NationStates Jolt Archive

Don't take my word for it.
Take it directly from an Islamic nation, and its official website.

The Sultanate of Oman.

http://www.mofa.gov.om/oman/discoveroman/omanhistory/OmanduringISlam

After God empowered Muslims to enter Mecca, Islam became the prevailing power and was spread by use of fear. This was particularly evident in the tribe of Quraysh, who had responded to the Prophet Muhammad’s new message of Islam with unrelenting persecution, eventually putting its resources in the service of the ever growing new religion.

Don't tell me I mistranslated it either.

you see that its not just now that muslims are terrorists.

Yeah they spread it by violence several hundred years ago whats your point?

So was christianity...

hell, most religions have a fear element to it...

As opposed to Christianity which was spread with hugs and kisses. :p

Yeah they spread it by violence several hundred years ago whats your point?

The people on this forum who said it was never spread by the sword are notably silent now. That's my point.

So Islam has been spread with fear, eh? Let's look at some other things that fanatics have used warfare and terror to spread:

Democracy and Human Rights

Aha, bet you thought I was going to mention Christianity, didn't you? Except that Christians quit that business centuries ago, World Wars 1 and 2, however, are both still within the last century.

The people on this forum who said it was never spread by the sword are notably silent now. That's my point.

Well, that's mostly because you're an ass than anything else. ;)

The people on this forum who said it was never spread by the sword are notably silent now. That's my point.

I don't recall anyone saying it wasn't spread by the sword. Mohammad was a general, that's quite simply what he was. What people said was that Christianity was usually spread by the sword as well, so it's not really important. Medieval religions get spread by the sword, it's what they do.

So Islam has been spread with fear, eh? Let's look at some other things that fanatics have used warfare and terror to spread:

Democracy and Human Rights

Aha, bet you thought I was going to mention Christianity, didn't you? Except that Christians quit that business centuries ago, World Wars 1 and 2, however, are both still within the last century.

WWI wasn't really about Democracy or Human Rights, but whatever.

WWI wasn't really about Democracy or Human Rights, but whatever.

It was about Liberty Cabbage.

The people on this forum who said it was never spread by the sword are notably silent now. That's my point.

Who was saying that?

Links etc. thanks.

WWI wasn't really about Democracy or Human Rights, but whatever.
Woodrow Wilson himself said that it was done to "make the world safe for democracy." And since we're apparently taking the Warlord's own propaganda as historical gospel . . .

Who was saying that?


I'd like to know, too. Hell, even I readily admit that in the beginnings of Islam, it was spread by an Army ... a conquering Army.

I don't see why that's just a big deal, though. Barbaric people doing barbaric things in a barbaric time isn't really front page news.

I'd like to know, too. Hell, even I readily admit that in the beginnings of Islam, it was spread by an Army ... a conquering Army.

I don't see why that's just a big deal, though. Barbaric people doing barbaric things in a barbaric time isn't really front page news.

Because Muslims are teh 3bil!

spreading religion by the sword and spreading it by fear can be two different things. I wasnt around back then but I bet that just like their competitors they did use fear and violence to spread their religion.

What's your point? Most religions with an idea of Hell are based, at least partly, on fear.

Now, DK, everyone knows that Oman isn't a real Muslim nation, and even if they were, they're only a tiny minority of all Muslims, so you can't demonize all Muslims by believing what they say!

And besides, it's all BIGOTRY and RACISM!!! :headbang:

Who was saying that?

Links etc. thanks.

This is the typical form the denial takes.

This is the typical form the denial takes.

And that's the typical form that arrogance takes.

This is the typical form the denial takes.
No, it's mainly because you have a bad habbit of not supporting these grandios statements that you make.

No, it's mainly because you have a bad habbit of not supporting these grandios statements that you make.

Not grandiose at all. We've had whole threads last year on how Islam was a religion of peace, and never spread by the sword.

Not grandiose at all. We've had whole threads last year on how Islam was a religion of peace, and never spread by the sword.

Its peaceful now, but not so much 1,400 years ago, around but hell who was peaceful 1,400 years ago?

Not grandiose at all. We've had whole threads last year on how Islam was a religion of peace, and never spread by the sword.
Search button's right up there. As soon as you find me any, I'll be here.

DK, even for you this is scraping the barrell.

Every major religion with the possible exception of Buddhism used coercion at some point.

Whoop de fucking do, your internet trawl proved something no-one was denying

This is the typical form the denial takes.

Asking you to back up your statements with sources is denying that Islam was 'spread by fear'?

Its peaceful now, but not so much 1,400 years ago, but hell who was peaceful 1,400 years ago?

Aside from suicide bombers, and hijacked airliners, and such, what's not to like?

About as peaceful as a Friday night in downtown Newark, where they sell crack at the curb.

Every major religion with the possible exception of Buddhism used coercion at some point.
Actually Buddhism (at least in Japan) used coercion a few times, mainly whenever the ruling class decided it was going to be Buddhist the rest of the country followed suit.

Aside from suicide bombers, and hijacked airliners, and such, what's not to like?

About as peaceful as a Friday night in downtown Newark, where they sell crack at the curb.

you are coming across as a man who needs help.

Aside from suicide bombers, and hijacked airliners, and such, what's not to like?

About as peaceful as a Friday night in downtown Newark, where they sell crack at the curb.

Argh, this is going to turn into another arbritrary islam thread, let me do what I do now:

BUT DK! THOSE ARE ONLY A TINY MINORITY!1!!!1one

Aside from suicide bombers, and hijacked airliners, and such, what's not to like?

Those aren't part of Islam. Those are part of some moron's agenda.

Huge difference and you know it.

Those aren't part of Islam. Those are part of some moron's agenda.

Huge difference and you know it.

Read the official Oman website.

Islamic nation, Islamic scholars. Far more qualified than you are to speak on the subject.

They strike me as honest, rather than as morons.

Read the official Oman website.

Islamic nation, Islamic scholars. Far more qualified than you are to speak on the subject.

They strike me as honest, rather than as morons.

They said Islam was spread by fear, not that islam supports or condones terrorism <sigh>

Read the official Oman website.


The official Oman website says nothing about hijacking, suicide bombers, or the like being part of Islam. They, like every other Muslim on the planet, merely acknowledge that there was a lot of fighting in Islam's early years.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw — a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.

Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

-- Jesus Christ, Matthew 10:34-39

Read the official Oman website.

Islamic nation, Islamic scholars. Far more qualified than you are to speak on the subject.

They strike me as honest, rather than as morons.

From your own site:


Oman has stressed that the time has come for the implementation of a world strategy on combating terrorism based on cooperation and exchange of information. The world’s leaders must establish a distinction between the legitimate right to self-defence and repelling aggression and terrorist acts carried out by lawless groups or individuals who use murder and terror to achieve their ends.
http://www.mofa.gov.om/ministry/foriegnpolicy/omanposition#e

From your own site:

http://www.mofa.gov.om/ministry/foriegnpolicy/omanposition#e

Still spreading it by fear, as they admit to have historically done.

The official Oman website says nothing about hijacking, suicide bombers, or the like being part of Islam. They, like every other Muslim on the planet, merely acknowledge that there was a lot of fighting in Islam's early years.
You're obviously a terrorist symphatizer. Any connection to violence in the beginning means that they its part of their scripture and culture, unless civlized Western culture.

Still spreading it by fear, as they admit to have historically done.

No ... it isn't spread by fear anymore. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure the only place Islam was spread by the sword was during Muhammed's lifetime and that would just be the Arabian part of the world. Indonesia took to Islam quite peacefully and is the largest Muslim country in the world.

Matter of fact, I bet you can't show any proof of anyone who has converted to Islam out of fear.

Still spreading it by fear, as they admit to have historically done.

Ok, but what does that have to do with modern day suicide bombings and plane hijackings

You're obviously a terrorist symphatizer.

Actually that's true. I am a member of the ACLU, after all. ;)

Still spreading it by fear, as they admit to have historically done.

Yes, Islam's first major spread, just like many religions, was by fear. These days Islam mostly spreads via peaceful measures: Islam isn't the current fastest growing religion because Muslim countries have been gaining territory.

Ok, but what does that have to do with modern day suicide bombings and plane hijackings

Hard to juice up your religion's numbers by killing everyone who isn't your religion. ;)

Who was saying that?

Links etc. thanks.

Still waiting.....

Hard to juice up your religion's numbers by killing everyone who isn't your religion. ;)

Kill some, scare the rest into conversion. Haven't heard the demands from oh so many sources recently, demanding the conversion of the West?

I guess you don't read the news. They want the Pope to convert immediately, or else.

I guess you don't read the news. They want the Pope to convert immediately, or else.

Who is "They"?

Incidently, many, many religions are the same in desiring everyone to convert. Many Christians, if asked "would the world be a better place if everyone were Christian?" will say yes.

Who is "They"?
http://tell.fll.purdue.edu/JapanProj/FLClipart/Pronouns/they.jpg

Who is "They"?

Incidently, many, many religions are the same in desiring everyone to convert. Many Christians, if asked "would the world be a better place if everyone were Christian?" will say yes.

Not many Christians demanding conversion or death. Or threatening it, either.

Millions of Muslims, however.

http://tell.fll.purdue.edu/JapanProj/FLClipart/Pronouns/they.jpg

There's something .... creepy about that.

Not many Christians demanding conversion or death. Or threatening it, either.

That's because they don't have any real power any more. Give them their own nation with money and power and see what happens in a few years. Last time it happened, we got The Inquisition.

Millions of Muslims, however.

I wouldn't say millions.

Not many Christians demanding conversion or death. Or threatening it, either.

Millions of Muslims, however.

I thought the point was that Islam spread by fear. Christianity also became the powerful religion it is today be telling the populace "convert or die."

Don't take my word for it.
Take it directly from an Islamic nation, and its official website.

The Sultanate of Oman.

http://www.mofa.gov.om/oman/discoveroman/omanhistory/OmanduringISlam

Don't tell me I mistranslated it either.
And of course Christianity was spread by peace and goodwill?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/FirstCrusade.jpg/200px-FirstCrusade.jpg

1250 French Bible illustration depicts Jews (identifiable by Judenhut) being massacred by Crusaders

Aside from suicide bombers, and hijacked airliners, and such, what's not to like?

About as peaceful as a Friday night in downtown Newark, where they sell crack at the curb.

As it has been said before in these threads. The timeline for Islam is shorter than lets say Judiasm and Christiananity. Both of which used violence to get there point out. I as a Muslim think that we are seeing a obvious growing pains of Islam. It will take wars to calm this down as it did in the past with Christiananity. I think Islam will calm itself when more of the Islamic nations become truly free. A free thinking and speaking people tend not to be violent. This is one of the major reasons why I support US intervention into some of the worst offenders of freedom in the Islamic world. Since I can't envision Muslims being able to clean house. Someone else has to do it for them. In the end I think you will see a more moderate muslim society.

Most relgions have been spread by fear and death.

Your point?

Kill some, scare the rest into conversion. Haven't heard the demands from oh so many sources recently, demanding the conversion of the West?

I guess you don't read the news. They want the Pope to convert immediately, or else.

So the pope has converted? What, he hasn't? Oh.

Converting and making empty threats are not the same thing. No one is converting to Islam as a result of terrorist tactics. Islam's current high growth rate is due to almost wholly peaceful expansion into West Africa.

So was christianity...

hell, most religions have a fear element to it...

Quote for emphasis and defeating DK's point in one fell swoop.

Still waiting.....

Awwwwww, leave the poor strawman be. He's all alone as the sole premise of this thread with nothing else to keep him company.....

No ... it isn't spread by fear anymore. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure the only place Islam was spread by the sword was during Muhammed's lifetime and that would just be the Arabian part of the world. Indonesia took to Islam quite peacefully and is the largest Muslim country in the world.

In view of Pope Benedict's recent discourse, I suggest you research the history of the Byzantine Empire. The last time I checked, it seems that Muslim aggression against Byzantium took place after the "prophet's" lifetime, continued until that unfortunate state was completely overrun, and followed up by continued Turkish aggression in the Balkans for centuries afterward. Oh, yes, but all those Slavs and Albanians "peacefully" converted--after being conquered.

Matter of fact, I bet you can't show any proof of anyone who has converted to Islam out of fear.

Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig. QED.

Oops, I forgot--they work for Fox News. Can't believe anything they say, can we? That video must be faked, of course. And those weren't real Muslims forcing them, were they?

I don't recall anyone saying it wasn't spread by the sword. Mohammad was a general, that's quite simply what he was. What people said was that Christianity was usually spread by the sword as well, so it's not really important. Medieval religions get spread by the sword, it's what they do.

valid point!

but does the major religions of TODAY endeavor to spread the word with violence?

that is a serious question,as it seems the islamists seem to have the market cornered in bomb blasts killing innocents,their own(just a differing sect) and anyone that is not bending to their will.

i understand it is not mainstream islam,and most muslims are decent god fearing people,but really...point out another major religion that kills in the name of god?
in this day and age.

jon stewart cracked me up when he showed a palistinian press release...that stated...no shit...that we firebombed the catholic churches to show we are offended by them equating islam with violence.

i damn near choked on my pork sandwich,and spit out my beer.

sorry...but they have let their religion be hijacked by insane nutballs...no different then neocons...but to bash bush and not this backward thinking is bullshit.

i am sorry,just like some went mental over cartoons about them being violent(by being violent)
they did it again over the popes remarks.

how can no one see the irony,let alone how stupid it is not to call them on it,and be apologists for it.

the religion(or at least the people they elect and follow)are bringing up the rear of civilization.

argue all you want about bush..i hate him,but it is comparing apples and oranges...the fundies have commandeered islam..and the biggest religion in the world sit's silently?

shit,people hate and bitch about bush over everything...but stay strangely mute about this aberration.

As it has been said before in these threads. The timeline for Islam is shorter than lets say Judiasm and Christiananity. Both of which used violence to get there point out. I as a Muslim think that we are seeing a obvious growing pains of Islam. It will take wars to calm this down as it did in the past with Christiananity. I think Islam will calm itself when more of the Islamic nations become truly free. A free thinking and speaking people tend not to be violent. This is one of the major reasons why I support US intervention into some of the worst offenders of freedom in the Islamic world. Since I can't envision Muslims being able to clean house. Someone else has to do it for them. In the end I think you will see a more moderate muslim society.

I agree with this. Over 20 years ago, anthropologists and social scientists, observing the rapid growth of Islam as it spread into non-Arab cultures which began to put their own stamp on the religion (especially in Indonesia and other parts of Asia), predicted a potential schism within Islam as the outlying Muslim nations became less and less identified with Mecca. Already at that time, fundamentalists back in the Arab homelands were up and yelling about dilution of Islam as it experienced Asian ecumenicism and were sending hardline imams to Indonesia to drag them back into line. The anthropologists back then were all excited to be seeing the beginning of a religious growth period that hadn't been seen since the Protestant Reformation. Unfortunately, we all know what happens when major religions fragment -- intolerance, social destruction, extreme violence and atrocities, and international war for years and years and years.

The only part I disagree with is about the value of intervention. Interventions will only be useful to the extent they can stop terrorism from blossoming into full scale international warfare, but if the schism is happening, then there is nothing that can stop it, short of the Muslim people turning against their own fundamentalists and choosing to allow their religion to fragment without trying to hold it together. I know of nothing in history that indicates such has ever happened with such a prominent and well established religion.

As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure the only place Islam was spread by the sword was during Muhammed's lifetime and that would just be the Arabian part of the world. Indonesia took to Islam quite peacefully and is the largest Muslim country in the world.

You are wrong.

The Arabian conquest and subjugation of Persia (now Iran), Egypt and Northern Africa, NW India (now Pakistan) are why those areas are muslim today. You can argue that it was the norm those days but it still does not take away the fact that religious fanaticism was a prime motivation (if not the prime motivation) for the Arab invaders. The latter Turkish (invading Eastern Europe)-and Afghan (invading India) armies merely carried the torch from the Arabs.

Look up names like Muhammed Bin Qasim, Muhammed Ghori, Muhammed Ghazni etc.

Other than SE Asia, pretty much everywhere else Islam spread by the conquering army and the subsequent patronising of conversion by the new ruler and the imposition of Jiziya tax and such measures.


Matter of fact, I bet you can't show any proof of anyone who has converted to Islam out of fear.

The Fox reporters in Gaza/West Bank. :p

valid point!

but does the major religions of TODAY endeavor to spread the word with violence?

that is a serious question,as it seems the islamists seem to have the market cornered in bomb blasts killing innocents,their own(just a differing sect) and anyone that is not bending to their will.

i understand it is not mainstream islam,and most muslims are decent god fearing people,but really...point out another major religion that kills in the name of god?
in this day and age.

jon stewart cracked me up when he showed a palistinian press release...that stated...no shit...that we firebombed the catholic churches to show we are offended by them equating islam with violence.

i damn near choked on my pork sandwich,and spit out my beer.

sorry...but they have let their religion be hijacked by insane nutballs...no different then neocons...but to bash bush and not this backward thinking is bullshit.

i am sorry,just like some went mental over cartoons about them being violent(by being violent)
they did it again over the popes remarks.

how can no one see the irony,let alone how stupid it is not to call them on it,and be apologists for it.

the religion(or at least the people they elect and follow)are bringing up the rear of civilization.

argue all you want about bush..i hate him,but it is comparing apples and oranges...the fundies have commandeered islam..and the biggest religion in the world sit's silently?

shit,people hate and bitch about bush over everything...but stay strangely mute about this aberration.

First, I firmly agree that people protesting the claim that Islam is violent with violence is deeply ironic and very funny.

The fact is, though, that Islam is quite simply not inherently violent. First of all, important clarification: Islam is not trying to spread itself through violence. The bomb blasts, etc., are not converting anyone. At most you can say that Islam is trying to get its point across via violence.

Most religions don't kill in the name of God anymore (except for the IRA, and various Hindus killing Muslims, and bombing abortion clinics/lynching gays/etc. in the US) but killing in the name of God does not mean that your God is more fit for killing for, it just means that the reasons you're killing happen to align well with your religious perspective. If they didn't, if we were just as Muslim as them, then they'd still be just as violent, but they wouldn't blame Islam for it. Remember the various WTO protests? This is just that same anger, it just happens to coincide with religion.

Don't take my word for it.
Take it directly from an Islamic nation, and its official website.

The Sultanate of Oman.

http://www.mofa.gov.om/oman/discoveroman/omanhistory/OmanduringISlam



Don't tell me I mistranslated it either.

Why dont you ever get tired of spewing your crap all over?

The ocassional thread about how much of a bigot and a racist you are is plenty.

Must it be every single thread you make?

Do you seriously not have anything better to do with your time?

Take a look back and see how Christianity was spread amongst the Danes / Vikings . You will find parrellells to the spread of Islam in nations where that religion had influence . There were Islamic missionarys along with the ir Christian counterparts and alot of times religion was adopted for political and economic reasons and not just by the " sword " .

Do you seriously not have anything better to do with your time?
He is on an UnHoly Crusade? :D

[QUOTE=Vegas-Rex;11711037]First, I firmly agree that people protesting the claim that Islam is violent with violence is deeply ironic and very funny.

The fact is, though, that Islam is quite simply not inherently violent. First of all, important clarification: Islam is not trying to spread itself through violence. The bomb blasts, etc., are not converting anyone. At most you can say that Islam is trying to get its point across via violence.

Most religions don't kill in the name of God anymore (except for the IRA, and various Hindus killing Muslims, and bombing abortion clinics/lynching gays/etc. in the US) but killing in the name of God does not mean that your God is more fit for killing for, it just means that the reasons you're killing happen to align well with your religious perspective. If they didn't, if we were just as Muslim as them, then they'd still be just as violent, but they wouldn't blame Islam for it. Remember the various WTO protests? This is just that same anger, it just happens to coincide with religion.[/QUOTE

thank you for a literate reply to a serious question.

comparing hippies protesting the wto while smoking joints and having daddy bail them out of jail is a far cry from some dis enfranchised(and i will add...used) muslim blowing himself up in a market full of innocent jews or muslims.killing children.
no god i have ever heard rewards killing innocent kids...till i hear different,i will despise the perpetrators of such actions.

i am not saying they dont have legit grievances..they do...but killing innocent people will not win me over to their plight.

i hate to say it,but i fear there are some that are so brainwashed by the fake hatred of their puppet masters,that everyone will suffer.

i think it is only a means to control the people(like all religions)but they have stepped over the line of decency.

and you kill kill innocent kids or anyone innocent for that matter,you lost me,and i will resist any message your trying to send.

we all know the world is fucked up,but killing innocents is out of bounds to me.

so what is the point,what are they saying to me,other then hate?

it is counter productive to their cause,because all it accomplishes is pissing me off,but i am an american,so by world theory..i am dumb.
so my responce will be naturally,kill the assholes that are trying to kill me.


kinda a viscous cuircle if you ask me.

me thinks they want that,the crazy fundies from islam and from america.

go figure..we have 2 opposing ideals with the same goal....hate.

The people on this forum who said it was never spread by the sword are notably silent now. That's my point.

If they were all forcibly converted, why did the inquisition(for instance) have to forcibly convert mulsims back after the christian reconquest of spain?

Yeah they spread it by violence several hundred years ago whats your point?


So 1922 was "several hundred years ago"? :p

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/09/take-back-culture.html

[Whistles innocently]. ^_~

The Medieval Crusaders were not exactly civil, diplomatic affairs either.

The Medieval Crusaders were not exactly civil, diplomatic affairs either.

Defensive wars aren't supposed to be diplomatic. :p

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

One needn't hate Muslims to have a distaste for both jihadis and the Islamo-Fascists who spawn them (Although I would like to take this moment to coin the term "Shariasts" to describe such gentry since the crux of the matter is their desire to replace secular law with Sharia). :rolleyes:

[Returns to whistling innocently]. ^_~

Don't take my word for it.
Take it directly from an Islamic nation, and its official website.

The Sultanate of Oman.

http://www.mofa.gov.om/oman/discoveroman/omanhistory/OmanduringISlam



Don't tell me I mistranslated it either.


Hahhahahhahhhahahhah hahhhahhahhahahh ahhahhahahhhhahhha


And what Christianity wasn't?

Millions of Muslims, however.

Name them!! I bet you you get up to 6 or 7 then start to struggle

If you had an Muslim friends I'm sure you would change your mind about their religion and culture.

Don't take my word for it.
Take it directly from an Islamic nation, and its official website.

The Sultanate of Oman.

http://www.mofa.gov.om/oman/discoveroman/omanhistory/OmanduringISlam



Don't tell me I mistranslated it either.

Yeah muslims say it so it must be true!

Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig. QED.

Oops, I forgot--they work for Fox News. Can't believe anything they say, can we? That video must be faked, of course. And those weren't real Muslims forcing them, were they?

Because their conversion was sooooooo real. :rolleyes:

Seriously, do you even bother to think before you post? Doesn't seem like it. Come on, admit it. If you were being held at gunpoint and told that all you had to do to keep from dying was lick a little ass, you'd be slobbering all over it like a porn star and you know it, so why begrudge these guys doing what they had to do to stay alive?

Because their conversion was sooooooo real. :rolleyes:

Seriously, do you even bother to think before you post? Doesn't seem like it. Come on, admit it. If you were being held at gunpoint and told that all you had to do to keep from dying was lick a little ass, you'd be slobbering all over it like a porn star and you know it, so why begrudge these guys doing what they had to do to stay alive?

No, I wouldn't, because I already knew what Terry Waite refused to convert to Islam at gunpoint, and they didn't kill him.

If you have no beliefs of your own, it's probably very easy to say, "well, I'll just tell them what they want to hear". If you have real belief, it's not possible to say the words, even if you don't mean them.

The people who took Terry Waite hostage suddenly had a newfound respect for him, after he told them (after they demanded he convert with a gun to his head), "you can kill my body, but my soul belongs to my God, and you cannot take that."

I don't begrudge the newsmen for converting - it's just something I would never do.

No, I wouldn't, because I already knew what Terry Waite refused to convert to Islam at gunpoint, and they didn't kill him.

If you have no beliefs of your own, it's probably very easy to say, "well, I'll just tell them what they want to hear". If you have real belief, it's not possible to say the words, even if you don't mean them.

The people who took Terry Waite hostage suddenly had a newfound respect for him, after he told them (after they demanded he convert with a gun to his head), "you can kill my body, but my soul belongs to my God, and you cannot take that."

I don't begrudge the newsmen for converting - it's just something I would never do.

And the upside is that, if you're wrong and there is no afterlife, you'll never know the difference. Of course, if you're wrong another way and there is an afterlife, but it turns out the Islam had it right, you're doubly fucked because you didn't take the last minute offer.

Of course, either way you've still shat away the only life you know you'll have for the prospect of a dream.

Quote for emphasis and defeating DK's point in one fell swoop.

Seems people don't read anymore. The point's been made and the counterpoint has destroyed it. End of topic.

And the upside is that, if you're wrong and there is no afterlife, you'll never know the difference. Of course, if you're wrong another way and there is an afterlife, but it turns out the Islam had it right, you're doubly fucked because you didn't take the last minute offer.

Of course, either way you've still shat away the only life you know you'll have for the prospect of a dream.

You're missing the point - they didn't kill Terry Waite.

And, if there is an afterlife, and I have it right, then you're truly fucked, aren't you?

I'm pretty sure that in a functioning Universe, if God exists, He's not up about conversions at gunpoint...

So 1922 was "several hundred years ago"? :p

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/09/take-back-culture.html

[Whistles innocently]. ^_~

The site refers to the slaughter of Armenian and Greek Christians in Izmir in 1922.

It does not mention that the Greeks had recently taken over the city and the Turkish forces were in the act of driving them out. The stories of genocide, which I personally think have some truth to them, are still being debated as to how factual they are. If such a slaughter took place, it would be a disgusting act of war, like Hezbollah's and Israel's actions in the recent conflict.

It was not an attempt to convert anyone to Islam by the sword.
The first site I found when I typed 'Turkey 1922' into google:
http://www.allaboutturkey.com/kurtulus.htm

You're missing the point - they didn't kill Terry Waite.

And, if there is an afterlife, and I have it right, then you're truly fucked, aren't you?

I'm pretty sure that in a functioning Universe, if God exists, He's not up about conversions at gunpoint...

Or swordpoint. Or fearpoint. Or any other negative point you can use to make someone convert to your belief.

You're missing the point - they didn't kill Terry Waite.

And, if there is an afterlife, and I have it right, then you're truly fucked, aren't you?

I'm pretty sure that in a functioning Universe, if God exists, He's not up about conversions at gunpoint...

I'm missing nothing. Waite wasn't killed, but that's no guarantee of what'll happen in another circumstance. They might look at you, shrug and then send your soul to Allah. You never know.

As to the rest, if there is an afterlife, I'll deal with it when I get there. I live an honest life and don't pretend to be something I'm not, and if some Supreme Being wants to get twisted over the fact that I didn't believe in him and bow and scrape in the prescribed manner, he can fuck himself. I'm a better person at heart than most who go to church every week.

I'm missing nothing. Waite wasn't killed, but that's no guarantee of what'll happen in another circumstance. They might look at you, shrug and then send your soul to Allah. You never know.

As to the rest, if there is an afterlife, I'll deal with it when I get there. I live an honest life and don't pretend to be something I'm not, and if some Supreme Being wants to get twisted over the fact that I didn't believe in him and bow and scrape in the prescribed manner, he can fuck himself. I'm a better person at heart than most who go to church every week.

Hear, hear.

Most religions don't kill in the name of God anymore (except for the IRA,

where to begin with that one.
:rolleyes:

Is there anyone else bar myself that's getting really, really bored of these hourly muslims are teh sux0rz posts?

Is there anyone else bar myself that's getting really, really bored of these hourly muslims are teh sux0rz posts?
I'm with you.

Is there anyone else bar myself that's getting really, really bored of these hourly muslims are teh sux0rz posts?

I'm sorry, when I surf the news, there are a lot of these stories, and fairly little in the way of other idiocy.

Drunk Commies has the corner on the strange and bizarre stories.

I also do gun stories from time to time, or silly threads, but I got tired of the gun threads about a year ago. So I leave those to Kecibukia.

Myrmidonisia seems to have the US economy threads.

The Nazz has the "more evidence that the Bush adminstration is criminal" threads.

Gymoor Prime has the global warming threads.

OceanDrive has the "Jews are teh 3bil sux0rz" threads.

The people on this forum who said it was never spread by the sword are notably silent now. That's my point.

They probably grew bored of your antics and used the wonderfull function that is 'Ignore' like I did. Your racism is showing, give it a rest.

As opposed to Christianity which was spread with hugs and kisses. :p

No, that's Mono you're thinking of. Easy mistake to make. Both christian church services and mono make people tired and lethargic.

The people on this forum who said it was never spread by the sword are notably silent now. That's my point.


When speaking about the spread of Islam and the use of force one must decide what time frame is being spoken of. It is correct to say the during the time of the Prophet's life Islam was not spread by force except for self-defence. After the Prophet's death force became more common. I say this as a member of the Baha'i Faith that has suffered greatly under Islamic governments. The message of Islam is one of Peace. The message of many Islamic religious leaders of today is they oppisite of religion.

[insert obligatory Islam-is-terrorism comment here]

So was Christianity, what's your point?

Islam was not spread by fear, Islam was attacked, so it had to defend itself, just liek ANY religion would, and anyways, even if i am wrong, christianity used violence aswell.

The people who write that bullshit are the terrorsts who give Islam a bad name.

Why dont you ever get tired of spewing your crap all over?

The ocassional thread about how much of a bigot and a racist you are is plenty.

Must it be every single thread you make?

Do you seriously not have anything better to do with your time?

Lets not forget he recently started a thread about cooking forign food . . .

Name them!! I bet you you get up to 6 or 7 then start to struggle

If you had an Muslim friends I'm sure you would change your mind about their religion and culture.

And here is where DK inserts a coment about his mythical Muslim freind who wants all Muslims to be neutered.

They probably grew bored of your antics and used the wonderfull function that is 'Ignore' like I did. Your racism is showing, give it a rest.

I haven't blocked him yet because I like arguing with DK, he's funny.

Islam was not spread by fear, Islam was attacked, so it had to defend itself, just liek ANY religion would, and anyways, even if i am wrong, christianity used violence aswell.

The people who write that bullshit are the terrorsts who give Islam a bad name.

No, Islam early on conquered North African and Middle Eastern Christian communities.. Islam attacked first.

While in the 900s Byzantium had been able to reseize territory in Syria, starting around the 1030s the Seldjuk Turks gained power and territory. These incursions prompted the emperor of Byzantium, Alexius I Comnenus to send a delegation to Piacenza, Italy, asking Pope Urban II in March 1095 for help against the Turks. On November 27, 1095, in Clermont, France, Pope Urban II called for a crusade to help the Byzantines and to free the city of Jerusalem. You don't REconquer what hasn't been taken away from you first. The crusades were in response to Islamic agression and expansionism.

http://www.umich.edu/~eng415/timeline/summaries/First_Crusade.htm

I haven't blocked him yet because I like arguing with DK, he's funny.

Here's where you make the mistake of thinking that Islam is a race.

It isn't, you know.

So it's impossible for me to be a racist on this issue.

Here's where you make the mistake of thinking that Islam is a race.

It isn't, you know.

So it's impossible for me to be a racist on this issue.

True. A sectarian bigot, a rabid xenophobe, cultural imperialist, disengenous spin doctor,hypocrite extraoridinaire, hype-merchant, and a three in one mongering shop dedicated to fear,hate and war maybe, but not racist.

Yeah they spread it by violence several hundred years ago whats your point?

Are you ignorant? The point is after hundreds and hundreds of years, that they're still the fucking same.

So was Christianity, what's your point?

Christianity wasn't spread by the sword, it was spread by the book.

Are you ignorant? The point is after hundreds and hundreds of years, that they're still the fucking same.

Proove they're still the fucking same.

Let's start with swords. Do they still use them?

Proove they're still the fucking same.

Let's start with swords. Do they still use them?

How many news quotes do you want, where they demand that the West and the Pope convert, or they will kill people?

It's called conversion on pain of fear.

How many news quotes do you want, where they demand that the West and the Pope convert, or they will kill people?

It's called conversion on pain of fear.



Muslims?! Islam?!


(bold format mine)

bold format added

Muslims?! Islam?!

Muslims for sure, as in a subset of Muslims. Subsets in various countries.

Muslims for sure, as in a subset of Muslims. Subsets in various countries.

even the few that view upon the west as dar al-harb, are more concerned with the position of Islam in the East than in the west

even the few that view upon the west as dar al-harb, are more concerned with the position of Islam in the East than in the west

East Canuck is asserting that No Muslims Convert Anyone By Force, the Threat of Force, or anything of the sort.

The evidence seems to be fairly consistent that his assertion is utterly false, all through history up to today.

Christianity wasn't spread by the sword, it was spread by the book.

Spread by fear of the book, yes, and the Crusades.

Fear and violence, not a very good foundation for a religion whose messiah was a man of peace.

Christianity wasn't spread by the sword, it was spread by the book.


Constantine, the 1st christian emperor of Rome.
"Constantine later claimed to have had a vision on the way to Rome, during the night before battle. In this dream he supposedly saw the 'Chi-Ro', the symbol of Christ, shining above the sun. Seeing this as a divine sign, it is said that Constantine had his soldiers paint the symbol on their shields. Following this Constantine went on to defeat the numerically stronger army of Maxentius at the Battle at the Milvian Bridge (Oct AD 312)."
http://www.roman-empire.net/decline/constantine-index.html
Closed the temples, took their valuables and enforced strict orthodoxy. Also continued to campaign militarily. Not very bookish. Please explain.

Constantine, the 1st christian emperor of Rome.
"Constantine later claimed to have had a vision on the way to Rome, during the night before battle. In this dream he supposedly saw the 'Chi-Ro', the symbol of Christ, shining above the sun. Seeing this as a divine sign, it is said that Constantine had his soldiers paint the symbol on their shields. Following this Constantine went on to defeat the numerically stronger army of Maxentius at the Battle at the Milvian Bridge (Oct AD 312)."
http://www.roman-empire.net/decline/constantine-index.html
Closed the temples, took their valuables and enforced strict orthodoxy. Also continued to campaign militarily. Not very bookish. Please explain.

Indeed. And we think of that sort of thing, religious conversion by fear or force to be positively medieval.

Funny how we're giving millions a pass on that one, isn't it?

How many news quotes do you want, where they demand that the West and the Pope convert, or they will kill people?

It's called conversion on pain of fear.

Speaking of which, if in Spain they had converted by fear, why did the inqusition have to persecute them years later, after the North Africans had been forced out?

East Canuck is asserting that No Muslims Convert Anyone By Force, the Threat of Force, or anything of the sort.

The evidence seems to be fairly consistent that his assertion is utterly false, all through history up to today.

Some muslims convert through force, yes. Some (read: Some).

Given a metaphorical scale, I would weigh both religions and say that both Christianity and Islam has used violence and fear in their quest to 'spread the word' an equal amount.

Now, about them 'still doing it today' - some (read: About 2-3% of the world's population of muslims would ever think about doing this, and even then it's giving the benefit of the doubt and stretching the truth) do it.

Boo for sweeping generalizations.

East Canuck is asserting that No Muslims Convert Anyone By Force, the Threat of Force, or anything of the sort.

The evidence seems to be fairly consistent that his assertion is utterly false, all through history up to today.

I got the idea that Canuck was asserting that Islam no longer uses violence spread the religion...

Speaking of which, if in Spain they had converted by fear, why did the inqusition have to persecute them years later, after the North Africans had been forced out?

It's called conversion by fear. A medieval tactic, as I previously noted, and you failed to read.

Indeed. And we think of that sort of thing, religious conversion by fear or force to be positively medieval.

Funny how we're giving millions a pass on that one, isn't it?

But its only according to you and your fellow travellers that its "millions".

Moreover, though Islam did spread due to conquest, this conquest was only possible due to the power of the message to volentary converts. Following the conquest people were free to keep their religion and were not forced to convert...

Over time people christans and Jews started to convert, still they were not forced.

"there is no compulsion in religion"

It's called conversion by fear. A medieval tactic, as I previously noted, and you failed to read.

Medieval, and still continues today. Been to the bible belt recently? Walk into a packed church and announce that you're an athiest and see how many people try to convert you by threatening your eternal soul with hellfire.

Matter of fact, I bet you can't show any proof of anyone who has converted to Islam out of fear.
My best friend converted because she thought it was the religion for her. She did it by choice, and never once forced her beliefs on me, unlike two conservative ex-friends of mine who did.

It's called conversion by fear. A medieval tactic, as I previously noted, and you failed to read.


But if the Spaniards had been converted by fear, and the north Africans were gone by 1492 why were they still occassionally prosecuting Spanish converts upto 1700?

Medieval, and still continues today. Been to the bible belt recently? Walk into a packed church and announce that you're an athiest and see how many people try to convert you by threatening your eternal soul with hellfire.

They don't hold a gun to your head.

But if the Spaniards had been converted by fear, and the north Africans were gone by 1492 why were they still occassionally prosecuting Spanish converts upto 1700?

It's what medieval religions do best.

And why the Islamic world seriously needs a Reformation and a period of Enlightenment.

Either that, or we'll have more of the same coming up.

False information, which is more dangerous than islam or anything.
The return of exiled muslims to their city Mekke was without bloodshed, the people of Mekke were of course afraid what tortures now the exiled would do to them but nothing happened. Nothing, there were no killings no tortures no forced convertions. ** People were shocked by the humanity that they never witnessed so many chose islam by their own will.**

Unfortunately after Prophets death and 4 chosen rulers of Islam goverment (Ömer, Ebubekir, Osman and Ali) a noble called Muaviye started a civil war to become ruler of this goverment. He massacred even prophets grandchildren and many events came to pas etc. etc. He came to power at the end and made Khalifateship heredetary, which was before chosen by tribe leaders(who represented their families and tribes) vote between neutral and trustable leaders. Etc. etc. They in time defeated Byzantium many times and moved north secureing trade routes necessary to support new crowded city life to south. Translated greek and egyptian ancient scrolls of science, philosophy etc. and with an open mind discovered many things which they upgraded. The medicine was best of the world at that time as atronomy and mathematics. Their automats were built for pleasure more than function.

Short of it, islam as a religion in not an invader. People choose it or not and not forced to accept it. Whereas as we can see today northern european countries were forced by sword to accept christianity.

But islam goverment has invaded fortresses, lands to strenghten the goverment. Two are seperate things, the reason for the existance of islam goverment was to secure muslims lives, which in time changed into securing the goverments and rulers lives rather than peoples lives. In this angle of view we are not judging just a goverment but all goverments in history. We can further discuss the necessity of war to improve peoples living conditions in ones own country when making the others poorer.

It's what medieval religions do best.

And why the Islamic world seriously needs a Reformation and a period of Enlightenment.

Either that, or we'll have more of the same coming up.

You are missing the point. If the muslims in spain were only muslim by fear why were they still muslims decades and centuries later?

East Canuck is asserting that No Muslims Convert Anyone By Force, the Threat of Force, or anything of the sort.

The evidence seems to be fairly consistent that his assertion is utterly false, all through history up to today.

East Canuck never did such a thing and you,sir are a liar that is attacking my good name. I demand that you retract your statement and that you cease to distort my statements this very day.

You sir are nothing but a bigot that lies and twist the words of any poster to your heart's content. The evidence is clear in this thread that I have never stated that No muslim convert anyone by force. In fact, I didn't even assert anything about muslim.

So far the only two posts I made in this thread were:
Post 87
They probably grew bored of your antics and used the wonderfull function that is 'Ignore' like I did. Your racism is showing, give it a rest.

and post 101:
Proove they're still the fucking same.

Let's start with swords. Do they still use them?
in response to the assertion that Islam has not changed since it's beginning.

Now, if you can find a previous link where I state that "No Muslims Convert Anyone By Force, the Threat of Force, or anything of the sort." do provide a link.

I am sick and tired of your manners. You are a poor debater that rely on strawman and distort other's statements. I strongly suggest you either put up or shut up. The slander has got to stop and it has to stop now. If all you have to give to these forums is poor debating technique and advocating genocide on Islam, then I strongly suggest you find another place to spend your time. I hear Nazis forums are quite desperate for members.

I expect an apology.

It's called conversion by fear. A medieval tactic, as I previously noted, and you failed to read.
Just like the Spanish Inquisition that was used to force Catholicism on everyone.

Your post 101 is an effort to say that Muslims don't convert by force.

Admit that they do it today, that it is an accepted Muslim religious practice, that millions of Muslims support it, and I'll be glad to apologize.

Or, you can say that no Muslims do it, it's not accepted Muslim religious practice, and that only a handful (certainly less than a few hundred worldwide) support it.

Just like the Spanish Inquisition that was used to force Catholicism on everyone.

Yes, as I pointed out.

You are missing the point. If the muslims in spain were only muslim by fear why were they still muslims decades and centuries later?
Like with any religion, eventually, that fear becomes apart of the religion and after a couple of generations, the fear is accepted and used to keep children in the religion. The Catholics did it, the Jews did it, why not the Muslims, as well as many others?

You are a poor debater that rely on strawman and distort other's statements.


No, no, no. He's a "great debater". Somebody had him up for a vote even. Give him an article involving a muslim and just watch him run with it. I'd say he could build a car carrying bridge from matchsticks, the way he goes on.....

Yes, as I pointed out.
But, it's unfair to say that all practitioners of one religion practice because of fear. That's an invalid point simply because of free will that we have in many parts of the developed world.

People freely convert religions because they think it's the one for them.

They didn't do it out of fear.

Your post 101 is an effort to say that Muslims don't convert by force.

Admit that they do it today, that it is an accepted Muslim religious practice, that millions of Muslims support it, and I'll be glad to apologize.

Or, you can say that no Muslims do it, it's not accepted Muslim religious practice, and that only a handful (certainly less than a few hundred worldwide) support it.

Did I say "No Muslim ... blah blah all the bullshit you asserted.."? No?

Then retract your statement. You are slandering me and I won't stand for it.

Like with any religion, eventually, that fear becomes apart of the religion and after a couple of generations, the fear is accepted and used to keep children in the religion. The Catholics did it, the Jews did it, why not the Muslims, as well as many others?

Thats "guilt", fear of god etc. Rather a different thing from conversion.

I am sick and tired of your manners. You are a poor debater that rely on strawman and distort other's statements. I strongly suggest you either put up or shut up. The slander has got to stop and it has to stop now. If all you have to give to these forums is poor debating technique and advocating genocide on Islam, then I strongly suggest you find another place to spend your time. I hear Nazis forums are quite desperate for members.

I expect an apology.
You'll be waiting then. You never apologize for calling me a racist, which I am not.

It's not racism to oppose a religious philosophy.

Period.

And my technique is reductio ad absurdum, which is a perfectly legitimate debate tactic - I take your idea to its illogical and stupid extreme.

It's an excellent debating technique, especially if your opponent has no way to deal with it other than to call you a Nazi.

They don't hold a gun to your head.

I bet a few would. Regardless, the motivation is FEAR. If you want to change the topic of the thread from coercion through fear to coercion through brute force then change it, but as of right now it's about the converting of people through fear.

I bet a few would. Regardless, the motivation is FEAR. If you want to change the topic of the thread from coercion through fear to coercion through brute force then change it, but as of right now it's about the converting of people through fear.

Fear of something real.

You believe that guns are real. Hijackers are real. Car bombs are real.

But an old bearded man living in the sky?

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

Your post 101 is an effort to say that Muslims don't convert by force.

Admit that they do it today, that it is an accepted Muslim religious practice, that millions of Muslims support it, and I'll be glad to apologize.

Or, you can say that no Muslims do it, it's not accepted Muslim religious practice, and that only a handful (certainly less than a few hundred worldwide) support it.

You are not being fair; there is a whole world between these choices and you know it...

An apology would do you good I think :)

You'll be waiting then. You never apologize for calling me a racist, which I am not.

It's not racism to oppose a religious philosophy.

Period.

And my technique is reductio ad absurdum, which is a perfectly legitimate debate tactic - I take your idea to its illogical and stupid extreme.

It's an excellent debating technique, especially if your opponent has no way to deal with it other than to call you a Nazi.


Its Islamico ab absurdum. Take any incident involving a muslim and hype till theres a Godzilla sized man with a beard and cliched middle eastern clothing terrorising every small town in America.

You are not being fair; there is a whole world between these choices and you know it...

An apology would do you good I think :)

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

I haven't done anything wrong, and have used a perfectly legitimate debate tactic.

You'll be waiting then. You never apologize for calling me a racist, which I am not.

It's not racism to oppose a religious philosophy.

Period.

And my technique is reductio ad absurdum, which is a perfectly legitimate debate tactic - I take your idea to its illogical and stupid extreme.

It's an excellent debating technique, especially if your opponent has no way to deal with it other than to call you a Nazi.
No, it's not racism, I'll agree with you on that, but, it is bigotry if you make broad generalisations about a religion, and assume that because a group of people follow a religion that they are fit into your cookie-cutter view on that religion.

I just remembered that the king of Habeşistan, a christian country with christian king offered shelter to Prophet when he was exiled. Accepted islam as a brother religion very similar to christianity. It was dawn of islam with only a bunch of believers exiled, powerless and their future uncertain.

Your post 101 is an effort to say that Muslims don't convert by force.

Admit that they do it today, that it is an accepted Muslim religious practice, that millions of Muslims support it, and I'll be glad to apologize.

Or, you can say that no Muslims do it, it's not accepted Muslim religious practice, and that only a handful (certainly less than a few hundred worldwide) support it.

Either you accept A is true, or you are saying B is true. And I get to say what A and B are. And those are your only two options. And I debate real good.

No, it's not racism, I'll agree with you on that, but, it is bigotry if you make broad generalisations about a religion, and assume that because a group of people follow a religion that they are fit into your cookie-cutter view on that religion.

You will note that I am saying a large number of Muslims, and not ALL Muslims.

Historically, it's happened too many times - and the Sultanate of Oman even admits it.

And we see many examples of it today - far more examples of conversion by threat of violent death than any other religion on Earth today.

DK, so you are saying that when someone rapes someone and claims its a standard Muslim practice, you believe him?

So why is it I don't think you'll believe a rapist if he claims he did it because "she lead me on?"

Must be a tough choice for you, knowing your views on rape and Muslims... which principle to compromise just to support your endless diatribes against Islam.

Either you accept A is true, or you are saying B is true. And I get to say what A and B are. And those are your only two options. And I debate real good.

I have to use this in the event that a debater refuses to be extremely specific about what they believe.

Too many people here as wiggly as eels in oil.

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

I haven't done anything wrong, and have used a perfectly legitimate debate tactic.
You arrived at that point, by a misrepresentation of the words of Canuck... A strawman is not a legitimate debate tactic…

Saying that something is not common practice , is not similar to saying that there can be found no one that thinks this way…

DK, so you are saying that when someone rapes someone and claims its a standard Muslim practice, you believe him?

So why is it I don't think you'll believe a rapist if he claims he did it because "she lead me on?"

Must be a tough choice for you, knowing your views on rape and Muslims... which principle to compromise just to support your endless diatribes against Islam.

If he's backed by the Saudi government to the tune of 400,000 dollars, with a lawyer who spouts the same stuff, and is backed up by news interviews from Saudi where people believe that raping your housekeeper is merely sex with your slave (and permissible), then yes, I believe it.

Christianity wasn't spread by the sword, it was spread by the book.

I'm sure the Aztecs and the Incas all rushed to embrace Christianity with no coercion whatsoever.

If he's backed by the Saudi government to the tune of 400,000 dollars, with a lawyer who spouts the same stuff, and is backed up by news interviews from Saudi where people believe that raping your housekeeper is merely sex with your slave (and permissible), then yes, I believe it.

Ha! Okay, so I suppose if a rapist is backed up by a state or government, with a lawyer who also echoes the belief that the woman "lead him on," backed up by news interviews with pigs who agree that the woman was "asking for it" (she shouldn't have worn that skirt), you'll agree with him then?

I doubt it.

No, you believe rapists are inhuman pigs who'll use any justification and excuse for their criminal behaviour - except when they're Muslims, in which case they can't help it because they're "just Muslims." Then the religion, not the individual, is to blame. Mea culpa.

You will note that I am saying a large number of Muslims, and not ALL Muslims.

Historically, it's happened too many times - and the Sultanate of Oman even admits it.

And we see many examples of it today - far more examples of conversion by threat of violent death than any other religion on Earth today.
But, even if you do, some of your states are still too broad in nature and thus show that you think that this is the truth for many.

And that threat is uttered only by a VERY small and vocal minority who use influential imans to drive on illiterate masses, who don't know any better.

And by "any" religion, you even mean that Islam is far more violant than $cientology? (Yes, it calls itself a religion, even though it's a cult)...

If he's backed by the Saudi government to the tune of 400,000 dollars, with a lawyer who spouts the same stuff, and is backed up by news interviews from Saudi where people believe that raping your housekeeper is merely sex with your slave (and permissible), then yes, I believe it.

You make claims towards a population, namely muslims

My main questions to you are:


What is the size of your N (sample size)?
Was it a random sample?
What were the questions posed to them?

:D

Ha! Okay, so I suppose if a rapist is backed up by a state or government, with a lawyer who also echoes the belief that the woman "lead him on," backed up by news interviews with pigs who agree that the woman was "asking for it" (she shouldn't have worn that skirt), you'll agree with him then?


I will agree that is the reason he truly believes. I don't have to agree with it morally to accept that as an explanation (of why he's guilty).

You're not getting anywhere.

I believe he, his family, the Saudi government, and a lot of Saudis actually believe that forcing your servant to sexually gratify you is not a crime - that it is simple, ordinary behavior, and that any attempt to criminalize it is harassment.

I will agree that is the reason he truly believes. I don't have to agree with it morally to accept that as an explanation (of why he's guilty).

You're not getting anywhere.

I believe he, his family, the Saudi government, and a lot of Saudis actually believe that forcing your servant to sexually gratify you is not a crime - that it is simple, ordinary behavior, and that any attempt to criminalize it is harassment.

Correction, you make claims towards a population, namely saudi's

My main questions remain:

What is the size of your N (sample size)?
Was it a random sample?
What were the questions posed to them?

Originally Posted by Bul-Katho
Christianity wasn't spread by the sword, it was spread by the book.

Spread by fear of the book, yes, and the Crusades.

Fear and violence, not a very good foundation for a religion whose messiah was a man of peace.

Don't forget the torture chamber, the burning stake and the gallows, too. Oh, and the extortion of land holdings to consolidate wealth and, thus, political power. And when threats didn't work, there was bribery in the form of indulgences and privileges. And, just to pave the way, the wholesale co-opting of other people's holidays and just replacing their gods with Jesus and the saints, as if it was nothing.

You are missing the point. If the muslims in spain were only muslim by fear why were they still muslims decades and centuries later?

Because the original converts raised kids who were Muslim by birth. They were raised to accept Islam as the true religion. Ever try to convert someone raised into a certain religion and culture?

False information, which is more dangerous than islam or anything.
<snip>

Quoted for vitally important truth.

Correction, you make claims towards a population, namely saudi's

My main questions remain:

What is the size of your N (sample size)?
Was it a random sample?
What were the questions posed to them?
It seems to have been everyone involved in his defense, his entire family, and the people interviewed in Saudi.

The news organization says that large numbers of people are no longer considering sending their kids to study in the US because of this.

Why don't you call the Arab News, and ask them?

I will agree that is the reason he truly believes. I don't have to agree with it morally to accept that as an explanation (of why he's guilty).

You're not getting anywhere.

And you aren't either. You're saying that a rapist believes what he did was "standard Muslim practice," and you agree not just that he believes it - you agree with him.

You don't agree with rapists in general, except when they happen to be Muslims, because then it supports your anti-Islamic crusade.

I believe he, his family, the Saudi government, and a lot of Saudis actually believe that forcing your servant to sexually gratify you is not a crime - that it is simple, ordinary behavior, and that any attempt to criminalize it is harassment.

And you believe that this is acceptable and standard practice among the worlds 1 billion Muslims. And therefore that Islam is evil. You extrapolate from one incident and apply it to 1/6th the worlds population... and you deny your own bigotry in this, instead smirking as you say "Muslims aren't a race, so you can't call me racist, neener neener neener!"

And then you call *others* slippery as eels. Christ.

Because the original converts raised kids who were Muslim by birth. They were raised to accept Islam as the true religion. Ever try to convert someone raised into a certain religion and culture?

Why did they have to be converted into Christians at all?

And why did they have to be converted by force?

Seems that, by this measure, Christianity is no different and no better than Islam.

DK, so you are saying that when someone rapes someone and claims its a standard Muslim practice, you believe him?

So why is it I don't think you'll believe a rapist if he claims he did it because "she lead me on?"

Must be a tough choice for you, knowing your views on rape and Muslims... which principle to compromise just to support your endless diatribes against Islam.

We had a thread about the Saudi guy raping his housekeeper a while back. I produced a PDF document on Maliki jurisprudence regarding the rights to have sex with one's slaves under Islamic religious law. It was once standard Muslim practice. In Saudi Arabia, substitute the word domestic guestworker for slave and it still is.

And you aren't either. You're saying that a rapist believes what he did was "standard Muslim practice," and you agree not just that he believes it - you agree with him.


Nope, I don't believe that he is right to believe it. I agree that as he was raised and educated, it's perfectly fine and NOT RAPE (in his mind and culture) to force your slave to sexually gratify you.

Doesn't make it any less a crime.

As for the man who says, "well she deserved it", I've met many of them. They actually believe it - doesn't make it any less a crime.

I'm pretty consistent on rape, whether they're Muslim or not.

I have to use this in the event that a debater refuses to be extremely specific about what they believe.

Too many people here as wiggly as eels in oil.

What I meant was that you are not using a 'reduction to the absurd' argument. You are creating a false set of choices.

Sometimes, people attempt to construct a valid reductio ad absurdum, but it degenerates into a fallacious straw man argument, which may involve elements of a slippery slope argument.

For example:

A — I don't think the police should arrest teenagers for soft drug possession.
B — So, you are basically arguing the police should not enforce the law and we should live in a society of violent chaos.

Note how the wiki example applies to the current debate:

A-You haven't proven that Muslims are still converting people at swordpoint!
B-Then you are basically arguing that Muslims have never done that.

Correction, you make claims towards a population, namely saudi's

My main questions remain:

What is the size of your N (sample size)?
Was it a random sample?
What were the questions posed to them?

The Philippine government gives information out to Philipino women going to work as domestics in Saudi Arabia. They tell them to be on the lookout for their employers "sexual advances".

Saudi has a shitty human rights record with regards to the way they treat guest workers. http://www.gvnet.com/humantrafficking/SaudiArabia.htm

I have to use this in the event that a debater refuses to be extremely specific about what they believe.

Too many people here as wiggly as eels in oil.

No, DK, the reason you have to do it is because you have to invent new standards and parameters for your own arguments because they cannot meet the standards or parameters of reality.

Why did they have to be converted into Christians at all?

And why did they have to be converted by force?

Seems that, by this measure, Christianity is no different and no better than Islam.

I agree. I'm not making the argument that either religion was spread peacefully.

so was Christianity.....your a smart one, really.

You'll be waiting then. You never apologize for calling me a racist, which I am not.

It's not racism to oppose a religious philosophy.

Period.

And my technique is reductio ad absurdum, which is a perfectly legitimate debate tactic - I take your idea to its illogical and stupid extreme.

It's an excellent debating technique, especially if your opponent has no way to deal with it other than to call you a Nazi.

You did call for the destruction of the middle east. You wanted to nuke the place. You are racist. You don't like brown-skinned people. YOu called for genocide. The difference between me and you is that I can back up my statements. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11118610&postcount=148)

Here's a clue. While the Cold War is over, because it was between nation states, the War on Terror will go on until the West gets the balls to commit genocide.

The correct way to use reductio ad absurdum is to explain that you are using it by words like "by your logic..." or "are you implying that...". Otherwise, you are twisting the words of the posters.

Now, I'm waiting for my apology.

I agree. I'm not making the argument that either religion was spread peacefully.

Okay, but I'll let my questions stand for those who do try to make or imply that argument.

You did call for the destruction of the middle east. You wanted to nuke the place. You are racist. You don't like brown-skinned people. YOu called for genocide. The difference between me and you is that I can back up my statements. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11118610&postcount=148)

Brown skinned people? I'm brown skinned. As in "not white".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Brown skinned people? I'm brown skinned. As in "not white".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What was it you said about a slippery eel?

Fuck you, DK. It is clear I won't get my apology so I'll just have to use this thread as reference when we shall discuss something else and explai to other posters what a poor debater you are.

What was it you said about a slippery eel?

Fuck you, DK. It is clear I won't get my apology so I'll just have to use this thread as reference when we shall discuss something else and explai to other posters what a poor debater you are.

You said you could prove I hated brown skinned people.

Quote me, please. Link.

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

I haven't done anything wrong, and have used a perfectly legitimate debate tactic.
I don't see you winning any debate despite your "tactics". The only thing that I find "absurd" is your reasoning and your method of delivering hate via these boards.

You would have us believe that you have compassion for the Muslim woman, yet you have personally issued a death warrant for ALL Muslims, either by sterilization or by nuclear holocaust. There is no credibility in your campaign of hate and lust for blood.

Despite your bravado and all of your armaments, there is a chink in your armour, and you openly admitted that there probably wouldn't have been a 9/11 if it hadn't been for the US dependence on Middle East oil. Next time you are typing out your hatred for Muslims on this forum, think about what you stated earlier:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11617712&postcount=99

It seems to have been everyone involved in his defense, his entire family, and the people interviewed in Saudi.

So the supporters of the suspect, and the people the media have chosen to show....
The news organization says that large numbers of people are no longer considering sending their kids to study in the US because of this.
perhaps the media is controlled by the same government that wants this man freed...
perhaps they have been told that the US arrests them for being Muslim...

It is hard to know what the people realy think in a dictatorship...

Brown skinned people? I'm brown skinned. As in "not white".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That has to be one of the best comebacks I've seen in a long time :D

While DK laughs, I'll sum up what this thread has taught us so far:

1) DK thinks it is newsworthy that an Arab source has acknowledged that Islam has a violent history in its expansion as a religion.

2) DK has decided that this is proof that Islam is a bad thing.

3) DK has chosen to ignore the fact that his own Arab source goes on to call for abandonment of that violent history and that Muslims and Muslim nations should renounce terrorism and terrorists rather than turn a blind eye or consider them martyrs for any cause. If he did not ignore that fact, he would not be able to claim their acknowledgement of history as proof that Islam is still trying to carry on the same medieval violence.

4) DK has also chosen to ignore, or gloss over, the fact that Christianity was also spread by violence, force and threats, because otherwise he would not be able to single Islam out as a violent religion. He would either have to denounce both religions or acknowledge that it is possible that violence perpetrated by Muslims is not, in fact, caused by or encouraged by Islam.

5) Despite all the argument so far, however, DK has not proven his point that Islam is a violent religion because (A) he has not shown it to be more violent than any other religion and (B) he has not shown that Islam is necessarily the source or cause of violence by Muslims.

I think this brings us all up to speed, yes? I just wanted to clarify because the argument is getting a bit circular.

you openly admitted that there probably wouldn't have been a 9/11 if it hadn't been for the US dependence on Middle East oil. Next time you are typing out your hatred for Muslims on this forum, think about what you stated earlier:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11617712&postcount=99

Sure. But now it's too late to negotiate with some of them, unless you want to negotiate a surrender to dhimmitude.

You're making a common mistake - you don't have to hate anyone to want them to disappear. They only have to pose a threat.

Because the original converts raised kids who were Muslim by birth. They were raised to accept Islam as the true religion. Ever try to convert someone raised into a certain religion and culture?


But the muslims that were forcibly christianised secretly kept up their religon. The Jews likewise. So the christians just dropped theirs with no resistance or hold outs?

But the muslims that were forcibly christianised secretly kept up their religon. The Jews likewise. So the christians just dropped theirs with no resistance or hold outs?

Interestingly, a study of dhimmitude shows that Christians and other religions evaporate over time in areas under Muslim control. Zoroastrianism, for example, didn't fare well against Islam over time - it faded out.

Jews are particularly resistant to forced assimilation.

That has to be one of the best comebacks I've seen in a long time :D

Actually, that was rather lame. Of all the statements I made, he chose the hyperbole to disprove all my assertions.

pathetic :rolleyes:

Sure. But now it's too late to negotiate with some of them, unless you want to negotiate a surrender to dhimmitude.



O the old "dhimmi" bolloxology is out of its box again. Taking America as an example, how is a group like Al Qaeda going to enforce sharia law on roughly 295 million people over the whole of the US, for instance?

Actually, that was rather lame. Of all the statements I made, he chose the hyperbole to disprove all my assertions.

pathetic :rolleyes:

I never cast any judgement as an argument, but as a comeback, it's pretty damn good.

But the muslims that were forcibly christianised secretly kept up their religon. The Jews likewise. So the christians just dropped theirs with no resistance or hold outs?

I'm sure those who secretly kept up their religion were a minority. Let's face it, praying to mecca five times per day, fasting for Ramadan, and never drinking the wine or eating the pork that your neighbors consume would be kind of obvious over time. If you gave up every aspect of Islam you could blend in, but what kind of Muslim kids would you be raising? They'd either be Christian-acting to keep up the charade and because that's the example the parents had set, or they'd genuinely embrace Christianity as everything and everyone else in their society has.

Interestingly, a study of dhimmitude shows that Christians and other religions evaporate over time in areas under Muslim control. Zoroastrianism, for example, didn't fare well against Islam over time - it faded out.

Jews are particularly resistant to forced assimilation.

But according to you their neigbours forcibly convert. How were they left to "fade" out? (often an inevitability for smaller religous sects)

While DK laughs, I'll sum up what this thread has taught us so far:

1) DK thinks it is newsworthy that an Arab source has acknowledged that Islam has a violent history in its expansion as a religion.

Because if I use any other source, you'll claim I mistranslated, or there's bias in the source.

2) DK has decided that this is proof that Islam is a bad thing.
No, it proves the intent behind militant Islam.

3) DK has chosen to ignore the fact that his own Arab source goes on to call for abandonment of that violent history and that Muslims and Muslim nations should renounce terrorism and terrorists rather than turn a blind eye or consider them martyrs for any cause. If he did not ignore that fact, he would not be able to claim their acknowledgement of history as proof that Islam is still trying to carry on the same medieval violence.
The Sunnis in particular are allowed to lie to us about their next move. It's in the book.

4) DK has also chosen to ignore, or gloss over, the fact that Christianity was also spread by violence, force and threats, because otherwise he would not be able to single Islam out as a violent religion. He would either have to denounce both religions or acknowledge that it is possible that violence perpetrated by Muslims is not, in fact, caused by or encouraged by Islam.
You must not have read the thread. I didn't gloss over Christianity - just pointed out that we don't forcibly convert people at gunpoint anymore.

5) Despite all the argument so far, however, DK has not proven his point that Islam is a violent religion because (A) he has not shown it to be more violent than any other religion and (B) he has not shown that Islam is necessarily the source or cause of violence by Muslims.
It's certainly more violent than other current religions.

But according to you their neigbours forcibly convert. How were they left to "fade" out? (often an inevitability for smaller religous sects)
That's a very good point.

Though, from what I remember learning, Zoroastrianism was the predecessor to Islam, as it was the first monotheistic religion in the area that Islam came to dominate.

I'm sure those who secretly kept up their religion were a minority. Let's face it, praying to mecca five times per day, fasting for Ramadan, and never drinking the wine or eating the pork that your neighbors consume would be kind of obvious over time. If you gave up every aspect of Islam you could blend in, but what kind of Muslim kids would you be raising? They'd either be Christian-acting to keep up the charade and because that's the example the parents had set, or they'd genuinely embrace Christianity as everything and everyone else in their society has.


Cooking with oil as oppossed to lard was enough to have you up before the inquistion. However, it held out due to the fact they lived together in certain areas. My point though, is that if conversion was due to fear and fear alone, it never would have produced hold outs.

But according to you their neigbours forcibly convert. How were they left to "fade" out? (often an inevitability for smaller religous sects)

You had several choices:

1. Convert.
2. Stay with your original religion, but have no more group meetings, and pay a tax every year. This stifles your religion and makes it wither as an organization.
3. Die.

Obviously, option 2 requires money. Most people don't have it, or are not that willing to pay it.

From Wikipedia:

Over the course of many centuries, dhimma gradually led to the conversion of most Zoroastrians and Christians to Islam, but had a limited impact on the Jews. Zoroastrianism was the first to crumble after the Muslim conquest of Persia. Closely associated with the power structures of the Persian Empire, Zoroastrian clergy quickly declined after it was deprived of the state support.[5]

For Christians, the process of conversion was slower — it is possible that as late as at the time of the Crusades Christians still constituted a majority of the population — but no less inexorable. The switch from a dominant to an inferior position proved too difficult for many Christians and they converted to Islam in large numbers to avoid oppression. Christianity disappeared altogether in Central Asia, Yemen, and the Maghreb, when it was subjected to persecution by the Almohads. Christians continued to live in Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, but their numbers were still reduced to a tiny minority. The relative resiliency of Christians in those countries stemmed from their subordinated position in the Byzantine Empire, which made them more amenable to accepting Muslim supremacy; he suggests that many of them felt better under the early Muslim rule than under the Byzantines.[5]

Jews were the least affected. Accustomed to survival in adverse circumstances after many centuries of Roman and Byzantine persecutions, Jews saw the Islamic conquests as just another change of rulers; this time, not necessarily for the worse. Voluntary conversion among the Jews was rare, and they managed to preserve their religion all over the Muslim lands.[5]

The Sunnis in particular are allowed to lie to us about their next move. It's in the book.

Do you realise that you just admitted your own source isn't trustworthy?

But according to you their neigbours forcibly convert. How were they left to "fade" out? (often an inevitability for smaller religous sects)

Under the rules governing dhimmis there are incentives to convert to Islam and penalties for not converting. For example, if a Muslim steals from you, assaults you, even rapes your daughter, you can't get justice from a court unless there is a Muslim witness in your favor. Non-Muslims were therefore denied effective protection under the law. Also the rules regarding who can marry who would tend to reduce numbers of non-muslims. Christian men couldn't marry Muslim women, for example, and Muslim men could marry Christian women and raise the kids as Mulsim. Over time that would tend to favor growth of the Muslim community and the shrinking of the Christian one.

The people on this forum who said it was never spread by the sword are notably silent now. That's my point.
Did anyone ever say that? That's just historical ignorance.

Because if I use any other source, you'll claim I mistranslated, or there's bias in the source.

Yes it is a source, but a source does not equal evidence. We use sources to be able to scrutinize the claims made. This is simply as statement, no evidence…

That's a very good point.

Though, from what I remember learning, Zoroastrianism was the predecessor to Islam, as it was the first monotheistic religion in the area that Islam came to dominate.


Certainly one of the predeccesors. And they are not treated with hugs and kisses either. However the idea of fanatical (herbert lom from "El Cid" ) types running around non-stop for 800 years looking for victims to convert is frankly bollocks, pure and simple. They could have wiped out any number of groupings and the rest of the world would have known nothing (and cared less). Its something which has reared its head now and again for various reasons and the facts of it are now, as is everthing involving muslims, being "adjusted" to fit another agenda.

Do you realise that you just admitted your own source isn't trustworthy?

Now, that's a good comeback.

exterminate the pest!!!
:sniper: :mp5:

You had several choices:

1. Convert.
2. Stay with your original religion, but have no more group meetings, and pay a tax every year. This stifles your religion and makes it wither as an organization.
3. Die.

Obviously, option 2 requires money. Most people don't have it, or are not that willing to pay it.

From Wikipedia:

So from being forced to convert by the sword, its either pay taxes or convert.

Bit of a difference there.

exterminate the pest!!!
:sniper: :mp5:

Well done, you will now be a n00b for the first 1000 posts.

Interestingly, a study of dhimmitude shows that Christians and other religions evaporate over time in areas under Muslim control. Zoroastrianism, for example, didn't fare well against Islam over time - it faded out.

Jews are particularly resistant to forced assimilation.
1) Zoroastrianism was never a major religion and it is not today a dead one. It still exists in its homeland and in other places as well.

2) Everyone is resistant to forced change. If there was no resistance, the change would not have to be forced, now would it? (Really, DK, think before you speak.)

3) Ideas cannot be killed. They can only be suppressed, and even then, not everywhere and not forever. They're like weeds that way. If an idea becomes extinct, it is because it was not better than the ideas that replaced it. That's the difference between being killed and failing to survive change.

4) Just as ideas cannot be killed, so belief cannot be forced. People only believe what they choose to believe. All other professions of belief are lies. History shows that, when conversions are forced, the old religion continues underground until circumstances change and then it comes back into the mainstream, just as if the conversions had never happened. This is because the converts did not believe in the new religion that was forced on them. If the conversions take, it is because the converts believed the new religion and chose to keep it, regardless of the circumstances under which it came to them.

In other words, let the best religion win. If you really think Christianity could be wiped out by Islam, then it must be because the ideas of Christianity are not as good as those of Islam. If that is the case, then I wouldn't think the loss of Christianity would be much to mourn. However, I don't see why you would think Christianity is so weak. Don't you think it is at least as good a religion as Judaism? The Jews, who you say are so resistant to conversion, have been forced countless times, in one place and time or another, to convert on pain of death to either Islam or Christianity. Every time, those Jews who preferred their own beliefs continued to practice them in secret and at great personal risk. Then, when circumstances changed and the oppressive laws were removed, they went right back to living and worshipping openly as Jews. Those who preferred the new religions did not go back.

Cooking with oil as oppossed to lard was enough to have you up before the inquistion. However, it held out due to the fact they lived together in certain areas. My point though, is that if conversion was due to fear and fear alone, it never would have produced hold outs.

The initial conversion is due to fear. As the converts, and especially their children, live under the influence of that particular culture and religion they begin to accept it just like if you forcibly transplant an American to China and keep him there long enough he'll acclimate and accept Chinese culture. He'll speak Mandarin, routinely eat chinese food, vote in the elections, and all that stuff. If you then try to transplant him back to the US, he'll still cling to some Chinese culuture.

Under the rules governing dhimmis there are incentives to convert to Islam and penalties for not converting. For example, if a Muslim steals from you, assaults you, even rapes your daughter, you can't get justice from a court unless there is a Muslim witness in your favor. Non-Muslims were therefore denied effective protection under the law. Also the rules regarding who can marry who would tend to reduce numbers of non-muslims. Christian men couldn't marry Muslim women, for example, and Muslim men could marry Christian women and raise the kids as Mulsim. Over time that would tend to favor growth of the Muslim community and the shrinking of the Christian one.

This is not true, with a large number of christians in their empire, the leaders could not do away with the rule of law, that would wreak havoc; read machiavelli :D

Islamic law had a need for witnesses though to protect the suspect. What means of proof were there besides a testimony (obtained torture was not accepted as evidence). perhaps that is one of the reasons why women did not travel alone, also in Europe I guess...

This is not true, with a large number of christians in their empire, the leaders could not do away with the rule of law, that would wreak havoc; read machiavelli :D

Islamic law had a need for witnesses though to protect the suspect. What means of proof were there besides a testimony (obtained torture was not accepted as evidence). perhaps that is one of the reasons why women did not travel alone, also in Europe I guess...

But in Sharia law that witness had to be male and Muslim. So, if you're in a Christian neighborhood and a gang of young Muslim tough guys come by and beat the crap out of you while robbing your store, you're fucked. Doesn't matter if the whole Christian neighborhood saw it happen. And if you fight back you're FUCKED.

The initial conversion is due to fear. As the converts, and especially their children, live under the influence of that particular culture and religion they begin to accept it just like if you forcibly transplant an American to China and keep him there long enough he'll acclimate and accept Chinese culture. He'll speak Mandarin, routinely eat chinese food, vote in the elections, and all that stuff. If you then try to transplant him back to the US, he'll still cling to some Chinese culuture.

No I do not think so, it would rather be due to marriage job opportunities and slow process of assymilation. Take migrants to the US, first they are english, Italian, Irish, later generations become more and more American... No need for a sword, it just happens...

Because Muslims are teh 3bil!
Now, DK, everyone knows that Oman isn't a real Muslim nation, and even if they were, they're only a tiny minority of all Muslims, so you can't demonize all Muslims by believing what they say!

And besides, it's all BIGOTRY and RACISM!!! :headbang:
Speaking of which, where's Gauthier?

But in Sharia law that witness had to be male and Muslim. So, if you're in a Christian neighborhood and a gang of young Muslim tough guys come by and beat the crap out of you while robbing your store, you're fucked. Doesn't matter if the whole Christian neighborhood saw it happen. And if you fight back you're FUCKED.

No the value of non-muslim or non-male witnesses was less... Still they could testify....

Because if I use any other source, you'll claim I mistranslated, or there's bias in the source.
You missed my point. Try again, please.

No, it proves the intent behind militant Islam.
No, it doesn't. It only proves the history, not the future.

Unless you are would also claim that Christianity has the same bloody intent based on the same bloody history. Are you prepared to make that claim?

The Sunnis in particular are allowed to lie to us about their next move. It's in the book.
Christians lie, too, though most of them deny it. They lied long and hard to keep the cover on the Catholic priest sex scandals for decades, though, didn't they? Mormons lie and don't deny it. They've been known to lie about tax and insurance fraud and about polygamy and other things, and they call it "lying for the Lord." Even Buddhists lie to get people to do what they want. It's one of the "skillful means."

You also lie. You lie about your own opinions, about the arguments you've made in the past, and about what other posters have said in various threads.

Everybody lies. That adds nothing to your meaningless argument.

You must not have read the thread. I didn't gloss over Christianity - just pointed out that we don't forcibly convert people at gunpoint anymore.
I did read the thread. That "anymore" is one of the fatal flaws in your argument. You are asserting a continuity of thought and action within Islam, yet you show no direct link between the past and the present, even as you make assertions about the future. All you have done is point to the past and yelled, "See? See how they are?" Yet where is the unbroken tradition of "spreading Islam through fear" that connects then to now? I don't see it, anymore than I see one that connects Christianity's violent past to its present condition.

It's certainly more violent than other current religions.
As I have said often, it's their turn. Everybody gets a turn, you know. Wait till we pagans get the upper hand again. We used to decorate our houses with the skulls of our enemies, back in the day. Ah, nostalgia. ;)

No I do not think so, it would rather be due to marriage job opportunities and slow process of assymilation. Take migrants to the US, first they are english, Italian, Irish, later generations become more and more American... No need for a sword, it just happens...

I don't think it "just happened" in the Middle East and North Africa as Islam expanded and conquered Christian communities initially. It couldn't. Not enough people to control the populations they conquer unless they brutalize them and break their spirits first, then quickly make them embrace Islam.

A small number of folks trying to impose their will on a huge community of people who don't share their culture and religion is a recipie for disaster. Look at Iraq. Now if you can demoralize that community first, you can control them. Look at post WWII Japan.

I did read the thread. That "anymore" is one of the fatal flaws in your argument. You are asserting a continuity of thought and action within Islam, yet you show no direct link between the past and the present, even as you make assertions about the future. All you have done is point to the past and yelled, "See? See how they are?" Yet where is the unbroken tradition of "spreading Islam through fear" that connects then to now? I don't see it, anymore than I see one that connects Christianity's violent past to its present condition.

I guess you don't read the news - and the daily dose of Islamic terror, death, and demands for conversion - or else.

Don't see a single example of Christians killing people if they don't convert nowadays.

Plenty of Muslim examples in just this year.

No the value of non-muslim or non-male witnesses was less... Still they could testify....


Their testimony was worth virtually nothing against a Muslim.

According to the sharia, the court system should not give the testimony of a woman the same weight as that of a man. Additionally, a judge may throw out the testimony of non-Muslims.http://www.mongabay.com/reference/country_profiles/2004-2005/Saudi_Arabia.html

I guess you don't read the news - and the daily dose of Islamic terror, death, and demands for conversion - or else.

Don't see a single example of Christians killing people if they don't convert nowadays.

Plenty of Muslim examples in just this year.

Just because they aren't on the news doesn't mean the don't exist

http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=3513

Just because they aren't on the news doesn't mean the don't exist

http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=3513

Now we're getting somewhere.

Let's count the number of events, shall we?

Now we're getting somewhere.

Let's count the number of events, shall we?

Christianity:1

Islam: 198466638522547576634635274865

doesn't change the fact that christianity, like islam can be perverted into violence.

Christianity:1

Islam: 198466638522547576634635274865

doesn't change the fact that christianity, like islam can be perverted into violence.

Doesn't change the fact that although we should be watching religion for signs of violence, many of us choose to ignore it instead.

I guess you don't read the news - and the daily dose of Islamic terror, death, and demands for conversion - or else.

Don't see a single example of Christians killing people if they don't convert nowadays.

Plenty of Muslim examples in just this year.

But your own post said that the incentive for conversion was removal of a tax imposed on "non believers".

And on this very forum, we've had numerous rants from every sort of freak demanding the muslims be bombed into submission......

And what about the many who applaud Anne coulters "convert them" styled crap?

Hypocrisy. Tut tut.

But your own post said that the incentive for conversion was removal of a tax imposed on "non believers".

And on this very forum, we've had numerous rants from every sort of freak demanding the muslims be bombed into submission......

I don't advocate bombing them into submission. I merely present thermonuclear devastation as a technical solution through total eradication.

And what about the many who applaud Anne coulters "convert them" styled crap?

Hypocrisy. Tut tut.

I'm not a fan of the Witch-Queen of Angmar...

Because their conversion was sooooooo real.
As real as any forced conversion.

I'm sick of this apologism. The captors were engaging in forced conversion.

Of course, either way you've still shat away the only life you know you'll have for the prospect of a dream.
Maybe he'd rather die on his feet than live on his knees.

I'm a better person at heart than most who go to church every week.
How do you think that?

They probably grew bored of your antics and used the wonderfull function that is 'Ignore' like I did. Your racism is showing, give it a rest.
Explain how stating that Muslims used to force people to convert is racist.

Proove they're still the fucking same.

Let's start with swords. Do they still use them?
As someone once said, their thinking is stuck in the middle ages, but their weaponry is not, unfortunately.

But its only according to you and your fellow travellers that its "millions".
Well, even 0.5% of Muslims is six million people.

Doesn't change the fact that although we should be watching religion for signs of violence, many of us choose to ignore it instead.

I'm not ignoring anything, I fully understand there is a corelation between Islam and violence. I just remain unconvinced that islam is the cause of the violence. Because if the qur'an did say something like "kill everybody who isn't a muslim" I think we would be having a lot more of a problem with islamic terrorism.

Theres also personal experience I have had with muslims.....

I guess you don't read the news - and the daily dose of Islamic terror, death, and demands for conversion - or else.

Don't see a single example of Christians killing people if they don't convert nowadays.

Plenty of Muslim examples in just this year.

Then it should be easy for you to post a current example of a mass movement within mainstream Islam that demands conversion through fear.

Other than the two Fox reporters, and other isolated incidents that show up on Christian blogs, I was unable to find any.

I guess you don't read the news - and the daily dose of Islamic terror, death, and demands for conversion - or else.

Don't see a single example of Christians killing people if they don't convert nowadays.

Plenty of Muslim examples in just this year.

And there you go again, trying to relabel disagreement as ignorance so you can shrug it off. What is that, DK Evasion Tactic #37 or #39?

First of all, you do not have "plenty" of examples of Muslims killing people if they don't convert nowadays. You have a few examples of Muslim extremists threatening to do so. Not "plenty" of actual killings.

Second of all, even in the blood-soaked days of yore, one did not have "plenty" of examples of Muslims killing people if they would not convert -- not "plenty" by the standards of the heads-a-poppin' Middle Ages and certainly not by comparison with the burn-the-heretic rah-rah boys of the Catholic church. The fact is that you had a few Muslim rulers and generals who were particularly blood-thirsty during wars, but they were not the norm. And although each medieval massacre typically produced a literal river of blood, no matter who committed it or why, there were fewer of such masscres in reality for Islam and Christianity put together than you would have us believe for Islam alone. As for oppression of religious minorities, Islam has nothing over Christianity in that respect, so I would advise you to just give up on that bogeyman.

Oh, by the way, you still have not shown us that the violence of modern Islamist terrorists is in any real way connected to anything that happened in generations past. Connected in any way beyond the claims of those self-same terrorists, which are as facetious and self-serving as your claims are.

I don't advocate bombing them into submission. I merely present thermonuclear devastation as a technical solution through total eradication.
I'm not a fan of the Witch-Queen of Angmar...

Wow. Genocidal xenophobe criticises muslims. Thats a goody. However, you don't critricise those who do propose such solutions (being one yourself) so your problem is not with forced conversion per se, but just with muslims. What was it I said you were earlier? A hate-,fear-,war-monger? A sectarian cultural imperialist? O yes. And hypocrite.

Doesn't change the fact that although we should be watching religion for signs of violence, many of us choose to ignore it instead.

Another strawman? Do you own a factory that makes these things? Who has said anything even remotely like this?

The Sunnis in particular are allowed to lie to us about their next move. It's in the book.

Do you realise that you just admitted your own source isn't trustworthy?

;)

Wow. Genocidal xenophobe criticises muslims. Thats a goody. However, you don't critricise those who do propose such solutions (being one yourself) so your problem is not with forced conversion per se, but just with muslims. What was it I said you were earlier? A hate-,fear-,war-monger? A sectarian cultural imperialist? O yes. And hypocrite.

Merely a question of the survival of one set of cultures and philosophies over another.

If Islam isn't cultural imperialism, then what is? And how do you defend against cultural imperialism without being a cultural imperialist?

;)

1) You quoted yourself?

2) Why are you a new member? IIRC, you've been around for a long time.

If Islam isn't cultural imperialism, then what is?


*ding*

What is a religion?

Merely a question of the survival of one set of cultures and philosophies over another.

If Islam isn't cultural imperialism, then what is? And how do you defend against cultural imperialism without being a cultural imperialist?

Personally I think that's a good point.

I don't advocate bombing them into submission. I merely present thermonuclear devastation as a technical solution through total eradication.
This is why I have no respect for you at all. Do you think it's cute or charming to advocate genocide? Do you think it makes you seem sophisticated? Your self-centered ignorance is disgusting.

Explain how stating that Muslims used to force people to convert is racist.
It itself it doesn't. Now go look at the front page of NS general. Odds are you'll find four threads started by DK, all of them explaining how Islam is bad or finding a way to say Islam is bad based on some non-related event (like arson.

DK has a posting history. This thread is the latest in his "OMG!!! Teh muslem R 3vil!!!" serie.


As someone once said, their thinking is stuck in the middle ages, but their weaponry is not, unfortunately.

The assertion was that Muslim nows are the same as muslim then. It has yet to be proven.

*ding*

What is a religion?

Islam didn't start out as just a religion. It was a system of laws regulating every aspect of life from politics to food. For some Muslims it still is.

1) You quoted yourself?

2) Why are you a new member? IIRC, you've been around for a long time.

Refused Party Program quoting himself? The idea is absurd. It probably didn't happen. To answer your other question, Refused Party Program Is Fucking Dead. Long live Refused Party Program.

It was a system of laws regulating every aspect of life from politics to food.

Best single sentence defition of religion ever. Take that "the Oxford English Dictionary".

*ding*

What is a religion?

It's more than a religion, in the same sense that for centuries, Christianity was more than a religion.

Only in Western states where the governments enacted laws excising the power of the Church from the government has Christianity been less of a cultural imperialist power in and of itself.

Islam, on the other hand, is most definitely cultural imperialism. It even defines the world as Dar al-Islam, and Dar al-Harb. That is, the world under Islam, and the place we're beating on to make it that way.

It itself it doesn't. Now go look at the front page of NS general. Odds are you'll find four threads started by DK, all of them explaining how Islam is bad or finding a way to say Islam is bad based on some non-related event (like arson.

DK has a posting history. This thread is the latest in his "OMG!!! Teh muslem R 3vil!!!" serie.


Still isn't racist, but it certainly is prejudice and islamphobia.

Then again, if you labelled DK an Islamophobe, you would have been labelled an apologist right back.;)

Merely a question of the survival of one set of cultures and philosophies over another.

If Islam isn't cultural imperialism, then what is?
?

American Foriegn Policy in Latin America 1950-present.


And how do you defend against cultural imperialism without being a cultural imperialist?

This presupposes a threat in the first place.

I already asked how a group like Al Qaeda could impose sharia law on the US. Tell me how they're going to do it please.

Still isn't racist, but it certainly is prejudice and islamphobia.

Then again, if you labelled DK an Islamophobe, you would have been labelled an apologist right back.;)

Again. Posting history of DK. But fine, I'll drop it and say his Islamophobia is showing in this thread. I'll have to wait another thread to call him on his racist views.

It's more than a religion, in the same sense that for centuries, Christianity was more than a religion.

Only in Western states where the governments enacted laws excising the power of the Church from the government has Christianity been less of a cultural imperialist power in and of itself.

Islam, on the other hand, is most definitely cultural imperialism. It even defines the world as Dar al-Islam, and Dar al-Harb. That is, the world under Islam, and the place we're beating on to make it that way.

Even if it is cultural imperialism, that still does not mean that Islam is spread through fear.

Try not to hijack your own thread.

<snip>

Maybe he'd rather die on his feet than live on his knees.

<snip>

An episode from the WW2 novel Catch 22:

20-year-old American fighter pilot Nagley is arguing with the 100-year-old Italian husband of the madam who runs the brothel where Nagley's Whore works about the way the Italians kept switching sides during the war. Nagley is of the opinion that this shows cowardice. The 100-year-old man knows better.

Nagley: "But don't you know it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees?"

100-Year-Old Man: "No, you've got it backwards. It's better to live on your feet than to die on your knees."

Even if it is cultural imperialism, that still does not mean that Islam is spread through fear.

Try not to hijack your own thread.
He has to, as hes already posted a synopsis that states that there were incentives to convert, and in a seperate post mentioned zorast. having 'faded' away. This undermines his whole "THEYS A COMMIN TA GIT US" shite, and now he must fear-monger in a different direction.

I already asked how a group like Al Qaeda could impose sharia law on the US. Tell me how they're going to do it please.

I'm not restricting it to just al-Qaeda.

Look at Britain. People moved there over time, and are being won over by extremists, who promise the implementation of sharia, and the overthrown and dissolution of the UK government.

With enough people present, willing to commit violence, or support it, you can do it.

The Home Secretary was directly threatened at his own speech. And the people who made the threats are still walking around.

If you're unwilling to take even modest steps to defend yourself, when will you be willing? And at that time, consider that they will be far larger steps than you can imagine taking now.

I'm not restricting it to just al-Qaeda.

Look at Britain. People moved there over time, and are being won over by extremists, who promise the implementation of sharia, and the overthrown and dissolution of the UK government.

With enough people present, willing to commit violence, or support it, you can do it.

The Home Secretary was directly threatened at his own speech. And the people who made the threats are still walking around.

If you're unwilling to take even modest steps to defend yourself, when will you be willing? And at that time, consider that they will be far larger steps than you can imagine taking now.

Ah, jesus not the "ISLAM IS INVADING EUROPE!!1!!" conspiracy theory again.

Merely a question of the survival of one set of cultures and philosophies over another.

If Islam isn't cultural imperialism, then what is? And how do you defend against cultural imperialism without being a cultural imperialist?

The fact that you can't figure that one out for yourself is evidence of why you think genocide is acceptable. It is the extreme of the "us vs. them" mentality.

An episode from the WW2 novel Catch 22:

20-year-old American fighter pilot Nagley is arguing with the 100-year-old Italian husband of the madam who runs the brothel where Nagley's Whore works about the way the Italians kept switching sides during the war. Nagley is of the opinion that this shows cowardice. The 100-year-old man knows better.

Nagley: "But don't you know it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees?"

100-Year-Old Man: "No, you've got it backwards. It's better to live on your feet than to die on your knees."

*Nately

I'm not restricting it to just al-Qaeda.

Look at Britain. People moved there over time, and are being won over by extremists, who promise the implementation of sharia, and the overthrown and dissolution of the UK government.

With enough people present, willing to commit violence, or support it, you can do it.

The Home Secretary was directly threatened at his own speech. And the people who made the threats are still walking around.

If you're unwilling to take even modest steps to defend yourself, when will you be willing? And at that time, consider that they will be far larger steps than you can imagine taking now.

They're muslims, affecting a minority of the muslim population. Their "mass protest" about the Mohammed cartoons brought out 40-60 people.

But as you brought it up, how are they going to impose Sharia law on 60 million brits?

Ah, jesus not the "ISLAM IS INVADING EUROPE!!1!!" conspiracy theory again.

See 234. Hes looking for an "out".

Islam didn't start out as just a religion. It was a system of laws regulating every aspect of life from politics to food. For some Muslims it still is.

The same can be said of Christianity.

By the way, Christianity used to require five prayers every day, too. Yep. That's why the clock was invented. So the chiming bells could tell people when to stop what they were doing and pray. Used to be for everyone, then just the monks. Eventually, over hundreds of years, they gave up mandatory scheduled praying nearly altogether.

The fact that you can't figure that one out for yourself is evidence of why you think genocide is acceptable. It is the extreme of the "us vs. them" mentality.

Ah, so you have no idea what a rhetorical question is?

The same can be said of Christianity.

By the way, Christianity used to require five prayers every day, too. Yep. That's why the clock was invented. So the chiming bells could tell people when to stop what they were doing and pray. Used to be for everyone, then just the monks. Eventually, over hundreds of years, they gave up mandatory scheduled praying nearly altogether.

The difference is that Christianity doesn't rule nations the way Islam does.

Ah, jesus not the "ISLAM IS INVADING EUROPE!!1!!" conspiracy theory again.

Why don't you call the Home Secretary, and ask him if he feels comfortable with speaking to a crowd of Muslims anymore.

... how are they going to impose Sharia law on 60 million brits?

Magic.

*Nately

Whoops. Thanks.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF FAR MORE IMPORTANCE THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN THIS THREAD!!!:

Ahem.

That's NATELY'S WHORE, kids.

NATELY'S WHORE.

The difference is that Christianity doesn't rule nations the way Islam does.

Guatemala. Colombia. Bosnia.

Guatemala. Colombia. Bosnia.

Which ones have nuclear weapons?

The difference is that Christianity doesn't rule nations the way Islam does.

That is due, as you pointed out, to the separation of church and state. This is something that the USA can be proud of. Despite its high population percentage of Christians, the USA still manages to keep Jesus out of the government.

But this is not because Christian fundamentalists don't want the power. It's because no one is letting them have the power.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF FAR MORE IMPORTANCE THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN THIS THREAD!!!

Damn straight.

Which ones have nuclear weapons?

Who had post #248 in the pool?