about Islam, when you know, Islam waged military conquests of all varieties across three continents (Africa, Asia, and Europe) and repeatedly attempted a wholescale invasion of the latter, and succeded in toppling India in the most brutal invasion that was ever waged.
Moreover, even a cursory examination of Muhammad's life reveals he was not simply a "defender".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
Yes, I am sure I am quite wrong about Islam, when you know, Islam waged military conquests of all varieties across three continents (Africa, Asia, and Europe) and repeatedly attempted a wholescale invasion of the latter, and succeded in toppling India in the most brutal invasion that was ever waged.
Moreover, even a cursory examination of Muhammad's life reveals he was not simply a "defender".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
outlandish said:
Utter nonsense Islam was indeed spread by the sword from day one. According to hadith Muhammed participated in 19 military expeditions.
Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (pbuh) (Al-Maghaazi)
One would expect that the companions of Muhammed would have the clearest understanding of his message since they actually knew him and we see they continued on an uninterrupted list of conquest immediately after his demise. a few highlights
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.
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).
668 First siege of Constantinople
672 Muslims capture the island of Rhodes
674 Arab conquest reaches Indus River
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
711 Muslims conquest of Sindh in Afghanistan
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.
735 Muslim invaders capture Arles in France
792 Hisham I calls for a Jihad Thousands heed his call to cross the Pyrenees to subjugate France. Many cities are destroyed
813 Muslims attack the Civi Vecchia near Rome
838 Muslim raiders sack Marseille
841 Muslim forces capture Bari (in Italy)
826 Muslim armies conquer Sicily
846Muslim forces sack Rome and loot the Basilica of saint Peter
Do we really need to go on in the west all the way to the second siege of Vienna in the 17th century or can we put that myth to bed?
Sock puppet path said:
Im not a expert on islamic history, i have no interest in it to be honest, i expect a history of what there up to today, the only difference being the weapons are different.
But if Muhammed was nothing more than a warlord, what 19 battles, how does one think a man of war is a holy figure to worship.
As i recall in my religous lessons in school on jesus, he was not a man of war, infact he gave his life for us, so i can understand caatholics worshipping him.
If indeed Muhammed was knee deep in infidel blood from his sword, then this is a man to despise not worship, men of peace & diplomacy gain most peoples respect, the few men of a war who gained respect were churchill & rosevelt, not men of war but defenders of freedom & democracy.
Muhammed, sounds like a blood thirsty sought of guy, living for the next infidel slaughter.
Fighting should always be a last resort, & true men of peace never fight, let alone supposed prophets.
madanthonywayne said:
I agree with what your saying, especially with the cartoons, i believe in freedom of the press, i to am sick of blair & bush meeting muslims to try & say hey we like muslims, what they dont like buddhists, i never see them meating buddhists, appeasment to muslims just gets more angry muslims,
Its about time some world leader said its about time islam & muslims grew up, & stop behaving like they dont have a brain & have no control over there violent emotions.
As for the pope opening his big mouth, i think its not his place at all to make anyone angry by his words, i cant think of a more stupid thing to say to muslims other than i hate muslims.
But newspaper freedoms should never be controlled to humour muslims, by doing so you are letting them dictate your freedoms to you.
From watching muslims over the last 10 years that i started to take notice of them, there is one basic thing missing from 99.9% of them & that is a basic sense of humour, without a sense of humour we have no way of diffusing situations or laughing about life, the emotions most running strongly in muslims these days, is anger & violence, we all need a saftey valve to blow off steam, muslims dont seem to have one.
samcdkey said:
Or, a holy war.
"Thousands of Palestinians marched in Gaza on Friday to protest his remarks. A youth centre run by the Greek Orthodox church in Gaza was slightly damaged by an explosion, although it was unclear whether it was related to the Pope's remarks.
Salem Salama, the head of Muslim clerics in the Palestinian territories, urged Palestinians to protect and respect Christians and also called on Muslim countries not to allow the Pope to visit in order to ensure his safety.
"We urge our nations and our Muslim and Arab countries not to receive the Pope so that he does not make any comments that may ignite fire and in order to avoid any assault on him that may ignite a religious war," Salama said in Gaza."
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/intern...l?siteSect=143&sid=7070295&cKey=1158410380000
Yes, respect the Christians, just don't allow the Pope to visit, for his own safety, of course, respectfully.
madanthonywayne said:
Who are ‘they’? Who is constantly calling America the Great Satan?
Some Extreme Iranian leaders may have said that, Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups probably do say that however, these extremists do not represent mainstream Muslims, they do not speak for us. Islam is a religion of moderation, we follow the middle path, we shun both extremes.
There are over a billion Muslims across the World, Muslims of different races, languages, cultures etc. Now every Muslim prays his/her 5 daily prayers in Arabic as taught by the Prophet but our own supplications can be made in any language, Arabic, Urdu, Cockney (lol) etc. God knows what is in our hearts. The ‘prayer’ (more like a curse) you have given has nothing to do with Islam. That supplication goes against the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad.
madanthonywayne said:
It is forbidden for Muslims to mock and insult any religion. We have been told to show the utmost respect to other religions, to there Holy books, to their Holy men even though we may not agree with everything them. Those are the true teachings of Islam.
I’ve been given a Bible and other Christian literature and I keep these books right where I keep my Islamic books. That’s out of love and respect.
(Q) said:
A mainstream Muslim is one who sticks to the largest sect, this is called the Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jammah (Sunni Islam). Sunni Islam has 4 schools of thought (Madhabs). They are the Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki and Hanbali. There are only minor differences between these Madhabs (where your hands should be in prayer etc.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhab
The Prophet himself predicted this would happen (the formation of Madhabs), he said this would be mercy for the Muslim nation. The Prophet also told us to stick to the largest Jamaah – the largest group of Muslims. This has and always will be the Ahlus-Sunnah Wah-Jamaah.
Some more articles on Madhabs:
http://www.sunnipath.com/Resources/PrintMedia/Articles/AR00000083.aspx
http://www.sunnipath.com/Resources/PrintMedia/Articles/AR00000164.aspx
Nope.
(Q) said:
Depends on the Pope. John Paul never had any problems.
In fact, he stepped right into a mosque.http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/popsyr.htm
Surely, you don't advocate that a man's position supercedes his actions?
Ghost_007 said:
In other words, selective religion based on selective beliefs from selective interpretations, as outlined in your response and your link, giving rise to yet more evidence to suggest that your religion was manmade.
So much for one god with one religion.
vincent28uk said:
you know vinnie, for a second there I thought you had me on ignore. Maybe you just gave up in the other thread, anyhow:
where does jesus christ fit into your faith??
There is no war of faiths in reality. The actual war is a geo-political one, it's only the amerikaan media that has made the sheep believe there is a war of faiths.
not this topic, but most.
it's those opinions and more importantly the biased and distorted preconceptions that those opinions are based on that is the problem, just like you emperor whats his name.
(Q) said:
mmm… No.
Islamic beliefs are not selective, Islam is taken from the Quran and Sunnah, those are the two main sources. The classical Imams (from centuries back) have made their interpretations from those two sources, the Quran and hadith are still used now. Nothing is hidden, everything is open and transparent.
Please read up on the 4 Imams.
(Q) said:
I was wondering when you'd show your moronic face around here.
mate you can't comprehend the basics. so dont even try to hurt your lobotomised bonce trying to figure out the history/origin/ideology/validity of the occourence of the sects in islam.