NationStates Jolt Archive

Which ones have nuclear weapons?

shifting the goal post?

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


You haven't answered how sharia law is to be imposed on 295 million Americans. You can say Allah sent a meteor that wiped out 200 million of that figure over the same area, if that helps you any.

You havent answered as to how they are going to impose sharia law on 60 million brits.

And btw, there was 3 hecklers at that speech. 3. Already-known activists. Blair would have killed for only 3 at the TUC conference.

Ah, so you have no idea what a rhetorical question is?
I do know what an rhetorical question is. You have not posed any questions about genocide, rhetorical or otherwise. You merely stated your support for it as a tactic. No question about it.

By the way, I also know what a liar is, and I know what a squirming little worm who has no way to detach himself from the corpse of his dead argument looks like, too.

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

The extent of the horrible, crippling attack on the Home Secretary:

The heckler, Abu Isadan, shouted "shame on you" at the audience of Muslim parents and called Dr Reid a "tyrant".

Obviously, Mr.Reid was so frightened, he converted to Islam.

Cause getting heckled is really scary.:rolleyes:

EDIT:http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/display.var.929770.0.home_secretary_heckled_during_muslim_speech.php

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

Once again, with four part harmony: It's Islam's turn. The Christians did rule nations and they ruled them just as viciously if not more so, and if certain extremist American fundamentalists get their way, they'll do it again.

Guatemala. Colombia. Bosnia.

Ecuador, too.

Which ones have nuclear weapons?

So when rule doesnt suit, its off to the red herring of "O NOES THEY'RE GONNA NUKE US AND THEN CONVERT US".

So, after allah sends a meteor to America, how to they impose Sharia law on the 100 million survivors?

How do they impose sharia on 60 million brits?

Damn straight.



Who had post #248 in the pool?

Not me, dammit. I thought he'd have pulled this one way earlier.

So when rule doesnt suit, its off to the red herring of "O NOES THEY'RE GONNA NUKE US AND THEN CONVERT US".

So, after allah sends a meteor to America, how to they impose Sharia law on the 100 million survivors?

How do they impose sharia on 60 million brits?

And I think if we were all irradiated piles of charred flesh the last thing on our minds would be forced conversion to islam.

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"

Bald assertion which sanitizes the acts of vandalism of places of worship of conquered people, erecting mosques over destroyed native worship areas, killing the clergy, imposing shariat laws, imposing jiziya tax on non-muslim subjects etc.

Even today, If I am forced to live in a place where Shariat law is imposed, I would convert just to escape from it. And the influence of my beliefs will gradually reduce and my children will be less likely to follow my beliefs and my grand children, even less so. The atrocities committed at my time will be forgotten or overlooked to the convenience of being a muslim under a muslim rule. Does not make my conversion voluntary and it does not mean that Islam (in this particular case) did not spread by force.

What is the big deal in accepting the fact that Islam did spread by force by invading muslim kings? Denying this historical fact is apologism. I fail to see why actions of muslims during medieval ages need to be sanitized like this. We certainly don't go around saying Chengiz Khan did not force people to accept Mongols as rulers.

I do know what an rhetorical question is. You have not posed any questions about genocide, rhetorical or otherwise. You merely stated your support for it as a tactic. No question about it.

By the way, I also know what a liar is, and I know what a squirming little worm who has no way to detach himself from the corpse of his dead argument looks like, too.

O no. Hes not a "squirming worm". Or a one issue genocidal sectarian bigot. Hes a master debater according to a few around here. Any second now hes going to show us why we should ph33r him.

O no. Hes not a "squirming worm". Or a one issue genocidal sectarian bigot. Hes a master debater according to a few around here. Any second now hes going to show us why we should ph33r him.

:D

Since religion was created based from the fear of fate and death, all religion was spread with an element of death and fear. Budhism plays on the fear that one reincarnates (the main postualte for Budha's discoveries on life); Islam and Christianity both seem to believe the world is struggle of something known as 'Evil' and 'Not Evil' (which seems to be extremely vague by definition); Hindu, which I havent studied in depth, seems to be so frightened they didnt want to get the wrong god, so they made hundreds. Each relgion attempts to give a definition of the 'Soul', but all seem to balance the defenition on the definition of the Religion (i.e. Budha claims theere is no evil, only doers and no-doers. The soul in Christianity can always be washed, sold/bought and releashed.) However, none of these definitions give any logical reason for the soul, so I present Monty Python's version: "In the universe, there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person's soul. However, this soul does not exist ab initio, as orthodox Christianity teaches. It has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved, owing to man's unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia." - taken from some website on Google.

Not me, dammit. I thought he'd have pulled this one way earlier.

At least you have your apple cheeks.

Bald assertion which sanitizes the acts of vandalism of places of worship of conquered people, erecting mosques over destroyed native worship areas, killing the clergy, imposing shariat laws, imposing jiziya tax on non-muslim subjects etc.

Even today, If I am forced to live in a place where Shariat law is imposed, I would convert just to escape from it. And the influence of my beliefs will gradually reduce and my children will be less likely to follow my beliefs and my grand children, even less so. The atrocities committed at my time will be forgotten or overlooked to the convenience of being a muslim under a muslim rule. Does not make my conversion voluntary and it does not mean that Islam (in this particular case) did not spread by force.

What is the big deal in accepting the fact that Islam did spread by force by invading muslim kings? Denying this historical fact is apologism. I fail to see why actions of muslims during medieval ages need to be sanitized like this. We certainly don't go around saying Chengiz Khan did not force people to accept Mongols as rulers.

A few problems with this post:

1) By your use of the word "if," it seems you are not living under Sharia law, so what you think you might do if you did is hardly a fact by which we are to judge the character of Muslims as a whole. I am not defending Sharia in any way. I consider all such religion-dictated systems to be barbaric. I'm just saying your example adds nothing to the debate of Muslims and Islam.

2) Without implying any judgment of you based on what you think you might do if you were subjected to pressure, I also will not base any conclusions about the character of Muslims or about Islam based on your willingness to give in to oppression and give up your own beliefs rather than, say, move to a different place or else resist.

3) Nobody is denying the bloody history of Islam. Nobody is denying that modern Islam is currently overrun by violent fundamentalism. What we are arguing about is DK's assertion that the first is in any way connected to the second, or that the first is the predicate cause of the second, or that the past implies anything about the future (or even that the present does, for that matter), or that any of the violence is or was caused by Islam itself, rather than by the self-serving choices of some of Islam's followers.

DK attempts to use incidents of violence to condemn not the perpetrators of the violence but their religion together with all the people who follow it, whether they commit such violence or oppose it.

At least you have your apple cheeks.

Seriously, these arguments with DK always start to feel like I'm trapped in that damned book. Could be worse, I suppose. He could be like Kafka.

Guatemala. Colombia. Bosnia.
They're not Christian theocracies.

But this is not because Christian fundamentalists don't want the power. It's because no one is letting them have the power.
His point is that our society is sufficiently secular as to prevent Christian radicals from taking power.

He's criticising Islamic societies for failing to prevent radicals getting into power. Possibly because the latter have a greater proportion of fundamentalists in their populations.

shifting the goal post?
He always does that.

Once again, with four part harmony: It's Islam's turn. The Christians did rule nations and they ruled them just as viciously if not more so, and if certain extremist American fundamentalists get their way, they'll do it again.
It's been Islam's turn for nearly 1400 years. When are they going to let me have a go? ;)

A few problems with this post:

1) By your use of the word "if," it seems you are not living under Sharia law, so what you think you might do if you did is hardly a fact by which we are to judge the character of Muslims as a whole.

But who is judging "the character of muslims as a whole" ? me? :confused:


I'm just saying your example adds nothing to the debate of Muslims and Islam.

The example was a reply to the post quoted in my post. Surely you must have noticed it quoted in my post.

Nobody is denying the bloody history of Islam.

:confused: Did you even see the post quoted in my post. It clearly says "this conquest was only possible due to the power of the message to volentary converts." Is that not denial?

What we are arguing about is DK's assertion that the first is in any way connected to the second,
:confused:
I was not arguing with DK's assertion. I was arguing with PU's assertion.


DK attempts to use incidents of violence to condemn not the perpetrators of the violence but their religion together with all the people who follow it, whether they commit such violence or oppose it.

:confused:

But I am not DK.

Seriously, these arguments with DK always start to feel like I'm trapped in that damned book. Could be worse, I suppose. He could be like Kafka.

*transforms into giant dung beetle*

They're not Christian theocracies.;)

Neither are most of the nations in the middle east. We were speaking of the way societies were run.


He's criticising Islamic societies for failing to prevent radicals getting into power. Possibly because the latter have a greater proportion of fundamentalists in their populations...;)

No, hes bashing muslims. If he hits upon a valid point, its the "broken clock" effect.


He always does that....;)

As well as distort, exaggerate, and hypocritically support genocide and mass sterilisation, amongst other things. And fail to answer hard questions put to him. Truly the master debater.....

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

Good fucking lord, sweet jesus christ on a single crutch, why is this stereotype so true!?

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 need to argue on DK's level. Ahem . . .

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!

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.

Or he can say what he said: Some Muslims convert by force but not all or even most (although probably more than a few hundred).

Sure. But now it's too late to negotiate with some of them, unless you want to negotiate a surrender to dhimmitude.
Obviously you might not be able to debate with some of them, especially if they are as cold and hard as you appear.

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.
We are not talking about just anyone, we are talking about your hatred for Muslims. It is not simply a matter of wanting them to disappear. It has all to do with the way that you want them to disappear, namely by being vapourized by a nuclear holocaust, or by a sadistic and barbaric sterilization program. Your hatred is evident in your words and your evil intentions.

You want to play God, but I think the position has already been filled.

<snip>
It's been Islam's turn for nearly 1400 years. When are they going to let me have a go? ;)

No, it hasn't. For most of that time, it was still Christianity's turn. Then it was secular nationalism's turn for nearly 200 years. NOW it's Islam's turn.

But who is judging "the character of muslims as a whole" ? me? :confused:
No, DK is.

The example was a reply to the post quoted in my post. Surely you must have noticed it quoted in my post.
Yes, I know, but I was pointing out that I do not think your example is relevant to this debate because the debate is based in actual reality, whereas your particular example was not.

:confused: Did you even see the post quoted in my post. It clearly says "this conquest was only possible due to the power of the message to volentary converts." Is that not denial?
No, it is not a denial of the fact that war in those days was very bloody and that religions often used bloody war, including war atrocities, to expand their membership -- or at least reduce the membership of the competition. But as I said in another post, such violent actions were actually not all that common at the time. There were also other, far less costly, ways to spread a religion. The remark you were responding to was also pointing out those other ways and that Islam used them. The fact that Islam used them shows that "fear" was not always its first choice method of gaining converts. That, however does not mean that force was never used.

:confused:
I was not arguing with DK's assertion. I was arguing with PU's assertion.
PU was arguing with DK's assertion. Your response to PU can only be read in the context of DK's assertions unless you stipulate that they are not related.

:confused:

But I am not DK.
Well, at least you have that going for you. ;)

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....DK, I'm usually with you on these things but....whats the point of this? This is like saying...."Cain Killed Abel!" to show that present day humans are all murderes and bad.....and we all know I'm no friend of Muslims but even I can admit this is lame, lol.:p

BTW, Judaism used to be a warrior religion, until its reformation after the desturction of the Temple, and Christianity was a warrior religion until ITS reformation...so I'm not really sure where you're going with this.

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.
After much contemplation about the title of this thread (Islam Was Spread By Fear), and your obvious reasons for starting it (incessant Islam bashing), it occurred to me that you want to spread Christianity through the death and destruction of 1 Billion Muslims (every man, woman, and child).

You are the Modern Crusader. Why use fear and the sword when you can nuke them and/or sterilize them. What is next on the shopping list after the Muslims have been eliminated? One Billion Chinese?

I'm sure dozens, or even hundreds, of NSGers have pointed this out (many times), but what the hell.

Islam has killed no more people than any other religion.

I'm sure dozens, or even hundreds, of NSGers have pointed this out (many times), but what the hell.

Islam has killed no more people than any other religion.

It's not so much a matter of them killing people, as far as I'm concerned. It's the forced conversons, the destruction of individual liberty, and the total subjugation of women and non-muslims.

After much contemplation about the title of this thread (Islam Was Spread By Fear), and your obvious reasons for starting it (incessant Islam bashing), it occurred to me that you want to spread Christianity through the death and destruction of 1 Billion Muslims (every man, woman, and child).

DK? Spread .... Christianity? Not in this lifetime.

It's more that he wants to spread Islamic reform ... by the sword, ironically enough.

It's not so much a matter of them killing people, as far as I'm concerned. It's the forced conversons, the destruction of individual liberty, and the total subjugation of women and non-muslims.

All right, look, I'm sure to some people I may seem like some kind of apologist for radical Islam because of the way I argue against idiots like DK, but that's only because I do not like to see people relying on false statements to prop up corrupt arguments and exploiting real world problems to promote bizarre personal fantasies of their own. For the record, I personally think a significant number of Muslims in the world have gone stark barking crazy and an even greater number are clearly just trying to keep their heads down and hope it all blows over. Taken togther, however, these two groups are still not the majority of Muslims, most of which talk about terrorism the exact same way we do (by "we" I don't mean DK).

THAT SAID, just what are you talking about, Eut? What about the forced conversions, etc? Which forced conversions? The ones that happened 900 years ago, when the Christians were doing it too, or the 3 or 4 that have happened but turned out to be temporary recently?

Which total subjugation of women? The one that is specifically prohibited by the Quran, or the one that is part and parcel of the culture that predates Islam, or the one that is common to all forms of religious fundamentalism, including the Christian kind when it really gets going?

Which total subjugation of non-Muslims? The one that is specifically prohibited by the Quran, or the one that is part and parcel of the agit-prop of terrorist organizations and fundamentalist rulers and which is also common to all similar extremist situations that seek to scapegoat an outsider, regardless of religion?

And what destruction of individual liberty are you talking about? Do you mean Islam's emphasis on submission to god? Show me a monotheist religion that does not require that. Or do you mean the lock-step conformity with nationalistic ideals embodied in paramilitary groups and terrorist groups? Show me the extremist movement that does not look like that, including wholly secular ones.

I personally have no more interest in or respect for Islam than I do any other organized religion -- in fact, my opinions of organized religions are vehemently negative -- but I am sick to hell of people twisting reality into a club to beat up Islam with. The problems you list are real, but they are not caused by the religion of Islam, and blaming Islam will not solve those problems. Not only is it unfair to Islam, it is also a waste of time for those who do want to solve the problems.

DK? Spread .... Christianity? Not in this lifetime.

It's more that he wants to spread Islamic reform ... by the sword, ironically enough.

Nah, I think he just likes to fantasize about killing people with a big bright boom while he dresses up in tight, shiny uniforms and acts all Conrad Veight-ish.

I'm sure dozens, or even hundreds, of NSGers have pointed this out (many times), but what the hell.

Islam has killed no more people than any other religion.
More than Quakerism! :D

But yeah, totally, I SOOOOO agree with DK here, Islam is definitely an evil religion whose precepts and principles we can definitely judge based on the extremist groups that get all the press. Yeah, Islam definitely oppresses non-Muslims. Actually, the Islamic Empire, in its time, was quite tolerant of other religions, including many within its borders. They could easily have stamped out Judaism and Christianity in the Middle East, but instead allowed those people to live in peace. Admittedly, they did have a small tax on nonbelievers, but compared to what most Christian theocracies do, that's pretty damned minimal...

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.


i cant say that christianity or judiasm has not killed in the "name of god"in the past(like the 12th century)
but i can say..that islam has and does in the here and now.
not to disrespect islam,as i have respect for all peoples beliefs....but really..get with the program...it is a day late and 10 centuries short.

blowing up children...puhleeze..

i think in todays world you can find a better way to get your point across,and not really piss off everyone...you know..by blowing up kids?

i cant say that christianity or judiasm has not killed in the "name of god"in the past(like the 12th century)
but i can say..that islam has and does in the here and now.

I wonder what the threads would have been like if the internet were around in the 12th century. Be kinda fun to see.

Anyway, a gaggle of nuts does not a religion make. Islam doesn't condone nor sanctify nor even hint at the idea of blowing up children. People do that, not religion.

Same could be said about the various Popes who have made calls to destroy entire cultures or religions. Those Popes did not define the message of Christ, they merely used it as a tool to expand their power. That's what those nutty Imams are out there doing now.

It will pass quietly into history along with the Inquisition and the Holocaust. Trouble is, we're having to deal with it in the here and now. Our great-great-grandchildren will marvel at how silly all this fretting and worrying was.

i cant say that christianity or judiasm has not killed in the "name of god"in the past(like the 12th century)
but i can say..that islam has and does in the here and now.
not to disrespect islam,as i have respect for all peoples beliefs....but really..get with the program...it is a day late and 10 centuries short.

blowing up children...puhleeze..

i think in todays world you can find a better way to get your point across,and not really piss off everyone...you know..by blowing up kids?
Ah, you mean like the Catholic IRA setting off a bomb at a British pre-school?

i cant say that christianity or judiasm has not killed in the "name of god"in the past(like the 12th century)
but i can say..that islam has and does in the here and now.
not to disrespect islam,as i have respect for all peoples beliefs....but really..get with the program...it is a day late and 10 centuries short.

blowing up children...puhleeze..

i think in todays world you can find a better way to get your point across,and not really piss off everyone...you know..by blowing up kids?

Umm... remind me again, were any women or children killed in the US invasion of Iraq? I think so. What about that Haditha "incident"?

Point taken, I hope. If not, here my point is: Before you remove that speck out of your neighbor's eye, first remove the log from your own.

I wonder what the threads would have been like if the internet were around in the 12th century. Be kinda fun to see.

Anyway, a gaggle of nuts does not a religion make. Islam doesn't condone nor sanctify nor even hint at the idea of blowing up children. People do that, not religion.

Same could be said about the various Popes who have made calls to destroy entire cultures or religions. Those Popes did not define the message of Christ, they merely used it as a tool to expand their power. That's what those nutty Imams are out there doing now.

It will pass quietly into history along with the Inquisition and the Holocaust. Trouble is, we're having to deal with it in the here and now. Our great-great-grandchildren will marvel at how silly all this fretting and worrying was.

outstanding!
you get a cookie,from me...especially made for you.

All right, look, I'm sure to some people I may seem like some kind of apologist for radical Islam because of the way I argue against idiots like DK, but that's only because I do not like to see people relying on false statements to prop up corrupt arguments and exploiting real world problems to promote bizarre personal fantasies of their own. For the record, I personally think a significant number of Muslims in the world have gone stark barking crazy and an even greater number are clearly just trying to keep their heads down and hope it all blows over. Taken togther, however, these two groups are still not the majority of Muslims, most of which talk about terrorism the exact same way we do (by "we" I don't mean DK).

THAT SAID, just what are you talking about, Eut? What about the forced conversions, etc? Which forced conversions? The ones that happened 900 years ago, when the Christians were doing it too, or the 3 or 4 that have happened but turned out to be temporary recently?

Which total subjugation of women? The one that is specifically prohibited by the Quran, or the one that is part and parcel of the culture that predates Islam, or the one that is common to all forms of religious fundamentalism, including the Christian kind when it really gets going?

Which total subjugation of non-Muslims? The one that is specifically prohibited by the Quran, or the one that is part and parcel of the agit-prop of terrorist organizations and fundamentalist rulers and which is also common to all similar extremist situations that seek to scapegoat an outsider, regardless of religion?

And what destruction of individual liberty are you talking about? Do you mean Islam's emphasis on submission to god? Show me a monotheist religion that does not require that. Or do you mean the lock-step conformity with nationalistic ideals embodied in paramilitary groups and terrorist groups? Show me the extremist movement that does not look like that, including wholly secular ones.

I personally have no more interest in or respect for Islam than I do any other organized religion -- in fact, my opinions of organized religions are vehemently negative -- but I am sick to hell of people twisting reality into a club to beat up Islam with. The problems you list are real, but they are not caused by the religion of Islam, and blaming Islam will not solve those problems. Not only is it unfair to Islam, it is also a waste of time for those who do want to solve the problems.

Good exposition. I still see Islam as anti-freedom, anti-secularism, anti-woman, as a matter of fact, anti- virtually everything worth having.

I no more want Christian fundamentalists running things than I want Islamic fundamentalists running things. But right now the threat is from Islamic fundamentalists, so that's what draws my ire. Sorry, but I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

yikes...
ok,you made your points,and i honestly agree with you,i was only stating that islam should take control of their religion.
much like the ira has gone the way of the dodo bird(i hope) and innocent kids are not dying there...i think the vast majority of muslims need to take back their religion,and rightly trounce the evil scum that is usurping it...

one cant honestly argue that the ira or the pope in 10 ad is equivalent to the shit happenning in the middle east with the jews and palistinians,or iraq's sectarian violence.

i only state that to be considered as a viable alternative,as a religion,you cant be blowing up kids..the ira learned that,and i hope they muslims do soon.

by the way,my best friend is arabian,so know this is not a anti islam diatribe..only stating the obvious.
sorry,he is actually persian,if that matters.
was just corrected by him..lol

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.

Do you people spend your entire day just finding articles and sites like these just to spite each other?

Can't we all just get along?:fluffle:

*Is about to get pwned by everyone in the thread now*

yikes...
ok,you made your points,and i honestly agree with you,i was only stating that islam should take control of their religion.
much like the ira has gone the way of the dodo bird(i hope) and innocent kids are not dying there...i think the vast majority of muslims need to take back their religion,and rightly trounce the evil scum that is usurping it...

one cant honestly argue that the ira or the pope in 10 ad is equivalent to the shit happenning in the middle east with the jews and palistinians,or iraq's sectarian violence.

i only state that to be considered as a viable alternative,as a religion,you cant be blowing up kids..the ira learned that,and i hope they muslims do soon.

by the way,my best friend is arabian,so know this is not a anti islam diatribe..only stating the obvious.
sorry,he is actually persian,if that matters.
was just corrected by him..lol
I agree with the notion that the radical elements need to be settled down, and I also agree that it is NEVER ok to kill a child to prove a point.

But as Muravyets said, I just get tired of the actions of few being used as a hammer to pound all people of one religion, especially when just about everyone one else has done the same... at one point in time or another.

yikes...
ok,you made your points,and i honestly agree with you,i was only stating that islam should take control of their religion.
much like the ira has gone the way of the dodo bird(i hope) and innocent kids are not dying there...i think the vast majority of muslims need to take back their religion,and rightly trounce the evil scum that is usurping it...

one cant honestly argue that the ira or the pope in 10 ad is equivalent to the shit happenning in the middle east with the jews and palistinians,or iraq's sectarian violence.

i only state that to be considered as a viable alternative,as a religion,you cant be blowing up kids..the ira learned that,and i hope they muslims do soon.

by the way,my best friend is arabian,so know this is not a anti islam diatribe..only stating the obvious.
sorry,he is actually persian,if that matters.
was just corrected by him..lol
"The pope in 10 AD"... honestly, Jesus hadn't even started preaching at that point. Get it straight.

But how are the Crusades not equivalent to the current jihad? I can pretty much guarantee you that the Crusaders killed far more people than Al-Qaeda ever will.
But as Muravyets said, I just get tired of the actions of few being used as a hammer to pound all people of one religion, especially when just about everyone one else has done the same... at one point in time or another.
Seconded.

i cant say that christianity or judiasm has not killed in the "name of god"in the past(like the 12th century)
How about:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/sprj.irq.int.bush.transcript/

"My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign.............

May God bless our country and all who defend her."

Bald assertion which sanitizes the acts of vandalism of places of worship of conquered people, erecting mosques over destroyed native worship areas, killing the clergy, imposing shariat laws, imposing jiziya tax on non-muslim subjects etc.

Even today, If I am forced to live in a place where Shariat law is imposed, I would convert just to escape from it. And the influence of my beliefs will gradually reduce and my children will be less likely to follow my beliefs and my grand children, even less so. The atrocities committed at my time will be forgotten or overlooked to the convenience of being a muslim under a muslim rule. Does not make my conversion voluntary and it does not mean that Islam (in this particular case) did not spread by force.

What is the big deal in accepting the fact that Islam did spread by force by invading muslim kings? Denying this historical fact is apologism. I fail to see why actions of muslims during medieval ages need to be sanitized like this. We certainly don't go around saying Chengiz Khan did not force people to accept Mongols as rulers.
Some argued that Islam, forced people to become Muslim, this was not the case, I agree that the lands did became Muslim lands by force though.

I stated in my post that conquering the territories took force. (note that Islam could not have conquered such an area if they did not successfully convert others) Thereafter, there were incentives for the population to change religion, still it is likely that an area like Egypt remained predominantly Christian for several centuries; this would likely not have been the case had force been used, would it? It would even have been likely that the Muslim rulers would not have been able to force against the population to make them convert, for this would instil rebellion, which was dangerous.

For example when the Fatimids came to power in North Africa they initially tried to use stringent measures to induce people to convert (inc. Sunnis to Shiism). However, they soon realised that this would directly endanger their position and consequently let the people lead their own lives.

Before modernity, a successful ruler did not interfere with the personal lives of its subjects, only public life was under scrutiny. Read Machiavelli ;)

Nah, I think he just likes to fantasize about killing people with a big bright boom while he dresses up in tight, shiny uniforms and acts all Conrad Veight-ish.

Ya know, when I picture DK in uniform it's black with tall boots, lightning bolts and skulls . . .

Kind of those not-realy-a-nazi uniforms that the evil dicators army wears in bad scifi movies . . .

"The pope in 10 AD"... honestly, Jesus hadn't even started preaching at that point. Get it straight.


Are you honestly telling me that Jesus didn't start preaching untill over 10 years AFTER HE DIED.

Umm... remind me again, were any women or children killed in the US invasion of Iraq? I think so. What about that Haditha "incident"?

Point taken, I hope. If not, here my point is: Before you remove that speck out of your neighbor's eye, first remove the log from your own.

To suggest the conducting of a war (which has no religious basis) and a suicide bomber entering a market place, whose sole purpose is to eliminate civilians a comparison which can be made, is truely misrepresenative of the facts, and surely inappropriate.

I think the poster to who you were responding had a valid point. Today, Pope Benedict makes reference to Islams inability to deal with critism, and its illogical use of violence in the name of god (which is contrary to god himself) and in response the muslim comunity proclaims :

''Conquering Rome is the answer.'' & ''The army of Islam will return.''
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Pope-Muslims.html?hp&ex=1158984000&en=de230d051ee53d40&ei=5094&partner=homepage

While naturally this comes from a more extremist view point.. its to the very issue that moderates of islam cannot take a moment step back and denounce this very violent talk which speaks to Islams true weakness. And this is the reason why Islam is preceived the way it is. In every other religion of course there are extermist.. but moderates do not allow the extremists to speak for them. This is not the case for Islam.

Doesn't all this only serve to validate the Popes suggestions. Was he insensitive ? of course.. was he undiplomatic and unessesarly provactive? most definatly.. but the heart of his comments were nothing but true. A sad reality in todays world, and for Islam itself.