NationStates Jolt Archive

"Prescribed for you is fighting, though it be hateful to you." Qur'an II 216

"Fight for those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden - such men as practice not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book - until they pay tribute out of hand and have been humbled" - Qur'an IX 29

"And fight the unbelievers totally even as they fight you totally; and know that God is with the godfearing." Qur'an IX 36

From Islam and the Crusades, Jonathan Riley-Smith, Oxford University

"Jihad, which is commonly translated as "holy war", literally means "striving": that is striving to advance Islam. According to traditional Sunni Muslim doctrine, leadership of the holy war to extend the territories of Islam was vested in the caliph. In the eighth and ninth centuries it had been one of the duties of the Abbasid caliph to direct the jihad. Harun al-Rashid, for example, led his troops against the Byzantines every other year, converting by the sword; in the alternate years, he led the haj, or pilgrimage to Mecca. Jihads were also launched in the eastern lands against the pagan Turks and central Asia as well as against idolatrous Hindus in northern India. Volunteers for these and other holy wars were known as ghazis. They fought in the expectation of booty and, if they fell in the course of campaigning, they were assured of the status of martyrs."

The idea of jihad was formalized in the Kitab al-Jihad in 1105. All of the rules of jihad for Sunnis can be found in the Barh al-Fava'id, or "Sea of Precious Virtues". There are two kinds of jihad - an interior jihad against one's own moral flaws, and an external jihad against the infidel.

Within external jihad, there is offensive and defensive jihad. Offensive jihad is a collective duty imposed on Sunni Muslims to extend Muslim territory by force of arms. Some may wish to take part - but all are obliged to support it with money and approbation. If you are able-bodied, you have no choice in the matter.

For those who say, "well, it's not in the Koran" you are going against centuries of practice. You have to be one of several types of Muslim within the Islamic heterodoxy - you cannot, as many Westerners assume, pick and choose what you like and don't like about Islam.

Shias were also forcibly converted by threat of military force and execution.

Sunni Muslims take their name from the Sunna, or words and deeds of the Prophet Muhammed and his Companions, a body of orally transmitted traditions which helped shape both Islamic law (the Sharia) and the conduct of individual Muslims (other documents that cannot be ignored at will by adherents of Islam). Sunni Muslims recognized the supreme political authority of the caliphs, even though this authority was (in the aftermath of Muhammed) a legalistic fiction.

Osama bin Laden, and some of his supporters, see him as the Caliph.

In this they differ from Shi'i Muslims who hold that the ultimate religious and political authority could only be held by 'Ali, the Prophet's son-in-law, and then by the imams who were his descendants and spiritual successors. Shi'a 'Ali means the Party of Ali. One major group of Shi'is holds that after the disappearance, or occultation, of the twelfth imam in 878, ultimate spiritual authority was in abeyance. Twelver Shi'is waited for the return of the Hidden Imam, and with his coming the imposition of Islamic justice on the whole world. However, another group of Shi'is, the Isma'ilis, held that it ws after the disappearance in 760 of Isma'il, whom they regarded as the rightful seventh Imam, that the imamate had gone into occultation. In the course of the eleventh century, there were further schisms, as first the Druze and then the Nizari Isma'ilis (or Assassins) broke away from and opposed the pretentions of the Isma'ili Fatimid caliphate in Cairo.

I could go on. Shi'is were constantly through history converted by the sword to Sunni Islam. As were Christians of various sorts (not that the Franks were without their own form of blame during the Crusades).

There are many other documents, which form the underpinning of Sunni belief, which hold violent, offensive jihad as a holy ideal. It is NOT possible to be a Sunni and ignore these documents, saying, "I only believe in the Koran."

In Shi'i theology, only the imam may call for offensive jihad, and since the imam is in occultation, this duty is in abeyance until the Last Days, when he returns. Thus, although Shi'is engaged in battles with crusaders, they never once mentioned it as being holy war, and jihad played NO part in their ideology.

I could go into the origin of madrassas, and the role of Sufis in the first ritual beheadings of captured hostages (something we see now on al-Jazeera).

Everything that is taking place today has its roots SOLIDLY in historical documents, historical precedence, and fact. Anyone who claims to be a Muslim cannot go around inventing other aspects on their own, choosing to ignore wholesale the heavy hand of history which lies upon each branch of the Islamic heterodoxy.

This is where we assume that Christianity is better, right? :rolleyes:

This is where we assume that Christianity is better, right? :rolleyes:
Did he say that?? No he did not

"Prescribed for you is fighting, though it be hateful to you." Qur'an II 216

"Fight for those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden - such men as practice not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book - until they pay tribute out of hand and have been humbled" - Qur'an IX 29

"And fight the unbelievers totally even as they fight you totally; and know that God is with the godfearing." Qur'an IX 36

From Islam and the Crusades, Jonathan Riley-Smith, Oxford University

"Jihad, which is commonly translated as "holy war", literally means "striving": that is striving to advance Islam. According to traditional Sunni Muslim doctrine, leadership of the holy war to extend the territories of Islam was vested in the caliph. In the eighth and ninth centuries it had been one of the duties of the Abbasid caliph to direct the jihad. Harun al-Rashid, for example, led his troops against the Byzantines every other year, converting by the sword; in the alternate years, he led the haj, or pilgrimage to Mecca. Jihads were also launched in the eastern lands against the pagan Turks and central Asia as well as against idolatrous Hindus in northern India. Volunteers for these and other holy wars were known as ghazis. They fought in the expectation of booty and, if they fell in the course of campaigning, they were assured of the status of martyrs."

The idea of jihad was formalized in the Kitab al-Jihad in 1105. All of the rules of jihad for Sunnis can be found in the Barh al-Fava'id, or "Sea of Precious Virtues". There are two kinds of jihad - an interior jihad against one's own moral flaws, and an external jihad against the infidel.

Within external jihad, there is offensive and defensive jihad. Offensive jihad is a collective duty imposed on Sunni Muslims to extend Muslim territory by force of arms. Some may wish to take part - but all are obliged to support it with money and approbation. If you are able-bodied, you have no choice in the matter.

For those who say, "well, it's not in the Koran" you are going against centuries of practice. You have to be one of several types of Muslim within the Islamic heterodoxy - you cannot, as many Westerners assume, pick and choose what you like and don't like about Islam.

Shias were also forcibly converted by threat of military force and execution.

Sunni Muslims take their name from the Sunna, or words and deeds of the Prophet Muhammed and his Companions, a body of orally transmitted traditions which helped shape both Islamic law (the Sharia) and the conduct of individual Muslims (other documents that cannot be ignored at will by adherents of Islam). Sunni Muslims recognized the supreme political authority of the caliphs, even though this authority was (in the aftermath of Muhammed) a legalistic fiction.

Osama bin Laden, and some of his supporters, see him as the Caliph.

In this they differ from Shi'i Muslims who hold that the ultimate religious and political authority could only be held by 'Ali, the Prophet's son-in-law, and then by the imams who were his descendants and spiritual successors. Shi'a 'Ali means the Party of Ali. One major group of Shi'is holds that after the disappearance, or occultation, of the twelfth imam in 878, ultimate spiritual authority was in abeyance. Twelver Shi'is waited for the return of the Hidden Imam, and with his coming the imposition of Islamic justice on the whole world. However, another group of Shi'is, the Isma'ilis, held that it ws after the disappearance in 760 of Isma'il, whom they regarded as the rightful seventh Imam, that the imamate had gone into occultation. In the course of the eleventh century, there were further schisms, as first the Druze and then the Nizari Isma'ilis (or Assassins) broke away from and opposed the pretentions of the Isma'ili Fatimid caliphate in Cairo.

I could go on. Shi'is were constantly through history converted by the sword to Sunni Islam. As were Christians of various sorts (not that the Franks were without their own form of blame during the Crusades).

There are many other documents, which form the underpinning of Sunni belief, which hold violent, offensive jihad as a holy ideal. It is NOT possible to be a Sunni and ignore these documents, saying, "I only believe in the Koran."

In Shi'i theology, only the imam may call for offensive jihad, and since the imam is in occultation, this duty is in abeyance until the Last Days, when he returns. Thus, although Shi'is engaged in battles with crusaders, they never once mentioned it as being holy war, and jihad played NO part in their ideology.

I could go into the origin of madrassas, and the role of Sufis in the first ritual beheadings of captured hostages (something we see now on al-Jazeera).

Everything that is taking place today has its roots SOLIDLY in historical documents, historical precedence, and fact. Anyone who claims to be a Muslim cannot go around inventing other aspects on their own, choosing to ignore wholesale the heavy hand of history which lies upon each branch of the Islamic heterodoxy.
Good of you to produce this much. *bows*

Did he say that?? No he did not


Inference. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=inference) Mostly from previous forum behaviour.

Inference. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=inference) Mostly from previous forum behaviour.
How nice of you to give me a link to the meaning of the word, how low you must think of people who post things against you.

This is where we assume that Christianity is better, right? :rolleyes:

No, Fass. I could go on and on about the Crusades, you know.

I'm just making the following points:

a. you can't invent and follow your own version of Islam.
b. Islam, specifically Sunni Islam, has a long, formal, and violent past, contrary to the statements made by Keruvalia.

How nice of you to give me a link to the meaning of the word, how low you must think of people who post things against you.

Well, you seemed to have missed it the first time.

Oh, and I think nothing of those who post "against" me. You may be taking this a bit too seriously if things here are "against" you.

No, Fass. I could go on and on about the Crusades, you know.

I'm just making the following points:

a. you can't invent and follow your own version of Islam.
b. Islam, specifically Sunni Islam, has a long, formal, and violent past, contrary to the statements made by Keruvalia.
Which is a bit irrelevent because most people do anyway, no matter the religion (eg, catholics supporting abortion, gay marriage, all of the protestant religions which sprang up because they felt like it), and a lot of my friends are sunni Islam and they don't run around shouting death to america any more then catholics shout "down with the protestants". (Does not apply to Ireland)

No, Fass. I could go on and on about the Crusades, you know.

I'm just making the following points:

a. you can't invent and follow your own version of Islam.

Why not? Jews and Christians do the same with their religions all the time. Or do you know many of them who still follow the entire Bible?

b. Islam, specifically Sunni Islam, has a long, formal, and violent past, contrary to the statements made by Keruvalia.

Again, as have so many other religions. Why is this one special? Your vendetta with Keruvalia is of no consequence to me.

Anyone who claims to be a Muslim cannot go around inventing other aspects on their own, choosing to ignore wholesale the heavy hand of history which lies upon each branch of the Islamic heterodoxy.

And anyone who claims to have studied Qur'an and Islam should also know that you can't take a few words out of a couple of verses and use them as the whole of the path.

Context is extremely important when dealing with Qur'an.

Yes, fighting is prescribed for us ... but only after all other avenues are exhausted and only under certain conditions, which you have failed - either deliberately or otherwise - to mention.

Islam today is like a precious jewel that is buried under piles upon piles of man-made innovations. Following the Sunnah and/or Hadith is blasphemy and all but a few Muslims know this to be true. They are nice reference for things, but Qur'an is the only authority on how Muslims should be.

I invite you to read this:

http://www.quran.org/quran/index.html

Why not? Jews and Christians do the same with their religions all the time. Or do you know many of them who still follow the entire Bible?

Again, as have so many other religions. Why is this one special? Your vendetta with Keruvalia is of no consequence to me.

Fass, if you're in a Western country, you can invent your own flavor of religion.

If you actually go to some other countries, though, you can't.

You can't, for instance, invent your own version of Judaism, and then expect the rest of the Jews in the world to accept you as such. Nor would Muslims accept you as being a Muslim if you were inventing it as you went along.

Specifically, if you're inventing it as you go along, picking and choosing what you want to believe, you CANNOT speak for ANY of the rest - nor can you speak for that religion at all - because you have precious little in common with even the minorities within a particular heterodoxy.

It's fallacious to believe otherwise. And to spread foolish nonsense that "Islam is a religion of peace" or "no one has ever been converted by the sword" is just that - arrant nonsense.

Islam today is like a precious jewel that is buried under piles upon piles of man-made innovations. Following the Sunnah and/or Hadith is blasphemy and all but a few Muslims know this to be true. They are nice reference for things, but Qur'an is the only authority on how Muslims should be.

I invite you to stand on the street in any Sunni country in the world, and make that announcement in Arabic. You would not live to say the end of the sentence.

Stop inventing what you perceive Islam to be - and take a look at what it really is.

Fass, if you're in a Western country, you can invent your own flavor of religion.

If you actually go to some other countries, though, you can't.

And there were and are those who are like that who are Christian! Imagine that! Are you actually trying to get away with this straw man?

You can't, for instance, invent your own version of Judaism, and then expect the rest of the Jews in the world to accept you as such. Nor would Muslims accept you as being a Muslim if you were inventing it as you went along.

Again, people do that all the time. Islam is quite different in Bosnia, where it is actually very secular, compared to Saudi Arabia. Again, are you really trying to get away with this straw man?

Specifically, if you're inventing it as you go along, picking and choosing what you want to believe, you CANNOT speak for ANY of the rest - nor can you speak for that religion at all - because you have precious little in common with even the minorities within a particular heterodoxy.

Again, people still do this all the time. You're trying to do it with straw men as we speak!

It's fallacious to believe otherwise. And to spread foolish nonsense that "Islam is a religion of peace" or "no one has ever been converted by the sword" is just that - arrant nonsense.

Wow, mentioning fallacies and missing your own straw men so blatantly. Impressive.

Keruvalia is not a straw man. He's very real. Or did you miss something, Fass.

Keruvalia is not a straw man. He's very real. Or did you miss something, Fass.

You seem to have missed where I wrote that your vendetta with Keruvalia is of no consequence to me.

And I was referring to all the straw men in your so called "arguments".

And there were and are those who are like that who are Christian! Imagine that! Are you actually trying to get away with this straw man?
It's not a strawman...because (other than the Brits and the IRA) you don't see Christians killing each other just because the other side doesn't believe their particular brand of Christianity...and that's not even the basis of the Brits vs. the IRA.

You seem to have missed where I wrote that your vendetta with Keruvalia is of no consequence to me.

And I was referring to all the straw men in your so called "arguments".

Are you saying that Sunni Islam, and all of its writing, and all of its adherents are strawmen? That the professors at Oxford are wrong on this count?

That you are far smarter and knowledgable than they?

Really?

Just a thought ....
As well, on this topic, Jesus of Nazareth isn't recognized as Christ by the Jews. Jesus of Nazareth was a practicing Jew, up until that whole messy "heretic" thing at the temple, et cetera.
Christianity is pretty much the worship of the messiah and related matters, right? So Jesus couldn't have fulfilled that role unless he was also a practicing Jew?
So how many people that are supposedly "Christians" actually observe/participate in Judaic principle/law as would pretty much be required on Jesus' part to actually be the Christ? To reinforce the continuity between the "Old Testament" and the "New Testament"?
You can't have one without the other. Besides, a few have posted here before that Jesus didn't fill all the requirements anyway.
It would seem that "Christians" are just as capable and facultative of picking & choosing the parts they like and ignoring the rest.
I'm aware this has been debated many, many times - i'm not inviting flame but if you did it would probably be to my amusement anyway.
*shrugs*

I invite you to stand on the street in any Sunni country in the world, and make that announcement in Arabic. You would not live to say the end of the sentence.

Stop inventing what you perceive Islam to be - and take a look at what it really is.

I fear nothing except Allah and would have no problem making such a declaration. Many have made it before me. The Prophet himself warned that hadith not be written for fear men would place it alongside Qur'an in the future. Looks like he was right.

I am not inventing what I perceive Islam to be ... I am stating what Islam is. No amount of Ladens, Zarqawis, Husseins, or general nut jobs will ever change what Islam truly is any more than the Falwells and Phelps will change what Christianity is.

Men corrupt things. It says so in Torah, the Gospel, and Qur'an. God is very smart and knows this. It is the message that is important, not the messenger. A very wise man once said that by their fruits shall ye know them. I can separate the wheat from the chaffe ... why can't you?

So how many people that are supposedly "Christians" actually observe/participate in Judaic principle/law as would pretty much be required on Jesus' part to actually be the Christ? To reinforce the continuity between the "Old Testament" and the "New Testament"?
No. Jesus broke the old covenant/laws between God and men (ten commandments) and created a new covenant/law (the "golden rule").

I fear nothing except Allah and would have no problem making such a declaration. Many have made it before me. The Prophet himself warned that hadith not be written for fear men would place it alongside Qur'an in the future. Looks like he was right.

I am not inventing what I perceive Islam to be ... I am stating what Islam is. No amount of Ladens, Zarqawis, Husseins, or general nut jobs will ever change what Islam truly is any more than the Falwells and Phelps will change what Christianity is.

Men corrupt things. It says so in Torah, the Gospel, and Qur'an. God is very smart and knows this. It is the message that is important, not the messenger. A very wise man once said that by their fruits shall ye know them. I can separate the wheat from the chaffe ... why can't you?


The problem is, you can't speak for the rest of them. You can't.

There's too much evidence, even if I just cite the material from the Oxford University books, to say otherwise.

Sunnis, in particular, are historically "on the hook" all the way to the present day.

Still selling pagan t-shirts, I see. I guess that makes you a good Muslim.

WL

I do not normally enter these religious debates, but I think you will find all religions, including Christianity i its many guises say that you can not make up the rules. The point is that even though this is said, people do make their own rules. Religion, without followers, i.e. without people is nothing, so some acceptance is there in all religions for rule bending.
Some sects of each of the major religions in the world - Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddism are very strict about these rules, but they do not constitute the religion as a whole.

It is not possible to look at the 'holy' texts of any religion, and derive from them how that religion has evolved and how its follwers behave today.

You are in no position to tell Keruvalia how his religion functions, that is unless you are willing to go and spend a year or two talking to the adherents of Islam to find out.

Would you not be offended if someone were to tell you that you do not know about some central pillar of your life, for example decided to tell you that you do not know how to use a gun. Yes you would be, and rightly so at that. Now consider what you are trying to do here.

Are you saying that Sunni Islam, and all of its writing, and all of its adherents are strawmen? That the professors at Oxford are wrong on this count?

The straw man lies in defining other people's religion, and then asking them to defend it, while also forbidding any sort of deviation from this, your own creation by disjointed quotes.

You are asking someone to defend your definition of Islam, while, in a great amount of hubris, claiming that yours is the only and correct one.

That you are far smarter and knowledgable than they?

Really?

Obviously smarter than some, since I can see through such fallacies.

WL

I do not normally enter these religious debates, but I think you will find all religions, including Christianity i its many guises say that you can not make up the rules. The point is that even though this is said, people do make their own rules. Religion, without followers, i.e. without people is nothing, so some acceptance is there in all religions for rule bending.
Some sects of each of the major religions in the world - Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddism are very strict about these rules, but they do not constitute the religion as a whole.

It is not possible to look at the 'holy' texts of any religion, and derive from them how that religion has evolved and how its follwers behave today.

You are in no position to tell Keruvalia how his religion functions, that is unless you are willing to go and spend a year or two talking to the adherents of Islam to find out.

Would you not be offended if someone were to tell you that you do not know about some central pillar of your life, for example decided to tell you that you do not know how to use a gun. Yes you would be, and rightly so at that. Now consider what you are trying to do here.


If you knew more about Keruvalia, you wouldn't make that statement.

If you knew who I was using as my instructor, you wouldn't make that statement. He's a Sunni scholar - and he thinks that everything that Keru has said about Islam is misguided.


People say that about guns every day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Legs
Anyone who claims to be a Muslim cannot go around inventing other aspects on their own, choosing to ignore wholesale the heavy hand of history which lies upon each branch of the Islamic heterodoxy.




And why not? Just as modern christians choose to ignore the following biblical verses

Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Exodus 23:24 Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.

Deuteronomy 7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.


Also, Martin Luther chose to ignore the church dogma and was persecuted by the Catholic church, but lo an behold, his views prevailed.

Why is it so impossible for a muslim to do the same? I know several muslims who believe that the outward jihad is a dated medieval concept, yes they all live in the western world, but that does not make them less muslim. They also break other sommandments, like drinking alcohol, but christians break scripture all the time as well (premarrital sex fx), without them being less christian (though some will argue that they are).

I would argue that as long as you follow the five pillars of Islam, you are a muslim.

The problem is, you can't speak for the rest of them. You can't.

No ... but no one man can.

Still selling pagan t-shirts, I see. I guess that makes you a good Muslim.

No I am not. The site may still be there, but I have nothing to do with it anymore.

No religion is clean in this regard. ALL have spilled blood in their own name, Islam is just the dummy of choice right now due to the 9/11 attacks.

But all religions also have those holy men and women who really did walk to walk and promoted peace. So what's your point here?

The Koran has passages that talks about fighting and killing unbelievers.

The Bible does as well (fun with stoning and cutting off foreskins)

Islam has converted many by the sword.
So has Christianity.

Muslims have killed each other.
So have Christains.
So have Buddhists.
And Jews.
And Hindis.
And...

Again, what's your point?

No ... but no one man can.


Then stop saying it's a religion of peace.

It may be for you as an individual, but it's by far proven that Sunni Islam in particular is consistently and formally more violent than any religion on earth in the present day. By belief, policy, and dogma. By preaching, training, fundraising, and violent example.

And why not? Just as modern christians choose to ignore the following biblical verses

Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Exodus 23:24 Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.

Deuteronomy 7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
You, like MANY others, forget that Jesus broke the old covenant between God and man and instituted a new covenant. THAT's why modern Christians don't follow the Old Testament as law.

If you knew more about Keruvalia, you wouldn't make that statement.

If you knew who I was using as my instructor, you wouldn't make that statement. He's a Sunni scholar - and he thinks that everything that Keru has said about Islam is misguided.


People say that about guns every day.

The point is not if your instructor, from one Muslim sect, thinks Keruvalia is misguided or not. The point is that you can not judge, in any way, a whole religion by the texts or the views of a select few. You have to go and obtain a wide range of views from all sects within the religion.

Or should I judge all of Christianity on the teachings of a Calvinist. This Calvinist will clearly and obviously tell me that anything coming out of the Vatican is wrong and not Christian. Does that mean that this is the case? No.

A religious faith that has a billion or more followers can not be reduced down to a few quotations and the opinion of one self interested instructor. Any one who is of the religion will have an interest in pushing their version. The only neutral scholars of Islam will be those who have no personal investment in the religion. Probably Japanese or South American.

I have read a lot of Keruvalia's posts, I have debated with him once or twice. What is it that I should know to change the view that he genuinely believes Islam to be a peaceful faith, regardless of any other muslims view?

People tell you that you don't know how to use a gun every day? I am surprised!

I think what some people are also missing is that since the Crusades, there has been little or no change in Islamic thought. It's as though the religion was frozen in time.

Islam, for instance, has never had its own Martin Luther. No Reformation-like event.

No "softening" around the edges - nothing to temper fundamentalism. Nothing to moderate violent beliefs.

You, like MANY others, forget that Jesus broke the old covenant between God and man and instituted a new covenant. THAT's why modern Christians don't follow the Old Testament as law.

In that case, all Christians must shut up about gay marriage, because that's all Old Testament stuff.

I think what some people are also missing is that since the Crusades, there has been little or no change in Islamic thought. It's as though the religion was frozen in time.

Islam, for instance, has never had its own Martin Luther. No Reformation-like event.

No "softening" around the edges - nothing to temper fundamentalism. Nothing to moderate violent beliefs.
Just out of curiosity, you base that statement on what? (Not challenge, but wondering where that comes from)

Islam, for instance, has never had its own Martin Luther. No Reformation-like event.

No "softening" around the edges - nothing to temper fundamentalism. Nothing to moderate violent beliefs.
Just an aside but:
That is the first time I have ever heard of Luther being thought of as a "tempering of fundamentalism". I would suggest that you drop the study of Islam, and start studying Protestantism.

Just an aside but:
That is the first time I have ever heard of Luther being thought of as a "tempering of fundamentalism". I would suggest that you drop the study of Islam, and start studying Protestantism.
He certainly was a tempering of Catholicism, now wasn't he?

Can't say that about Calvin, though...

He certainly was a tempering of Catholicism, now wasn't he?

Can't say that about Calvin, though...

What tempering? Luther didn't temper the Church, he only changed it's outlines. He decentralized worship, but he didn't change what they believed.

He certainly was a tempering of Catholicism, now wasn't he?

Can't say that about Calvin, though...
Not really. What Luther did was bring Christianity back to its core, the Bible. The Catholic Church at the time had been largely corrupted and didn't follow Christian beliefs. (Papal immorality, indulgences, etc...)

What tempering? Luther didn't temper the Church, he only changed it's outlines. He decentralized worship, but he didn't change what they believed.
He destroyed the authority of the Church - by his actions he demonstrated that it was possible to question the Church.

That led to further heterodoxy - that neither the Catholics or the Lutherans could control.

A softening of attitude over the years - the freedom, for example, to embrace scientific thought in parts of Europe - thoughts and ideas that the Catholic Church fought hard to repress.

There has been no softening of worldview within Islam - no change since 1105.

There has been no softening of worldview within Islam - no change since 1105.

Then how do you explain the tens of millions of Muslims who think like I do? How?

He destroyed the authority of the Church

I'm gonna go out on a limb and state that there's probably about a billion Catholics who disagree with you. The Catholic Church seems to be doing just fine, Pope and all. Business as usual.

It's not a strawman...because (other than the Brits and the IRA) you don't see Christians killing each other just because the other side doesn't believe their particular brand of Christianity...and that's not even the basis of the Brits vs. the IRA.

You claim that something doesn't happen while simultaneously providing an example of it happening? I think you might want to brush up on your debating technique, there.

Then how do you explain the tens of millions of Muslims who think like I do? How?
By showing you the films of Muslims in the street from Morocco to Indonesia, who were celebrating when the planes flew into the World Trade Center.

By showing you the films of Muslims in the street from Morocco to Indonesia, who were celebrating when the planes flew into the World Trade Center.

Irrelevant.

By showing you the films of Muslims in the street from Morocco to Indonesia, who were celebrating when the planes flew into the World Trade Center.

That doesn't answer my question.

Incidently, the night before the attacks, these men were seen in strip clubs, sipping liquor, and generally rabble rousing. If these men were Muslim, then I'm my own grandpa.

That doesn't answer my question.

Incidently, the night before the attacks, these men were seen in strip clubs, sipping liquor, and generally rabble rousing. If these men were Muslim, then I'm my own grandpa.

The majority of the Sunni Muslim "street" is perfectly OK with killing Westerners by any means necessary - and by acting like Westerners in order to throw people off.

Read the al-Q training manual, and you'll see there's a whole chapter on everything from how to use aftershave to how to act like a non-Muslim so you won't get caught.

It matters not one whit whether you consider them to be Muslim. Millions of Muslims know they were. They were following the instructions in the Koran and Bahr al-Fava'id to the letter - according to Sunni doctrine laid down hundreds of years ago - unquestioned by Salafist scholars - ideas taught in madrassas without question.

Cool, i just came to this forum..and I havent Imagine seeing more Islamophobia threads.

Al-Qaeda trainning manual? does this mean all muslims(sunni) have it? besides you SHOULD know that Shia' Are the most violent sect of Islam in its history..do you know how Shia'ism started?

Cool, i just came to this forum..and I havent Imagine seeing more Islamophobia threads.

More like Sunni-phobia. Until the Hidden Imam shows up, the Shi'is aren't going to be practicing jihad.

It pays to keep your terminology correct.

They were following the instructions in the Koran and Bahr al-Fava'id to the letter - according to Sunni doctrine laid down hundreds of years ago - unquestioned by Salafist scholars - ideas taught in madrassas without question.

Rather like, say, Christian doctrine against birth control, abortion, and gays, taught in private schools without question?

Oh, wait, they're sneaking into public schools too now.

It matters not one whit whether you consider them to be Muslim. Millions of Muslims know they were. They were following the instructions in the Koran and Bahr al-Fava'id to the letter - according to Sunni doctrine laid down hundreds of years ago - unquestioned by Salafist scholars - ideas taught in madrassas without question.

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia has declared Osama bin Laden and all of those who follow him to be apostate ... as in not Muslim. Al Qaeda is not a Muslim organisation and, thus, not a Muslim authority.

Now ... who's word should I take on this one ... the Grand Mufti's or yours?

Rather like, say, Christian doctrine against birth control, abortion, and gays, taught in private schools without question?

Oh, wait, they're sneaking into public schools too now.

Not exactly. You see, we're free to question Christian fundamentalists in every Western country. Print news stories about them - organize protests.

Try that in a place like Pakistan, and you'll end up dead.

You claim that something doesn't happen while simultaneously providing an example of it happening? I think you might want to brush up on your debating technique, there.
Excuse me, but other than the Brits vs. the IRA, where are Christians killing each other and everyone else around them? As for Islam, I can provide examples out the wazoo where exactly that is happening.

You might want to consider a common sense transplant.

please enlighten me. where do muslims kill each other? Other then Iraq.

More like Sunni-phobia. Until the Hidden Imam shows up, the Shi'is aren't going to be practicing jihad.

It pays to keep your terminology correct.

Might want to bone up a little on your Sunni/Shia differences.

Here: http://www.islamfortoday.com/shia.htm

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia has declared Osama bin Laden and all of those who follow him to be apostate ... as in not Muslim. Al Qaeda is not a Muslim organisation and, thus, not a Muslim authority.

Now ... who's word should I take on this one ... the Grand Mufti's or yours?
He only did that because of political pressure.

Might want to bone up a little on your Sunni/Shia differences.

Here: http://www.islamfortoday.com/shia.htm

According to my sources, Shias have to wait for the Hidden Imam - until then, offensive jihad as practiced by the Sunnis is in abeyance.

I'll trust a set of references from published books from Oxford long before I'll trust a link to a website.

please enlighten me. where do muslims kill each other? Other then Iraq.
Let's see....Israel...Indonesia...the US (there were Muslims in the WTC)... do I really need to go on? :rolleyes:

He only did that because of political pressure.

From whom?

Oh ... and when did he make this declaration? I haven't said.

According to my sources, Shias have to wait for the Hidden Imam - until then, offensive jihad as practiced by the Sunnis is in abeyance.

So then you will agree that Iran is a much more peaceful and pleasant place than Turkey? How about the Palestinians ... those nice, peaceful Shi'ites.

Israel:
Dont confuse muslims with jews. its Muslims killing jews and jews killing muslims..and vice versa.

Indonesia..tell me an incident since ive never heard of muslims killing each other over there.

United States:
Al-Qaeda are not muslims and most likley didnt care who was in there.

please do go on.

Let's see....Israel...Indonesia...the US (there were Muslims in the WTC)... do I really need to go on? :rolleyes:

Historically, Sunnis have been waging war on Shi'is for hundreds of years.

Killing them if they don't convert to Sunnism.

Shall we talk about what happened in 1171 when Saladin took over and suppressed the Fatimid caliphate? Want to hear about the blood that was shed in ritual sacrifice by Sufi mystics - "enforcing" the conversion to Sunnism?

Shall we go over the percentages in modern times - when over 90 percent of terrorist attacks since 1990 involve one Salafist group or another?

From whom?

Oh ... and when did he make this declaration? I haven't said.
Cultural leaders and certain aspects of the media worldwide called for Muslims to denounce bin Laden and his ilk for a long while. After the noise got loud enough, the Head High Yahoo in Saudi Arabia (who practices fundamental Islam and condones the murdering of Christians in S.A.) finally denounced bin Laden.

You can bet that political pressure from the US gov't via the Saudi gov't played a part, as well.

The reason why the Saudis had a hard time with condemning Osama is that they belong to the exact same group within Islam.

This branch of Islam is often referred to as "Wahhabi," a term that many adherents to this tradition do not use. Members of this form of Islam call themselves Muwahhidun ("Unitarians", or "unifiers of Islamic practice"). They use the Salafi Da'wa or Ahlul Sunna wal Jama'a. The teachings of the reformer Abd Al-Wahhab are more often referred to by adherents as Salafi, that is, "following the forefathers of Islam."

The basic text of this form of Islam is the Kitab at-tawhid (Arabic, "Book of Unity"). Central to Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab's message was the essential oneness of God (tawhid). The movement is therefore known by its adherents as ad dawa lil tawhid (the call to unity), and those who follow the call are known as ahl at tawhid (the people of unity) or muwahhidun (unitarians). The word Wahhabi was originally used derogatorily by opponents, but has today become commonplace and is even used by some Najdi scholars of the movement. Most Wahhabi people live in Saudi Arabia. Almost all people in Mecca and Medina belong to this school.

The Caliphate was brought into being by the implementation of Islam for about three decades. They called this shortlived experiment Khilafat Rashidah, the rightly-guided Caliphate, implying thereby that the rulers that followed were misguided. Fundamentalists seek the restoration of the Islamic State i.e. the Khilafah, and by electing a Khaleefah and taking a bay'ah on him that he will rule by the Word of Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) i.e. he will implement Islamic laws in the country where the Khilafah has been established.

Wahhabism [Wahabism] is a reform movement that began 200 years ago to rid Islamic societies of cultural practices and interpretation that had been acquired over the centuries. The followers of Abdul Wahab (1703-1792) began as a movement to cleanse the Arab bedouin from the influence of Sufism. Wahhabis are the followers of Ibn 'Abd ul-Wahhab, who instituted a great reform in the religion of Islam in Arabia in the 18th century. Mahommed ibn 'Abd ul-Wahhab was born in 1691 (or 1703) at al-Hauta of the Nejd in central Arabia, and was of the tribe of the Bani Tamim. He studied literature and jurisprudence of the Hanifite school. After making the pilgrimage with his father, he spent some further time in the study of law at Medina, and resided for a while at Isfahan, whence he returned to the Nejd to undertake the work of a teacher.

Aroused by his studies and his observation of the luxury in dress and habits, the superstitious pilgrimages to shrines, the use of omens and the worship given to Mahomet and Mahommedan saints rather than to God, he began a mission to proclaim the simplicity of the early religion founded on the Koran and Sunna (i.e. the manner of life of Mahomet).

To understand the significance of Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab's ideas, they must be considered in the context of Islamic practice. There was a difference between the established rituals clearly defined in religious texts that all Muslims perform and popular Islam. The latter refers to local practice that is not universal. The Shia practice of visiting shrines is an example of a popular practice. The Shia continued to revere the Imams even after their death and so visited their graves to ask favors of the Imams buried there. Over time, Shia scholars rationalized the practice and it became established. Some of the Arabian tribes came to attribute the same sort of power that the Shia recognized in the tomb of an Imam to natural objects such as trees and rocks.

Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab was concerned with the way the people of Najd engaged in practices he considered polytheistic, such as praying to saints; making pilgrimages to tombs and special mosques; venerating trees, caves, and stones; and using votive and sacrificial offerings. He was also concerned by what he viewed as a laxity in adhering to Islamic law and in performing religious devotions, such as indifference to the plight of widows and orphans, adultery, lack of attention to obligatory prayers, and failure to allocate shares of inheritance fairly to women. When Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab began to preach against these breaches of Islamic laws, he characterized customary practices as jahiliya, the same term used to describe the ignorance of Arabians before the Prophet.

Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab focused on the Muslim principle that there is only one God, and that God does not share his power with anyone -- not Imams, and certainly not trees or rocks. From this unitarian principle, his students began to refer to themselves as muwahhidun (unitarians). Their detractors referred to them as "Wahhabis"--or "followers of Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab," which had a pejorative connotation. The idea of a unitary god was not new. Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab, however, attached political importance to it. He directed his attack against the Shia.

Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab's emphasis on the oneness of God was asserted in contradistinction to shirk, or polytheism, defined as the act of associating any person or object with powers that should be attributed only to God. He condemned specific acts that he viewed as leading to shirk, such as votive offerings, praying at saints' tombs and at graves, and any prayer ritual in which the suppliant appeals to a third party for intercession with God. Particularly objectionable were certain religious festivals, including celebrations of the Prophet's birthday, Shia mourning ceremonies, and Sufi mysticism. Consequently, the Wahhabis forbid grave markers or tombs in burial sites and the building of any shrines that could become a locus of shirk.

His instructions in the matter of extending his religious teaching by force were strict. All unbelievers (i.e. Moslems who did not accept his teaching, as well as Christians, &c.) were to be put to death. Immediate entrance into Paradise was promised to his soldiers who fell in battle, and it is said that each soldier was provided with a written order from Ibn 'Abd ul-Wahhab to the gate-keeper of heaven to admit him forthwith. In this way the new teaching was established in the greater part of Arabia until its power was broken by Mehemet Ali. Ibn'Abd ul-Wahhab is said to have died in 1791.

The teaching of ul-Wahhab was founded on that of Ibn Taimiyya (1263-1328), who was of the school of Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Copies of some of Ibn Taimiyya's works made by ul-Wahhab are now extant in Europe, and show a close study of the writer. Ibn Taimiyya, although a Hanbalite by training, refused to be bound by any of the four schools, and claimed the power of a mujtahid, i.e. of one who can give independent decisions. These decisions were based on the Koran, which, like Ibn Hazm, he accepted in a literal sense, on the Sunna and Qiyds (analogy). He protested strongly against all the innovations of later times, and denounced as idolatry the visiting of the sacred shrines and the invocation of the saints or of Mahomet himself. He was also a bitter opponent of the Sufis of his day.

The Wahhabites also believe in the literal sense of the Koran and the necessity of deducing one's duty from it apart from the decisions of the four schools. They also pointed to the abuses current in their times as a reason for rejecting the doctrines and practices founded on Ijma, i.e. the universal consent of the believer or their teachers. They forbid the pilgrimage to tombs and the invocation of saints. The severe simplicity of the Wahhabis has been remarked by travellers in central Arabia. They attack all luxury, loose administration of justice, all laxity against infidels, addiction to wine, impurity and treachery.

Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab's mission in his own district was not attended by success, and for long he wandered with his family through Arabia. Realizing that he needed political support and authority to effectively reverse the status quo, Ibn Abdul-Wahhab presented his program of reform to the governors of the central Arabian city-states. He began by approaching Othman ibn Mu’amar, the governor of Uyayna, his home state. Ibn Mu’amar was receptive to Abdul-Wahhab’s ideas and allowed him to preach within the city. As word of the movement spread, however, strong pressure to silence Ibn Abdul-Wahhab came from powerful tribes in the region who viewed change as a threat to their decadent lifestyle. Fearing invasion, Othman ibn Mu’amar felt compelled to ask the reformer to leave Uyayna.

At last he settled in Dara'iyya, or Deraiya (in the Nejd), where he succeeded in converting the greatest notable, Mahommed ibn Sa'ud, who married his daugther, and so became the founder of an hereditary Wahhabite dynasty. This gave the missionary the opportunity of following the example of Mahomet himself.

This association between the Al Saud and the Al ash Shaykh, as Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab and his descendants came to be known, effectively converted political loyalty into a religious obligation. According to Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab's teachings, a Muslim must present a bayah, or oath of allegiance, to a Muslim ruler during his lifetime to ensure his redemption after death. The ruler, conversely, is owed unquestioned allegiance from his people so long as he leads the community according to the laws of God. The whole purpose of the Muslim community is to become the living embodiment of God's laws, and it is the responsibility of the legitimate ruler to ensure that people know God's laws and live in conformity to them.

Under 'Abd ul-Azlz they instituted a form of Bedouin (Bedawi) commonwealth, insisting on the observance of law, the payment of tribute, militaiy conscription for war against the infidel, internal peace and the rigid administration of justice in courts established for the purpose. Wahhabis consider Wahhabism to be the only true form of Islam. They do not regard Shi'as as true Muslims are particularly hostile to Sufism.

It is clear that the claim of the Wahhabis to have returned to the earliest form of Islam is largely justified. The difference between ul-Wahhab's sect and others is that the Wahabis rigidly follow the same laws which the others neglect or have ceased altogether to observe. Even orthodox doctors of Islam have confessed that in Ibn 'Abd ul-Wahhab's writings there is nothing but what they themselves hold. At the same time the fact that so many of his followers were rough and unthinking Bedouins has led to the over-emphasis of minor points of practice, so that they often appear to observers to be characterized chiefly by a strictness (real or feigned) in such matters as the prohibition of silk for dress, or the use of tobacco, or of the rosary in prayer.

Imam Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab died in 1792.

The Wahhabi ulama reject reinterpretation of Quran and sunna in regard to issues clearly settled by the early jurists. By rejecting the validity of reinterpretation, Wahhabi doctrine is at odds with the Muslim reformation movement of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This movement seeks to reinterpret parts of the Quran and sunna to conform with standards set by the West, most notably standards relating to gender relations, family law, and participatory democracy. However, ample scope for reinterpretation remains for Wahhabi jurists in areas not decided by the early jurists.

You will notice, of course, that Keruvalia's opinion on the interpretation of Islamic law is *exactly* the same as the Wahhab ulemas.

Israel:
Dont confuse muslims with jews. its Muslims killing jews and jews killing muslims..and vice versa.

Excuse me? How about Muslim homicide bombers killing Muslims that live in Israel-proper, right alongside Jews?

Indonesia..tell me an incident since ive never heard of muslims killing each other over there.

Again, the bombers there are killing Muslims alongside Christians, Buddhists and anyone else they have a hardon for killing.

United States:
Al-Qaeda are not muslims and most likley didnt care who was in there.

Al Qaeda aren't Muslims? Could've fooled me.
Responses in bold.

Excuse me, but other than the Brits vs. the IRA, where are Christians killing each other and everyone else around them? As for Islam, I can provide examples out the wazoo where exactly that is happening.

You might want to consider a common sense transplant.

I think you might be in need of one, if you can't accept that the violence in Northern Ireland and terrorist attacks on the UK mainland is sufficient proof that christians kill each other and random bystanders, for sectarian reasons.

link to any thing that has to do wiht Indonesia?

and ive never heard of Palastenians dieing alongside jews in these bombs. dont palastenian suicide bombers target jewish crowded areas?

You will notice, of course, that Keruvalia's opinion on the interpretation of Islamic law is *exactly* the same as the Wahhab ulemas.

No ... because I reject Sunnah. I believe it should be eradicated from Islam entirely. I do not care how the Prophet brushed his teeth or wore his hair. It isn't important and is not needed to be Muslim.

The Wahabi would kill me for saying that.

I think you might be in need of one, if you can't accept that the violence in Northern Ireland and terrorist attacks on the UK mainland is sufficient proof that christians kill each other and random bystanders, for sectarian reasons.

This is, however, a tiny minority of all terrorist actions in the past ten years. An even smaller number of casualties.

They also are amenable to some discussion - you'll notice that the IRA has a political wing.

There is NO discussion possible with the Salafists. There is nothing that the US can do at this point - they've said it themselves - their aim is first the destruction of the United States - and then the conversion and conquering of the rest of the world by force. They're willing to negotiate temporary truces with other nations until the US is destroyed - then they're going to finish off everyone else.

I don't see the IRA as wishing they could take over the entire world. Do you?

link to any thing that has to do wiht Indonesia?

There is a thing called Google. I don't have time to look it up, as I'm about to leave to sit in with a friend's band because their drummer is sick.

and ive never heard of Palastenians dieing alongside jews in these bombs. dont palastenian suicide bombers target jewish crowded areas?

Ahhhh... so only "Palestinians" are Muslims? What about Arab Muslims living in Israel-proper?

C'mon... you can't possibly be this dumb.
again, bold.

No ... because I reject Sunnah. I believe it should be eradicated from Islam entirely. I do not care how the Prophet brushed his teeth or wore his hair. It isn't important and is not needed to be Muslim.

The Wahabi would kill me for saying that.

Well, then you're pretty far out of the mainstream for any Muslim. Probably about as far out as you can go.

I think you might be in need of one, if you can't accept that the violence in Northern Ireland and terrorist attacks on the UK mainland is sufficient proof that christians kill each other and random bystanders, for sectarian reasons.
That's because the IRA/Brit conflict is mainly political and territorial in nature...not sectarian. The sectarian aspect of the conflict is not even secondary or tertiary...it's not even a reason anymore.

You people need to lay off the bible or quaran or whatever books your reading. Religion is hust a belief in a higher being. If the people don't believe in the invisible mean in the sky or that Jesus was just a cultist that is their oppinion. See that is the problem with you religous people. You try to take away freedom of thought. You people practicly brainwash little kids to fear somebody who might even excist. So mellow out and cut all this Christianity vs. Islam thing. Because they both focus on limiting the people. Were if the people didn't believe in these gods they would cease to excist.

Well, then you're pretty far out of the mainstream for any Muslim. Probably about as far out as you can go.

Not really. You'd be surprised how many of us there are.

I'd give you links, but you said you didn't have any need for them.

Incidently, you're doing this thread all the while saying that Muslims are supposed to be violent irrational beasts bent on world domination and I, a Muslim, am saying otherwise. Between the two of us, which is the one obsessed with weapon ownership? ;)

You people need to lay off the bible or quaran or whatever books your reading. Religion is hust a belief in a higher being. If the people don't believe in the invisible mean in the sky or that Jesus was just a cultist that is their oppinion. See that is the problem with you religous people. You try to take away freedom of thought. You people practicly brainwash little kids to fear somebody who might even excist. So mellow out and cut all this Christianity vs. Islam thing. Because they both focus on limiting the people. Were if the people didn't believe in these gods they would cease to excist.

If you had learned to read, you would know that this is NOT a Christianity vs. Islam thing.

Men corrupt things. It says so in Torah, the Gospel, and Qur'an. God is very smart and knows this. It is the message that is important, not the messenger. A very wise man once said that by their fruits shall ye know them. I can separate the wheat from the chaffe ... why can't you?
This above all else makes the most sense to me.

There will be many false prophets, but there is only one God.

And no, I don't want to debate the matter.

This above all else makes the most sense to me.

There will be many false prophets, but there is only one God.

And no, I don't want to debate the matter.

I think the point passed you in both lanes, Canuck.

That's because the IRA/Brit conflict is mainly political and territorial in nature...not sectarian. The sectarian aspect of the conflict is not even secondary or tertiary...it's not even a reason anymore.

Most of the violence in Northern Ireland was protestants shooting random catholics, and catholics shooting random protestants, and general violent confrontation between the catholic and protestant communities. That's certainly a lot more sectarian than any of the cases you've brought up about muslims - palestinian bombers taking out the odd muslim along with jews, there being muslims at the world trade centre, etc. None of those examples were sectarian.

the Tamil Tigers were also suicide bombers..no one condems what they did.

the Knights Templar blew themselves up with thier ships befor. I guess christians are terrorists now? no wait they arent terrorist, they are christians.
The crusdades christians generally killed all Muslims they invaded and Jews AND CHRISTIANS. in one swift blow they kill one million Infidel muslims in spain.

besides if you do "study" islam you would provide all the verses in the Qu'ran not the ones that refer to violence. Why not you tell us abou tthe Peaceful verses please?

Japanese people have been known to be very violent throughout thier history. but no lets focus on islam right?

The Romans..Invadin, burning, killing, raping.

The Mongoles anyone? propably the best terrorists in the world and most violent of them all.

Besides, as they say, first you tell us how we run our religion, then we try to defend it then you prove us wrong again in your own way and you dont accept what we say. God tells us in the Qu'ran how "they(you know who) will never accept you(muslims) until you act and accept what the do." Paraphrasing of course.

so I understand why some people will never accept muslims as peaceful..all they will think of muslims is terroists animal bastards. well meh nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

The reason why the Saudis had a hard time with condemning Osama is that they belong to the exact same group within Islam.

This branch of Islam is often referred to as "Wahhabi," a term that many adherents to this tradition do not use. Members of this form of Islam call themselves Muwahhidun ("Unitarians", or "unifiers of Islamic practice"). They use the Salafi Da'wa or Ahlul Sunna wal Jama'a. The teachings of the reformer Abd Al-Wahhab are more often referred to by adherents as Salafi, that is, "following the forefathers of Islam."

The basic text of this form of Islam is the Kitab at-tawhid (Arabic, "Book of Unity"). Central to Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab's message was the essential oneness of God (tawhid). The movement is therefore known by its adherents as ad dawa lil tawhid (the call to unity), and those who follow the call are known as ahl at tawhid (the people of unity) or muwahhidun (unitarians). The word Wahhabi was originally used derogatorily by opponents, but has today become commonplace and is even used by some Najdi scholars of the movement. Most Wahhabi people live in Saudi Arabia. Almost all people in Mecca and Medina belong to this school.

The Caliphate was brought into being by the implementation of Islam for about three decades. They called this shortlived experiment Khilafat Rashidah, the rightly-guided Caliphate, implying thereby that the rulers that followed were misguided. Fundamentalists seek the restoration of the Islamic State i.e. the Khilafah, and by electing a Khaleefah and taking a bay'ah on him that he will rule by the Word of Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) i.e. he will implement Islamic laws in the country where the Khilafah has been established.

Wahhabism [Wahabism] is a reform movement that began 200 years ago to rid Islamic societies of cultural practices and interpretation that had been acquired over the centuries. The followers of Abdul Wahab (1703-1792) began as a movement to cleanse the Arab bedouin from the influence of Sufism. Wahhabis are the followers of Ibn 'Abd ul-Wahhab, who instituted a great reform in the religion of Islam in Arabia in the 18th century. Mahommed ibn 'Abd ul-Wahhab was born in 1691 (or 1703) at al-Hauta of the Nejd in central Arabia, and was of the tribe of the Bani Tamim. He studied literature and jurisprudence of the Hanifite school. After making the pilgrimage with his father, he spent some further time in the study of law at Medina, and resided for a while at Isfahan, whence he returned to the Nejd to undertake the work of a teacher.

Aroused by his studies and his observation of the luxury in dress and habits, the superstitious pilgrimages to shrines, the use of omens and the worship given to Mahomet and Mahommedan saints rather than to God, he began a mission to proclaim the simplicity of the early religion founded on the Koran and Sunna (i.e. the manner of life of Mahomet).

To understand the significance of Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab's ideas, they must be considered in the context of Islamic practice. There was a difference between the established rituals clearly defined in religious texts that all Muslims perform and popular Islam. The latter refers to local practice that is not universal. The Shia practice of visiting shrines is an example of a popular practice. The Shia continued to revere the Imams even after their death and so visited their graves to ask favors of the Imams buried there. Over time, Shia scholars rationalized the practice and it became established. Some of the Arabian tribes came to attribute the same sort of power that the Shia recognized in the tomb of an Imam to natural objects such as trees and rocks.

Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab was concerned with the way the people of Najd engaged in practices he considered polytheistic, such as praying to saints; making pilgrimages to tombs and special mosques; venerating trees, caves, and stones; and using votive and sacrificial offerings. He was also concerned by what he viewed as a laxity in adhering to Islamic law and in performing religious devotions, such as indifference to the plight of widows and orphans, adultery, lack of attention to obligatory prayers, and failure to allocate shares of inheritance fairly to women. When Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab began to preach against these breaches of Islamic laws, he characterized customary practices as jahiliya, the same term used to describe the ignorance of Arabians before the Prophet.

Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab focused on the Muslim principle that there is only one God, and that God does not share his power with anyone -- not Imams, and certainly not trees or rocks. From this unitarian principle, his students began to refer to themselves as muwahhidun (unitarians). Their detractors referred to them as "Wahhabis"--or "followers of Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab," which had a pejorative connotation. The idea of a unitary god was not new. Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab, however, attached political importance to it. He directed his attack against the Shia.

Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab's emphasis on the oneness of God was asserted in contradistinction to shirk, or polytheism, defined as the act of associating any person or object with powers that should be attributed only to God. He condemned specific acts that he viewed as leading to shirk, such as votive offerings, praying at saints' tombs and at graves, and any prayer ritual in which the suppliant appeals to a third party for intercession with God. Particularly objectionable were certain religious festivals, including celebrations of the Prophet's birthday, Shia mourning ceremonies, and Sufi mysticism. Consequently, the Wahhabis forbid grave markers or tombs in burial sites and the building of any shrines that could become a locus of shirk.

His instructions in the matter of extending his religious teaching by force were strict. All unbelievers (i.e. Moslems who did not accept his teaching, as well as Christians, &c.) were to be put to death. Immediate entrance into Paradise was promised to his soldiers who fell in battle, and it is said that each soldier was provided with a written order from Ibn 'Abd ul-Wahhab to the gate-keeper of heaven to admit him forthwith. In this way the new teaching was established in the greater part of Arabia until its power was broken by Mehemet Ali. Ibn'Abd ul-Wahhab is said to have died in 1791.

The teaching of ul-Wahhab was founded on that of Ibn Taimiyya (1263-1328), who was of the school of Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Copies of some of Ibn Taimiyya's works made by ul-Wahhab are now extant in Europe, and show a close study of the writer. Ibn Taimiyya, although a Hanbalite by training, refused to be bound by any of the four schools, and claimed the power of a mujtahid, i.e. of one who can give independent decisions. These decisions were based on the Koran, which, like Ibn Hazm, he accepted in a literal sense, on the Sunna and Qiyds (analogy). He protested strongly against all the innovations of later times, and denounced as idolatry the visiting of the sacred shrines and the invocation of the saints or of Mahomet himself. He was also a bitter opponent of the Sufis of his day.

The Wahhabites also believe in the literal sense of the Koran and the necessity of deducing one's duty from it apart from the decisions of the four schools. They also pointed to the abuses current in their times as a reason for rejecting the doctrines and practices founded on Ijma, i.e. the universal consent of the believer or their teachers. They forbid the pilgrimage to tombs and the invocation of saints. The severe simplicity of the Wahhabis has been remarked by travellers in central Arabia. They attack all luxury, loose administration of justice, all laxity against infidels, addiction to wine, impurity and treachery.

Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab's mission in his own district was not attended by success, and for long he wandered with his family through Arabia. Realizing that he needed political support and authority to effectively reverse the status quo, Ibn Abdul-Wahhab presented his program of reform to the governors of the central Arabian city-states. He began by approaching Othman ibn Mu’amar, the governor of Uyayna, his home state. Ibn Mu’amar was receptive to Abdul-Wahhab’s ideas and allowed him to preach within the city. As word of the movement spread, however, strong pressure to silence Ibn Abdul-Wahhab came from powerful tribes in the region who viewed change as a threat to their decadent lifestyle. Fearing invasion, Othman ibn Mu’amar felt compelled to ask the reformer to leave Uyayna.

At last he settled in Dara'iyya, or Deraiya (in the Nejd), where he succeeded in converting the greatest notable, Mahommed ibn Sa'ud, who married his daugther, and so became the founder of an hereditary Wahhabite dynasty. This gave the missionary the opportunity of following the example of Mahomet himself.

This association between the Al Saud and the Al ash Shaykh, as Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab and his descendants came to be known, effectively converted political loyalty into a religious obligation. According to Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab's teachings, a Muslim must present a bayah, or oath of allegiance, to a Muslim ruler during his lifetime to ensure his redemption after death. The ruler, conversely, is owed unquestioned allegiance from his people so long as he leads the community according to the laws of God. The whole purpose of the Muslim community is to become the living embodiment of God's laws, and it is the responsibility of the legitimate ruler to ensure that people know God's laws and live in conformity to them.

Under 'Abd ul-Azlz they instituted a form of Bedouin (Bedawi) commonwealth, insisting on the observance of law, the payment of tribute, militaiy conscription for war against the infidel, internal peace and the rigid administration of justice in courts established for the purpose. Wahhabis consider Wahhabism to be the only true form of Islam. They do not regard Shi'as as true Muslims are particularly hostile to Sufism.

It is clear that the claim of the Wahhabis to have returned to the earliest form of Islam is largely justified. The difference between ul-Wahhab's sect and others is that the Wahabis rigidly follow the same laws which the others neglect or have ceased altogether to observe. Even orthodox doctors of Islam have confessed that in Ibn 'Abd ul-Wahhab's writings there is nothing but what they themselves hold. At the same time the fact that so many of his followers were rough and unthinking Bedouins has led to the over-emphasis of minor points of practice, so that they often appear to observers to be characterized chiefly by a strictness (real or feigned) in such matters as the prohibition of silk for dress, or the use of tobacco, or of the rosary in prayer.

Imam Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab died in 1792.

The Wahhabi ulama reject reinterpretation of Quran and sunna in regard to issues clearly settled by the early jurists. By rejecting the validity of reinterpretation, Wahhabi doctrine is at odds with the Muslim reformation movement of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This movement seeks to reinterpret parts of the Quran and sunna to conform with standards set by the West, most notably standards relating to gender relations, family law, and participatory democracy. However, ample scope for reinterpretation remains for Wahhabi jurists in areas not decided by the early jurists.

Not to be off topic, but that sounds like something from star trek with the vulcans.

Edit: I know it is all historically accurate, I just can't help thinking of the episode where spock gets married with the Kun-ut kalife (or something like that)

Resume fighting.

Most of the violence in Northern Ireland was protestants shooting random catholics, and catholics shooting random protestants, and general violent confrontation between the catholic and protestant communities. That's certainly a lot more sectarian than any of the cases you've brought up about muslims - palestinian bombers taking out the odd muslim along with jews, there being muslims at the world trade centre, etc.

That may be his point - but my point is that Salafist violence is far more international in character.

I would argue that it is not Islam, but Fundamentalism, that is the problem.

For the sake of arguement, define Fundamentalism to be:
Literal interpretation of religious text, and rigid adherance to the principles espoused therein.

The Bible (at least the Old Testament), the Torah, and the Qu'ran contain exhortations to unacceptable violence, crime, and intollerance. In short, evil.

The better sects of these religions--most of modern Christianity (excepting the Fundie branches), a good portion of modern Islam, a good portion of modern Judaism--either ignore the demands of their God to murder their neighbors (If I didn't "suffer a witch to live", I'd have to walk next door and start shooting), or come up with reasons why they don't apply any more.

However, if one insists that the holy book (tm) is the inerrant, devinely revealed Word of God, which must be interpreted literally and adhered to strictly, one must follow the demands of their God to do evil.

And we get millions dancing on the streets when a slightly more bold--but equally evil--group of fundamentalists ruthlessly murders thousands of innocent civilians in the name of God.

I would argue that it is not Islam, but Fundamentalism, that is the problem.

I would add that it is the failure of Islam to substantially change its worldview over the centuries - they have had no real change similar to the changes in Christianity (most formerly "Christian" nations have become secular - changes that were made possible in the aftermath of the Reformation - allowing countries and governments to diminish the influence of the Church in politics and science).

I would add that it is the failure of Islam to substantially change its worldview over the centuries - they have had no real change similar to the changes in Christianity (most formerly "Christian" nations have become secular - changes that were made possible in the aftermath of the Reformation - allowing countries and governments to diminish the influence of the Church in politics and science).

In short, the Islamic fundamentalist segment is perhaps 80% of its population, as compared with 10% in Christianity and 30% in Judaism. The Islamic world degenerated into fundamentalism after the Crusades and has never really recovered.


Aside:
I really, really, REALLY hate it when fundamentalists claim they are so frigging moral.

If I obeyed the Bible, I would obey Exedus 22:18. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. And tomorrow, I would murder two of my friends and their families. If that isn't evil, I don't know what is.

That may be his point - but my point is that Salafist violence is far more international in character.

I was just attacking his point, i.e. that he was trying to claim that the situation in Northern Ireland somehow doesn't count as an example of christian sectarian violence, and therefore Christians do not kill each other for sectarian reasons.

You can say what you like about Salafist violence, I have no opinions on the subject, and don't really care.

The Wahabi would kill me for saying that.

The Wahabi would kill everyone given the chance.

In short, the Islamic fundamentalist segment is perhaps 80% of its population, as compared with 10% in Christianity and 30% in Judaism. The Islamic world degenerated into fundamentalism after the Crusades and has never really recovered.

That was Naipaul's observation. The question is, "Why?"

Maybe we dont want to change how the religion works? we dont want a reform?

its our religion, you stay out of it. we dont tell you that you need to reform and let women have head scarffs again now do we?)

Maybe we dont want to change how the religion works? we dont want a reform?

its our religion, you stay out of it. we dont tell you that you need to reform and let women have head scarffs again now do we?)

Last I recall, they don't tell people to martyr themselves in suicide attacks in our church.

Any religion that teaches you to do such a thing - to spread the religion by force - is in serious need of reform.

Fass, if you're in a Western country, you can invent your own flavor of religion.

If you actually go to some other countries, though, you can't.

You can't, for instance, invent your own version of Judaism, and then expect the rest of the Jews in the world to accept you as such. Nor would Muslims accept you as being a Muslim if you were inventing it as you went along.

Specifically, if you're inventing it as you go along, picking and choosing what you want to believe, you CANNOT speak for ANY of the rest - nor can you speak for that religion at all - because you have precious little in common with even the minorities within a particular heterodoxy.

It's fallacious to believe otherwise. And to spread foolish nonsense that "Islam is a religion of peace" or "no one has ever been converted by the sword" is just that - arrant nonsense.Looking at any one religion as a unified bloc is nonsense. I can "pick and choose" as much as I want fromt the teaching of Judaism, and follow my own path, if that's what floats my boat. I'm still Jewish, as much as my black-hatted neigbor.
People have different streams in EVERY religion; I don't understand your exaples of Judaism and Islam, as somehow unified. There will always be people that don't accept you - there is no ultimate court that decides what is, and isn't, and even if there was, all someone would have to do is stop believing in it and bam. How do you explain reform, conservative, reconstructionist, modern orthodox, and other group of Jews for instance? None are accepted by particular other factions, and none hold the ultimate authority on the teachings and practices of Judaism. Its probably the same with Islam.

When someone speaks, it is usually representative of themselves alone. However, if you're precluding any form of generalization and encompassing statements, you make discussion impossible. Anyway, even if someone proposes to represent an entire group, its up to the sceptical reader (YOU) to form an opnion about his/her perspective, subject position, whatever. They needn't censure themselves, even if their claims are fallacious.

That was Naipaul's observation. The question is, "Why?"I started reading a book by Benard Lewis a while ago that attempts to adress this. I should pick it up again....

Muslims blow themselves up in chruches? when?

and Islam dosent preach about killing people. it has been taken out of context by people like saddam, osama, and you.

did you know the Qu'ran was not sent down in one piece? the prophet kept on recieving the verses depending on the suituation and when.

in certian Verses god orders muslims to fight back and kill the Unbelievers..the tribes in Arabia that united aginst muslims. these Verses now should not be followed, since those wars and battles are over. unbelievers and muslims dont fight each other anymore.Unbelievers as in the ones that prayed to statues in Mecca.

other verses ordered muslims to fight and kill the Christians. which foretold the coming of the Crusades, when the "religion" of christianity its ofllowers and pope united aginst the muslims of arabia. there are no more Crusades. so these verses arent followed anymore since both religions arent in clashing anymore.

again its people like You and Osama bin laden that takes these texts out of context and uses them in thier lives.

Muslims blow themselves up in chruches? when?

and Islam dosent preach about killing people. it has been taken out of context by people like saddam, osama, and you.

did you know the Qu'ran was not sent down in one piece? the prophet kept on recieving the verses depending on the suituation and when.

in certian Verses god orders muslims to fight back and kill the Unbelievers..the tribes in Arabia that united aginst muslims. these Verses now should not be followed, since those wars and battles are over. unbelievers and muslims dont fight each other anymore.Unbelievers as in the ones that prayed to statues in Mecca.

other verses ordered muslims to fight and kill the Christians. which foretold the coming of the Crusades, when the "religion" of christianity its ofllowers and pope united aginst the muslims of arabia. there are no more Crusades. so these verses arent followed anymore since both religions arent in clashing anymore.

again its people like You and Osama bin laden that takes these texts out of context and uses them in thier lives.


It's been taken that way for hundreds of years by Muslim scholars, teachers, madrassas (no exceptions at the madrassas), and by the entire population of Saudi Arabia, and everyone in every Salafist movement in the world.

Millions upon millions of people. And further millions, by their inaction and their silent approval, encourage those people in those lethal efforts.

Looking at any one religion as a unified bloc is nonsense. I can "pick and choose" as much as I want fromt the teaching of Judaism, and follow my own path, if that's what floats my boat. I'm still Jewish, as much as my black-hatted neigbor.
People have different streams in EVERY religion; I don't understand your exaples of Judaism and Islam, as somehow unified. There will always be people that don't accept you - there is no ultimate court that decides what is, and isn't, and even if there was, all someone would have to do is stop believing in it and bam. How do you explain reform, conservative, reconstructionist, modern orthodox, and other group of Jews for instance? None are accepted by particular other factions, and none hold the ultimate authority on the teachings and practices of Judaism. Its probably the same with Islam.

When someone speaks, it is usually representative of themselves alone. However, if you're precluding any form of generalization and encompassing statements, you make discussion impossible. Anyway, even if someone proposes to represent an entire group, its up to the sceptical reader (YOU) to form an opnion about his/her perspective, subject position, whatever. They needn't censure themselves, even if their claims are fallacious.

In British Columbia, that is absolutely true. However, you have missed WL's point. Most muslims live in places far, far less tolerant than British Columbia, without laws and constitutions and police forces to protect them from the heavy hand of the Sunni, Shia, or Wahabi arch-sects.
---

As to "why"
A few speculations:
1: Prior to the Crusades, a Caliphate existed. The modern consept of Jihad (which orgininated with the need to repel the Crusaders) requires a theocracy. The clergy--or someone who follows the will of the clergy--must rule over the muslim world as something of a temporary Caliph.

The Theocratic system--Caliph or Jihadist--did not die. It merely fragmented. Over time, one grew to be dominant--the Ottoman Empire. But it was still a Theocracy. It fell in WWI, leaving a combination of occupied nations (who, deprived of a governmental power, fell back on the church for national unity, strenghthening the church's power over the nations) and independant Theocracies.

A small scattering of non-theocratic governments emerged, from time to time. Iraq in this century is one example. But the vast majority remained theocratic, like Soudi Arabia, etc. We can only hope that the terrorists in Iraq fail to restore a theocracy there.

2: A theocracy, unlike a secular government, is bound to the clergy. The clergy, in the defence of keeping their power, wish to stifle opposing viewpoints, and therefore their lapdogs in government will stifle opposing viewpoints.

Contrast this to European nations. Stifling opposing viewpoints was much less valuable then keeping power, and power is decreased when you are bound to clergy. Especially since Catholicism was so centralised at the Vatican, it was essentially being tied to a foreign state to be a theocracy in Europe. I see no need to describe the fall of the power of the Vatican here--read a European history book in stead.

Once free from Theocracy, Fundamentalism dies fast, since the government will be acting to keep the peace, end race and religion riots, etc., rather than assist the Inquisition. In stead of being hunted by the government for your views, you will be protected by it.


Hence the fall of fundamentalism in the West, and the survival of fundamentalism in the Middle East.

the Tamil Tigers were also suicide bombers..no one condems what they did.

the Knights Templar blew themselves up with thier ships befor. I guess christians are terrorists now? no wait they arent terrorist, they are christians.
The crusdades christians generally killed all Muslims they invaded and Jews AND CHRISTIANS. in one swift blow they kill one million Infidel muslims in spain.

besides if you do "study" islam you would provide all the verses in the Qu'ran not the ones that refer to violence. Why not you tell us abou tthe Peaceful verses please?

Japanese people have been known to be very violent throughout thier history. but no lets focus on islam right?

The Romans..Invadin, burning, killing, raping.

The Mongoles anyone? propably the best terrorists in the world and most violent of them all.

Besides, as they say, first you tell us how we run our religion, then we try to defend it then you prove us wrong again in your own way and you dont accept what we say. God tells us in the Qu'ran how "they(you know who) will never accept you(muslims) until you act and accept what the do." Paraphrasing of course.

so I understand why some people will never accept muslims as peaceful..all they will think of muslims is terroists animal bastards. well meh nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

ah, the classic excuse, doesn't everyone do that?

if u look carefully, the answer is NO.

the LTTE is a very local phenomenon. They are NOT religious terrorists. They are more of a seperatist movement which arose after persecution by sinhalese. ( heard of jaffna riots ?)The LTTE has a lot of christian members in their ranks. Their spokesman Anton Balasingham is a christian.

There is NO comparision between the LTTE/assorted srilankan tamil terrorist and the pan islamic /salafist jihadic movement that we witness today.

U raise the christian crusaders point. almost every sane person agrees that they WERE brutal and used religion as a rallying point.

the point is christianity has moved past that stage. (so have the mongols)

Islam has not.

Islam STILL has granted the license to kill to its followers.

Rushdie's death sentence is still there. it is still OK to kill in the name of islam...the fundoos say that the koran says so. the verses are there. u say it is out of context, but how do we know?

how do us kufrs know what the hell is true islam and who is a true muslim? it appears that even you pious believers don't know that (not you personally, but the general ummah)


"Moderates" like you will have us kafirs believe that "islam is peace etc etc" and " the terrorists are not true muslims etc etc", but to the fundamentalist, ya know, the one who truly follows the islam to the book, you (the moderate) is not the true muslim and you are as much a target as we are.

and you know that. Because I do not see many "moderates" saying to the "fundamentalist" that he is not following true islam.

as long as us kafirs do not see the moderates restrain the fundamentalists of your religion, how are we supposed to know who is the true muslim, the moderate or the fundamentalist?

seriously, who is a true muslim?

the sunnis? the shia? wahabbi ? sufi? ahmadi? ismaili ? baerlvis ? deobandis?

the taliban types? they sure claimed that they were true muslims..

it looks like only Muhammed was a true muslim and a fine example he set for you folks, running wars, breaking treaties (hudaibiya? forgive the spl), marrying 9 year olds (ayesha one of his umpteen wives), marrying his own son's wife (well he did grant divorce to them so that it would facillitate his marriage to her).

again, so who is a true muslim ?

for us kafirs, it has gotten to the point where we don't give a sh1t and u r all one and the same, two sides of the same coin.

the fundamentalists are open about it. they are open about converting dar-ul-harb to dar-ul-islam.

the moderates are just apologists and are closet fundamentalists. very few are not and it appears that they are not the true muslims.

sorry if it hurts. this is my opinion out of observation and readings.

oh and congrats to whispering legs for atleast starting to understand islam.

too many have either irrational blind hatred or have this naive "it is all the same" opinion.

try Arun Shourie's "The World of Fatwa's". it is an excellent read on fatwa's.

Since the title says "Islamic History"

Islamic history is full of gore and blood.

except SE asia (malaysia and indonesia, where it spread by merchants), islam was spread by the sword 99% of the times. the other 1 % can be attributed to sufi saints , who ironically are called kafirs , by the sunnis/wahabbis.

be it be the conquest of mecca and medina, to the conquest of turkey, the conquest of persia and northern india, it is a story of war and blood.

Persia was the biggest victim. the native religion of zoroastrianism is all but vanished there. infact, many fled east towards india , where they still live, called as parsis.

india too was a bloody conquest. some examples. mahmood of ghazni invaded india 17 times. mahmood of ghori invaded 8 times, he lost all the eight times to the delhi king prithviraj chauhan. being the magnanimous fool, he pardoned ghori. the ninth time chauhan lost due to treachery by an ally and was caught by ghori, taken to Afghanistan and killed there. Many slaves were taken across the mountain ranges which were named "hindu kush" , meaning hindu killer, since many slaves died on the harsh mountains.

many a community had to flea this barbarity. one such community that fled westwards are the gypsies. poor things, they are still nomads !

But Timur lane takes the cake. the day he sacked delhi, he killed one hunderd thousand civilians in one day. that is a historical recorded fact, i kid you not.

all these barbaric invasions were sanctified by the ulema (relgious scholars) of those times. the dead were called martyrs or ghazis. to this day, muslims recall fondly the forays and invasions by these muslim kings. Religious leaders of other faiths were constantly persecuted. For ex, the last Sikh guru and his sons were killed by Aurangzeb ( a moghul emperor, who is praised in islamic writings as being a very pious muslim)

NO apologies have been made. Well, a descendant of the moghuls, a woman, did apologise to the sikhs a few months ago, but that's about it.

Many converted to islam at swordpoint. many converted due to economic pressure. they had a cute little thing called Jaziya tax which every non-muslim had to pay. Many feudals converted to islam to keep their possessions. That is how islam spread, not due to the enlightenment they found in the Koran, which was all in arabic anyway.

Religion of Peace !

yeah sure.

Added later: typo corrected.

Muslims have killed for religion. Christians have killed for religion. These days Christians have become less violent in their religion, Muslims have remained more violent. And yes it is a minority of Muslims who are violent but they are violent and it is up to fellow Muslims to do something about this.
When I visited Turkey I met open, friendly Muslims who showed no hatred or intolerance toward me as a Christian and westerner. My best friend here in Japan is Muslim. We get along just fine.

Turkey is fine only because the mullahs were purged by Kemal Ataturk and the govt forces secularism.

In other words, if Turks were religious, ur experience would have been nasty.

Don't get me wrong. Muslims can be excellent friends, i have many, the only problem is they are not strictly practicing muslims.

IOW, if they are strictly practising muslims, they would be more like OBL/mullah omar etc.

The problem lies in the codification and fossilisation of Koran. In the Koran it is declared that it is the ultimate word of God and everything a muslim needs to learn is in the koran and that the Koran is indisputable and immutable. the shias atleast have the right to interpret it in the context of the times, but almost all schools including the sunnis and wahabbis are violently against any reinterpretation of koran.

and on top of that, u can only read the Koran in arabic. It means that translations are not accepted. One has to pray in arabic to be a muslim and read and recite the koran in arabic to be a muslim scholar of recognition.

that explains the hold the mullahs have over the masses. given the education levels in muslim countries, the mullah may be the only guy in his constituency who knows arabic and he can always interpret the koran to favor his POV.

take a look at this

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_18-5-2005_pg7_4
Suicide attacks by Iraqis and Palestinians justified: Aamir

Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: Commenting on the clerics’ decree against suicide attacks on holy places, Minister of State for Religious Affairs Aamir Liaqat Hussain on Tuesday said the decree was only for Pakistan and that suicide attacks in Iraq and Palestine were justified because Muslims were fighting foreign occupation there.

“Iraqi people can resort to suicide attacks against the US forces. Suicide attacks in Iraq and Palestine are legitimate because the Muslims in these countries are being killed by the invading forces,” he said, adding that the decree was issued in the context of Pakistan with a view to stopping terrorism at holy places. He said killing a Muslim without a just reason was forbidden in Islam and killing a Muslim for“God’s blessing was infidelity :rolleyes: .

apparently it did not work. because this happened

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-05-27-voa22.cfm

19 Killed in Explosion Targeting Pakistani Muslim Shrine
By Ayaz Gul
Islamabad
27 May 2005

A powerful bomb exploded early Friday at a religious gathering at a Muslim shrine in Islamabad, killing at least 19 worshipers and injuring dozens.
....
..
Islamabad's police chief, Talat Mahmood, dismisses these suggestions. "This [religious festival] thing has been going on for the last one week. The entire police force was here with all the officers," he said. "[But] if it is a suicide bombing, then you know how difficult [it should be] to stop a suicide bombing."

in case u r wondering what was the effectiveness of the fatwa banning suicide bombing, read more

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_19-5-2005_pg3_1

EDITORIAL #2: The ‘fatwa’ against suicide-bombing

The head of the Ruet-e-Hilal Committee, Mufti Munibur Rehman, gathered 58 clerics from all over Pakistan to issue a collective fatwa that suicide-bombing and other acts of terrorism involving Muslim-killing-Muslim situations were prohibited in Islam. The fatwa doesn’t apply outside Pakistan and doesn’t apply in situations where Muslims are not killing Muslims. The state minister for religious affairs, Dr Aamer Liaquat Hussain, has welcomed it, but one will have to see if the clergy at large accepts it.

Mufti Munib is Barelvi and is not accepted as an authority by other clerics, especially of the Deobandi variety. When his moon-sighting became controversial in the NWFP, he was roughed up. He has since tried to firm up his position by constantly taking rigid positions on TV channels. Chances are that the fatwa will be of no use. The clerical rejectionism in Pakistan is a problem. This rejectionism is quick against state institutions and gives rise to vigilante action. The Federal Shariat Court and the Council of Islamic Ideology have bowed out to let the Ruet-e-Hilal Committee chairman put together an ijma’ (consensus) of the clerics. Leaning on unofficial fatwas is tantamount to yielding the state’s internal sovereignty. But as PR it is good and should be welcomed. *

it is PR and nothing but PR. they know what is inside the faithful's heart.

in case u r wondering where is the customary "DEATH TO /insert flavor of the month" ..here it is

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2005/May/subcontinent_May1038.xml&section=subcontinent&col=

Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said it was a suicide attack and at least 17 people had died. He blamed “enemies of Pakistan and Islam.”

No one claimed responsibility for the bombing, and Ahmed said they are trying to identify the attacker.

Hundreds of Shiite worshippers, beating their chests and heads in mourning, clashed with police near the shrine afterward when officers baton-charged the crowd to clear the way for ambulances. Some also chanted, “Down with America!”


amazing innit?

oh, wait there is more.
http://anonymouse.ws/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/may-2005/28/index15.php
RAW's probable involvement in shrine blast being probed

BY FARRUKH KHAN PITAFI
LAHORE - While many theories have surfaced thus far about the terrorist act at Bari Imam shrine situated near the Prime Minister’s House and the diplomatic enclave in Islamabad on Friday, the official circles are seriously probing into the reported tip-off regarding the probability of the involvement of Indian premier foreign intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW).

Nice system they got going.

"Islam is correct. Islam is last. everything before has been corrupted."

"islam means submission. islam is a religion of peace."

Boooooom!

"What was that?"

"A suicide bombing."

"Oh! A suicide bombing? That is unislamic - so it must have been a kufr conspiracy."

"the bomber was a muslim"

"Oh! then he is not a true muslim, because islam means submission. islam is a religion of peace..."

I think the point passed you in both lanes, Canuck.
Well then, that must be God's will for me today?

Perhaps a better understanding of The Beatitudes (http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Beatitudes/beatitudes.htm) is much more noble goal, than to cast aspersions on our brethren?

On one final note, and then I bow out of this thread since it seems to keep trying to tell me that I must be a violent monster bent on world domination, in Islam suicide is a sin ... no matter why you do it.

Please, though, carry on with how we glorify suicide bombers. The ignorance is hilarious.

Christians have become less violent in their religion,
Do you really think so? (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=God+bless+our+troops&meta=)

On one final note, and then I bow out of this thread since it seems to keep trying to tell me that I must be a violent monster bent on world domination, in Islam suicide is a sin ... no matter why you do it.

Please, though, carry on with how we glorify suicide bombers. The ignorance is hilarious.
I disagree. I think you are a voice of reason in what apears to be an unreasonable thread.

I disagree. I think you are a voice of reason in what apears to be an unreasonable thread.

Aye ... but these people don't want reason. They have their opinion and their opinion is God Given Fact(tm). They don't want to know about the hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims because it conflicts with their world view of Osama as the ultimate Muslim.

However, I can take comfort in knowing that this is the very reason why Qur'an instructs me not to take friends or protectors from amongst their ranks. They think they understand and, well, they don't.

They have decided that my goal in life is to teach my son to wear a bomb and go blow up Jews. Funny, that, because right now I'm teaching my son how to use the toilet. Such animals we are.

I've said it once and I will say it again: I don't give a flying fuck just how many examples of Ladens and Zarqawis they can bring up ... it doesn't change Islam. I can bring up Falwell, Phelps, and Jim Jones all day long, but nobody who can think with a drop of rationality will believe that's what Christianity is all about. Go figure.

They say there's been no reform, but then can't explain me. They pass it off to me being "misguided".

It's entirely laughable, I tells ya.

oh my god! i just wrote the longest essay ever to reply to Aryvartha's claims and then a damned errer comes up and i couldnt finish, copy+paste, or anything to my reply. and I sat here for over half an hour writting!


I will talk about some things and pickup on the rest later.

Real Muslims:-
They follow he 5 pillars of Islam. They do not kill any one unless there is a reason which i will outline. they may follow the Sunnah of the prophet or they may not. so If a muslim follows the 5 pillars he is muslim. when can a muslim kill?

1- one is going to kill you for your wealth/riches/money.
2- one is going to kill you and/or your family.
3- one is going to kill you because of your religion.
4- A country is invading your own country and you take up arms as a Jihadist in defendin the country.

so there is no License in Islam to kill some one.
and OBL and Mullah Omar are not real muslims. stop using them, are they your only defense that muslims ARE violent? are they the ONLY real muslims to you? well you arent a muslims you DONT know who is a real muslim.

In Asia Islam spread by Merchants and trading. in Northern Africa and Turkey Muslim Arabs FREED them from the Romans, same as Spain. in Eastern muslim empire the muslims conquerd the Persians. both of these empires were brutal to the people the occupied.(Romans and Persians) muslims freed those people and alot of people converted to Islam because they learned about thier conquerors and thier religion and they liked it. and alot stayed as thier own religion but they had to pay a Gizyah. but so what? every single muslim also Payed Zaka.


The Prophet Mouhamad married a 9 yearold because her father Abu Bakr el-Sidik asked him too, and Abu bakr el sidik was his very best friend. Mouhamad neve rhad intercourse with her if yo uwere trying to prove that point. he only had kids from his wife Khadiga. of his kids he had 2 boys but they died in thier young ages. the boy you are speaking of was adopted by the prophet mouhamad. when his 'son' and a woman were married it didnt work well and SHE wanted a divorce, so they were divorced. and she married Mouhamad.

would you rather Mouahamd have multiple partners un married like "normal" people in america or europe?(not all of them ofcourse. but you cant deny that a very small percentage does that). or would you have rathered him raped a 9 year old like Catholic priests?

Alot of middle eastern countries and European countries(with muslims in it) mde a Fatwa aginst OBL, Including Spaim, Germany, Britain, Egypt, Lebonon, and Saudi Arabia.

EDIT: Aryvartha stop fucking calling your seld a damn Kafir because you are not one. and no one in this thread even called you one. just shut up about the kafir thing. Christians and Jews are Ahl Al-Kitab they arent Kafirs. nor is any other religion to that matter. its any one that is Polythiestic and hates Islam, Christianity or Judaism.

Aryvartha, I concluded that you have Islamophobia, please get a cure as soon as possible.

Aryvartha, I concluded that you have Islamophobia, please get a cure as soon as possible.

Sala'am.

Don't bother, brother. They don't care.

Remember Al-Ma'idah 51 and Al-Mumtahinah 1-9.

Salam aleikum brother Massr !

oh my god! i just wrote the longest essay ever to reply to Aryvartha's claims and then a damned errer comes up and i couldnt finish, copy+paste, or anything to my reply. and I sat here for over half an hour writting!

LOL. I am really sorry that you lost ur answer. I hate it when it happens to me. u lose ur train of thought. anyways, let's see what u did write.

Real Muslims:-
They follow he 5 pillars of Islam. They do not kill any one unless there is a reason which i will outline. they may follow the Sunnah of the prophet or they may not. so If a muslim follows the 5 pillars he is muslim. when can a muslim kill?

1- one is going to kill you for your wealth/riches/money.
2- one is going to kill you and/or your family.
3- one is going to kill you because of your religion.
4- A country is invading your own country and you take up arms as a Jihadist in defendin the country.

i do know very well the 5 pillars.

The problem in the reasons u have give for "when can a muslim kill?" is it does not address the verses in the koran which says "find and kill the kafir".

like this verse, for ex,

4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them

pl correct me if it is not the correct translation of the verse.

"it is taken out of context", u will say. but pray tell me what IS the context this verse should be seen. huh?

what about these verses. exactly what is the context for these. Again, please correct me if the translations are wrong. I am taking them from here http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/qmtintro.html

8:12, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them

the more i read the koran, the more i am convinced that God is some sort of a Cosmic Saddam Hussein.

so there is no License in Islam to kill some one.
and OBL and Mullah Omar are not real muslims. stop using them, are they your only defense that muslims ARE violent? are they the ONLY real muslims to you? well you arent a muslims you DONT know who is a real muslim.

i ain't saying that OBL/mullah omar are the real muslims.

THEY are saying so and apparently the ulema of the region too agrees with them. you take it up with them for misrepresentation of your religion.

like i said earlier, a typical kafir gives a damn to who is a good muslim or not.

Any religion is only as good as its followers. Islam WILL be judged by the actions of muslims. It is upto you to take care of the deviants (as you claim)...so far we do not see that happening. So i am increasingly coming to the belief that the deviants (fundamentalists) are the real practitioners of islam seeing that there is a passive (and active) support to them by the so called silent majority.

In Asia Islam spread by Merchants and trading.

BS. which part of asia are u talking about? other than SE asia, in EVERY other place it WAS spread by the sword.

Persia was invaded. The arabic conquest of persia is one of the well recorded destruction of a civilisation.

Mohammed Bin Kasim invaded Sindh (then ruled by Raja Dahir a hindu king, now it is a province of pakistan) in 8th century. That was the first invasion by a muslim force on the Indian subcontinent. Prior to that there were NO muslim in the area. so the usual , "we liberated oppressed muslims" excuse cannot be used. It is well recorded in Chach-na'ma or Tari'kh-I Hind wa Sind , account of the first Arab invasion of Sindh.

"Islam spread by Merchants and trading"..Lol. Mohammed Ghori, Mohammed Ghazni , Ibrahim Lodhi, Muhammad Khilji (who destroyed the famous Nalanda Library), Aurangzeb, Babar , Abdali etc etc. Do you even know who they are. They are not "traders/merchants"...they were murderous barbarians who spread islam in the finest tradition set by the Prophet. They all had the backing of the ulema of their time. The dead of their armies were declared martyrs.

in Northern Africa and Turkey Muslim Arabs FREED them from the Romans, same as Spain.

see, that would be possible only of there were already muslims in the area and they were oppressed.

There were no muslims in spain BEFORE the invasion. so ur claims of "freeing" them does not hold water.

Northern africa were populated by berbers who had to be conquered and only LATER they became muslims.

and alot stayed as thier own religion but they had to pay a Gizyah. but so what? every single muslim also Payed Zaka.

sorry my friend. let me tell u how offensive it sounds.

paying a tax (the Jaziyah) just because i am not a muslim is NOT my idea of a "religion of peace". how would u like to pay a tax just because u r a muslim?

the Jaziyah was an economic pressure , due to which many poor converted to islam to escape Jaziyah. They did not embrace islam because they understood the "truth" in islam. Lol, they could not even read the koran (the koran being in arabic).

Zakat is required of a muslim. Just because you pay a zakat, does not mean that a kafir has to pay Jaziyah. Please note that Jaziyah is an EXTRA tax, over and above what a normal citizen has to pay.

The Prophet Mouhamad married a 9 yearold because her father Abu Bakr el-Sidik asked him too, and Abu bakr el sidik was his very best friend. Mouhamad neve rhad intercourse with her if yo uwere trying to prove that point

these accounts paint a different story.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.064

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:
Narrated 'Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65:
Narrated 'Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'

These hadiths are by Bukhari who is a recognised scholar of sunni tradition.

The shias claim that aisha herself gave false accounts to promote her place. Other excuses include that women of these times came to maturity fast and ayesha was a full grown woman by age 9 and prophet had intercourse only with a grown woman.

But seriously brother, a rasool of allah, that too the last rasool, taking a 9 year (or 6 year by some accounts) old as a wife is not too inspiring. Till date, I have not heard a satisfactory explanation of WHY the prophet took ayesha for a wife.

u also say,
The Prophet Mouhamad married a 9 yearold because her father Abu Bakr el-Sidik asked him too

but what do we make of this account.

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18:
Narrated 'Ursa:

The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

do u have any account to the contrary?

the boy you are speaking of was adopted by the prophet mouhamad. when his 'son' and a woman were married it didnt work well and SHE wanted a divorce, so they were divorced. and she married Mouhamad.

of course the prophet was a lustless man and he had all these women falling all over him.

would you rather Mouahamd have multiple partners un married like "normal" people in america or europe?(not all of them ofcourse. but you cant deny that a very small percentage does that). or would you have rathered him raped a 9 year old like Catholic priests?

nice deflection there. the "living together but not married" types of the west don't claim to be the last rasool. nor do the altar_boy_raping catholic priests.

the issue here is the actions of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh...forgot to add, sorry) , the supposedly last rasool, the noor of mankind, the gift to mankind from allah(the most beneficient and just) and how it reflects upon the claims of islam.

EDIT: Aryvartha stop fucking calling your seld a damn Kafir because you are not one. and no one in this thread even called you one

oh yes. I am not ahle-e-kitab. I am a damned Kafir (literally).

I am an advaitin (a sect of Hinduism) and thus I am a kafir and I have been already damned to hell as per the koran.

so i am indeed a damn kafir as per the koran that is the word of Allah (SAW).

its any one that is Polythiestic and hates Islam, Christianity or Judaism.

wrong. a kafir is one who is an unbeliever but not an jew/christian. he need not hate islam to be a kafir.

an non-xtian/non-jew who is not a muslim is by definition a kafir/kufr.

hindus/budhists/zoroastrians/jains/sikhs/animist/pagan/atheist are all kafirs.


Aryvartha, I concluded that you have Islamophobia, please get a cure as soon as possible.

prescribe me one, if u will.

meanwhile tell me one thing,

do u agree with the fatwa on Salman Rushdie?

if no, what have u done to repeal the fatwa?

btw, what do u make of this verse. as always, pl correct me if the translation is wrong. pl tell me under what context one is supposed to take this.

033.050
O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Wasslam.

I find it interesting that alot of posters tried to turn this into an Anti-Christian thing.

I will admit, what I know about Islam (besides spelling it) could fit into a thumbtack and leave room for the thumb.

and Keruvalia, my opinion of you never changed. I would still rather call you friend.

several questions tho.

The verses you mentioned...

1 . O ye who believe! Choose not My enemy and your enemy for friends . Do ye give them friendship when they disbelieve in that truth which hath come unto you , driving out the messenger and you because ye believe in Allah , your Lord? If ye have come forth to strive in My way and seeking My good pleasure , ( show them not friendship ) . Do ye show friendship unto them in secret , when I am best Aware of what ye hide and what ye proclaim? And whosoever doeth it among you , be verily hath strayed from the right way.

2 . If they have the upper hand of you , they will be your foes , and will stretch out their hands and their tongues toward you with evil ( intent ) , and they long for you to disbelieve . sounds like all those who do not believe are your enemy and thus not worth the effort of friendship. and if they should be your better, "If they have the upper hand of you" even more so, do not believe what they say...

what is your interpretation of those verses... for I hope I am wrong.

51. O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
and this sound rather unfair... and the fact to told others to remember this Does that mean that you believe this to be true?

This question is for keruvalia, since he said that only the Koran is to be followed not the hadiths or sunna.

well, how can u say that the koran is the authentic word of God ?

At no point during Muhammed's (pbuh) life was an authoritative document of Koran written down. In fact the Koran as we have now, was documented during the rule of Uthman, 23(?) years AFTER the death of the prophet. Uthman was the third caliph (after Abu Bakr the first and some other dude who was the second). As is natural, disputes broke out as to the "correct" verses and once it was completed, all other versions were ordered destroyed.

what do you make of Ibn 'Umar al Khattab stating: "Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Quran, for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Quran has been lost, thus let him say, 'I have acquired of it what is available'" (As-Suyuti, Itqan, part 3, page 72) ?

The problem in the reasons u have give for "when can a muslim kill?" is it does not address the verses in the koran which says "find and kill the kafir".

Again, Ive said befor, that these verses were given to mouhamad in certian times. the qu'ran was not given to mouhamad in one full book at one time.
wehn the verses talk of killing the Kafirs it refers to them times when in Arabia the muslims and the unbelievers were at war. they refer TO THE PAST. when god ordered them to fight back and kill the Kafirs. would you rather god left the muslims to die an dnot defend themselves?

Who do you want to take care of these devaints? the Arabs? those people living in thirld world ocuntries that cant fend for themselves aginst thier ruthles governments? ive' alreayd told you that in Europe and hte Middle east some parts of the population made Fatwas aginst OBL and his followers.

And I dont deny the fact that some Caliphas were out of control. some WERE out of control. and yet I cant deny that Islam was spread in Asia by peace not by sowrd.

when I spoke of Muslims liberating people..I didnt say what religion, I said people. I never said muslims. Muslim Arabs liberated the neighbouring countries from the Grasps of Persia and Rome. thats kinda like saying The United States of America is liberating Iraq because Iraqies are..christian?

You've posted those Hadith and I fail to find what you mean by posting them..all they say is that Mouhamad married her. isnt that what I said?

You may call yourself a Kafir as much as you like..but where I come from people dont call anyone Kafirs anymore.


No I dont Agree with the Fatwa of Salman Rushdie. and there is nothing I could do about it because I am not Irani and it's not really my problem.

No. Jesus broke the old covenant/laws between God and men (ten commandments) and created a new covenant/law (the "golden rule").
"Jesus" might have but where in the Judaic prophecy does it say that that's what the "Christ" was to do?
Maybe you can post this.

You, like MANY others, forget that Jesus broke the old covenant between God and man and instituted a new covenant. THAT's why modern Christians don't follow the Old Testament as law.
You, like MANY others, don't seem to understand what the nature of "Christ" is - NOT what you attribute to it by calling it "Jesus".

In that case, all Christians must shut up about gay marriage, because that's all Old Testament stuff.
Oh, MORTAL WOUND! YEOWOUCH! :sniper:
You rock.
*bows*

and OBL and Mullah Omar are not real muslims. stop using them, are they your only defense that muslims ARE violent? are they the ONLY real muslims to you? well you arent a muslims you DONT know who is a real muslim.


Islam was also spread by the sword. Shi'is did not do this, because it was forbidden until the return of the Hidden Imam (who is still in occultation).

Sunnis and Sufis, on the other hand... there are cases too numerous to mention. And to offer the defense that they are no longer considered Muslims would be like trying to excuse the various Popes who sent Crusades by saying, "well, they sent Crusades and made war on innocent people, so they're not Christians".

And OBL and Mullah Omar are not the only examples. There are millions upon millions of active hostile Muslims - and hundreds of millions who support them, or turn a blind eye to them. Yes, they too are Muslims.

When Muslims turn in their own brethren by the millions, that will be recompense enough.

It's interesting that Sunnis are now the bogeymen. Up until recently, Shi'ites were the 'feared' Muslims (probably because of Iran).

WL: Sufism spread by the sword? Er. That sounds very, very wrong.

It's interesting that Sunnis are now the bogeymen. Up until recently, Shi'ites were the 'feared' Muslims (probably because of Iran).

WL: Sufism spread by the sword? Er. That sounds very, very wrong.

Sufis were the ritual executioners of people who refused to convert, or who were not allowed to convert (combat prisoners), or who were politically inconvenient (Shiite clerics).

The Sunnis usually brought along a group of Sufis who were used specifically for this purpose. Once again, the source is the Oxford material.

Sufis were the ritual executioners of people who refused to convert, or who were not allowed to convert (combat prisoners), or who were politically inconvenient (Shiite clerics).

The Sunnis usually brought along a group of Sufis who were used specifically for this purpose. Once again, the source is the Oxford material.
OK, I'm going to have to look that up - I've only ever read of Sufis being mystical peaceniks. Islamo-Buddhists, if you will.

EDIT - Sufis are also the most widely persecuted branch of Muslim, as I understand. Loathed by (extreme) Sunnis and Shi'ites.

OK, I'm going to have to look that up - I've only ever read of Sufis being mystical peaceniks. Islamo-Buddhists, if you will.

After the 19th Century, yes.

Before then, no.

Do you really think so? (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=God+bless+our+troops&meta=)

Yeah, I do. Compare the number of Christians who blow up and kill people for religion's sake to the number of Muslims who do. Now, both numbers will be very small, but the ratio of Christians to Muslims is going to be heavily tilted toward Muslims. I do not say that to condemn Islam, but I do not think you can compare the religions in this area anymore. Christians are generally to complacent and lack passion in our faith. We tend to have the nutcases who show up and wave signs and scream at people and rarely somebody shoots someone.
But everybodys gots their fringe.

Again, Ive said befor, that these verses were given to mouhamad in certian times. the qu'ran was not given to mouhamad in one full book at one time.

wehn the verses talk of killing the Kafirs it refers to them times when in Arabia the muslims and the unbelievers were at war. they refer TO THE PAST. when god ordered them to fight back and kill the Kafirs. would you rather god left the muslims to die an dnot defend themselves?



AHA ! there you are. an excellent point !

BUT WHY don't we extend the same logic and say that
" perhaps the condition in arabia in the past were such that women had to be treated so and so, but conditions have changed , so we have to interpret it to changing times"

NO. how can it be? women have to be treated the same way they were treated in 7th century, because the Koran says so and Koran is the last and immutable and incorruptible word of Allah, right?

Whilst in every other goddamned thing, muslims tend to say that "because the Koran says so and the Koran is ......" but when it comes to the jew/christian/kafir hating verses i cited a few posts back, u cop out using the "changing times and context was different argument".

Nice.

quote "would you rather god left the muslims to die an dnot defend themselves?" unquote.

No Brother. "find and kill" is not the same as defending. "do not take jews and christians as friends" inspires hatred in any context.

Like i said, Koran makes it appear that God is a cosmic Saddam Hussein.


Who do you want to take care of these devaints? the Arabs? those people living in thirld world ocuntries that cant fend for themselves aginst thier ruthles governments? ive' alreayd told you that in Europe and hte Middle east some parts of the population made Fatwas aginst OBL and his followers.


what has been the effect of these namesake fatwas which carry no weightage apart from some political PR ? let's talk about some numbers.

82% of pakistanis admire OBL, according to the Gallup survey quoted here

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067526/
A large majority (82 percent) describe Osama bin Laden as a mujahedin (Islamic guerrilla), while only 6 percent call him a terrorist

pakistani population is around 150 million. I can only imagine the situation in KSA, Jordan and assorted ME countries like yemen etc. Bangladesh is getting there, with the help of KSA funding. Put together one safely say that atleast 50% of worlwide muslim population sympathise with OBL, if not outright support for his action.


And I dont deny the fact that some Caliphas were out of control. some WERE out of control. and yet I cant deny that Islam was spread in Asia by peace not by sowrd.


SOME !!! man u got a gift for understatament !

just tell me HOW islam spread by "peace" in Asia and WHERE in Asia (apart from Malaysia, Indonesia and SE Asian countries).

I gave you concrete examples of the invasions. I can give you more if u like.
Right from the first invasion of Sindh by Muhammed Bin Kasim to the last major emperor Aurangzeb, it is a tale of misery and misfortune for the hapless non-muslims.

On any invasion, the first target will be the intellectuals and priestly class. Then the temples. Even this day u can see in the Qutub Mosque pillars of Hindu temples with a number of Hindu motifs carved on them. It was the first mosque in India built by Qutub-ud-din Aibak, the founder and first Sultan of the Slave dynasty. The Jama Masjid, a huge mosque built by Shah Jehan of mughal dynasty, was built on the site of a hindu temple. Even this day, u can see the temple pillars as stepping stones to the mosque.

After this brutal destruction of a person's cultural and religious icons and identity combined with economic pressure in the form of Jaziyah tax , he is easy picking for converting to islam.

not to mention the promise of 72 pure virgins in Jannat !

u know, i have nothing against a modern day muslim for the atrocities committed by their kind eons ago, but it would help reconciling if atleast u accept historical facts instead of parrotting the same " islam is peace, islam is last, islam spread peacefully" tripe that has of late begun to irritate me very much.


when I spoke of Muslims liberating people..I didnt say what religion, I said people. I never said muslims. Muslim Arabs liberated the neighbouring countries from the Grasps of Persia and Rome. thats kinda like saying The United States of America is liberating Iraq because Iraqies are..christian?


we are discussing islam and its history.

nice try to deflect by using the american invasion of iraq. for the record, i was and still am TOTALLY agains the invasion of iraq.

"Muslim Arabs liberated the neighbouring countries from the Grasps of Persia and Rome."

this pre-supposes that the said people were "suffering" and "oppressed" and were asking for "liberation" by the muslim arabs. that is NOT the case.

add to this the fact that muslim arabs invaded iran (the homeland of persians), north western africa (homeland of berbers) and India (homeland of hindus/budhists).

exactly what were these muslim armies liberating? persians from persians ? indians from indians?

like how Timur lane killed 100,000 *civilians* the day he sacked Delhi...i suppose he "liberated" the heads of those people from their bodies, eh?
well actually he did that, historical accounts show that he indeed built a big pile of heads.

if that is "liberation", i agree that islam indeed spread peacefully and all the muslim sultans etc were indeed "liberators".


You've posted those Hadith and I fail to find what you mean by posting them..all they say is that Mouhamad married her. isnt that what I said?


the hadith CLEARLY said that Muhammed (pbuh) *consummated* his marriage with Ayesha, when he was 9 years old. you do know what that means, right? He had sexual intercourse with the girl.

the hadith is by Bukhari, whose hadiths are held in high regard by sunnis. (although not by shias, or so i am told).


You may call yourself a Kafir as much as you like..but where I come from people dont call anyone Kafirs anymore.


LOL. i am sure u wouldnt call me that.

the problem is, the Koran calls me that and damns me to hell along with several other niceties like

2:6 As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not.

2:7 Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.

awful doom it is, then !!! :rolleyes: :) :p

Whispering Legs,

u r correct about sufis. but not all sufis were like that. some were genuine and did spread islam by way of mystical teachings etc, but then they were few and far between.

The irony is that they are considered apostates/deviants in mainstream islam, both by sunnis and shiites, who constitute the majority of muslims.

Sufi followers in kashmir were targetted by the sunni kashmir terrorists and
Sufi shrines in pakistan are constantly under attack by sunni militias since people visit the shrines and sunnis interpret it as "worshipping something other than Allah (the most beneficient)" and are committing "shirk" (which can be loosely interpreted as idolatory - a dangerous sin)

shias who adore Hussein and Ali come under the same accusation.

Well i guess I just cant go on with you, ive tried and tried to work it out with you and you still dont get it. and the qu'ran has told us that we will never be accepted until we act like christians, jews, and other people..and he told us about stubborn people that will 'debate' with us and they wont accept what we say.

enough about Islam, no since you seem to be a almost like a teacher when it comes to Islam. now, please teach me about YOUR people and YOUR religion if you dont mind.

and by the way, Ive meet alot of jews and christians that were hostile towards me..so..I can see WHY that verse was in there.

Brother Massr,

you wrote,

Well i guess I just cant go on with you, ive tried and tried to work it out with you and you still dont get it. and the qu'ran has told us that we will never be accepted until we act like christians, jews, and other people..and he told us about stubborn people that will 'debate' with us and they wont accept what we say.

the only problem is that you haven't proved anything regarding your claims that "Islam spread peacefully in Asia".

Give me ONE country where Islam spread peacefully in Asia (excluding SE asia - of course , where i accept that islam spread thru merchants/traders)

I have given numerous examples of Muslim invasions and the wanton killing and the conversion by the combination of destruction of existing cultural and religious icons and the economic pressure in the form of Jazyah.

YOU have offered no reasoning to back up ur statements and have offered no evidences also.

you haven't tried anything but repeat the same ol' "islam is peace" which would not become the truth just by repeating it !

and on top of it, u call other stubborn !. Nice.

no since you seem to be a almost like a teacher when it comes to Islam

please...i am just a student. and a bad one at that. I fail to understand the relevance of discussing me.

YOUR people and YOUR religion

i don't see what the relevance is , but since u asked , i follow no organised religion. My beliefs are now advaita but i am leaning towards vaishnava. I am an East Indian.


Ive meet alot of jews and christians that were hostile towards me..so..I can see WHY that verse was in there.

sure sure. u go on telling others that Allah the most merciful has comdemned them to fiery hell and they will all start love you with compassion.

Are you not confusing the cause and effect ?

the koranic verses induce hatred which results in bigotry by muslims towards non-muslims due to which they hate muslims and when this persists, they hate islam itself, since islam is seen to be the inspiration of hatred for muslims.

Let me ask you some pointed questions.

since u r a sunni (correct me if i am wrong), do u believe that Muhammed(pbuh) did have intercourse with Ayesha (when she was 9) as per Bukhari's hadiths?

and please tell me where in Asia, Islam spread peacefully (apart from SE Asia)

We are not even getting into the internecine wars between the imams and the caliphs and the killings of the prophet's family (kerbala etc).

the Knights Templar blew themselves up with thier ships befor. I guess christians are terrorists now? no wait they arent terrorist, they are christians.
The crusdades christians generally killed all Muslims they invaded and Jews AND CHRISTIANS. in one swift blow they kill one million Infidel muslims in spain.

You can't compare the crusades themselves because excluding the first they were essentially a grab for land and loot with little importance and the first one was a way to get rid of a bunch of young nobles, get back jerusalem, and further the ambitions of one Pope Urban the II. At least I think that was who was pope for the first one. None of the crusades had the objective of obliterating an entire society which is the stated objective of AQ, the PLO, Fatah, and Hamas.

If I obeyed the Bible, I would obey Exedus 22:18. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. And tomorrow, I would murder two of my friends and their families. If that isn't evil, I don't know what is.
Except depending on who you talk to that's probably a mistranslation. I believe the correct translation is poisoner.

Notice how the christians are all:

Well, we had this alterior motive, becuase we're greedy like that. Or so it seems.

Notice how the christians are all:

Well, we had this alterior motive, becuase we're greedy like that. Or so it seems.
*blinks* Nice of you to assume I'm christian. Generally, motive changes one's perception of the severity and insanity of the crime. For instance, take the sentence: Joe killed Bob. in this instance all you know is that one person killed another. However, look at the following sentences. Joe killed Bob as bob was attempting to rape Alice versus Joe killed Bob because Bob accidentally bumped into him. Which crime is the more heinous of the two? Of course, in the issues discussed in the thread the issue is not one of severity but one of sanity and fanaticism. The point however, remains the same.

Addendum, I'm agnostic, just so you know.

Islam spread peacefully in Asia(excluding Arabia, Syria, Babylon, etc.) and I would like som elinks to prove that these muslim barbarians attacked India and killed hundereds of thousands as you say.

so what if I can others stubborn? thats true.. you've mos tlikely been calling muslims barbarians and terrorists, but I understand. Anyhow this is not the first time Ive meet people like you. and wont be the last.

and no I dont go around telling people about my religion and how merciful god is and how he has condemned them to fiery hell :rolleyes: ..I always hold back form talking about my religion in the public. real life, Internet id fine to talk about religion.

and you dont believe christians and jews have been hostile towards? pfft thats seems kinda weird since it happens all over europe and america. since I dont tell people about how my god is compashinate and they are condemned to fiery hell then I don tsee what that has to do with thier hostielty.

besides the Bible does say that only christians are saved and every one else will go to fiery hell..Im not sure about the jews. but in certain verses in the Koran that i'll have to find, talk of christians and jews going to heaven. so atleast they get achance. in the day of judgement god will put his hand in hell and scoop out a large sum of people of all religions. then he will put them in the heaven. of course it isnt random people.

now about the Mouhammed thing, Im not sure what else to say, he oculd have. or maybe he didnt. nothing I say can be proven.

and in Islam there is no 72 Virgins for people that die. its a lie.

so what does your belief say of other people in the world that dont believe in your religion? Adviat aand Vaishana. what does either say?

salam aleikum Brother Massr.

now we are getting somewhere.

Islam spread peacefully in Asia(excluding Arabia, Syria, Babylon, etc.)

let's take it from the beginning. Right from the day Muhammed(pbuh) had his "revelations" and he formed a group of "belieivers", there had been war in islami history.

Muhammed himself led armies and the first war was capturing the caravan from syrian to mecca, which is popularly known as The Battle of Badr (624 C.E.)

Then happened the The Battle of Ohod (625 C.E.), The Battle for Medina (627 C.E.). After this battle, Muhammed entered into a treaty called the Hudaibiya treaty. The treaty was broken after Muhammed's party got stronger which resulted in 630 C.E. - The Battle for Mecca.

all these wars were mostly internecine/civil war type. After consolidating the arabs of the area, attention was given to arab lands under other powers.

Muhammed's death in 632 C.E caused a split between the faithful into shias and sunnis, which has its own tales of gore and violence, with almost all the imams including the prophet's son-in-law being killed by the sunni caliphs.

but the islamic conquests did not stop after that. it only got more bloody.

Under the first caliph Abu-Bakr and the next one Omar I, large forces of Muslim cavalry burst out of Arabia to invade both Syria and Persia

633 C.E. - The Battle of Hira was the first battle where arabs attacked Persian empire of the Sassanians.

followed were 635 C.E. - The Battle for Pella and 635 C.E. - The Battle for Damascus, 636 C.E. - The Battle of Yarmuk River, 637 C.E. - The Battle of Kadisiya and The Battle at Jalula and The Battle for Jerusalem, 638 C.E # The Battle at Aleppo

641 Battle at Nihawand : The conquest of Persia.

before now, muslims were only fighting amongst arabs, and persians/byzantine forces in arab lands, but now after the consolidation of arabs, their armies began attacking the others IN THEIR HOMELANDS.

NOTE: there were NO MUSLIMS at that time in iran (persia). there is NO EXCUSE like "freeing" the people or "liberating" them. persians were getting along fine under persian kings and the zoroastrian faith.

Concurrently, conquest of Egypt was started.

641: al-Fustat - First Battle in the Moslem Conquest of Egypt

642: The Battle of Alexandria

and so it goes on and on until the areas of Northern Africa, spain, portugal, the byzantines and the persians were all conquered.

I would like som elinks to prove that these muslim barbarians attacked India and killed hundereds of thousands as you say.

India is a special case. Unlike other areas, the indians actually put up a stiff fight. and it took 400 long years and innumerable wars and raids to weaken the will.

The first invasion was by Muhammed Bin Qasim [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_Qasim] who was sent by The Umayyad caliph al-Walid I to lead an army into Sindh in India.

The first muslim sultanate at Delhi was The Mamluk or Slave Dynasties of Delhi (1206-1290) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_dynasty] founded by Qutbu’d-Dîn Aibak, a viceroy if Muhammed Ghori.

Between these years India was plagued by the incursions of Muhammed of Ghazni and Muhammed of Ghori.

Muhamemd of Ghazni invaded India 17 times and looted the sacred temple of Somnath.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_of_Ghazni
some excerpts
Issuing forth year after year from his capital of Ghazni, Mahmud carried sixteen or seventeen campaigns into northern India and Gujarat, as well as others to the north and west.

Mahmud's campaigns seem to be motivated by both religious zeal and an interest in wealth and gold. Mahmud followed the injunction to convert non-Muslims, whom he had vowed to chastise every year of his life. Hindu temples were depositories of vast quantities of wealth, in cash, golden images, and jewellery - and these made them targets for a non-Hindu searching for wealth in northern India. The later invasions of Mahmud were directed to temple towns, including Thanesar (1012), Mathura and Kanauj (1018), and finally Somnath (1026). Mahmud's armies routinely stripped the temples of their wealth and then destroyed them; after Mahmud's raids on the cities of Varanasi, Ujjain, Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi, and Dwarka, not one temple survived intact.

The concentration of wealth at Somnath was renowned, and consequently it became an attractive target for Mahmud. The raid in 1026 was his last major campaign, and took him across the Thar Desert, which had previously deterred most invaders. The temple and citadel were sacked, and most of its Brahmin defenders massacred; Mahmud personally hammered the temple's gilded lingam into pieces, and the stone fragments were carted back to Ghazni, where they were incorporated into the steps of the city's new Jami Masjid (Friday mosque).

side note: it is to remind india of these invasions , pakistan has named its long range nuke capable missiles as "Ghazni".

The other long range missile of pakistan is called "Ghori". Let's see what this character has done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_of_Ghor
He raided eastwards into the remaining Ghaznevid territory, and invaded Gujarat in the 1180's, but was rebuffed by Gujarat's Solanki rulers. In 1186-7 he conquered Lahore, ending the Ghaznevid empire and bringing the last of Ghaznevid territory under his control.

In 1191, he invaded the territory of Prithviraj III of Ajmer, who ruled much of present-day Rajasthan and Haryana, but was defeated at Tarain by Govinda-raja of Delhi, Prithviraj's vassal. The following year Muhammad assembled 120,000 horsemen and once again invaded the Kingdom of Ajmer. The Muhammad's army met Prithviraj's army again at Tarain, and this time Muhammad was victorious; Govinda-raja was slain, Prithviraj captured, and Muhammad advanced on Delhi, capturing it soon after. Within a year Muhammad controlled northern Rajasthan and the northern part of the Ganges-Yamuna Doab. Muhammad returned east to Ghazni to deal with the threat to his eastern frontiers from the Turks and Mongols, but his armies, mostly under Turkish generals, continued to advance through northern India, raiding as far east as Bengal.

Muhammad returned to Lahore after 1200 to deal with a revolt of the Ghakkar tribe in the Punjab. He suppressed the revolt, but was killed a Ghakkar raid on his camp on the Jhelum River in 1206. Upon his death, his most capable general, Qutb ud-Din Aybak took control of Muhammad's Indian conquests and declared himself the first Sultan of Delhi.

detailed story is much more interesting. Ghori was actually captured and let go by Prithviraj , in an act of stupid magnanimity. Ghori won the next war, aided by the treachery of an ally of prithviraj , and prithviraj was captured and took back to Afghanistan as a slave. He died there.

anyway, this loss of prithviraj to Ghori led to the establishment of the first muslim kingdom of proper india. This was just the beginning of the destruction wrought upon the native hindus.

The slave dynasty was followed by the Khaljis and the Tughlaks and the Lodhis who excelled in barbarity. They were followed by the Mughals who were none the better except for Akbar. They were followed by Abdali (unsurprisingly, the pakis have a missile named after Abdali too..)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Durani
he invaded the Punjab three times between the years 1747-1753, and captured Herat in 1750, Nishapur (Neyshabur) and Meshed (Mashhad]]) in 1751. He once again invaded the Punjab for a fourth time in 1756-1757 to chastise the Moguls, he thereupon sacked Delhi, installed a puppet Emperor, Almagir II, on the Mogul throne, and arranged marriages for himself and his son Timur into the Imperial family that same year. Again he invaded the Punjab a fifth time in 1759 and defeated a Sikh-Maratha army at the Battle of Panipat, this battle left India without a dominant native power and made British expansion much easier.

but the record goes to Timur Lane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur
He was the great-grandson of Karachar Nevian and distinguished, among his fellow-clansmen as the first convert to Islam
..
n 1398, when Timur was more than sixty years of age, Farishta tells us that, "informed of the commotions and civil wars of India," he "began his expedition into that country," and on the September 12, 1398 "arrived on the banks of the Indus."

His passage of the river and upward march along the left bank, the reinforcement he provided for his grandson Pir Mahommed (who was invested in Multan), the capture of towns or villages accompanied, it might be, with destruction of the houses and the massacre of the inhabitants, the battle before Delhi and the easy victory, the triumphal entry into the doomed city, with its outcome of horrors—all these circumstances belong to the annals of India.


better account is here
http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Islamic_Onslaught.htm

Amir Timur or Tamerlane (1336 - 1405) Turkmen Mongol conqueror wrote:

"My principal object in coming to Hindustan… has been to accomplish two things. The first was to war with the infidels, the enemies of the Mohammadan religion; and by this religious warfare to acquire some claim to reward in the life to come. The other was… that the army of Islam might gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the infidels: plunder in war is as lawful as their mothers’ milk to Musalmans who war for their faith.”

While studying the legacy of Muslim rule in India, it has to be constantly borne in mind that the objectives of all Muslim invaders and rulers were the same as those mentioned above. Timur or Tamerlane himself defines them candidly and bluntly while others do so through their chroniclers.

(source: The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India - By K S Lal).

To start with he stormed the fort of Kator on the border of kashmir. He ordered his soldiers "to kill all the men, to make prisoners of women and children, and to plunder and lay waste all their property".

Next, he "directed towers to be built on the mountain of the skulls of those obstinate unbelievers". Soon after, he laid siege to Bhatnir defended by Rajputs. They surrendered after some fight, and were pardoned. But Islam did not bind Timur to keep his word given to the "unbelievers". His Tuzk-i-Timuri records: "In a short space of time all the people in the fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground."

By now Timur had captured 100,000 Hindus. As he prepared for battle against the Tughlaq army after crossing the Yamuna, his Amirs advised him "that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolators and enemies of Islam at liberty". Therefore, "no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword". Tuzk-i-Timuri continues: "I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death."

i hope i have given u enough to chew on before proclaiming "islam is peace..etc.etc.."

u can read the following sources for more info.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/9991129200/qid=1092361972/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-9749502-3696759?v=glance&s=books
Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them : (A Preliminary Survey)
by Arun Shourie

http://sarvadharma.org/Museum/HinduHolocaustMuseum.htm
Online Hindu Holocaust Memorial Museum

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4649
Islam’s Other Victims: India
Adapted from The Sword of the Prophet: A Politically-Incorrect Guide to Islam by Dr. Serge Trifkovic

a book that chronicles all the invasions.
http://www.bharatvani.org/books/tlmr/ch3.htm

excerpts from will durant's book, the Moslem conquest of India.
The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within. The Hindus ... had failed to organize their forces for the protection of their frontiers and their capitals, their wealth and their freedom, from the hordes of Scythians, Huns, Afghans, and Turks hovering about India's boundaries and waiting for national weakness to let them in. For four hundred years (600-1000 A.D.) India invited conquest; and at last it came.

In the year 997 a Turkish chieftain by the name of Mahmud became the sultan of the little state of Ghazni, in eastern Afghanistan. ... Each winter Mahmud descended into India, filled his treasure chest with spoils, and amused his men with full freedom to pillage and kill ... At Mathrua he took from the temple its statues of gold encrusted with precious stones, and emptied its coffers of a vast quantity of gold, silver, and jewelry; he expressed his admiration for the architecture of the great shrine, judged that its duplication would cost one hundred million dinars and the labor of two hundred years, and then ordered it to be soaked with naphtha and burnt to the ground. Six year later he sacked another opulent city of northern India, Somnath, killed all its fifty thousand inhabitants, and dragged its wealth to Ghazni. ... Sometimes he spared the population of the ravaged cities, and took them home to be sold as slaves. ... Moslem historians ranked him as the greatest monarch of his time, and one of the greatest sovereigns of any age.

Seeing the canonization that success had brought to this magnificent thief, other Moslem rulers profited by his example, though none succeeded in bettering his instruction. ... The first of these bloody sultans, Kuth-d Din Aibak, was a normal specimen of his kind-fanatical, ferocious, and merciless. His gifts, as the Mohammedan historian tells us, "were bestowed by hundreds of thousands, and his slaughters likewise were by hundreds of thousands." ... Another sultan, Balban, punished rebals and brigands by casting them under the feet of elephants, or removing their skins, stuffing these with straw, and hanging them from the gates of Delhi. ... Sultan Muhammed bin Tughlak acquired the throne by murdering his father, became a great scholar and an elegant writer. dabbled in mathematics, physics and Greek philosophy, surpassed his predecessors in bloodshed and brutality, fed the flesh of a rebel nephew to the rebel's wife and children, ruined the country with reckless inflation, and laid it waste with pillage and murder till the inhabitants fled to the jungle. He killed so many Hindus that, in the words of a Moslem historian, "there was constantly in front of his royal pavilion and his Civil Court a mound of dead bodies and a heap of corpses, while the sweepers and executioners were wearied out by their work of dragging" the victims "and putting them to death in crowds." ... Sultan Ahmed Shah feasted for three days whenever the number of defenseless Hindus slain in his territories in one day reached twenty thousand..

contd..

on why Hindu Kush means "Hindu Killer" ?

http://inhome.rediff.com/news/2003/oct/21franc.htm
Where's India's holocaust museum?

October 21, 2003

The massacre of 6 million Jews by Hitler and the persecution Jews suffered all over the world in the last 15 centuries has been meticulously recorded by the Jews after 1945 and has been enshrined not only in history books, but also in Holocaust museums, the most famous one being in Washington, DC.

It has not been done with a spirit of revenge -- look at Israel and Germany today -- they are on the best of terms; yet, facts are facts and contemporary Germany had to come to terms with its terrible actions during World War II.

Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists have also suffered a terrible holocaust, probably without parallel in human history. Take the Hindu Kush for instance, probably one of the biggest genocides of Hindus. There is practically no serious research ever done about it and no mention in history books. Yet the name Hindu Kush appears many times in the writings of Muslim chroniclers in 1333 AD

Ibn Battutah, the medieval Berber traveller, said the name meant 'Hindu Killer,' a meaning still given by Afghan mountain dwellers. Unlike the Jewish holocaust, the exact toll of the Hindu genocide suggested by the name Hindu Kush is not available. 'However,' writes Hindu Kush specialist Srinandan Vyas, 'the number is easily likely to be in millions.'

A few known historical figures can be used to justify this estimate. The Encyclopaedia Britannica recalls that in December 1398 AD, Taimurlane ordered the execution of at least 50,000 captives before the battle for Delhi; likewise, the number of captives butchered by Taimurlane's army was about 100,000.

The Britannica again mentions that Mughal emperor Akbar ordered the massacre of about 30,000 captured Rajput Hindus on February 24, 1568 AD, after the battle for Chitod, a number confirmed by Abul Fazl, Akbar's court historian. Afghan historian Khondamir notes that during one of the many repeated invasions on the city of Herat in western Afghanistan, which used to be part of the Hindu Shahiya kingdoms '1,500,000 residents perished.' 'Thus,' writes Vyas, 'it is evident that the mountain range was named as Hindu Kush as a reminder to the future Hindu generations of the slaughter and slavery of Hindus during the Moslem conquests.'


Brother Massr,
you also wrote

and no I dont go around telling people about my religion and how merciful god is and how he has condemned them to fiery hell ..I always hold back form talking about my religion in the public.

maybe you don't go around telling that. I am sure that u r a nice person. But Alas , ur religion does call for condemning me to fiery hell. and most of your co-religionists do take it seriously and make all effort in sending me there prematurely.

and you dont believe christians and jews have been hostile towards? pfft thats seems kinda weird since it happens all over europe and america. since I dont tell people about how my god is compashinate and they are condemned to fiery hell then I don tsee what that has to do with thier hostielty.

define hostility !

christians do not ANYMORE go around propping up some mythical ummah and find religious sanction for their violence and terrorism. they did that during the crusades and reconquesta and inquisition etc.

u do believe in ummah, don't you? Muhammed himself has said that "this ummah is one ummah", haven't he?

as always, correct me if i am wrong.

koran has indeed called for conversion of dar-ul-harb to dar-ul-islam, if u r not doing it , then u r not a true muslim.

maybe thats why u r a good human !!!

but in certain verses in the Koran that i'll have to find, talk of christians and jews going to heaven. so atleast they get achance. in the day of judgement god will put his hand in hell and scoop out a large sum of people of all religions. then he will put them in the heaven. of course it isnt random people.

i dunno, but this reminds of Saddam Hussein when he came to power. he arbitrarily picked people and sent them to execution just to remind others of his powers and ofcourse the remaining people called him "the most merciful and just".

and heck, i am not even ahl-e-kitab, i have very special things in store for me..LOL..

now about the Mouhammed thing, Im not sure what else to say, he oculd have. or maybe he didnt. nothing I say can be proven.

NO NO NO.

Muhammed is considered infallible. He could not have done a mistake. If indeed he had sex with a 9 year old, then it is not a mistake and as his followers, u r free and infact encouraged to emulate him.

But, if Bukhari's accounts were false, then there is NO POINT in following the other hadiths by bukhari, right ..since bukhari have falsified an important account on the prophet's life. but sunnis happily use bukhari's hadiths when it comes to other matters like women's rights etc.

WHY THIS HYPOCRISY ?

and in Islam there is no 72 Virgins for people that die. its a lie.

i KNOW it is a lie.

tell that to the idiots around the world who blow themselves up thinking that they will get their 72 houris in jannat.

so what does your belief say of other people in the world that dont believe in your religion? Adviat aand Vaishana. what does either say?

it says nothing since Advaita is the art of being that which you already are !

some realise it and some don't. here's an FAQ

http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1996_11/msg00125.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita

wassalam !

Massr, u wrote
you've mos tlikely been calling muslims barbarians and terrorists, but I understand.

NO.

i do NOT call all muslims barbarians and terrorists.

i wrote this earlier. post # 121

u know, i have nothing against a modern day muslim for the atrocities committed by their kind eons ago, but it would help reconciling if atleast u accept historical facts instead of parrotting the same " islam is peace, islam is last, islam spread peacefully" tripe that has of late begun to irritate me very much.

i stand by that. I have a lots of muslim friends. I grew up in a muslim neighborhood and was educated in a muslim school. I have been to mosques and have observed ramzan and many other rites. (added later: I have even proclaimed the kalima...so i can be called an apostate...but i don't go around saying that since punishment for apostacy is death, in Islam.)

Reconciliation comes ONLY with truth. Denial of history will only exacerbate wounds.

speaking of wounds, read V.S.Naipaul's book "The wounded civilisation" and "Amongst the Believers" will give u an insight on Muslims of the Indian subcontinent.