Islam

[Wael Manzalawy]

I used to discuss many secular persons about Islam. They had some questions and objectios. I am trying here to answer some of their questions.

Atheist: Islam has spread by the sword.

Muslim: This is not true. Islam has spread in many countries in Asia and Africa without any military action. The Islamic civilization is a fact that cannot be denied. Ask Europe about the Islamic civilization in Spain and the darkness of Europe. Islam is not a barbaric religion. But Islam is the true religion. The Islamic civilization used the military actions for defence and for attacking some enemies. But the muslims did not enforce anyone to convert to Islam. The muslims treated non-muslims justly. They wanted to convince them not to enforce them to convert to Islam.

Atheist: I do not need any religion.

Muslim: Who has created the universe? Who has created you? What is the aim of your life? What will happen to you after death? All these are questions that you cannot find answers to without Islam. Besides, you enjoy materialistic pleasures, but you neglect your soul. Islam achieves the balance and harmony between the soul and the body. Islam does not forbid materialistic pleasures, but Islam is a unit of enjoying our lives and more important obeying our God and Creator.

Atheist: There is no soul.

Muslim: You deny the presence of the soul because you cannot see and cannot touch the soul. We cannot see electricity, but we are sure that there is some thing called electricity because we can see its effects -the light and the heat for example-. Equally, we cannot see the soul, but we can see its effects. What is the difference between two young men: one of them can talk and move while the other is dead without any reason? He did not suffer from any disease. He was not the victim of any accident. The difference is that the soul of the first one is inside his body while the soul of the second one had left his body.

Atheist: What is the difference between Islam and Christianity?

Muslim: The true Christianity invited people to worship One Deity, but some of its followers changed it. The unchanged Bible said that there will be a prophet called Muhammad or Ahmed and invited christians to follow him.
The untrue christianity says that there is a God and his son. This is untrue. If the God decides something and his son decides another thing, what will happen? There will be a conflict between the God and his son. In Islam, there is only One God and He has no sons.

Atheist: There is no God.

Muslim: The universe is changable, so it cannot be eternal. The God created the universe. The God is eternal. I invite you to rethink about the presence of the God and to read the Holy Quran. I invite you to read about Islam from the Islamic point of view.

[blp]

And I invite you to read western philosophy from Descartes, through Spinoza, Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume to Kant, in which you will discover that many of your positions become increasingly difficult to maintain, as they did for these philosophers, most of whom started out as believers in God, and that the 'answers' you claim religion gives you are really just ways of moving the question out of the way, into some imaginary, largely contradictory, transcendental realm, without answering them.

Sorry, Wael, but you still sound like you're preaching. Still, you're preaching largely to the unconvertable. Most of the people you're preaching to are well enough aware of the various truth claims of religion and have found them wanting. I know you don't mean to be offensive, but it is a little offensive to be told these simplistic things over and over again by religionists who always seem to be desperate to get us to read their books, but don't seem to be interested in reading anything that might seriously challenge their faith.

[zado_k]

I used to discuss many secular persons about Islam. They had some questions and objectios. I am trying here to answer some of their questions.

Atheist: Islam has spread by the sword.

Muslim: This is not true. Islam has spread in many countries in Asia and Africa without any military action. The Islamic civilization is a fact that cannot be denied. Ask Europe about the Islamic civilization in Spain and the darkness of Europe. Islam is not a barbaric religion. But Islam is the true religion. The Islamic civilization used the military actions for defence and for attacking some enemies. But the muslims did not enforce anyone to convert to Islam. The muslims treated non-muslims justly. They wanted to convince them not to enforce them to convert to Islam.

So, Islam has never spread by the sword? If this is so it is in good company with Quakerism, Shamanism, Animism and a host of other religions that have not spread by the sword! It is a matter of judgment surely whether we believe reports of forced conversion to religion whether they are reports about Christianity, Paganism or Islam?


Atheist: I do not need any religion.

Muslim: Who has created the universe? Who has created you? What is the aim of your life? What will happen to you after death? All these are questions that you cannot find answers to without Islam. Besides, you enjoy materialistic pleasures, but you neglect your soul. Islam achieves the balance and harmony between the soul and the body. Islam does not forbid materialistic pleasures, but Islam is a unit of enjoying our lives and more important obeying our God and Creator.

To take your questions in order:

The universe is uncreated
The aim of my life is mine to choose
I do not know what will happen to me after death, I suspect nothing


Even if I am unsatisfied with atheistic responses to these questions, there are answers on offer from many religions and quasi-religions alongside those offered by Islam. So, you see, I can answer these questions without Islam.


Atheist: There is no soul.

Muslim: You deny the presence of the soul because you cannot see and cannot touch the soul. We cannot see electricity, but we are sure that there is some thing called electricity because we can see its effects -the light and the heat for example-. Equally, we cannot see the soul, but we can see its effects. What is the difference between two young men: one of them can talk and move while the other is dead without any reason? He did not suffer from any disease. He was not the victim of any accident. The difference is that the soul of the first one is inside his body while the soul of the second one had left his body.

I cannot touch fairy dust but I can deny its existence! Oh wait, you mean that not being able to see of touch something is not a reason to deny its existence? But we agree! I don't know any atheist who insists that only things she can touch and see exist. After all, I believe in the existence of numbers. Conversely, just because something is said to be invisible and untouchable does not mean that it does exist. I don't understand why you need the soul to distinguish death from life. The elan vital is quite sufficient. The dead young man has no elan vital while the living young man has elan vital. What has the soul to do with it?


Atheist: What is the difference between Islam and Christianity?

Muslim: The true Christianity invited people to worship One Deity, but some of its followers changed it. The unchanged Bible said that there will be a prophet called Muhammad or Ahmed and invited christians to follow him.
The untrue christianity says that there is a God and his son. This is untrue. If the God decides something and his son decides another thing, what will happen? There will be a conflict between the God and his son. In Islam, there is only One God and He has no sons.

From the point of view of atheism the important point is the similarity, not the difference.


Atheist: There is no God.

Muslim: The universe is changable, so it cannot be eternal.

The universe is not eternal. It does indeed change. So what?


The God created the universe. The God is eternal.

So you believe and that is fine but this remains just an assertion for which no evidence is provided. The atheist is in the fortunate position that his claim (that the universe involves no god) is simpler.


I invite you to rethink about the presence of the God and to read the Holy Quran. I invite you to read about Islam from the Islamic point of view.

Thank your for offering your dialog. I heartily recommend to you Bertrand Russell's Why I am not a Christian which I think you will find deals with the question of the existence of gods in general (not just the Christian one) very well.

Peace and loving kindness,

Z

[JBI]

Honestly, read the forum rules. These threads with Muslims, or Christians trying to convert, or preach religions are against the rules. Why don't people actually discuss texts, like the board is intended, instead of preach.

[NickAdams]

You posted the same responses from the other thread, which I believe were refuted, but you did not address the arguments.

Any God that creates people so He/She can be worshipped is very vain or has a low self-esteem. You can understand why we avoid Those who are so desperate and needy. They need us more than we need them. I'm kind enough to listen, but who wants to hang with a downer.



I heartily recommend to you Bertrand Russell's Why I am not a Christian which I think you will find deals with the question of the existence of gods in general (not just the Christian one) very well.

It this where he presents the idea of the invisible teacup?


Honestly, read the forum rules. These threads with Muslims, or Christians trying to convert, or preach religions are against the rules. Why don't people actually discuss texts, like the board is intended, instead of preach.

I agree, because there are some interesting things about Islam. Lets discuss the structure of the Qur'an, or what Judeo-Christian text are included or mentioned and why. What has been left out? The satanic verses?

[Wintermute]

Honestly, read the forum rules. These threads with Muslims, or Christians trying to convert, or preach religions are against the rules. Why don't people actually discuss texts, like the board is intended, instead of preach.

Amen!

I think this young person is trying to convince his/her self rather than others.

Let's go back to talking about alien references in sacred texts--that's my favorite.

Peace,
Doug

[planet earth]

blp

Answering your Question in the Humanity Needs Islam thread that is now closed. I will just have to answer here then.

I want you to imagine a book without an author, why are we always certain that a book has an author that has fully chosen his characters, their life events, their community and is omniscient ?

Another point,

Our limitations are limitless and thus a limitless Power, who knows these limitations must exist.

Nick, I love discussions of any verses of the Quran and its structure and would be happy to join any discussion of the sort

And the Quran could also be compared to the Old and New Testaments, is is very enjoyable

[NickAdams]

blp

Answering your Question in the Humanity Needs Islam thread that is now closed. I will just have to answer here then.

I want you to imagine a book without an author, why are we always certain that a book has an author that has fully chosen his characters, their life events, their community and is omniscient ?

Another point,

Our limitations are limitless and thus a limitless Power, who knows these limitations must exist.

Nick, I love discussions of any verses of the Quran and its structure and would be happy to join any discussion of the sort

And the Quran could also be compared to the Old and New Testaments, is is very enjoyable

I don't think you answered the questions from the previous thread, but moving on. Nightshade and I will be starting a thread to discuss the structural aspects of the Quran. I'll let you know when it happens.

[planet earth]

I don't think you answered the questions from the previous thread, but moving on. Nightshade and I will be starting a thread to discuss the structural aspects of the Quran. I'll let you know when it happens.

Am I? Ok then, I guess I will have to read the questions again then.

I will be glad to join when you are ready.

[West]

Honestly, read the forum rules. These threads with Muslims, or Christians trying to convert, or preach religions are against the rules. Why don't people actually discuss texts, like the board is intended, instead of preach.



How are you personally offended by the thread other than bringing up forum rules? And how does one separate religious text discussion from validating the book and therefore advance its cause?

If I say the Quran is the word of God, unchanged, uncorrupted, perfection of christianity and judaism, would that be different from this thread's objective? Afterall, Islam is based on the Quran. There is no Islam without the Quran. Discussion of the Quran as a text is the same as Discussing about Islam. Your point of view may differ but that is the islamic perspective, if you object to it, your voice is welcome and am sure muslims in this thread will not be offended.

[JBI]

The point is, this thread does not discuss the Koran, and it doesn't intend to. It preaches, like almost every other thread on this board. But this is not a preaching board, it is a literature discussion board, and as such, the truth and perfection of the Christian and Judaic tradition, or the whether or not the Koran is the word of God is irrelevant to these boards. If you wish to discuss the Koran, I more than welcome you. There may not be an Islam without the Koran, as you say, but there is a Koran without Islam, and one can discuss things without having to preach them, or to accept them as the word of God. I don't believe in any holy scripture as the word of God, does that mean I'm biased? Perhaps, but no more biased than someone who believes them - if you Believe the Koran as the word of God, you clearly don't believe in the Vedic scriptures, and as such, aren't you biased towards them.


But no, I did not even mention that. I merely pointed out that there is a thread called read before posting, and it details the purpose of this board, and clearly states that it is not for preaching, or promoting a religion, but for discussion of Literary texts, and of Religion from a perspective of treating Religions as Religions, not as truths.

Why am I against someone preaching the book to validate a cause? I live in a free country, people have the right to do whatever they want. But these boards have rules, and all must follow them. I would say the same thing to any believer, be he Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jew, or Atheist if he was preaching to convert, instead of discussing. But yeah, I'm such a spoil sport - seriously, feel free to preach, but really, do so on a board for preaching.

B: These forums are not here for preaching, or attempts to convert, nor promote other religiously affiliated websites.

It's there for a reason, regardless of what I believe or not, these boards have a purpose, and that purpose, according to the rules, is to discuss texts.

[Delta40]

I like your distinction JBI. I like boundaries which actually enable us to move around more freely, instead of being herded into a corner, forbidding us to move. My comment isn't aimed at any topic in particular but generally. I have found this often happens when there are few, if any signs or guides to show us our freedoms. the result is, we are limited further from not having rules or guidelines.

[West]

The point is, this thread does not discuss the Koran, and it doesn't intend to. It preaches, like almost every other thread on this board. But this is not a preaching board, it is a literature discussion board, and as such, the truth and perfection of the Christian and Judaic tradition, or the whether or not the Koran is the word of God is irrelevant to these boards. If you wish to discuss the Koran, I more than welcome you. There may not be an Islam without the Koran, as you say, but there is a Koran without Islam, and one can discuss things without having to preach them, or to accept them as the word of God. I don't believe in any holy scripture as the word of God, does that mean I'm biased? Perhaps, but no more biased than someone who believes them - if you Believe the Koran as the word of God, you clearly don't believe in the Vedic scriptures, and as such, aren't you biased towards them.


But no, I did not even mention that. I merely pointed out that there is a thread called read before posting, and it details the purpose of this board, and clearly states that it is not for preaching, or promoting a religion, but for discussion of Literary texts, and of Religion from a perspective of treating Religions as Religions, not as truths.

Why am I against someone preaching the book to validate a cause? I live in a free country, people have the right to do whatever they want. But these boards have rules, and all must follow them. I would say the same thing to any believer, be he Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jew, or Atheist if he was preaching to convert, instead of discussing. But yeah, I'm such a spoil sport - seriously, feel free to preach, but really, do so on a board for preaching.

B: These forums are not here for preaching, or attempts to convert, nor promote other religiously affiliated websites.

It's there for a reason, regardless of what I believe or not, these boards have a purpose, and that purpose, according to the rules, is to discuss texts.



Thanks for your input. If this thread was moved to another section(to a preaching board if there is one), would that sit well with the forum rules? or with anyone who disagrees with it being on here? It is "discussion" post as the owner of the thread put it, not a "preaching". And that is my view. Others have an opinion or two in opposition to what he said or will say, someone like me want to read that different take and learn from it possibly. Deleting/Closing a thread like this on the basis of it being "a preaching" is not too convincing. May be move it to somewhere else on the board where it is acceptable.


You mentioned how I may not believe in Vedic texts if I took the Quran to be the word of God. That is not true entirely but partially. I don't have to believe in any text to validate obvious truths/good in them. Say for example, the Vedic text teaches charity and alms giving, respecting people and the environment and etc, how would that contradict what I read from the Quran? It doesn't, so those parts which are in harmony with a Quranic teaching, I take it, those parts that contradict, I leave it alone. And there is a good reason for that selective acceptance and approach to everything. If I believe God to be eternal, I can not accept a dead god or one who dies, if I believe God transcends all imperfections, I disagree by default with any teaching that insinuates/teaches otherwise. If I believe God is not begotten nor does he begett, then I wouldn't obviously agree to that same idea or teaching. Same goes for Multiple gods, they wouldn't sit well with my Monotheistic view.. That is how it goes for me personally. One obviously can not accept or agree to what contradicts -in his judgement- the truth as he hlods it. It is all about what makes sense or doesn't upon scrunity within beliefs. I am biased obviously to what I deem to be the most sensible. Thanks again for your efforts in explaining the rules of the forum.


Off topic: Having lived in the US for over a decade, I realized how people choose to be quite rather than express their opinion when it came to religion. They make a point in avoiding religious discussion and the subject is treated as a taboo in many circles. I can tell when my friends and coworkers want to ask me a question about islam, or they want to get clarification for something allegedly islamic, they go through tough time contemplating how I would react to their question :D:D Litte they know, I welcome thousand questions in one setting. Only if I can manage to answer them satisfactorily, that would be great. If I don't know the answer, I simply refer them to more knowledgeable sources, or bring a book for them so they can read it for themselves. Hardly anything offensive to me about that. I in fact want them to ask. They don't have to accept what I tell them. Telling it is my responsibility, whether people accept what I tell them is not my concern. They can form their own opinion.

I come from a background that promotes discussion and doesn't shy away from asking. Likewise, telling what you deem to be the truth in the most respectful manner you can master is a virtue. You don't have to tow the line to avoid rocking the boat and by extension let unanswered questions that can lead to biases fester your mind. It is not wrong to disagree respectfully and explain why.

Thanks mate for your input. If they remove this thread to somewhere else, I will follow it. I want nonmuslims, believers nonbelievers to chime in and say what their view is. It doesn't hurt.

[JBI]

Fine - here's a non-believer, an Atheists perspective - the "proofs" or whatever at the top are part of a long line of proofs, all of which are pure rhetoric, and rather silly. One, if discussing religion, should discuss religion, not the validity or truth, or requirement of it. That isn't the purpose of discussion, that is the purpose of religion, or at least some of them, Christianity and Islam included. Claims of the "perfection" of another tradition aren't discussion, they are statement, and rhetoric. Why go so far to compare God to electricity, or justify his existence. Why not on some of these threads, can someone take a part of the Koran, and discuss it, discuss its meaning and significance, not as religious literature, but as teaching, because after all, these recitals are teachings, whether true or not. Why not embrace that, instead of this Islamocentric vision. That's what I think, but then again, who would win with that? This thread doesn't clarify any questions, it merely serves to promote a vision, or to undercut another vision.

[NickAdams]

Usually politics and religion are not discussed in the work place because it could be offensive to your coworkers or whatever your place of business call customers. I have gotten into trouble in the past for asking questions after a coworker spoke of her life and religion.

I admit to not disscussing any aspect of Islam in public, because I find it to be a sensitive subject. My Buddhist, Christian and Jewish friends can laugh at a jab or two. I can't say everyone one is like that, because of the coworker I mentioned.

Then there's the fatwa on Rushdie, but again that is an individual case.

[Nightshade]

I don't think you answered the questions from the previous thread, but moving on. Nightshade and I will be starting a thread to discuss the structural aspects of the Quran. I'll let you know when it happens.

Really gone and trapped me there haven't you Nick?

And thank you JBI for a reminder of the forum rules and as Moderator I feel more than inclined to point out that yes everyone should and needs to read the rules before posting especially in this subforum. Also if a thread has been closed please do not continue to discuss it in another thread , thanks. :D

West - there is no preaching subforum, on the litnet. :D


Why not on some of these threads, can someone take a part of the Koran, and discuss it, discuss its meaning and significance, not as religious literature, but as teaching, because after all, these recitals are teachings, whether true or not.
JBI while I think you are definitely onto something with the take a teaching and discuss it idea, the obvious issue that rises is that to some of the people who believe that it is irrevocably the word of God discussing it out this context trying to apply a 'human' understanding on the teachings becomes neigh on impossible and almost if I do say blasphemous at times, which is why comments on the miracle and the divine proofs end up in most religious arguments regardless of the religion because faith ultimately plays a major part in how one views a religious text.

[NickAdams]

Really gone and trapped me there haven't you Nick?

I think you're in a better position to create the thread, because your familiarity with both the Quran and the Forum rules.;)

[Shield&Sword]

religious people disperate?
well some of religiouns they are, and others they are not.
Kant and people like him was disperate, they searched but they died, insane, with alot oe questions they didnt find an answer for it. they are the disperate ones.
What about tolstoy, enstein and alot others, some of them respected Mouhammad pbuh, and alot of them believed in God, they werent poeple who sat disperately and began to ask them selves questions that didnt chane any thing but drove them carzy.
I wont preach here, but talking about all religiouns using one language shows that some poeple are still living 300 years ago, when scientists and disperated philosophers were discrimnated by the only religioun known that time for them, or lets say allowded.
If there is any religion that can be relaited to science its islam, read what poeple from your own flesh and blood wrote about islam and the discoveries it brought, the word READ is the first word revealed to Mouhammad pbuh.
If you only can turn off fox and cnn and sit in your room and begin to gather your own info by your self rather than be served by hollywood believe me you will be amazed.
By the way dont be stoned to 300 years ago philosophers, they lived in another time in another places, world change, perhaps you got sources that they didnt have, your are not "educated" if you can repeat philosophers writings by heart.

[mercy_mankind]

It's just a conversation between an Atheist and a Muslim, and yes there are many atheists here asking such questions, so here are the answers through an Islamic perspective. Where is the Problem?!

Salam :)

[Whifflingpin]

"It's just a conversation between an Atheist and a Muslim, and yes there are many atheists here asking such questions, so here are the answers through an Islamic perspective. Where is the Problem?!"

The original post was not a conversation. It was preaching, using a question and answer format.

**********

"What is the difference between two young men: one of them can talk and move while the other is dead without any reason? He did not suffer from any disease. He was not the victim of any accident. The difference is that the soul of the first one is inside his body while the soul of the second one had left his body."

How is this compatible with "If there is any religion that can be relaited to science its islam" ?

[Saladin]

Your intentions are good from an islamic perspective, Wael. But this is a friendly (brotherly advise) from me. From a fellow muslim. You are trying to hard. Do dawah (invitation/islamic missionary) for those who wants dawah.

Nightshade:
Since that other thread is closed and i didnt answer your post. Well sorry about the misunderstanding, i just "thought" you couldnt read arabic - i am not fluent in arabic.

[lupe]

"As for the unbelievers, neither their riches nor their children will in the least save them from God's judgement. They shall become fuel for the Fire. "

The Coran, 3:10

This is what this thread is about.

[Shield&Sword]

i meant by the frase If there is any religion that can be relaited to science its islam" ? this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQEZ5SAStj8 as a begginig.

lupe where is the problem in this verse, in christianity and judaism and islam non believers (in thier own religioun) will be in hell after they die, we believe that life came for a reason while athiest believe we are quincedence and a type of animals that will be vanished after we die. What deffernce it makes for an athiest if he will be burned after death, he will be vanished and thats it for him.
we believe that every one will get what he deserve after he dies. it talks about after life and we cant muslims do anything about it, its something between a person and God, behaviours of muslims between each other and with non believers can be measured in this life, if you have anything not clear about this thing (everyday life) then i will be glad to answer it. in other words you must be concerned about how muslims treat you in life rather than being concerned about what muslims think about your death.

[mercy_mankind]

The original post was not a conversation. It was preaching, using a question and answer format.

Well, what is the difference between the OP and all threads in this section?
when an atheist wonders about the aim of his/her creation, and I or anyone else give him an answer through Islamic philosophy, does it mean that I'm preaching?!
that's what Wael does, an atheist asks him and he gives him the answers, then he collected them in A&Q. right?!
There is no attempt to preach here, just a clarification (as I think).



You are trying to hard. Do dawah (invitation/islamic missionary) for those who wants dawah.


Do you mean those who ask for it or in need for it?!


"As for the unbelievers, neither their riches nor their children will in the least save them from God's judgement. They shall become fuel for the Fire. "

The Coran, 3:10

This is what this thread is about.

lupe, you know that's not the right way to debate about Islam, and as Shield says, It's a base in all religions that the non believers shall be in hell. That's what differ a believer from non believer.

[planet earth]

"As for the unbelievers, neither their riches nor their children will in the least save them from God's judgement. They shall become fuel for the Fire. "

The Coran, 3:10

This is what this thread is about.

Dear Lupe,

the worst thing one can do is to bring a sentence or verse out of its contest. This was the first point

Point no. 2
Let us say you work in a company. won't be there a list of regulations? If You violate the rules you deserve a punishment, if not you take a bonus. Why could this be acceptable at schools work organizations driving laws and everything but not be accepted when it comes to religion.

Point no3.

Allah inscribed Mercy upon Himself. There are more than 255 occurences of Mercy in the Quran while Wrath was mentioned 18 times only.

Allah loves his creations, He made us with his Hands, He is the Kind, the Generous, the Merciful, the grantor of everything.
His relationship with us is mutual. When we mention Him, He mentions us, When we thank Him, He thanks to us. When we repent to Him, He repents Upon us, and so on. Overall He is the intimate.


Choosing one, two or three verses from the Quran containing punishment is not the way you can judge the Quran.

Thank you for being so interested in the verses of Quran, if just you would
read it all.

[mercy_mankind]

Dear Lupe,

the worst thing one can do is to bring a sentence or verse out of its contest. This was the first point

Point no. 2
Let us say you work in a company. won't be there a list of regulations? If You violate the rules you deserve a punishment, if not you take a bonus. Why could this be acceptable at schools work organizations driving laws and everything but not be accepted when it comes to religion.

Point no3.

Allah inscribed Mercy upon Himself. There are more than 255 occurences of Mercy in the Quran while Wrath was mentioned 18 times only.

Allah loves his creations, He made us with his Hands, He is the Kind, the Generous, the Merciful, the grantor of everything.
His relationship with us is mutual. When we mention Him, He mentions us, When we thank Him, He thanks to us. When we repent to Him, He repents Upon us, and so on. Overall He is the intimate.


Choosing one, two or three verses from the Quran containing punishment is not the way you can judge the Quran.

Thank you for being so interested in the verses of Quran, if just you would
read it all.

Well said sis :)

[lupe]

The intellectual level of your arguments is enough for an answer. My favourite part was the one with the violation of rules and regulations (!) and the deserved punishment.... Amazing.

But I won't argue with you. I will always respond you with the inspirational words of your beloved book (or the Bible for that matter):


"(We) shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be their fate."

The Koran, 2:126

[billyjack]

"(We) shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be their fate."

The Koran, 2:126

but but but, you're taking it out of context....

ha. as if some fluff surrounding this sickness of mind can soften the insanity of it.

i want to play:

Quran 22:19-22: "… for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods."

macabre eh? the quran does indeed promote good behavior for the most part, but just one Texas Chainsaw Massacre snippet like the one above forces me to disregard the whole argument in favor of it.

[planet earth]

The intellectual level of your arguments is enough for an answer. My favourite part was the one with the violation of rules and regulations (!) and the deserved punishment.... Amazing.

But I won't argue with you. I will always respond you with the inspirational words of your beloved book (or the Bible for that matter):


"(We) shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be their fate."

The Koran, 2:126

Great, Fair enough. I think we will do the same then.

whereupon unto those who have attained to faith and wrought good works We shall most certainly assign chambers in that paradise under which run*ning rivers flow, therein to abide: how excellent a reward for those who labour – Quran 29:58

[lupe]

"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not."

The Koran, 2:216

[Shield&Sword]

I think every one must know when a person want to have a good discussion or just hang around.
The non believers punishment in other life is not an issue, i think there are alot of things more important to be discussed before we arrive to that point, he just ignored my post because he wants to play only, thank God i knew other intellegent educated non believers otherwise i will really have bad idea about them, especially that alot of them call themselfs "reasonable people" and use the term "scientific proof".
Thanks alot for ruining the thread as most of other islamic threads that were closed, i think some poeple are specialized in these things.

[JBI]

I think every one must know when a person want to have a good discussion or just hang around.
The non believers punishment in other life is not an issue, i think there are alot of things more important to be discussed before we arrive to that point, he just ignored my post because he wants to play only, thank God i knew other intellegent educated non believers otherwise i will really have bad idea about them, especially that alot of them call themselfs "reasonable people" and use the term "scientific proof".
Thanks alot for ruining the thread as most of other islamic threads that were closed, i think some poeple are specialized in these things.

Oh come on, the binary was set up in the original post, trying to push a vision of the ignorant atheist, versus the informed, spiritually at peace Muslim, and implicitly preaching Islam, and its "good" in relation to a biased portrayal of the "ignorant atheist" who thinks he is smart, but cannot see the "truth" of Islam. Tell me, was it really the Atheist who ruined this thread, or the fact that the original poster was more concerned with trying to show Islam's superiority in doctrine to that of the Atheist which really derailed this thread.

I don't particularly call it a thread though, the original post is more of a soliloquy, an interior monologue, where one set up a straw-man argument to try and preach a doctrine. As Nightshade said:



[T]he obvious issue that rises is that to some of the people who believe that it is irrevocably the word of God discussing it out this context trying to apply a 'human' understanding on the teachings becomes neigh on impossible and almost if I do say blasphemous at times, which is why comments on the miracle and the divine proofs end up in most religious arguments regardless of the religion because faith ultimately plays a major part in how one views a religious text.

In other words, some people are unable to give up their bias on the text of the Koran, and allow a perspective other than one's own to be seen as something other than "blasphemous" or flat out wrong. The only actual discussion of the text, with such restrictions of religious bias, is a quibble, a poking at interpretation of whether the word of God means this or that, rather than, and what would probably be a more informative reading, seeing as how various posters have claimed they wish to "educate" various secularists and believers in other faiths about Islam, a secular, or perhaps more nuanced reading, taking in many perspectives, both Religious, secular, literary and theological.

Yes, the binary is there, but perhaps it is not the secularists' fault that this thread derailed. Perhaps it simply has to do with the thread being started in bad faith.

So when it comes down to it, how many posters here actually are "reasonable people". Surely some secularists may be a little bit unreasonable. I too am unreasonable at times, but I at least can accept, or humor other perspectives, rather than push forward my own at all times, despite my human knack of on occasion arguing, as I know, I am prone to do too often. The point though, is that there are unreasonable people of both sides, and this thread in general is unreasonable, given its foundation on a straw man portrayal of a falsified enemy. Perhaps certain people have misconceptions of Islam - I am sure most of the Western world does, to a small or great extent depending on exposure and education, - but I would also like to point out that perhaps Muslims may have misconceptions of secularists, or believers in other faiths, and perhaps they may be as wrong as secularists, and as imposing, given the adversarial perspective of this thread as proof, and the fact that constantly these boards are flooded with Copy and Paste clippings from different other websites, preaching and trying to spread Islam, as occur with other faiths, and with variants of secular teaching, which appear here to do the same.

In truth, I think the most reasonable post so far, if we are keeping with the theme of unreasonability was posted by Saladin, who remarked, coming from a Muslim perspective mind you, that one should not try to convert here, and when converting is not wanted. Conversion may be a beautiful thing - Religion often helps people, especially those going through rough times, and perhaps Islam can help people, but the point remains, that it is only helpful if people wish it to be so. I'm sure members of these boards, if they are curious, wouldn't hesitate to PM people from Muslim backgrounds in order to learn more, or have some questions answered, assuming that they are reasonable people, and want such questions answered. I have had various questions PMed to me about Judaism which I have willingly answered. I am sure Muslims wouldn't hesitate to do the same, no matter what belief or lack of belief the questioner may be coming from, assuming the question is asked in good faith, and not to mock, or to make one feel stupid.

If one was trying to break down misconceptions of Islam, then this post would have grounding, and I would be all supportive, but as it is, the original post looks like a "see that, you stupid atheist" post to me. If anything, it creates false perceptions of atheists which are perhaps just as derogatory and harmful as the false perceptions of Islam such posters are trying to destroy. In order to understand, both sides must yield, otherwise nothing can be gained. A binary oppositional stance as seen in the foundation of this thread is undoubtedly the most unreasonable way to approach such conversation.

[billyjack]

I think every one must know when a person want to have a good discussion or just hang around.
The non believers punishment in other life is not an issue, i think there are alot of things more important to be discussed before we arrive to that point, he just ignored my post because he wants to play only, thank God i knew other intellegent educated non believers otherwise i will really have bad idea about them, especially that alot of them call themselfs "reasonable people" and use the term "scientific proof".
Thanks alot for ruining the thread as most of other islamic threads that were closed, i think some poeple are specialized in these things.

i quoted the koran and elaborated my opinion of the quote. i think it paramount to discuss the muslim ideas about the afterlife bc, like it or not, these ideas influence life. if they didnt, i wouldnt give a rats. by the by, i glimpsed at your previous post but didn't have 2 hours to watch the link you put on it

[Whifflingpin]

West "Others have an opinion or two in opposition to what he said or will say, someone like me want to read that different take and learn from it possibly."

Just for you West, I disagree with what the OP said about the sword of Islam.


Wael "Atheist: Islam has spread by the sword.
Muslim: This is not true. ... Ask Europe about the Islamic civilization in Spain"

Muslim forces invaded Spain in 711 and conquered it in the next seven years. They were not invited, they did not convert by reason, or by the shining light of faith.
Islamic civilization in Spain was founded by the sword, the same sword that spread Islam throughout the Middle East, the Balkan peninsula, Iran and India.
To say that Islam was not spread by the sword is, to be polite, a perversion of the truth.

Please note that I am not denying or belittling any of the achievements of the Muslim civilization in Spain. That civilization might show how learning, the arts and tolerance may flourish under Islamic rule.
But no European who knows anything of history will forget that while some Moslems were enjoying civilized life in spain, other Moslems were destroying, by the sword (and artillery,) that other civilization - Byzantium, the repository of all the ancient learning of Europe. And, while the fountains were playing in the courts of Cordoba, the Moslems who were to destroy Byzantium prepared their way by turning the most fertile land in the Mediterranean basin into the desert that it still remains.

Now, believe me, I do not hold it against Moslems of today that their spiritual ancestors attempted to conquer Europe, (after all Europeans have done their conquering too.) When, however, Moslems deny their ten centuries of aggression, then I can only think them self-deluded or deceitful.

[Niamh]

Mod note
If you want to continue discussing Islam, please do so, but keep the following things in mind;
1) Please show respected for all religions that are present on the forum. We all believe what we believe and are intitled to believe. Do not try and preach your beliefs.
2)Do not quote out of context
3) Discuss the Quran as the holy book it is, the same way you would if it were the Bible, the Torah etc. Show respect for these books.
4) do not personally attack another member if you do not like what they have posted. Discuss the post and not the person.
5) please familiarise yourself with both the forum rules and the Religious Texts Sub-Forum rules before posting.
6) From a mere observation of a previous post, and in no way refuting it, i would like to request that when discussing history and the involvement of religion, that people will note (mainly on the context of war or expanding empires) when it is a nation/ countries fault or when they have been cause by a religious collective, and to keep out of modern politics. :)
Thank you. :)

[planet earth]

The sword in Islam was used, for the one initial reason

intolerance, of country rulers and that is it. The war was not against the people of the country but for them. Rulers who refused to convey what Islam was all about and allowing their people to choose, who were fought. The people then were to chose.


One point, no one here is trying to preach or convert simply because "There is no compulsion is religion" as the Quran states. We are discussing issues, and that is it. One will be trying to convert another only if a member explicitly says I am inviting you to my religion. This did not happen here and will not happen. I believe however, that everyone should freely express how they see their religion.

[JBI]

Footnote please. Lets be honest, a) you have given no source for your claims guys, though Whifflingpin seems more accurate, and b), we must also note, Planet Earth, the Koran allows for members of Islam to lie directly to infidels in the cause of Islam, so how can we really trust anything you say, but either way, no footnotes, and plainly a biased view of history to the extreme.

Islam has a bloody history, as does Christianity, and Ancient Judaism (though the latter hasn't had a bloody history in a while, despite low scale (in comparison) violence occurring in the last 80 years, or under other nationalist agendas (for instance, Jewish involvement in World War 1)). In truth, the spread of Islam was done violently, no historian of any credit would deny it. Swords were used, and bows, and heavy cavalry.

The only relatively quiet time in early history seems to be between 750 and 1250 (in Europe), but ironically, at that same time, Christians were constantly trying to destroy the Moors (a task they succeeded at accomplishing 250 years later).

This is a starter, I guess, but the article, for what its worth, seems to take into account both Muslim primary texts, and contemporary research. Though one cannot trust Wikipedia, I am sure if you wanted, I could pick out from real essays and prove your full out wrong, but that would take a commitment on your part that you will give up arguing if proven wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_islam#Phase_II:_The_Abbasids_.28750-1258.29

I don't like arguing with people who only think of one idea, and cannot allow anyone but themselves, and their doctrine to have any shred of truth. That is what we call fanaticism.

[Whifflingpin]

Planet_Earth: "The sword in Islam was used, for the one initial reason

intolerance, of country rulers and that is it. The war was not against the people of the country but for them. Rulers who refused to convey what Islam was all about and allowing their people to choose, who were fought. The people then were to chose. "

Interesting. In my post I was simply making the point that the spread of Islam was, in a large part due to conquests. I did not make any comment on whether the conquerors were encouraged by their religion to make conquests. The post I have quoted, however, appears to be attempting to justify the conquests on religious grounds. The argument seems to be that it is quite proper for Moslems to conquer any country that does not allow the Islamic religion. In other words that the Islamic religion is quite right to make a place for itself by the sword.

Actually, I do not think the argument is historically valid, nor is it needful. (I have to say that I also think it is naive and morally abysmal, but I'm not in that debate here.)
Historically invalid because, for instance, there was no religious intolerance in India that would have justified a conquest, and I do not think there was in Iran. Neither Hinduism nor Zoroastrianism have the mindset that breeds religious intolerance.
Unnecessary because nations move and war leaders make conquests whatever their religion. Pursuit of land, plunder or power is sufficient incentive, whether the warrior be an Alexander, a Chaka, a Napoleon or a Mehmet the Conqueror.

But, to return to my original point, it is false to claim that Islam was not spread by the conquests made by Moslems.

[mercy_mankind]

Please don't insult our intelligence, all of us know well that the term of "Islam spread by sword" has only one meaning. That Muslims force others to convert to Islam, forcing them to choose whether Islam or death. And that is not true at all, I ask you to put an evidence from Islamic history shows that Islam forces people to convert into it. Islam is so strong, so it doesn't need for "Holy Campaigns of terror" and "Holy Wars" Muslims use swords to liberate the oppressed, you can go back to many books for non muslims like THE PREACHING OF ISLAM by Arnold, Sir Thomas W. (http://www.amazon.com/Preaching-Islam-Sir-Thomas-Arnold/dp/8171512593)

"...of any organized attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing. Had the caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestantism penal in France, or the Jews were kept out of England for 350 years. The Eastern Churches in Asia were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of Christiandom throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on their behalf, as heretical communions. So that the very survival of these Churches to the present day is a strong proof of the generally tolerant attitude of Mohammedan [sic] governments towards them" .

Besides war is the last solution that is used under many circumstances, which aims to reach to a religious freedom.
Islam never tolerates with aggressors from its own side or from any side, and Muslims are commanded by Allah not to violate any rights of others.
Yes the sword was used but when, why, and against whom?!
For freeing people from tyranny and injustice and to enable them from choosing a religion and practicing it freely and also for defending Islam and community.

PS: JBI, please let us see the verses from the Quran or Sunnah which allow Muslims to lie.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
"The signs of the hypocrite are three: when he speaks, he lies; when he makes a promise, he breaks it; and when he is entrusted with something, he betrays that trust."

(Narrated by al-Bukhari, 33; Muslim, 59)
So you can see that lies are prohibited in Islam.

[NickAdams]

"It took several centuries for Islam to spread to parts of India and is a topic of intense debate. Some quarters hold that Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam by laws favoring Muslims Citizens, and threat of naked force; the "Conversion by the Sword Theory." Others hold that this occurred by inter-marriage, conversions, economic integration, to escape caste structures or at the hand of Sufi preachers. The disputers of the "Conversion by the Sword Theory" point to the prescence of the strong Muslim communities found in Southern India, modern day Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Western Burma, Indonesia and Philippines coupled with the distinctively lack of equivalent Muslim communities around the heartland of historical Muslim Empires in the Indian Sub-Continent as refutation to the Conversion by Sword Theory.

Historian Will Durant wrote in The Story of Civilization (1972) that the Muslim conquest of India was "probably the bloodiest story in history." The number of people killed is estimated based on the Muslim chronicles and demographic calculations. K.S. Lal estimated in his book The Growth of Muslim Population in India that between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million. The legacy of Islamic conquest of South Asia is a hotly debated issue even today." - Islamic Conquest in India (http://www.bharatadesam.com/history/islamic_conquest_in_india.php)

[planet earth]

Footnote please. Lets be honest, a) you have given no source for your claims guys, though Whifflingpin seems more accurate, and b), we must also note, Planet Earth, the Koran allows for members of Islam to lie directly to infidels in the cause of Islam, so how can we really trust anything you say, but either way, no footnotes, and plainly a biased view of history to the extreme.

Islam has a bloody history, as does Christianity, and Ancient Judaism (though the latter hasn't had a bloody history in a while, despite low scale (in comparison) violence occurring in the last 80 years, or under other nationalist agendas (for instance, Jewish involvement in World War 1)). In truth, the spread of Islam was done violently, no historian of any credit would deny it. Swords were used, and bows, and heavy cavalry.

The only relatively quiet time in early history seems to be between 750 and 1250 (in Europe), but ironically, at that same time, Christians were constantly trying to destroy the Moors (a task they succeeded at accomplishing 250 years later).

This is a starter, I guess, but the article, for what its worth, seems to take into account both Muslim primary texts, and contemporary research. Though one cannot trust Wikipedia, I am sure if you wanted, I could pick out from real essays and prove your full out wrong, but that would take a commitment on your part that you will give up arguing if proven wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_islam#Phase_II:_The_Abbasids_.28750-1258.29

I don't like arguing with people who only think of one idea, and cannot allow anyone but themselves, and their doctrine to have any shred of truth. That is what we call fanaticism.

Would you please tell me where in the Koran are the Muslims allowed to lie to infidels? Or are you referring to the same verse that Robert Spencer reffered to in his book about "The Truth About Muhammad".

If you believe Muslims are supposed to be liars with infidels, then it is true, that what ever I say or write will be considered a lie. In that case it is you that will be thinking of one idea, which is Muslims are liars to infidels. How will I establish any argument then. If you read our arguments you will find out that we do have the ability to see everyone, and love everyone, but if we are considered liars, then you are right there is no use of argument. But if you are able to believe what we are saying then, please open as much arguments as you can, it will be great and useful to everyone.

Mercy Mankind commented thankfully, on how Islam spread. But honestly let me tell you that it was the strength of the word and not the sword that made Islam spread.

[JBI]

"Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing." Surah 2:225

"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." Surah 3: 28


In other words, you can pretend to be nice to the infidel, you can pretend to befriend them, as long as you don't sincerely do so, and only lie upfront, but not to God, and only do so in the service of God.

Here is a long article about it where I sourced these quotes:

http://www.islamreview.com/articles/lyingprint.htm


In truth, the argument doesn't make you out to be a liar, it simply allows for the possibility, and therefore the lack of authority in tone. If one is allowed to lie to someone in order to deceive them in the cause for Islam, how can I possibly take anything you say about Islam seriously. If you are allowed to pretend to befriend me in the service Allah, and are though, required to not actually befriend me, how can I possibly trust you. The question is there, it has been asked, why then should I believe anything you have said about Islam, if it, by Islamic law, is a justified possible lie. Where then is wisdom to be found?

[Nightshade]

"Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing." Surah 2:225


Uhh JBI that is in the middle of the section relating to marital realtions and divorce, specifically since in islam one need only say I divorce you before witnessees to become divorced. There is a limit to the number of times you can say this and stuff. But this passage relates to screaming it out in anger in the middle of a martial argument. That is unless you truly mean it it doesnt count, people say things in the midst of the moment that they dont mean. It has nothing to do with honesty or nonbelivers .



Mod note

2)Do not quote out of context

[JBI]

Still, how then do you reconcile the notion of Taqiyya which is allowed under Shi'ite Islam? The validation of truth about a religion, which allows for saying whatever, as long as you don't mean it, inevitably leads to a lack of authority.

[Nightshade]

I am not shi'ite, I don't know anything about their beliefs other than my best friend is one and that for the most part they are largely misunderstood, even if they do do things that I may personally find rather bizarre. Also I can't understand why they would have chosen that name of all names, I personally think it must be a name that the other groups gave them to mock them. I can not and will not pretend to know about it. Im not saying Im an expert on anything God knows Im not but at leatst I have some knowledge and acccess to things I do know about. :D

[planet earth]

Yes, JBI, they are the verses used by Robert Spencer. Honestly, and I mean honestly I am very very sorry, Islam is understood this way.

Do you know what befriending is called in Islam? Nifaq. If I befriend someone, and I have other feeling inside me this will be called Nifaq. And Nifaq leads to Hell.

I do not know how to prove us true, but I am truly hurt to know that I am considered a liar. I am here in this forum for my Love to Allah and His Prophet. I love Islam, but this does not mean I need to befriend anyone, if Allah said not to. Nor do I have to hate anyone. And this does not also mean that I have to convert anyone. I just beleive that the voice of moderate Islam has to be heard in the world. The image is distorted, with enough evidence that you thinks Muslims are liars.

Your sources JBI, your sources please.

Let me tell you a story that happened to one of the comrades of Prophet Muhammad, which may clarify the meaning of the above verses. A comrade called Abdullah Bin Hothatfa Al-Sahmy, was taken as prisioner by the Roman, and was threatened to either leave Islam or be killed. He refused to leave Islam. So the Roman Emperor ordered that he be crucified and arrows to be thrown at him, to frighten him. After this happened to him, he was asked if he would leave Islam, which he refused again. Finally, the king ordered a huge pot of boiled oil to be brought and threw into it, 2 muslims, then got Abdullah, and told him to either choose Islam or death in boiled oil, but her refused. As they approached the pot, he cried, so the Roman Emperor asked his men to bring them for him, which they did. He told him again, that he has the chance to leave Islam, but he refused. The Emperor asked him why then were you crying, He said, I wished that I had a million souls to go out for the sake of Allah, not only one. Upon that, the Emperor said, Ok then Kiss my forhead and I will make you leave, which Abdullah accepted finally.

THis is how he protected himself from him, imagine. Look for the sources to make sure of the story.

JBI, once more, I do not want to convert anyone here, and do not hate anyone here and I am not radical, I am much more simple than that, whether you believe it or not. I do not hate anyone here. We all share humanity and finally Muslims are not liars.

Discussing Islamic issues on this website, should be done freely, and others should disagree freely, we are not fighting here, we are just discussing issues and comparing thoughts and cultures. Is that fair enough? I wanted to tell you how lying is considered in the Quran. It is totally forbidden in all of its forms. I might elaborate in this later, if you won't consider me a liar.

Good Bye for now.

[Nightshade]

Salam planet, I think that your English is hindering you. While I know you don't mean what it looks like you are saying. It looks like you are saying that you are here on the forums only to discuss religion and if you make any friends you will go to Hell. Obviously this is not what you mean. :D

Nifaq is as far as I know hypocrisy. Which from so what I gather planet is saying is that pretending to befriend someone whom you secretly hate is hypocritical. And the deeps darkest pit hell is reserved for hypocrites according to the Qu'arn.

As to the allusion of distortion with evidence she is talking about the show just enough truth that it can't be argued with and use it to back up lies. and hey everyone does it about all religions.

The lying being allowed is only in such a point where it may save your life or someone elses, is wat I was taught anyway. :nod:

[JBI]

I do not know how to prove us true, but I am truly hurt to know that I am considered a liar. I am here in this forum for my Love to Allah and His Prophet.

There you go, I'm here to discuss literature, see the difference? You come with agenda, I come with questions, and inquiry.

[planet earth]

Nightshade

you are right. Actually, it was not a good idea to reply yesterday. I was really shocked with this lying reply. I just did not know that I would be directly accused of lying.

simply what I meant, that I am not on this forum to lie. No one will harm me here as you asserted in the above.

Thank you for your kind comment, I do appreciate it


There you go, I'm here to discuss literature, see the difference? You come with agenda, I come with questions, and inquiry.

I am here for the same reason too, but from a Muslim perspective. The first time I entered this forum my only aim was to publish a poem in the personal poetry section called Always Online which expressed a feeling I felt towards Allah; a mood I lived for a while.

However, as we are different here, I guess we are allowed, to express different points of view, whether we agree upon them or not from different religious perspectives. This diversity in our beliefs and thoughts should be fruitful rather than arousing disputes.

I have no agenda what so ever by the way. My replies here are very spontaneous.

Thank you JBI.

[mercy_mankind]

If one was trying to break down misconceptions of Islam, then this post would have grounding, and I would be all supportive.


Great! then you have to support us in replying on your post about lying which shows that you have many misconceptions about Islam.

[Scheherazade]

F i n a l W a r n i n g


Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing such comments will be deleted without any further warning or lead to thread closure.

[Shield&Sword]

jbi what i meant by athiests who pretend to be educated but they ... is lupe when he said that he wont discuss what planet wrote and pasted another verse, strange you didnt comprehend me!!

Sword and islam. Spain was invaded by muslims its true, but was islam spread by sword? did muslims force christians and jews to follow islam or they just fought against other soldiers? Whif. nice that you gave spain as an example i think you watched the video i pasted, hope till end.
When poeple talk about islam they talk as islam suddenly came to earth with 1 billion and a half followers and began to kill poeple.
Islam didnt spread by sword, infact (as jbi asked) nowadays islamic countries are almost the only countries which are conquered by other countries, palastine (by jews), somalia (by christian ethiopia), iraq (by christians), afghanistan (by christians), kashmir (by Hindu), chechenia (by athiest russia), bosnia (by christian serbia, infact the biggest genocide after the 2nd war world took place in bosnia in UN camp). We find all these fact and in same time islam is the fatest growing religioun in world confirmed by western writings, i dont know which sword they are using, perhaps an invisible one.
Since islam began it was fought by pagans who killed alot of new muslim, who were these muslims, did Mohammad pbuh alone used sword to spread islam? then muslims had to face christian Romans in the arabic lands, then persians who were a strong country with a strong army, muslims were so poor but they were forced to fight and they win, alot of poeple entered islam then because they saw how muslims treat them. Jerusalem was taken by no war, egypt then was nearlly 7 millions christians and islamic army was 4000 thousand. Which army of 4000 thousand can make 7 million to convert to islam, the problem is muslims left only 500 persons in egypt to teach islam and the other 3500 left to sudan and north africa, so 500 forced 7 million to convert to islam with the frightning sword.
In Syrian christian citizens fought with muslims against roman christians because they heared about islamic teachings and how to treat non muslims and were tired with roman behaviours, you know kill and steal stuff
Now lands north of iraq some of them were invaded by islamic army and some were not but entered islam in same time, for example mongolian poeple invaded islamic world and killed in Baghdad alone 1 million muslim, after few years mongolian poeple converted to islam after they knew it and saw how muslims act.
West. The most populated islamic country is Indonesia, no one muslim soldier arrived to that country, indonesian poeple knew islam throught trading and converted to islam.
Whif. Spain was invaded but muslims there lived with christians and jews side by side, spain and eroupe always tried to invade islamic countries, from the very beggining. When muslims got weaker they were killed in savage way with jews in spain, villages were destroyed, jews escaped to islamic countries (as they did in 2nd world war): Morocco, Tunisia, Libia, Syria, Iran, yemen, Iraq. No one massacre against jews or christians took place in islamic countries (exept armenian in turkey but facts show that jews in government caused this massacre so europe will force turkey to give palestine to jews, you know dirty politics) , now in egypt there are nearlly 10 million, syria, libanon, palestine ... all with very known old families.

JBI when someone argue with someone else, its better to face him with what he believe, if you use other things and try to make it seems that the other one believe in such thing make you in not good position.
In other words, didnt you find any thing in islam so you ran to shia?
Hope next time we pick verse by verse and try to discuss it in reasonable way, other wise we will be like lupe wont we?
My last word to Whif. do you need another videos ? i got alot

Scuse me if i am aggressive, and if you find missed letters then it must be "f" the button in my lap. doesnt work well, perhaps food under it.
And last thing, please Scheh. if you want to close any thread in future dont make it directly after my post, because it happened alot and i think people began to see me as bad luck for thier threads.

[Nightshade]

This thread has been closed due to blatant forum rule breaking, ignoring previous warnings. Please Read forum rules and religious subforum rules before posting.