NationStates Jolt Archive

I got this from another forum and found it be interesting. I hope this will cut down on the Islam bashing on here about how its a religion of terror.

In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy

Many non-Muslims, when they think about Islam, picture religious fanatics on camels with a sword in one hand and a Qur'an in the other. This myth, which was made popular in Europe during the Crusades, is totally baseless. First of all, the Holy Qur'an clearly says "Let there be no compulsion in religion". In addition to this, Islam teaches that a person's faith must be pure and sincere, so it is certainly not something that can be forced on someone. In debunking the myth that Islam was "spread by the sword", the (non-Muslim) historian De Lacy O' Leary wrote: "History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever accepted." (Islam at the Crossroads, London, 1923, p. 8.). It should also be known that Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years. During this time, and up to when they were finally forced out, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Additionally, Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations.

If Islam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islamic Empire? Additionally, if one considers the small number of Muslims who initially spread Islam from Spain and Morocco in the West to India and China in the East, one would realize that they were far too few to force people to be members of a religion against their will. Additionally, the great empire and civilization established by the Muslims had great staying power -- its citizens were proud to be part of it. The spread of Islam stands in contrast to the actions of the followers of Christianity, who since the time of the Emperor Constantine have made liberal use of the sword - often basing their conduct on Biblical verses. This was especially true of the colonization of South America and Africa, where native peoples were systematically wiped-out or forced to convert. It is also interesting to note that when the Mongols invaded and conquered large portions of the Islamic Empire, instead of destroying the religion, they adopted it. This is a unique occurrence in history - the conquerors adopting the religion of the conquered! Since they were the victors, they certainly could not have been forced to become Muslims! Ask any of the over one billion Muslims alive in the world today whether they were forced! The largest Muslim country in the world today is Indonesia --- and there were never any battles fought there! So where was the sword? How could someone be forced to adhere to a spiritually rewarding and demanding religion like Islam?

I thought there was some forced conversion in N.Africa, by Abu Bakr or one of the Caliphates...

I don't think that Islam was spread mostly by the sword, but by the coin, along the silk road and other trade routes.

How else do you explain the existance of the Hui?

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

So all those Christian towns and villages just willingly gave up their culture and traditions throughout the middle east and North Africa and in the Balkans. Sure. They were conquered. Their people were enslaved. They lived as second class citizens, and over time many converted to gain the security and legal protections that came with Muslim faith under Sharia law. NO religion spreads that quickly without force. People don't give up their faith and traditions easily.

You seem to be forgetting the re-conquest of Constantinople/Byzantium, and the land associated with that. Among other places where the muslims had their crusades.

And there seems to be this neat little internecine war between the Shi'a and Sunni.

Generally, religions are first introduced through trade, and then they are eventually imposed by the sword once enough people have freely converted. Really, the conquest part is usually done to clean up the remaining unconverted, not to introduce the religion; that usually happens on its own, especially with a trade and migration-oriented culture like the Arabs had.

How do you spread Islam by the sword, I mean, I can understand how you'd spread butter with a knife, but a sword is so much larger, sharper and imprecise than a butter knife, and the piece of bread is so small...*boggles mind*

It's a good thing that you've found some spiritual fulfilment in Islam, but please don't lecture me on the rise of the caliphate. Neither Christianity nor Islam have clean hands in this matter.

That's as silly as saying Christianity was not spread by the sword.

How do you spread Islam by the sword, I mean, I can understand how you'd spread butter with a knife, but a sword is so much larger, sharper and imprecise than a butter knife, and the piece of bread is so small...*boggles mind*

you win the thread.

How do you spread Islam by the sword, I mean, I can understand how you'd spread butter with a knife, but a sword is so much larger, sharper and imprecise than a butter knife, and the piece of bread is so small...*boggles mind*

What's the deal with I Can't Believe it's not Islam?

Generally, religions are first introduced through trade, and then they are eventually imposed by the sword once enough people have freely converted. Really, the conquest part is usually done to clean up the remaining unconverted, not to introduce the religion; that usually happens on its own, especially with a trade and migration-oriented culture like the Arabs had.

Granted, Vetalia, but in this case the Arabs appeared out of Arabia (out of nowhere to the startled Byzantines and Persians) as armies, not as caravans of merchants. The Byzantines were defeated decisively at the Yarmuk in 632 and the Arabs swept over Palestine and Syria in the next several years. Then it was the turn of the Persians, who were still trying to get over their recent (629) loss to the Byzantines.

What's the deal with I Can't Believe it's not Islam?

Great buttery taste, 0 grams trans. fat.

JIHAD IN EARLY ISLAM

Jihad as physical warfare features prominently in the earliest Islamic writings. The Quran alone contains many verses about it.

Pakistani Brigadier S.K. Malik, a Muslim, points out that “the Quranic injunctions cover the causes and object of war; its nature and characteristics; limits and extents; dimensions and restraints.”[5] The Quran even goes into strategy and tactics, and critiques some Muslim battles.

Taken at face value, the verses in the Quran about warfare seem ambiguous and contradictory. In some places, for example, the Quran urges Muhammad and Muslims to confront opposition with patience and persuasion. These have been called “Verses of Forgiveness and Pardon”:[6]

Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His path, and who receive guidance. (16:125)[7]

Nor can goodness and evil be equal. Repel (evil) with what is better. (41:34)

In other places, it gives them permission to engage in retaliatory or defensive fighting:

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged—and verily, God is most powerful for their aid—(They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right (for no cause) except that they say, “our Lord is God.” (22:39-40a)

In yet other places, the Quran seems to command offensive warfare against unbelievers:

Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not. (2:216)

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (9:5)

Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29).

Early Islamic scholars resolved the conflict by appealing to a kind of progressive “revelation” that was tailored to fit Muhammad’s and his followers’ circumstances.

When Muhammad first began to receive “revelations” from God, in 610, he lived in Mecca, a major center of polytheistic worship. As he preached his monotheistic message, he encountered indifference and then growing resistance. Over 13 years, persecution against him and his small band of followers eventually became so severe that they finally left Mecca and emigrated to Medina (then known as Yathrib) about 220 miles to the north.

In Medina, Muhammad gathered many followers—along with political and military power. After eight years of raids and battles, he conquered Mecca and instituted Islam in place of the city’s polytheism.

According to Firestone, “Muslim scholars came to the conclusion that the scriptural verses regarding war were revealed in direct relation to the historic needs of Muhammad during his prophetic mission. At the beginning of his prophetic career in Mecca when he was weak and his followers few, the divine revelations encouraged avoidance of physical conflict.”

After the intense persecutions that caused Muhammad and his followers to emigrate to Medina, however, they were given leave to engage in defensive warfare. As the Muslim community grew in strength, further revelations broadened the conditions under which war could be waged, “until it was concluded that war against non-Muslims could be waged virtually at any time, without pretext, and in any place.”[8]

The later verses, known as the “Sword Verses” (9:5 and 9:29), were considered by Muslim scholars to have cancelled the previous verses mandating kindness and persuasion. Expansionist jihad became the explicit norm.

Rudolph Peters, professor of Islamic Law and Law of the Middle East at the University of Amsterdam, observes, “The crux of the doctrine is the existence of one single Islamic state, ruling the entire umma [Muslim community]. It is the duty of the umma to expand the territory of this state in order to bring as many people under its rule as possible. The ultimate aim is to expand the territory of this state in order to bring the whole earth under the sway of Islam and to extirpate unbelief.”[9]

After the initial, massive conquests of Islam ended in the eighth century, Muslim jurists ruled that the caliph (the supreme Muslim ruler) “had to raid enemy territory at least once a year in order to keep the idea of jihad alive.”[10]

This was the dominant view of jihad until modern times. If anything, the last Islamic empire—the Ottoman Empire—was even more zealous about expansionist jihad than the early empires.[11]

CONVERT OR DIE

The Quran teaches that people should not be converted by force: “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256a).

Nonetheless, the doctrine of jihad has led many to allege that Islam was spread by the sword. This is a fair charge, but it needs to be qualified.

Muslims follow not only the Quran, which they believe is a literal transcript of God’s words, but also the Hadith, accounts of Muhammad’s words and deeds. These words and deeds are considered inspired by God and an example for Muslims to follow. According to one widely accepted hadith, whenever Muhammad would send an out expedition, he would admonish his appointed commander:

When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to [accept] Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.[12]

The jizya, a kind of tribute, was part of a larger deal in which non-Muslims submitted to several conditions. In addition to paying the jizya, non-Muslims were also required to wear distinctive clothing and mark their houses (which must not be built higher than Muslims’ houses), must not scandalize Muslims by openly performing their worship services, nor build new churches or synagogues. Those who owned land were also required to pay a land tax.[13]

According to some Muslim jurists, the jizya had to be paid by each person at a humiliating public ceremony, in which the person was struck on the head or the nape of the neck. According to historian Bat Ye’or, this ceremony “survived unchanged till the dawn of the twentieth century.”[14]

Both the jizya and the land tax were often extorted through torture, and were frequently so exorbitant that whole villages would flee or go into hiding.

Technically, then, Christians and Jews were not forced to accept Islam at the point of a sword. But their treatment nonetheless placed them under severe pressure to convert.

And many idolaters were not even allowed to pay the jizya. They were forced to either convert or die.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Terrorism/by_the_sword.html

Granted most Muslims don't want to spread their faith through warfare and conquest, but folks like Bin Laden and the ignorant barbarians who support taliban-style government do.

Besides a single quote, most of the information is either a broad conclusion by the author or just general hearsay. Some of it is also outright biased fiction. Would that I had time to follow these points individually, I would. However, the most glaring example- and one that is used by all religions is this one:

the Holy Qur'an clearly says "Let there be no compulsion in religion". In addition to this, Islam teaches that a person's faith must be pure and sincere, so it is certainly not something that can be forced on someone.

So? What a holy book says and what its followers do are two things entirely. Just because the Qur'an says not to be violent makes no factual impact on the actions of that religions followers.

I cannot bring up a source or Koran quotation on this, but isn't there a canon Islamic document that their "Good" Afterlife is bascially a massive drinking and dancing party that lasts for eternity, and no one ever gets hung-over?

If that's what they advertised, no wonder everyone coverted without force. Sure beats white clouds and angels with big bands.

Yes. Christians spread their religion by chopping the heads off babies all over the world and Muslims spread theirs by giving everyone a puppy.

All religions have been spread by the sword. Every single one. All you need is a little resource stress and down go teh holy books and out come the swords. In anycase, Islam is certainly spreading it by the sword today.

Wars have never been fought in Indonesia?

How about the centuries of exploitation by the Dutch?
The Japanese in WWII?
The "police actions" by the Dutch occupiers in '47 & '49.
The religious skirmishes on the Maluku islands?
The fights on Timor?

Wars have never been fought in Indonesia?

How about the centuries of exploitation by the Dutch?
The Japanese in WWII?
The "police actions" by the Dutch occupiers in '47 & '49.
The religious skirmishes on the Maluku islands?
The fights on Timor?

its refering to no wars by Muslims there to get the population to covert. Not no wars at all.

Well not wars but certainly pretty big riots between Christians and Muslims. Which recently led to the execution of three Christians said to have sparkled the fire.

In anycase, Islam is certainly spreading it by the sword today.

really? because I dont see Muslims doing that in the US, Europe , or anywhere else where social conditions are not hostile.

really? because I dont see Muslims doing that in the US, Europe , or anywhere else where social conditions are not hostile.

It's been known to happen in rural areas of Indonesia.

The initial post confuses two different things: military campaigns at the behest of groups holding religious ideals, and the use of military force to convince a restive population to convert. In which case, it is equally true that neither Christianity nor Islam did much of the latter, and what they did do was done poorly. Even the Inquisition was more about expelling the Moors and Jews than it was about converting them, and Catholic and Orthodox Christians lived quite reasonably together throughout the Balkans and Eastern Europe. But that doesn't mean that either Christianity or Islam have non-violent histories. Far from it in fact. Put simply, had military victories at Yarmuck and Constantinople not happened, Islam would never have expanded as far as it did, because in order to expand it had to overrun Orthodox Byzantium, pagan and Catholic Northern Africa, pagan and Catholic Spain, and pagan Kazan.

really? because I dont see Muslims doing that in the US, Europe , or anywhere else where social conditions are not hostile.

I don't even know how to respond to that. 3,000 dead on 9/11. Hundreds dead in Spain. Scores dead in London. Bali. India. Pakistan. Darfur. Somalia. Ethiopia.

I don't even know how to respond to that. 3,000 dead on 9/11. Hundreds dead in Spain. Scores dead in London. Bali. India. Pakistan. Darfur. Somalia. Ethiopia.

those attacks werent to spread Islam genius

I don't even know how to respond to that. 3,000 dead on 9/11. Hundreds dead in Spain. Scores dead in London. Bali. India. Pakistan. Darfur. Somalia. Ethiopia.

there was no terrorist attack on the ninth of november, so you are wrong.

those attacks werent to spread Islam genius

Ultimately yes they were, genious. That's how religion is spread by the sword. As was pointed out in an earlier post by me and another post by Xenophobiawhatever, religions don't just go to war to convert. They go to war for resources, or for political reasons or whatever and then subjigate and ultimately convert. That's the way it works. In any case, conversion by the sword in a much more direct way is exactly what is happening in Africa. What do you tink the Janjaweed is doing in darfur?

Sorry, your black and white view of the world as Americans, westerners and Christians and jews like to eat dead baby stew on Fridays and Mulsims like to frolick with Snow White and all the bunnys in the forest just isn't the way the world is.

there was no terrorist attack on the ninth of november, so you are wrong.

I'm assuming you know that in the US we put the month first and were just being sarcastic. :)

From my readings of history, in the first generation, Islam WAS spread by the sword, but in a manner less like Osama bin Laden and more like Alexander the Great. Mohammed's armies conquered most of the Middle East in only a few decades, which would, in my mind, make Mohammed one of the Great Military Commanders of History, a title to bear with pride.
I should mention that Judaism (my religion) has a similar conquest in its past - we conquered the Holy Land. Joshua did the combat command, but the Supreme Israelite Commander was none other than Hakadosh Baruch Hu himself.

Later, Islam was spread via trade routes.

And actually, there WAS a terrorist attack on the ninth of November. One year ago today, Iraqi terrorists bombed hotels in Amman, Jordan.

I thought there was some forced conversion in N.Africa, by Abu Bakr or one of the Caliphates...

I don't think that Islam was spread mostly by the sword, but by the coin, along the silk road and other trade routes.

How else do you explain the existance of the Hui?

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

I dont know, Islam was founded by Mohamed, and didn't he basically create a kingdom on of itself in the region as he used armies to consolidate the area. Perhaps he didnt' force conversions, but given that he took over the area and promoted this new religion... seems only logical the religion was spread by his use of military force whether it be direct or indirect.

Yes. Christians spread their religion by chopping the heads off babies all over the world and Muslims spread theirs by giving everyone a puppy.

All religions have been spread by the sword. Every single one. All you need is a little resource stress and down go teh holy books and out come the swords. In anycase, Islam is certainly spreading it by the sword today.

Erm I know this is kinda going on a tangent, but what about Buddhism? That wasn't spread by the sword (as far as I can recall at least). But yeah, I do agree for the most part. Everyone seems to go on about how certain religions are so much worse than others (e.g. Christian attitude to Islam and vice versa as just one example) but most seem to be just as bad as the other.

Yes. Christians spread their religion by chopping the heads off babies all over the world and Muslims spread theirs by giving everyone a puppy.

All religions have been spread by the sword. Every single one. All you need is a little resource stress and down go teh holy books and out come the swords. In anycase, Islam is certainly spreading it by the sword today.

yeah, especially those damned buddhists! I heard somewhere that at one time if you didn't accept buddhism, Buddha would sit on you. That's brutal. Seriously the dude's three sumos taped together.

I got this from another forum and found it be interesting. I hope this will cut down on the Islam bashing on here about how its a religion of terror.

I see you did not post your source but it does appear a bit biased. As for Indonesia, well there is a war going on there now between the Muslims and the Christians. :mad:

And I suppose those Jews in Saudi Arabia who refused to convert to Islam just killed themselves.:rolleyes:

Sorry Soviestan, go spread your bullshit elsewhere.

Oh and while the Crusades were a horrible event. History seems to forget the fact that the Crusades were actually launched as a counter-attack to Islamic invasions of Europe.

While Bhudism does not propegate violence of any kind, and even inspired Tibet to completely disarm, there are a few...few mind you, that have tried to convert through violence.

But this is to be expected anytime something as personal as religion is involved. There's always a few bad nuts to spoil the trail mix.

As for the quote about jihad being a physical struggle that was heavily promoted in the early days of Islam is not entirely truthful. Originally, jihad simply meant struggle and was most often used to imply the internal struggle of living up to the morals set forth by Muhammed.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority in any religion are not extremist...devout and strict maybe, but not extremist. But there is also the fact that there are some who would do anything, including blowing themselves and others up to punish/convert/draw attention to their plight. With media being as ratings starved as it is, you can see why in modern times, the bad nuts get the most attention and skew the picture for outsiders.

Yeah, and next you'll be trying to deny that the crusades were in any part a reaction to islamic military expansionism... :rolleyes:

Generally, religions are first introduced through trade, and then they are eventually imposed by the sword once enough people have freely converted. Really, the conquest part is usually done to clean up the remaining unconverted, not to introduce the religion; that usually happens on its own, especially with a trade and migration-oriented culture like the Arabs had.

Nice job summing it up correctly. At least that is the correct way in my understanding of what happens. :)

I got this from another forum and found it be interesting. I hope this will cut down on the Islam bashing on here about how its a religion of terror.

Lol.

You title this thread saying "Islam was not spread by the sword". Then you make the arguement that you are against Islam bashers who say it is a religion of terror.

Are you looking for an argument based on history, the conquets by the early Arab armies and the later Turkish, Afghan and Persian armies carrying it on from the Arabs and the rule of the kings of those armies etc

or are you looking for an theological argument of whether islam is a "religion of terror" based on debates on Islamic injunctions as said by the Qur'an, the hadiths and the actual behaviour of muslim societies etc.

Which is it?

Or are you simply asserting that "Hey Islam says it is a religion on peace. Then it must be so. Even the name Islam means peace/submission. Duh. Case closed" ?


Many non-Muslims, when they think about Islam, picture religious fanatics on camels with a sword in one hand and a Qur'an in the other. This myth, which was made popular in Europe during the Crusades, is totally baseless. First of all, the Holy Qur'an clearly says "Let there be no compulsion in religion".

I fail to see how the verses in Quran talking about peace can take away the historical facts of muslim armies invading neighboring regions of different faiths and imposing faith in that region after conquets.

In debunking the myth that Islam was "spread by the sword", the (non-Muslim) historian De Lacy O' Leary wrote: "History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever accepted."

Actually, history shows Arab muslims starting the first wave of invasions, invading Zoroastrianic Persia and Pagan/Christian Egypt and later muslim Turks invading Byzantine and parts of Christian Europe and the Afghans invading Hindu/Bhuddhist India (including Pakistan). All the above invasions were aggressive and motivated by religion.


It is also interesting to note that when the Mongols invaded and conquered large portions of the Islamic Empire, instead of destroying the religion, they adopted it. This is a unique occurrence in history - the conquerors adopting the religion of the conquered!

Nonsense. It is not that unique.

The Mongolian invaders adopted the philosophy of the Han Chinese. The Kushans adopted Bhuddhism. In fact, every other invading group of India (before the Afghan and Arab muslim group) adopted local religions and eventually assimilated.


The largest Muslim country in the world today is Indonesia --- and there were never any battles fought there! So where was the sword?

The largest muslim bloc was the subcontinent. If the partition did not occur, there would be more than 400 million muslims there. Countless battles were fought there. This kind of argument is silly.

Nobody is making the claim that Islam was spread by the sword alone. Just because it was spread through non-violent means in South-east Asia, does not mean that it was not spread through violent means elsewhere.


How could someone be forced to adhere to a spiritually rewarding and demanding religion like Islam?

State patronizing, elevated social status, increased economic opportunities, escape from sharia based discrimination towards non-muslims, escape from jaziya tax...

People side with victors. Quite natural. Atrocities done in your father's time will take a back seat to the rewards you are enjoying now. Over a period of time the past fades and people just accept the new way of life.

I got this from another forum and found it be interesting. I hope this will cut down on the Islam bashing on here about how its a religion of terror.

In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy

Many non-Muslims, when they think about Islam, picture religious fanatics on camels with a sword in one hand and a Qur'an in the other. This myth, which was made popular in Europe during the Crusades, is totally baseless. First of all, the Holy Qur'an clearly says "Let there be no compulsion in religion". In addition to this, Islam teaches that a person's faith must be pure and sincere, so it is certainly not something that can be forced on someone. In debunking the myth that Islam was "spread by the sword", the (non-Muslim) historian De Lacy O' Leary wrote: "History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever accepted." (Islam at the Crossroads, London, 1923, p. 8.). It should also be known that Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years. During this time, and up to when they were finally forced out, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Additionally, Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations.

If Islam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islamic Empire? Additionally, if one considers the small number of Muslims who initially spread Islam from Spain and Morocco in the West to India and China in the East, one would realize that they were far too few to force people to be members of a religion against their will. Additionally, the great empire and civilization established by the Muslims had great staying power -- its citizens were proud to be part of it. The spread of Islam stands in contrast to the actions of the followers of Christianity, who since the time of the Emperor Constantine have made liberal use of the sword - often basing their conduct on Biblical verses. This was especially true of the colonization of South America and Africa, where native peoples were systematically wiped-out or forced to convert. It is also interesting to note that when the Mongols invaded and conquered large portions of the Islamic Empire, instead of destroying the religion, they adopted it. This is a unique occurrence in history - the conquerors adopting the religion of the conquered! Since they were the victors, they certainly could not have been forced to become Muslims! Ask any of the over one billion Muslims alive in the world today whether they were forced! The largest Muslim country in the world today is Indonesia --- and there were never any battles fought there! So where was the sword? How could someone be forced to adhere to a spiritually rewarding and demanding religion like Islam?

Listen, man. Islam, as it is taught in the Koran, IS a religion of terror. And it WAS spread by the sword. Not necessarily EVERYWHERE it went, but the sword certainly was used as a means for spreading it.

And when you talk about "Christianity" being spread by the sword, you are thinking of Roman Catholicism. Real Christianity never was, and is not now, spread by the sword.

I am a Baptist (a denomination of Christianity), and we Baptists believe in Separation of Church and State, something neither Catholicism nor Islam teaches.

Baptists (in earlier periods of history they were known as Montanists, Donatists, Waldenses, Albigenses, Anabaptists, and by other names)do NOT believe in converting people by death threats (i.e., "Convert to my religion or I'll KILL you!"), something taught and practiced by both Catholicism and Islam.

I know the Koran has passes like "Let there be no compulsion in religion," but it ALSO says "Kill the infidels! Fight them until they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but the god.'" ("Allah", in Arabic, literally means "the god")

If you ask me, I think "the god" couldn't make up his mind, or else he changed his mind a lot, or else adapted his doctrine to fit whatever was convenient for Mohammed under his (Mohammed's) circumstances at any given time.

Until I see the source of this, I'm going to call this bullshit.

Mohammed's armies conquered most of the Middle East in only a few decades, which would, in my mind, make Mohammed one of the Great Military Commanders of History, a title to bear with pride.


There wasn't exactly much competition in the region.

ISLAM; WHAT THE WEST NEEDS TO KNOW

http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2006/11/islam-what-west-needs-to-knowvideo.html

yeah, especially those damned buddhists! I heard somewhere that at one time if you didn't accept buddhism, Buddha would sit on you. That's brutal. Seriously the dude's three sumos taped together.

Attila.

Not spread by the sword?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Age_of_Caliphs.gif

Could have fooled me.

Oh and while the Crusades were a horrible event. History seems to forget the fact that the Crusades were actually launched as a counter-attack to Islamic invasions of Europe.

do you have anything to back this up or your claim in post above this?

do you have anything to back this up or your claim in post above this?

The fact that the Muslims suffered a military defeat at the hands of Charles Martel, in southern France seems to indicate that they were miltarily active in Europe. Further, one of the reasons for the crusades, the first one at least, was to aid the Byzantines in pushing back Turkish attacks on their territory, the fact that Byzantinium was eventualy conqured militarily by the turks should serve as evidence eo fthe hostility between the groups, after the turks crushed the the Byzantine military at Manzikert. The Pope saw this as a way of hopefuly reconciling with the eastern rite to extent after the split between the Orthodox and Latin rites. This was of course only one factor, the Pope also wanted to find a target for the nobles to fight outside of Europe to get them to, hopefuly, stop fighting each other, in the sam evein it was a way of illustrating his authority over the secular rulers. Further the turks had a habit of harrasing christian pillgrims that had previous to their arival been allowed down in to the Holy Land so they wanted to secure a route safe for pilgrims.

Edit: For internet sources I can only think of Wiki, my sources are all text based stemming from my current enrolment in a class on this topic. In all honestly though the Muslims were a lot beter behaved then the christians during the crusades, even if the first one was partly in response to turkish aggression. Saladin was a hell of a lot more mercyful then Richard for example. And comparing the diferences in the aftermaths of the two takings of Jerusalem is almost funny in how shockingly diferent they were, if it wasn't so tragic.

So all those Christian towns and villages just willingly gave up their culture and traditions throughout the middle east and North Africa and in the Balkans. Sure. They were conquered. Their people were enslaved. They lived as second class citizens, and over time many converted to gain the security and legal protections that came with Muslim faith under Sharia law. NO religion spreads that quickly without force. People don't give up their faith and traditions easily.

gave up there culture? muslim cultute often *is* christian culture - the majority of muslim praxis is worship started out christian - the architecture, the prostrations, the calls to prayer, the language, the name "allah", all of that was christian origionally.

though, of course, that doesn't mean islam was exclusively pacifistic - it's not like the christian middle east looked anything like europe. islam as a cultural force wasn't anything the arabic christians weren't allready used to.

Islam not spread by swords, eh?

Battle at Poitiers.
Taking of Byzantium.
Invasion of Romania and Bulgaria.
Battle of Kosovo Polije.
Siege of Wien.

Enough?

Religion, expecially monotheistic religion, has been a major driving force for any kind of wars. "God is on our side", "God wants it", "God is with us", "God told me", "Fight for the true God"...

And when you talk about "Christianity" being spread by the sword, you are thinking of Roman Catholicism. Real Christianity never was, and is not now, spread by the sword.

I am a Baptist (a denomination of Christianity), and we Baptists believe in Separation of Church and State, something neither Catholicism nor Islam teaches.

Baptists (in earlier periods of history they were known as Montanists, Donatists, Waldenses, Albigenses, Anabaptists, and by other names)do NOT believe in converting people by death threats (i.e., "Convert to my religion or I'll KILL you!"), something taught and practiced by both Catholicism and Islam.


That is a very skewed viewpoint of history, especially on Roman Catholicism. You cannot say that Catholics alone amongst Christians promoted conversion by the sword.

In the century after the Reformation, both RCs and Protestants were equally violent to each other. These incidents may not have necessarily resulted in death, but the extreme pressure exerted would either force conversion or a response of some sort.
Germany immediately after 1517 was scattered with violence, such as the Knights' War (mainly in Franconia) that targeted the bishops, or the Peasants' War that mainly started c.1523 and can be broadly painted as a Protestant uprising with heavy Anabaptist overtones.
Or in 1534 the short-lived Anabaptist Kingdom in Munster is interesting... seizing the town from the bishop and the magistrates, and preparing for conquest of the world. Crushed a year later though.
One can look at various anecdotal sources about provocations during the French Wars of Religion, or even the Iconoclastic Fury in Flanders in c.1566 to see Protestant attacks on Catholics.
The Eighty Years War in the Netherlands eventually became polarised into Reformed vs. Catholics, and both factions on both sides intimidated members of the other religions in their territories.
Or how about the various wars in Switzerland between Catholics and Protestants? Zwingli, one of the Swiss reformers, after all died in battle.

These incidents show you cannot simply demonise Catholicism as being 'evil' as you imply. All Christians have been involved in some sort of violence over the years. Of course, because Catholicism has been around for longer, it has done more, but that doesn't mean anything.

FURTHERMORE, to look at any religion in the past in order to demonise them is to look at history through an anachronistic lens. Religion was a greater part of people's lives back then, and informed much of their lives. People did not necessarily believe in a separation between religion and politics - no, not even the Anabaptists - and so we see why conquest of land or resources often led to conversion as well. And when we look at how much the 'truth' meant to many people, one can see why religious people of all sorts could be so violent to each other, in a time that was more violent than ours is. Life and social thinking back then was very different, and obviously from our modern viewpoint it can look barbaric.
In this way you can understand the context of the growth of, say, Islam in its early stages, and the various religious conflicts that have unfortunately blighted the world. But when we do see those old trains of thought still existing (especially amongst fundamentalists in all religions), we are abhorred, when we should be more understanding.

And as for today? I, as a Catholic, do believe in the separation of Church and State, and I am not taught to go out and convert by the sword. Never have been, and I doubt I ever will. I currently don't see any Catholic movement to mirror that of Islamism on as wide a scale at the moment

How do you spread Islam by the sword, I mean, I can understand how you'd spread butter with a knife, but a sword is so much larger, sharper and imprecise than a butter knife, and the piece of bread is so small...*boggles mind*

You use a sword when you need to butter a huge piece of bread.

You use a sword when you need to butter a huge piece of bread.

http://ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20061027

Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, all have had their wrongs. to call the Christians or the true Muslims or to Call Jews terrosits is completely farfetched. There is no terroists in any religion, there are in their own cults fanatic evil people in every religion.

http://ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20061027

She is pretty dumb.

I got this from another forum and found it be interesting. I hope this will cut down on the Islam bashing on here about how its a religion of terror.

In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy

Many non-Muslims, when they think about Islam, picture religious fanatics on camels with a sword in one hand and a Qur'an in the other. This myth, which was made popular in Europe during the Crusades, is totally baseless. First of all, the Holy Qur'an clearly says "Let there be no compulsion in religion". In addition to this, Islam teaches that a person's faith must be pure and sincere, so it is certainly not something that can be forced on someone. In debunking the myth that Islam was "spread by the sword", the (non-Muslim) historian De Lacy O' Leary wrote: "History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever accepted." (Islam at the Crossroads, London, 1923, p. 8.). It should also be known that Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years. During this time, and up to when they were finally forced out, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Additionally, Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations.

If Islam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islamic Empire?

Did they not survive because they were also "people of the book"? They just had to pay additional taxes, wear certain clothing & were barred from certain professions.
What about the Zoaristrians? They were persecuted quite heavily by the muslim conqueres. As well as the hindus of India.


Additionally, if one considers the small number of Muslims who initially spread Islam from Spain and Morocco in the West to India and China in the East, one would realize that they were far too few to force people to be members of a religion against their will.

That took around 130 years I believe. After the initial conquest of the Sassanid empire, most of the further conquests were done using 'Mawali' (non-arab) muslims. And for quite a while these non-arab were treated like third class citizens, until the end of the first caliphate.

Additionally, the great empire and civilization established by the Muslims had great staying power -- its citizens were proud to be part of it. The spread of Islam stands in contrast to the actions of the followers of Christianity,

What about the first and second Fitna? The second causing the collapse of the Umayad caliphate? Then under the abasids there was the break-away of north africa under the Fatimids.



who since the time of the Emperor Constantine have made liberal use of the sword - often basing their conduct on Biblical verses. This was especially true of the colonization of South America and Africa, where native peoples were systematically wiped-out or forced to convert. It is also interesting to note that when the Mongols invaded and conquered large portions of the Islamic Empire, instead of destroying the religion, they adopted it. This is a unique occurrence in history - the conquerors adopting the religion of the conquered!

Franks, Goths, Vikings to name a few, did the same. Also the mongols hordes all adopted the religion and customs of the areas they conquered. Middle-east, china, russia, etc...



Since they were the victors, they certainly could not have been forced to become Muslims! Ask any of the over one billion Muslims alive in the world today whether they were forced!
[quote]
unless you count that as children they were not given the choice.

The largest Muslim country in the world today is Indonesia --- and there were never any battles fought there! So where was the sword? How could someone be forced to adhere to a spiritually rewarding and demanding religion like Islam?

trade! that and converting the ones in power.

Still, it is interesting that you have to do this:

Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, all have had their wrongs. to call the Christians or the true Muslims or to Call Jews terrosits is completely farfetched. There is no terroists in any religion, there are in their own cults fanatic evil people in every religion.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Terrorism/by_the_sword.html

Granted most Muslims don't want to spread their faith through warfare and conquest, but folks like Bin Laden and the ignorant barbarians who support taliban-style government do.

Well, there was always actually a fourth option for those who didn't want to pay jizya or convert. They could simply leave.

Of course, you have to also think about the times this all happend. What the muslim armies were doing was quite civilized in the middle ages, considering, for example, the standard practice of pillage and rape after a conquest was supposed to be something Mohammed forbade his armies from doing.

Also, they didn't necessarily want to drive out the non- muslims from the areas they conquered, just rule over them politically. Doesn't seem too different than other feudal kingdoms at the time.

Again, like in so many heated debates, both sides are wrong. Yes, the muslims fought and conquered people, but they did it with unorthodox ettiquete considering the times.Besides, if you notice, they only actively tried conquering Europe because it was actively fighting back(Crusades, Papal condemnations, etc.). However, If you look at ,for example, West Africa or Indonesia, it was never actually conquered by Arabs during the caliphate eras(The only time we can consider any military action by the Arabs a legitimately Islamic movement), and Islam was spread rapidly there through trade.

Just my opinion, in the end.

trade! that and converting the ones in power.

Anything wrong with that? Again, its not forced. Technically, anyways. And humanity loves to work with technicalities. It's in our nature, I guess.:D

Anything wrong with that? Again, its not forced. Technically, anyways. And humanity loves to work with technicalities. It's in our nature, I guess.:D

nope just answer sovietstan

The fact of the matter is that many things have been "spread by the sword." Especially religion, since people get really fervent about it.

But seriously -- this isn't a rhetorical question -- where and when in any religious text, be it the Koran or the Bible, is there any mention of the religion being based upon terror? Where is this coming from? Since I've heard accusations of some mention of this in the Koran (which I know isn't true, because I am Moslem), this must be coming from an indirect source.

It could be spread by the ice cream for all I care. It's fairy tales and that's all there is to it.

I see you did not post your source but it does appear a bit biased. As for Indonesia, well there is a war going on there now between the Muslims and the Christians. :mad:

And erm, yeah. What war are you talking about? I'm Indonesian.

The fact that the Muslims suffered a military defeat at the hands of Charles Martel, in southern France seems to indicate that they were miltarily active in Europe. Further, one of the reasons for the crusades, the first one at least, was to aid the Byzantines in pushing back Turkish attacks on their territory, the fact that Byzantinium was eventualy conqured militarily by the turks should serve as evidence eo fthe hostility between the groups, after the turks crushed the the Byzantine military at Manzikert. The Pope saw this as a way of hopefuly reconciling with the eastern rite to extent after the split between the Orthodox and Latin rites. This was of course only one factor, the Pope also wanted to find a target for the nobles to fight outside of Europe to get them to, hopefuly, stop fighting each other, in the sam evein it was a way of illustrating his authority over the secular rulers. Further the turks had a habit of harrasing christian pillgrims that had previous to their arival been allowed down in to the Holy Land so they wanted to secure a route safe for pilgrims.

Edit: For internet sources I can only think of Wiki, my sources are all text based stemming from my current enrolment in a class on this topic. In all honestly though the Muslims were a lot beter behaved then the christians during the crusades, even if the first one was partly in response to turkish aggression. Saladin was a hell of a lot more mercyful then Richard for example. And comparing the diferences in the aftermaths of the two takings of Jerusalem is almost funny in how shockingly diferent they were, if it wasn't so tragic.

Urban the 2nd also wanted to Expand his empire and gain loads of wealth, the Holy land was the center of trade at that time, and its muslim rulers were raking in wealth hand over fist. Urban's main incentives were personal, and of the god, gold, and glory kind, not knocking christianity here, I'm knocking Urban. Also, the king of Byzantium was expecting a small group of highly trained elite knights from the church not the tens of thousands strong force of Lords, their armies, as well as any rag-tag peasant or vassal along for the ride that he got. The whole aiding Byzantium thing was kind of dropped after the crusaders ignored the Byzantine King's orders and later even began conquering Byzantine cities.

People of various religious or cultural persuasions frequently try to convince the rest of the world that the real reason they don't like their neighbors (and I don't necessarily mean the next-door ones), is because they have justification.

Often, the justification is based on misinformation or rumor, or propaganda of various sorts.

But often, the justification has as its basis, some kind of actual, observable phenomena.

One of my favorites, is when people point to something that the people of a culture did scores, or hundreds, or even thousands of years ago (especially when they employ bad scholarship, or refer to sources which are themselves compromised by bigotry or other bias).

The only thing I'm fairly sure of, regarding who did what to who, and who did it first, is that people of nearly all cultures and religions have been beating the crap out of each other, and stealing each other's stuff, lands, and lives, for time out of mind.

And they will use nearly any jusitification, no matter how flimsy or even untrue, for why they did it.

If Islam has tenets within it that _some_ people (I doubt it's the majority, but don't honestly know), will use as justification to harm and oppress others, or if it is possible to _pervert_ the message of Islam in such a way...

Then I think it's also clear that Christianity likewise either has tenets that can be used like that, or can be _perverted_ to justify those actions, because it's certainly happened before.

People of both religions are still doing it today.

And it's not just those religions.

What this tells me is that _people_ have a tendency to tell themselves whatever they think they need to, in order to justify treating one another unfairly.

If you don't like the worst tenets (or what you think are those tenets) of your neighbors, fighting with and killing them, and telling them that you think you are right to do so isn't going to fix a damn thing. It'll just make you part of an ongoing problem.

Some people like to say "That's just how the world is."

That's garbage. The world is what we make it.

If you don't like that your neighbor may be out to get you, then don't act like him (or like you think he is). That doesn't mean "let him kill you and rob you." It just means don't go killing and robbign him and thinking that it's okay because you are better than he is.

To begin with, you don't really _know_ who did what to whom first. You don't. You weren't there. And the people in the intervening period of time, on all sides, are going to have bent the truth or outright lied, as it suited them.

And as for who did what to whom first... if you're still here, and you didn't do it, then you are clearly not the victim of it or the perpetrator. You're merely yet another person living in the world that they created. And it is in this moment that we can decide what world we will contribute to.

My father fought in Vietnam. When I was a little kid, my best friends were from a family of Vietnamese people who lived down the street from us, who had fled the war. At one point, one of them asked if my father had fought in the war, and if I realized that if he had, he'd probably helped kill their people.

My father is a good man, a good person. My friends' family are good people. These are all people who are generous, kind, and hardworking. None of them are stupid, or vicious. None of them are cruel. None of them are thieves or murderers.

And _I_ didn't fight in the way. My friends knew that whatever else, I didn't drive them out of their country or shoot at them - to begin with, I wasn't even born when the Vietnam war started. I was about three when it was over. For that matter, so were they.

My point is that the four of us (my friends and I) knew that whatever conflict our parents or leaders, or anyone else had gotten into, that we had no beef with one another, and that nothing that these other people had done was a justification for us to give up our friendship with one another.

Yes, we are shaped by our culture. But when you hate a culture, you stop seeing people. It then makes it possible for you to hurt people in a way you otherwise would not. And then those people you hurt (or the ones who outlive them when you kill them) will do the same stupid thing you did (they're not so different from you) and hate _your_ culture... you'll have two people hurting each other _personally_ because of some judgment of the _general_.

Anything you can think of to do to another person, or any excuse you can think of to justify what you do (good or bad excuse matters not) - the other people can do the same right back to you in their minds.

When I look at different cultures, and what "they" supposedly do to one another, or to outsiders, all _I_ see is a bunch of primates doing the same exact things to each other... and making excuses for how those other primates are somehow different, or somehow deserve it.

At each moment, we create the most likely futures we face.

If you're still trying to figure out whether the Christians, the Muslims, the Whites, the Blacks, or the Plaids, are the worst of the lot, and which ones started what first, when the actual conflict comes to your table, then it's likely that you'll become one of the people whose fault it actually is, twenty years from now, when the next people are trying to figure out what to justify and against whom.

Anyway, religions, like any other idea system or philosophy, or form of government, or other "group idea" spread and multiply through a lot of the same tools. Communication, justification, threat, and elimination of competition. Sometimes they do it "nicely" and sometimes, they hack up anyone who doesn't agree. Often, when a religion mutates to the point where someone's forcing conversions by the sword or by economic threat, it doesn't even really much resemble the religion it started out as.

In any case, one of the things that gets me is that supposedly religious people are always going on about what the _other_ people's religion is telling _them_ to do, instead of looking carefully at their own.

When I hear otherwise good Christians complaining that the Muslims (or whoever is the target that week), are taught to hate and kill people like them (or force them to convert, because they are intolerant), and how it's okay to kill them, or wipe out their religion, I have to think.

Doesn't _your_ religion say that you're supposed to love your neighbor as yourself? Isn't one of the big things that Christians like to complain about, the idea that they're persecuted by the intolerant?

There's a big difference between protecting yourself, and attacking someone. There's a difference between _having_ to kill or hurt someone, and thinking it's _good_ to be doing it.

I don't see any sign that any particular group of humans is significantly different from one another, other than some general shape, and the protective coloration (including culture) that they choose.

If your mothers and fathers handed you a world where people do crappy things to one another, don't act like that's just how things ought to be, or worry about who did what to who first. Think instead about whether you want things to stay like that.

Islam, Christianity, Buddhism (even them!) and every other ism and ity have been at some point spread by the sword, or foisted on someone by the coin, or simply poured into unsuspecting ears without giving someone the choice.

When one group tries to pretend it's not _them_ doing it, it makes me sigh.

By the way, when I remark to a Christian, that Christians have been known to do these very things, they often say things like "Well, we don't any more," or "That was _those_ people who call themselves Christians, not _my_ kind of Christian."

Well... sometimes it's something the _Muslims_ don't do any more... or it's something only _those_ particular Muslims do.

Funny how that works.

Islam, Christianity, Buddhism (even them!) and every other ism and ity have been at some point spread by the sword, or foisted on someone by the coin, or simply poured into unsuspecting ears without giving someone the choice.


so you disagree with the OP about the spread of islam then

I just think it's funny that someone would try to imply that their religion would not spread itself by coercion, and that it's everyone else doing it... when to me it looks like they've all done it.

Yes, Islam has spread itself through coercion at various points. So has Christianity, and everything else.

I just think it's funny that someone would try to imply that their religion would not spread itself by coercion, and that it's everyone else doing it... when to me it looks like they've all done it.

Yes, Islam has spread itself through coercion at various points. So has Christianity, and everything else.

notice that after the first page he has'nt even bothered to come back onto the thread to argue the points raised

Besides a single quote, most of the information is either a broad conclusion by the author or just general hearsay. Some of it is also outright biased fiction. Would that I had time to follow these points individually, I would. However, the most glaring example- and one that is used by all religions is this one:



So? What a holy book says and what its followers do are two things entirely. Just because the Qur'an says not to be violent makes no factual impact on the actions of that religions followers.

So would the way the followers currently behave be a perversion of the religion and not the religion and not the religion itself? The religion is based on the holy book and sharia law. If the holy book states that the religion is not to be spread by force then that is what the religion itself teaches. Therefore, Islam is not to be spread by the sword and the OP is correct in their statement. The perversion of the religion is done by those who are not true followers of the faith. This still makes the original statement correct and is what MOST Muslims follow. You're still judging the masses by the perversion of a very vocal and bloodthirsty minority. Islam is still about a peaceful life and spiritual bonds to God.

Ah HA! Take THAT, Deep Kimichi!

Therefore, Islam is not to be spread by the sword and the OP is correct in their statement.

errrrr....The OP (and the title itself) states clearly "Islam was not spread by the sword" NOT "Islam is not to be spread by the sword".

The actual islamic principles are open for interpretation and debate, but the facts of invasions and conquests and conversions by islamic armies are quite clear for most except muslim apologists. The Qur'an says one thing in one verse and another thing in another verse. What is in what context, what influenced muslim behavior etc are open for debate, but not what muslims actually did.

Mahmud Ghauri invaded India 8 times(IIRC), unprovoked, lost 7 times but won the eighth time and his general established the first islamic kingdom in Delhi. You cannot argue that the policies of that islamic sultanate (patronization of islam, persecution of other religions, jaziya tax, etc) did not result in the spread of islam (despite what actual islamic principles are - which are, again, open for debate due to the inherent contradictions in Qur'an and the hadiths)

One cannot argue that Ghauri is not a true muslim. After all, he did what his prophet did. Ghauri is a revered figure in sub-continental muslim folklore and narratives. Pakistan has named its nuke capable cruise missile as Ghauri. Who am I to argue that Ghauri was not a true muslim when muslims themselves seem not to think so.

I cannot be more muslim than muslims, can I ?

So would the way the followers currently behave be a perversion of the religion and not the religion and not the religion itself? The religion is based on the holy book and sharia law. If the holy book states that the religion is not to be spread by force then that is what the religion itself teaches. Therefore, Islam is not to be spread by the sword and the OP is correct in their statement. The perversion of the religion is done by those who are not true followers of the faith. This still makes the original statement correct and is what MOST Muslims follow. You're still judging the masses by the perversion of a very vocal and bloodthirsty minority. Islam is still about a peaceful life and spiritual bonds to God.

You misunderstood me. He was claiming that since the Islamic holy book says that its not to be spread by violence, it was therefore not spread by violence. That is a glaring logical fallacy. What the holy book says does not always dictate the actions of its followers, that is clear in any religion.

You can label the conquerers of history however you want, but that does not change their sponsors. So the crusades shouldnt have been comitted by a christian empire? Tough, it was. So imperialism and religious coercion wasnt supposed to be used by the Moors and the Ottomans or any Caliphate? Tough, they did.

Looking back on history and saying we are peaceful now, so our anscestors wouldnt harm a flea is a waste of everyones time.

In Soviet Russia, sword was spread by Islam!

In Soviet Russia, sword was spread by Islam!

I knew there was one of those in here somwehere!

So all those Christian towns and villages just willingly gave up their culture and traditions throughout the middle east and North Africa and in the Balkans. Sure. They were conquered. Their people were enslaved. They lived as second class citizens, and over time many converted to gain the security and legal protections that came with Muslim faith under Sharia law. NO religion spreads that quickly without force. People don't give up their faith and traditions easily.

egypt took 200 years of muslim rule to become a muslim majority country

You seem to be forgetting the re-conquest of Constantinople/Byzantium, and the land associated with that. Among other places where the muslims had their crusades.

And there seems to be this neat little internecine war between the Shi'a and Sunni.

constantinope and byzantium... if tis re-conquest wouldnt it be like free-ong themselves from foreign rule? Muslim dominance maybe spread by the sword like every other political power in the that period... but faith was not

war btw shia and sunni.. now that started as politcal and beame religious but both are muslims... we aint converting anybody

And erm, yeah. What war are you talking about? I'm Indonesian.

Hahah thats great. Didn't you hear? There is a war in your country between Christians (oh yes, all of those indonesian christians) and muslims. We aren't sure where it is, or when it started, but yeah...

Oh, Celtlund got pwned... by a n00b! Way to go, may I be the first to say "Terima Kasih", and "Saya cinta pada moo".

I knew there was one of those in here somwehere!

In Soviet Russia, Russian Reversal finds YOU!!!

Yes, I know that was terrible, but I couldn't resist...

In Soviet Russia, sword was spread by Islam!

Ironically, Islamic advances in steelmaking probably did lead to significant improvements in the quality of swords on the market, including those within the territory of the Soviet Union.

Ironically, Islamic advances in steelmaking probably did lead to significant improvements in the quality of swords on the market, including those within the territory of the Soviet Union.

If you are alluding to the Damascus steel, it is actually derived from the Wootz steel of India.

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

If you are alluding to the Damascus steel, it is actually derived from the Wootz steel of India.

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

I mean this in the politest possible way, Aryavartha, but you remind me somewhat of Ensign Chekov on the original Star Trek show and his "everything was invented in Russia first" routine. :)

-snip-
And when you talk about "Christianity" being spread by the sword, you are thinking of Roman Catholicism. Real Christianity never was, and is not now, spread by the sword.
-snip-


Right. We know that the Puritans never killed anyone in the name of religion. Nope, they never persecuted Quakers or women that could swim

And those Protestants. They're the most peaceful people in the world. It's not like they ever had a war with catholicism in the German region of the time.

Nope, those Christians are pure as columbian cocaine.

If you are alluding to the Damascus steel, it is actually derived from the Wootz steel of India.

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

So ultimately, in Soviet Russia the sword was spread by Indians?

It's fascinating that such high-quality steel was developed so early, though; I guess it makes sense given the prosperous conditions of the Indian kingdoms at the time.

So ultimately, in Soviet Russia the sword was spread by Indians?
:p

It's fascinating that such high-quality steel was developed so early, though; I guess it makes sense given the prosperous conditions of the Indian kingdoms at the time.

It was probably space aliens who introduced the procedure. Pre-modern humans weren't smart enough to invent anything, didn't you know that? :D I read an article in Scientific American years ago about Damascus steel, and I've always remembered the word "wootz" since then. It's a great word. Nice sowrds, too.

Ironically, Islamic advances in steelmaking probably did lead to significant improvements in the quality of swords on the market, including those within the territory of the Soviet Union.

i think you mean to say middle eastern instead of islamic. The records don't show indonesians or pakistanis making the advances, they were arabs (to the best of my knowledge).

i think you mean to say middle eastern instead of islamic. The records don't show indonesians or pakistanis making the advances, they were arabs (to the best of my knowledge).

Well, Islamic civilization was pretty broad; the exact origins of Damascus steel were in the Middle Eastern region, but its origins likely came from earlier concepts spread through trade.

Well, Islamic civilization was pretty broad; the exact origins of Damascus steel were in the Middle Eastern region, but its origins likely came from earlier concepts spread through trade.

oh definitely. I believe a link higher in the page talks about wootz steel. In the middle east further refinments were made to this process.
All i meant, is that people talk about muslim advances, etc... Whereas we don't say the industrial revolution was started by christians or christianities discovery of the new world, etc...

about the sword though a arabic scientist name Al Kindi refers to the swords being made in damascus.

oh definitely. I believe a link higher in the page talks about wootz steel. In the middle east further refinments were made to this process.

All i meant, is that people talk about muslim advances, etc... Whereas we don't say the industrial revolution was started by christians or christianities discovery of the new world, etc...

about the sword though a arabic scientist name Al Kindi refers to the swords being made in damascus.

True, but this is a thread on Islam, so those don't come into it. The Arabs contributed a great deal to the preservation of learning from the Ancient World and they made some notable advances, too (algebra, optics, the introduction of the concept of zero, just to name a few). Unfortunately the Crusades made the Islamic World so suspicious of Western Europe that when the Renaissance and then the Industrial Revolution and all that got under way, the Muslims refused to participate. They might ultimately have led the way in some fields and who knows, there might have been Muslim colonies in the New World.

oh definitely. I believe a link higher in the page talks about wootz steel. In the middle east further refinments were made to this process.

And I imagine Wootz steel was in itself a refinement of earlier methods; I doubt there was a "eureka" moment when it comes to steel. I'd say it gradually developed as blacksmiths were able to build hotter furnaces and eliminate more and more impurities.

All i meant, is that people talk about muslim advances, etc... Whereas we don't say the industrial revolution was started by christians or christianities discovery of the new world, etc...

Some of it is complicated by the fact that the Islamic world was still very independent even after it was unified under the same faith; we have to use "Islamic civilization" to refer to that collective civilization because there wern't countries in the sense of the kingdoms of Europe or Imperial China.

about the sword though a arabic scientist name Al Kindi refers to the swords being made in damascus.

That's most likely the origin, although we can't tell because there aren't enoug h records to really nail it down. We're a bit luckier with China because moveable type and paper enabled them to record a lot of the inventions they developed, including paper itself.

My word. The Byzantine empire simply gave itself up to Islam, added minarets to the Hagia Sophia of its own accord, and convinced the rest of Asia Minor to concomitantly do the same. How very illuminating you are, fucking ingrate.

And wasnt Mohammed like a minor warlord? Didnt he win that battle or something when his new religion was threatend? Sounds like Islam was spread by the sword to me.

And wasnt Mohammed like a minor warlord? Didnt he win that battle or something when his new religion was threatend? Sounds like Islam was spread by the sword to me.

Well, to be fair they were attacked.

Well, to be fair they were attacked.

But surely if Islam was not "spread by the sword" (some sort of Butter arrangement perhaps....;) ) their militant response would not have been required, such was the compelling nature of their faith....

In the 630's, when the newly unified, new converted Arabs came north to engage the Byzantines and the Persians, those two empires had just finished 25 years of war (the Persians lost). They were both worn out militarily and the Middle East, ehere most of the action had taken place, was particularly unsettled. The Persians had only just withdrawn and the Byzantines hadn't re-established control. On top of that, most of the inhabitants of the area (Egypt to Syria, basically) were Monophysites who rejected the Council of Chalcedon. They were not particularly pleased to have the Orthodox authorities back. Heraclius tried to promote a compromise called Monothelitism, which said that Jesus had one will but two natures (please don't ask me for details on these Christological disputes, they make my head spin). Both sides rejected that. So when the Arabs arrived with their new, very monotheistic religion that recognized Jesus as a prophet, quite a number of people felt this was better than either side in the Byzantine Empire. Especially because the Arabs didn't care which brand of Christianity you professed.

The Arabs defeated the Byzantines in several battles, principally at the Yarmuk in 634 (I think). They destroyed the Sassanian Persian Empire completely. So even if everyone wasn't marched into the town square and told to convert or else, the sword was involved. While writing this, I looked up the timeline of Islamic history in Wiki and here's the main events from the death of the Prophet to the year 700:


632: Death of Muhammad (P.B.U.H). Death of Fatima (A.S), his daughter. Abu Bakr assumes power as Caliph. Battles of Zu Qissa.Battles of Zu Abraq. Battle of Buzakha. Battle of Zafar. Battle of Naqra. Campaigns against Bani Tamim and Mosailima.
633: Campaigns in Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, and Hadramaut. Raids in Iraq.Battle of Kazima, Battle of Mazar, Battle of Walaja, Battle of Ulleis, Battle of Hirah, Battle of Anbar, Battle of Ein, Battle of Daumatul Jandal, Battle of Firaz.
634: Battle of Basra, Battle of Damascus, Battle of Ajnadin. Death of Abu Bakr. Umar ibn al-Khattab becomes the Caliph. Battle of Namaraq, Battle of Saqatia.
635: Battle of Bridge, Battle of Buwaib, Conquest of Damascus, Battle of Fahl.
636: Battle of Yarmuk, Battle of Qadsiyia, Conquest of Madain.
637: Conquest of Syria, Conquest of Jerusalem, Battle of Jalula.
638: Conquest of Jazirah.
639: Conquest of Khuzistan. Advance into Egypt.
640: Battle of Babylon in Egypt.
641: Battle of Nihawand; Conquest of Alexandria in Egypt.
642: Conquest of Egypt.
643: Conquest of Azarbaijan and Tabaristan (Mazandaran).
644: Conquest of Fars, Kerman, Sistan, Mekran and Kharan. Death of Umar. Uthman ibn Affan becomes the Caliph.
646: Campaigns in Khurasan, Armenia and Asia Minor.
647: Campaigns in North Africa. Conquest of the island of Cyprus.
648: Campaigns against the Byzantines.
651: Naval battle of the Masts against the Byzantines.
652: Disaffection against the rule of Uthman.
656: Uthman is killed. Ali ibn Abi Talib (A.S) becomes the 4th Caliph. Battle of the Camel.
657: Ali (A.S) shifts the capital from Medina to Kufa. Battle of Siffin.
658: Battle of Nahrawan. Ali ibn Husayn (A.S), the 4th Imam of shiite is born.
659: Conquest of Egypt by Muawiyah I.
660: Ali (A.S) recaptures Hijaz and Yemen from Muawiyah. Muawiyah I declares himself as the Caliph at Damascus.
661: Ali(A.S) was assassinated by Kharijites and martyred during the morning prayer (Fajr) by a blow to his head with a sword dipped in poison. Accession of Hasan bin Ali A.S. Then his Iraqi army abandoned him and so he was obliged to abdicate. Muawiyah becomes the sole Caliph.
662: Kharijites revolts.
666: Raid of Sicily.
669: Hasan ibn Ali (A.S), the second Imam of shiite is poisoned and martyred. Husayn ibn Ali becomes Imam.
670: Advance in North Africa. Uqba bin Nafe founds the town of Kairouan in Tunisia. Conquest of Kabul.
672: Capture of the island of Rhodes. Campaigns in Khurasan.
674: The Muslims cross the Oxus. Bukhara becomes a vassal state.
676: Muhammad al Baqir (A.S) , the 5th Imam of shiite is born.
677: Occupation of Samarkand and Tirmiz. Siege of Constantinople.
680: Death of Muawiyah. Yazid I becomes Caliph. Battle of Karbala and Husayn bin Ali is martyred along with his companions. Ali ibn Husayn (A.S) becomes Imam.
682: North Africa Uqba bin Nafe marches to the Atlantic, is ambushed and killed at Biskra. The Muslims evacuate Kairouan and withdraw to Burqa.
683: Death of Yazid. Muawiya II becomes Caliph.
684: Abd Allah ibn Zubayr declares himself as the Caliph at Mecca. Marwan I becomes the Caliph at Damascus. Battle of Marj Rahat.
685: Death of Marwan I. Abd al-Malik becomes the Caliph at Damascus. Battle of Ain ul Wada.
686: Al-Mukhtar declares himself as the Caliph at Kufa.
687: Battle of Kufa between the forces of Mukhtar and Abd Allah ibn Zubayr. Mukhtar killed.
691: Battle of Deir ul Jaliq. Kufa falls to Abdul Malik.
692: The fall of Mecca. Death of ibn Zubayr. Abdul Malik becomes the sole Caliph.
695: Kharijites revolts in Jazira and Ahwaz. Battle of the Karun. Campaigns against Kahina in North Africa. The Muslims once again withdraw to Barqa. The Muslims advance in Transoxiana and occupy Kish.
700: Campaigns against the Berbers in North Africa.


The word "battle" occurs frequently.

Hello all, I'm new here, so I'll just dive straight in...

As pertaining to the topic, Islam WAS spread by the sword...however, being a Muslim I would say that the major cause of its spread was by trade...for example, the South East Asian Archipelago became Muslim exclusively by trade.

Even so, I do not deny that some Muslims had used the sword to spread the faith (eg: I'm sure one can site many )...however, I cannot be the judge of that as only God has the right to since it is His religion. You see, the option for war was only available to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) after years of inflicted violence from the early Meccans who had opposed him. Then, and only then, did God allow him to wage war. Nevertheless, he is a prudent and careful commander, and being the Prophet he had laid down the Rules of Engagement...which were similar to Geneva today. As such, he waged war only on the people who opposed him by force...this is reflected in the Sword Verses of the Qur'an, where war is a reaction, not an action.

HOWEVER...not all people are like the Prophet and even so he is still considered human but a perfect human as humanly perfect as can be. Ergo, the crux of the problem lies on that not all Muslim leaders are perfect like him and therefore some waged wars that are deemed unnecessary and even cruel. The Prophet did once say that the 1st 3 generations of Muslims after him are amongst the best Muslims...and the 1st Islamic empire was of the 4th generation...so...

As such, do know that Islam does condone violence only IF it is being attacked...I personally feel that the suicide bombers deserve nothing less than Hellfire for killing innocents, as in Islam one can only bomb aggressor combatants, not civillians. In the Qur'an, it states that if one kills wrongfully, one is akin to killing the whole human race.

Also, Islam is descended as an Abrahamic Faith...we believe that the current Bibles and Torahs are corrupted by Man and meanings lost in translation...ergo, we belive that this IS the correct religion to worship...one reason why is that the original Qur'an text has not been changed in 1400 years...you can compare the Arabic Text of the Qur'an (translations do not count) from a, say, 7th Century Qur'an to Today's...I swear to God that unless there are printing errors they are exact in their words.

\However, that's just me...I'll let Allah be the judge of that.

Hello all, I'm new here, so I'll just dive straight in...

As pertaining to the topic, Islam WAS spread by the sword...however, being a Muslim I would say that the major cause of its spread was by trade...for example, the South East Asian Archipelago became Muslim exclusively by trade.

Even so, I do not deny that some Muslims had used the sword to spread the faith (eg: I'm sure one can site many )...however, I cannot be the judge of that as only God has the right to since it is His religion. You see, the option for war was only available to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) after years of inflicted violence from the early Meccans who had opposed him. Then, and only then, did God allow him to wage war. Nevertheless, he is a prudent and careful commander, and being the Prophet he had laid down the Rules of Engagement...which were similar to Geneva today. As such, he waged war only on the people who opposed him by force...this is reflected in the Sword Verses of the Qur'an, where war is a reaction, not an action.

HOWEVER...not all people are like the Prophet and even so he is still considered human but a perfect human as humanly perfect as can be. Ergo, the crux of the problem lies on that not all Muslim leaders are perfect like him and therefore some waged wars that are deemed unnecessary and even cruel. The Prophet did once say that the 1st 3 generations of Muslims after him are amongst the best Muslims...and the 1st Islamic empire was of the 4th generation...so...

As such, do know that Islam does condone violence only IF it is being attacked...I personally feel that the suicide bombers deserve nothing less than Hellfire for killing innocents, as in Islam one can only bomb aggressor combatants, not civillians. In the Qur'an, it states that if one kills wrongfully, one is akin to killing the whole human race.

Also, Islam is descended as an Abrahamic Faith...we believe that the current Bibles and Torahs are corrupted by Man and meanings lost in translation...ergo, we belive that this IS the correct religion to worship...one reason why is that the original Qur'an text has not been changed in 1400 years...you can compare the Arabic Text of the Qur'an (translations do not count) from a, say, 7th Century Qur'an to Today's...I swear to God that unless there are printing errors they are exact in their words.

\However, that's just me...I'll let Allah be the judge of that.

You'll never get anywhere here with such a reasonable attitude. Welcome to NG General!:D

True, but this is a thread on Islam, so those don't come into it. The Arabs contributed a great deal to the preservation of learning from the Ancient World and they made some notable advances, too (algebra, optics, the introduction of the concept of zero, just to name a few). Unfortunately the Crusades made the Islamic World so suspicious of Western Europe that when the Renaissance and then the Industrial Revolution and all that got under way, the Muslims refused to participate. They might ultimately have led the way in some fields and who knows, there might have been Muslim colonies in the New World.

heh?
all i meant was not all arab are muslims, nor are all muslims arabs. If an advance is made by an arab, we should say "advance meant by an arab" and not simply say a muslim advance.

muslim colonies in the new world? not a chance. only nations with direct access to the atlantic were in a competitive position to found colonies there.

You'll never get anywhere here with such a reasonable attitude. Welcome to NG General!:D

I am just trying to be objective and fair...as all Muslims are supposed to be as such, however some are more extremist that others...

Some of it is complicated by the fact that the Islamic world was still very independent even after it was unified under the same faith; we have to use "Islamic civilization" to refer to that collective civilization because there wern't countries in the sense of the kingdoms of Europe or Imperial China.


that is a valid point.
But this is also due to most peoples ignorance (in general, not aimed at a specific person) about the history of islam.
We can refer to the caliphate that stretched from spain to india in the 750s, and all the dynasties that were involved. Then there is the break up of the empire that led to the fatmids in north africa, the seljuks in turkey and surrounding territories. Later came the Marmaluks in egypt/middle east region
Or in the 1500s to the Ottoman empire, or the Mughal empire or the Safavid empire.
And does not include south-east asia which i don't mean much about :(
Ther

Hello all, I'm new here, so I'll just dive straight in...

As pertaining to the topic, Islam WAS spread by the sword...however, being a Muslim I would say that the major cause of its spread was by trade...for example, the South East Asian Archipelago became Muslim exclusively by trade.

Even so, I do not deny that some Muslims had used the sword to spread the faith (eg: I'm sure one can site many )...however, I cannot be the judge of that as only God has the right to since it is His religion. You see, the option for war was only available to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) after years of inflicted violence from the early Meccans who had opposed him. Then, and only then, did God allow him to wage war. Nevertheless, he is a prudent and careful commander, and being the Prophet he had laid down the Rules of Engagement...which were similar to Geneva today. As such, he waged war only on the people who opposed him by force...this is reflected in the Sword Verses of the Qur'an, where war is a reaction, not an action.

HOWEVER...not all people are like the Prophet and even so he is still considered human but a perfect human as humanly perfect as can be. Ergo, the crux of the problem lies on that not all Muslim leaders are perfect like him and therefore some waged wars that are deemed unnecessary and even cruel. The Prophet did once say that the 1st 3 generations of Muslims after him are amongst the best Muslims...and the 1st Islamic empire was of the 4th generation...so...

As such, do know that Islam does condone violence only IF it is being attacked...I personally feel that the suicide bombers deserve nothing less than Hellfire for killing innocents, as in Islam one can only bomb aggressor combatants, not civillians. In the Qur'an, it states that if one kills wrongfully, one is akin to killing the whole human race.

Also, Islam is descended as an Abrahamic Faith...we believe that the current Bibles and Torahs are corrupted by Man and meanings lost in translation...ergo, we belive that this IS the correct religion to worship...one reason why is that the original Qur'an text has not been changed in 1400 years...you can compare the Arabic Text of the Qur'an (translations do not count) from a, say, 7th Century Qur'an to Today's...I swear to God that unless there are printing errors they are exact in their words.

\However, that's just me...I'll let Allah be the judge of that.

There are, in fact, different versions of the Koran.

Muslims today generally insist that their Koran is precisely the wording of the original, and they therefore criticize the many "Versions" of the Christian Bible (even though all those Versions are actually translations of the exact same original Greek and Aramaic source Manuscripts). But such a claim is incorrect. There were at least 14 variant Arabic versions of the Koran in common use around 900 AD, and possibly several more. These arose due to the method of writing and copying that existed at that time. (Short) Vowels were not recorded, only the consonants. The short vowels could sometimes be represented by a comma-like or slanting-dash mark either above or below a letter. Also, differences between 'b' and 't' and 'th', which are identical except for dots (points) that distinguish them, were unclear because the dots were not recorded in the consonantal text of the time. Other letter/sound pairs also have exactly identical symbols. Therefore, a reader or a copyist could sometimes read different actual words from the same set of symbols. No question regarding the ORIGINAL wording was involved, but rather the many variations arose due to writing and copying the texts.


There are five distinct versions of the Koran in use today.

The five current versions of the Koran are:


The Transmitter Hafs, who is Hafs ibn Suleyman ibn Al-Mugheerah Al-Asadi Al-Kuufi (d. 180H):
His Qiraa'ah named Hafs from 'Aasim is the most popular reading of the Quran in the world today, except for some parts of Africa. Hafs was officially adopted by Egypt in 1924. His chain from 'Aasim:

He heard from 'Aasim ibn Abu Najud Al-Kuufi (d. 128H) who was Taabi'i, i.e, among the generation following the Sahaabah, who heard from Abu Abdur-Rahman Abdullah ibn Habib As-Sulami, who heard from Uthman ibn Affan and Ali ibn Abi Talib and Zayd ibn Thaabit and Ubayy ibn Ka'b, who heard from the Prophet (PBUH).


The Transmitter Duuri, is Abu 'Amr Hafs ibn Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz ibn Subhan Ad-Duuri Al-Baghdaadi (d. 246H):
His Qiraa'ah named Duuri from Abu 'Amr is popular in parts of Africa like Somalia, Sudan as well as in other parts. His chain of from Abu 'Amr:

He heard from Abu Muhammad Yahya ibn Mubarak ibn Mugheerah Yazidiyy (d. 202H), who heard from Abu 'Amr Zuban ibn 'Ala Maziniyy Al-Busriyy (d. 154H), who heard from the Qiraa'aat from Sahaabis Ali and Uthman and Abu Musa and Umar and Ubayy ibn Ka'b and Zayd ibn Thaabit, who heard from the Prophet (PBUH).


The Transmitter Warsh, who is Abu Saeed Uthman ibn Saeed Al-Misri, nicknamed Warsh, (d. 197H):
HIs Qiraa'ah named Warsh from Naafi' is popular in North Africa. His chain from Naafi':

He heard from Naafi' ibn Abdur-Rahman ibn Abu Nu'aim Al-Madani (d. 169H), who heard from Abu Ja'far Yazid ibn Al-Qa'qaa' and Abu Dawud Abdur-Rahman ibn Hurmuz Al-A'raj and Shaybah ibn Nisah Al-Qaadhi and Abu Abdullah Muslim ibn Jundub Al-Hudhali and Abu Rawh Yazid ibn Ruman, who heard from Abu Hurairah and Ibn Abbaas and Abdullah ibn 'Ayyaash ibn Abi Rabii'ah, who heard from Ubayy ibn Ka'b, who heard from the Prophet (PBUH).


The Transmitter Suusi:
His Qiraa'ah named Suusi from Abu 'Amr is also found around the world in small parts.


The Transmitter Qaaluun, who is Imaam Qaaluun:
His Qiraa'ah named Qaaluun from Naafi' is popular in places like Libya in Africa. His chain from Naafi':

He heard from Naafi' ibn Abdur-Rahman ibn Abu Nu'aim Al-Madani (d. 169H), who heard from Abu Ja'far Yazid ibn Al-Qa'qaa', who heard from Abdullah ibn Abbaas and Abu Hurairah, who heard from Ubayy ibn Ka'b and Zayd ibn Thaabit, who heard from the Prophet (PBUH).


http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/koran.htm

heh?
all i meant was not all arab are muslims, nor are all muslims arabs. If an advance is made by an arab, we should say "advance meant by an arab" and not simply say a muslim advance.

muslim colonies in the new world? not a chance. only nations with direct access to the atlantic were in a competitive position to found colonies there.

Okay, I'll give you the point on not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs (though in the period I was talking about, that was almost true).

As to the colonies, I was speaking hypothetically, of course. And there was direct access from Muslim North Africa. Had the advance of Islam towards modernization not been stopped by the Crusades, they might have been able to reach across to South America.

Okay, I'll give you the point on not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs (though in the period I was talking about, that was almost true).

As to the colonies, I was speaking hypothetically, of course. And there was direct access from Muslim North Africa. Had the advance of Islam towards modernization not been stopped by the Crusades, they might have been able to reach across to South America.

How do you figure that the advance of Islam toward modernization was stopped by the crusades? In the book What Went Wrong by Bernard Lewis it says that the Turks sought to buy modern European military technology and organize their military along a European model. Seems to me like they wanted the effective, modern products of Western civilization. In fact, the book makes the argument that Islamic schollars ignored European progress partly because of a sense of superiority over the European barbarians who were seen as only a source of raw materials and slaves even through the enlightenment and into the age of reason.

How do you figure that the advance of Islam toward modernization was stopped by the crusades? In the book What Went Wrong by Bernard Lewis it says that the Turks sought to buy modern European military technology and organize their military along a European model. Seems to me like they wanted the effective, modern products of Western civilization. In fact, the book makes the argument that Islamic schollars ignored European progress partly because of a sense of superiority over the European barbarians who were seen as only a source of raw materials and slaves even through the enlightenment and into the age of reason.

It's a point made by Amin Maalouf in The Crusades Through Arab Eyes. He proposes that the experience of the Crusades froze Islam into a defensive posture toward the West, where anything originating there was view with suspicion. Yes, the Turks did adopt Western military technology, but did they adopt Western industrialization before the First World War? And by saying "the Turks" we also take in the non-Turkish parts of their empire, Syria, Iraq, Egypt (complicated, I admit, by the presence of the British in the 19th century), Palestine. The Iranians never adopted modern Western technology until the reign of the last Shah.

So, yeah, I think that experience all those years ago had a profound and detrimental effect on Islam in the countries where it is the dominant religion and culture.

It's a point made by Amin Maalouf in The Crusades Through Arab Eyes. He proposes that the experience of the Crusades froze Islam into a defensive posture toward the West, where anything originating there was view with suspicion. Yes, the Turks did adopt Western military technology, but did they adopt Western industrialization before the First World War? And by saying "the Turks" we also take in the non-Turkish parts of their empire, Syria, Iraq, Egypt (complicated, I admit, by the presence of the British in the 19th century), Palestine. The Iranians never adopted modern Western technology until the reign of the last Shah.

So, yeah, I think that experience all those years ago had a profound and detrimental effect on Islam in the countries where it is the dominant religion and culture.

Still they did have contact with Europeans and with European technology. I would think the crusades combined with the new European technology and systems of organization of government, military and technology would spur them on toward greater modernization to keep ahead of a dangerous enemy.

I got this from another forum and found it be interesting. I hope this will cut down on the Islam bashing on here about how its a religion of terror.

In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy

Many non-Muslims, when they think about Islam, picture religious fanatics on camels with a sword in one hand and a Qur'an in the other. This myth, which was made popular in Europe during the Crusades, is totally baseless. First of all, the Holy Qur'an clearly says "Let there be no compulsion in religion". In addition to this, Islam teaches that a person's faith must be pure and sincere, so it is certainly not something that can be forced on someone. In debunking the myth that Islam was "spread by the sword", the (non-Muslim) historian De Lacy O' Leary wrote: "History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever accepted." (Islam at the Crossroads, London, 1923, p. 8.). It should also be known that Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years. During this time, and up to when they were finally forced out, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Additionally, Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations.

If Islam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islamic Empire? Additionally, if one considers the small number of Muslims who initially spread Islam from Spain and Morocco in the West to India and China in the East, one would realize that they were far too few to force people to be members of a religion against their will. Additionally, the great empire and civilization established by the Muslims had great staying power -- its citizens were proud to be part of it. The spread of Islam stands in contrast to the actions of the followers of Christianity, who since the time of the Emperor Constantine have made liberal use of the sword - often basing their conduct on Biblical verses. This was especially true of the colonization of South America and Africa, where native peoples were systematically wiped-out or forced to convert. It is also interesting to note that when the Mongols invaded and conquered large portions of the Islamic Empire, instead of destroying the religion, they adopted it. This is a unique occurrence in history - the conquerors adopting the religion of the conquered! Since they were the victors, they certainly could not have been forced to become Muslims! Ask any of the over one billion Muslims alive in the world today whether they were forced! The largest Muslim country in the world today is Indonesia --- and there were never any battles fought there! So where was the sword? How could someone be forced to adhere to a spiritually rewarding and demanding religion like Islam?

Rubish.

All political institutions who "adopt" a religion, which can be called the "society of that religion", gain territory by military means.

Never confuse a sociopolitical entity with a religion.




The mongols became "muslims" because they found the political aspects of "islam" very useful. Are you suggesting that the mongol rulers were "good" muslims?

Many of the "barbarian" tribes that fought, and eventually won out over, the roman empire became christian.

There's nothing unusual about victors taking over the societal structures of their conquered peoples, if the conquered are "more advanced" in some way that the conquerors find useful.



You can't simply say "Islamic culture is perfectly wonderful and always has been" and ignore reality to placate your need to "glorify" islam.

Well,.. you CAN,.. but you look like an utter fool in the process.

Just be a good muslim,.. and fight against those who debase your religion.

(( Addressed to every and any muslim who reads this. ))

If that's what they advertised, no wonder everyone coverted without force. Sure beats white clouds and angels with big bands.


Not to mention 72 virgins.

Not to mention 72 virgins.
they don ;t need a 0.,out of shit.

Mohommet was a pedophile, was he not?

Mohommet was a pedophile, was he not?

yes he was
so?

Mohommet was a pedophile, was he not?

The man waited until Aisha was 9. Give him some credit for that. Next you'll try to tell me that there is something wrong with Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his 13 year old first cousin.

Still they did have contact with Europeans and with European technology. I would think the crusades combined with the new European technology and systems of organization of government, military and technology would spur them on toward greater modernization to keep ahead of a dangerous enemy.

I agree, but it didn't, did it? The Turks declined after the late 1600's, to the point where even the Bulgarians beat up on them (pace to any Bulgarians out there). They were called "the Sick Man of Europe." And the Arabs? Where were they after the Ottomans rose? Or even before that, really. Saladin was a Kurd, after all.

The man waited until Aisha was 9. Give him some credit for that. Next you'll try to tell me that there is something wrong with Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his 13 year old first cousin.

He did neglect to divorce his first wife, I think.

And when you talk about "Christianity" being spread by the sword, you are thinking of Roman Catholicism. Real Christianity never was, and is not now, spread by the sword.

I am a Baptist (a denomination of Christianity), and we Baptists believe in Separation of Church and State, something neither Catholicism nor Islam teaches.

Baptists (in earlier periods of history they were known as Montanists, Donatists, Waldenses, Albigenses, Anabaptists, and by other names)do NOT believe in converting people by death threats (i.e., "Convert to my religion or I'll KILL you!"), something taught and practiced by both Catholicism and Islam.


Please, I can't stand how Baptists are always saying how evil the "Roman church" is and how it doesn't get anything from the bible. I mean, 'real Christianity', pah. The ancient Christians were basically the same thing as the Catholic Church.

Also, all this business about the King James version being the best. Most people say it is the worst! It takes so many liberties in translation it is ridiculous! So let's use that version anway and the doctrine of the 'True Christians' still doesn't stand up.

We will be saved by faith alone say the baptists?
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
-Matthew 25: 41-46

Or how about?
24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
-James 2:24


And that's from the King James version! Sheesh.

I agree, but it didn't, did it? The Turks declined after the late 1600's, to the point where even the Bulgarians beat up on them (pace to any Bulgarians out there). They were called "the Sick Man of Europe." And the Arabs? Where were they after the Ottomans rose? Or even before that, really. Saladin was a Kurd, after all.
without the arabs ,the 0 will be unholy business

Please, I can't stand how Baptists are always saying how evil the "Roman church" is and how it doesn't get anything from the bible. I mean, 'real Christianity', pah. The ancient Christians were basically the same thing as the Catholic Church.

Also, all this business about the King James version being the best. Most people say it is the worst! It takes so many liberties in translation it is ridiculous! So let's use that version anway and the doctrine of the 'True Christians' still doesn't stand up.

We will be saved by faith alone say the baptists?
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
-Matthew 25: 41-46

Or how about?
24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
-James 2:24


And that's from the King James version! Sheesh.

Well, you have to be careful of those Papists, after all. All that gold and robes and worshipping saints, I just don't know. I suppose if I were a devout Roman Catholic, I'd find it a bit tiresome.

As for the KJV, the translation may not be the best but the language is quite nice. I like 17th century English, though I suppose it's an acquired taste.

without the arabs ,the 0 will be unholy business

I don't get that. They say the Arabs invented the concept of zero. What the fuck happened before that. If an ancient Roman grocer had three apples and sold them all how did he keep records or did his head just explode because he had no concept of zero apples?

I don't get that. They say the Arabs invented the concept of zero. What the fuck happened before that. If an ancient Roman grocer had three apples and sold them all how did he keep records or did his head just explode because he had no concept of zero apples?
did he keep record?
about the apples?

I don't get that. They say the Arabs invented the concept of zero. What the fuck happened before that. If an ancient Roman grocer had three apples and sold them all how did he keep records or did his head just explode because he had no concept of zero apples?

The Arabs didn't invent zero; the concept was clearly in existence long before they developed it, and the ancient Greeks were debating its properties long before Mohammad was even born. The Romans used the term nihil whenever an operation produced zero. They knew 2-2 was 0, but only in terms of "nothing" as opposed to the numerical quantity zero.

If anything, the Arabs developed the concept of zero as a numberrather than as just the absence of a numerical quantity; obviously, people knew when they didn't have anything, but the status of zero as a number as opposed to nothing was not firmly established at that point.

did he keep record?
about the apples?

He simply said "I'm out of applies, time to get more", and left it at that. Really, the concept of zero as a number is meaningless in everyday terms; it's important in mathematics and related disciplines as a concept, but if you're a merchant who is keeping track of inventory "none left" will more than suffice for your needs.

Even Roman engineering and Greek geometry were capable of functioning without zero as a numerical quantity, so they seemed to do okay without it for all of their everyday needs.

The Arabs didn't invent zero; the concept was clearly in existence long before they developed it, and the ancient Greeks were debating its properties long before Mohammad was even born. The Romans used the term nihil whenever an operation produced zero. They knew 2-2 was 0, but only in terms of "nothing" as opposed to the numerical quantity zero.

If anything, the Arabs developed the concept of zero as a numberrather than as just the absence of a numerical quantity; obviously, people knew when they didn't have anything, but the status of zero as a number as opposed to nothing was not firmly established at that point.

Yeah, that's it. I've read that perhaps the only reason the Greeks didn't develop calculus - they got close - was because they had a terrible notation system for numbers. Basically, like the Romans, they used letters of the alphabet, only Alpha was 1, beta was 2, gamma was 3, etc. Somehow the idea of ... I'm not sure what to call it, the way we have the ones' place on the right, then the tens, then the hundreds ... that idea escaped them. Hell, we might have colonies on Mars if they'd managed that. And think of the hundreds of generations of children who never had to sit through calculus class! They were all left behind!

He simply said "I'm out of applies, time to get more", and left it at that. Really, the concept of zero as a number is meaningless in everyday terms; it's important in mathematics and related disciplines as a concept, but if you're a merchant who is keeping track of inventory "none left" will more than suffice for your needs.

Even Roman engineering and Greek geometry were capable of functioning without zero as a numerical quantity, so they seemed to do okay without it for all of their everyday needs.
yes,but what about now,2006

Yeah, that's it. I've read that perhaps the only reason the Greeks didn't develop calculus - they got close - was because they had a terrible notation system for numbers. Basically, like the Romans, they used letters of the alphabet, only Alpha was 1, beta was 2, gamma was 3, etc. Somehow the idea of ... I'm not sure what to call it, the way we have the ones' place on the right, then the tens, then the hundreds ... that idea escaped them. Hell, we might have colonies on Mars if they'd managed that. And think of the hundreds of generations of children who never had to sit through calculaus class!

Hah, I'm in Calc right now, and I'm in college...it doesn't stop, I'm afraid.

Do you mean the decimal system? That whole concept of notation is pretty important to more advanced mathematics (and frees up the letters for variables). I imagine the use of symbolic numbers rather than letters would've helped immensely with simplifying their work as well making certain types of calculations either easier or possible.

If the Greeks had developed calculus, we probably would be a hell of a lot more advanced than we are now. We'd probably be excavating an ancient Greek power plant at the base of the Parthenon and discovering ancient Roman transmission lines running along highways...

yes,but what about now,2006

Obviously, a lot of stuff like this computer or electricity would not exist without the concept of zero as a numerical quantity, and anything that relies on mathematics more advanced than basic geometry and algebra would probably either not exist or would be very primitive.

Hah, I'm in Calc right now, and I'm in college...it doesn't stop, I'm afraid.

Do you mean the decimal system? That whole concept of notation is pretty important to more advanced mathematics (and frees up the letters for variables). I imagine the use of symbolic numbers rather than letters would've helped immensely with simplifying their work as well making certain types of calculations either easier or possible.

If the Greeks had developed calculus, we probably would be a hell of a lot more advanced than we are now. We'd probably be excavating an ancient Greek power plant at the base of the Parthenon and discovering ancient Roman transmission lines running along highways...

I sometimes (but only sometimes) wish I'd taken calculus in high school of college, but I became a Classics major and, well, that was that.

We probably wouldn't have to excavate the Greek power plant or the transmission lines except as urban archaeology projects, they'd be known about already. It's fun to contemplate what might have been. :D

Still, going back to the original topic, sort of, the Arabs did transmit the decimal notation system westward. I think the idea of zero as a number came from India originally, thought I haven't looked that up.

yes,but what about now,2006

MMVI?

MMVI?

MMDCCLIX, by the Roman calendar. XVI before December kalends, to be precise.

Islam is not a violent religion; it is, in fact, very a very peaceful religion. The region was and has been in conflict for a long time, since the beginning of the religion. Several of the caliphs were murdered. It's not the religion thats violent; its the people.

Islam is not a violent religion; it is, in fact, very a very peaceful religion. The region was and has been in conflict for a long time, since the beginning of the religion. Several of the caliphs were murdered. It's not the religion thats violent; its the people.

That's usually the case with most religions.

Well, you have to be careful of those Papists, after all. All that gold and robes and worshipping saints, I just don't know. I suppose if I were a devout Roman Catholic, I'd find it a bit tiresome.

As for the KJV, the translation may not be the best but the language is quite nice. I like 17th century English, though I suppose it's an acquired taste.

Worshipping saints?


I'm a bigger fan of the Douay-Rheims version myself. Nice language without considerable sacrifice in accuracy.

Worshipping saints?


I'm a bigger fan of the Douay-Rheims version myself. Nice language without considerable sacrifice in accuracy.

The Vulgate is better, especially if you have a devotion to St. Jerome.

The Vulgate is better, especially if you have a devotion to St. Jerome.

My Latin skills are poor and the aformentioned version is a translation based on the vulgate and codex B and other original Greek editions.

I'm a Francis of Assisi man.

I mean this in the politest possible way, Aryavartha, but you remind me somewhat of Ensign Chekov on the original Star Trek show and his "everything was invented in Russia first" routine. :)

lol.:D You know, I hate to do it again, but here it is...:p


The Arabs contributed a great deal to the preservation of learning from the Ancient World and they made some notable advances, too (algebra, optics, the introduction of the concept of zero, just to name a few).

Zero was invented in India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28number%29
In 498 AD, Indian mathematician and astronomer Aryabhata stated that "Stanam stanam dasa gunam" or place to place in ten times in value, which may be the origin of the modern decimal based place value notation.[7]

The oldest known text to use zero is the Jain text from India entitled the Lokavibhaaga , dated 458 AD. [8]

The first indubitable appearance of a symbol for zero in India appears in 876 AD on a stone tablet in Gwalior. Documents on copper plates, with the same small o in them, dated back as far as the sixth century AD, abound.[9]

Okay, I'll give you the point on not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs (though in the period I was talking about, that was almost true).

As to the colonies, I was speaking hypothetically, of course. And there was direct access from Muslim North Africa. Had the advance of Islam towards modernization not been stopped by the Crusades, they might have been able to reach across to South America.

still, notice that no mediterranean power that did not have coastal access to the atlantic formed colonies in the americas. Thats why portugal, spain, france and britain were the main colonial powers. It was too easy to cut the mediterranean nations of from the colonies as they had to pass through the straights of gibraltar. Aragon, scicily and the italian states were all merchant power that could have taken advantage of the new world but were geographicaly badly positioned.
The West african states could have created colonies but for whatever reason they did not.

lol.:D You know, I hate to do it again, but here it is...:p



Zero was invented in India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28number%29

but is was thanks to the muslims that the idea was introduced to europe. Which is what i think he meant Chekov

There are, in fact, different versions of the Koran.

There are five distinct versions of the Koran in use today.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/koran.htm

Indeed...however, all are descended from the Prophet correct? Ergo, all should not differ in original writing...if it has been translated out of Arabic then re-translated it is not the Qur'an...just like the Original Bible which was from Jesus (Prophet Isa PBUH) is the Word of God, alterations to the original text has made it the Word of Men.

Mohommet was a pedophile, was he not?

mmmm no. Not with verifiable proof. There is no direct proof that he had sex with children. He was betrothed to a young girl, sources aren't sure if she's was 9 or 15 though.

Islam was not spread by the sword

Well they still use swords occasionally for beheading to place on the internet.
But they nave found car bombs and suicide bombings MUCH more effective .

Has Soviestan ever come back to respond to this thread?

Has Soviestan ever come back to respond to this thread?

nope

lol.:D You know, I hate to do it again, but here it is...:p

Zero was invented in India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28number%29
Which I think I said somewhere.

but is was thanks to the muslims that the idea was introduced to europe. Which is what i think he meant Chekov
Quite right, that's what she meant.

And as to the New World colonies, yes, you're correct, direct access to the Atlantic was necessary. The Ottomans might have taken advantage of that through North African vassals, but my point before was that they didn't have the outward-looking mindset Western Europeans did. The reason for that, at least in part, is because of Islam's basic distrust of things European, engendered by the Crusades.

Actually, Muslims did colonize to a limited extent down the east coast of Africa. They might have done more of that, I suppose, had they had a mind to. It would have been interesting to see the outcome if there had been an Islamic colony or two in South Africa when the Boers arrived.

Indeed...however, all are descended from the Prophet correct? Ergo, all should not differ in original writing...if it has been translated out of Arabic then re-translated it is not the Qur'an...just like the Original Bible which was from Jesus (Prophet Isa PBUH) is the Word of God, alterations to the original text has made it the Word of Men.

Actually the original New Testament bible was not from Jesus, but was written down and collected into one book long after his death. The Koran is also the word of man. There are different versions of it. Which one is correct?

Indeed...however, all are descended from the Prophet correct? Ergo, all should not differ in original writing...if it has been translated out of Arabic then re-translated it is not the Qur'an...just like the Original Bible which was from Jesus (Prophet Isa PBUH) is the Word of God, alterations to the original text has made it the Word of Men.

No. Muhammed did not finalise the written Qur'an. It was Uthman, the third caliph who did that. Even during Muhammed's times there were different versions (both in "different words for the same meaning" and "different words giving different meanings"). Uthman burned a great majority of what he considered deviants and gave what we have today. But a few other copies still survived and as a result we have different versions today.

This can be easily verified by comparing the Samarkand Qur'an with the Qur'an that is in general use.

Has Soviestan ever come back to respond to this thread?

nope

That's okay, it's been a decent discussion with no name-calling to speak of.

Actually the original New Testament bible was not from Jesus, but was written down and collected into one book long after his death. The Koran is also the word of man. There are different versions of it. Which one is correct? As such, the very 1st New Testament is the one most likely to be uncorrupted, true? What i refer to be changed is the ones that has been passed down over the years.

And technically, the original New Testament WAS from Jesus/ Prophet Isa...just that they were not made into book form until after his death...just like the Qur'an the original New Testament is The Word of God...the paper and ink is the work of Men.


No. Muhammed did not finalise the written Qur'an. It was Uthman, the third caliph who did that. Even during Muhammed's times there were different versions (both in "different words for the same meaning" and "different words giving different meanings"). Uthman burned a great majority of what he considered deviants and gave what we have today. But a few other copies still survived and as a result we have different versions today.

This can be easily verified by comparing the Samarkand Qur'an with the Qur'an that is in general use.

As such therein lies the question: Which is more accurate. Uthman had finalised the versions of the Qur'an so as to avoid mishaps arising from other Qur'ans which may be incomplete or even fabricated.

You see, for a verse in the Qur'an to be valid, it has to have a line of descendence originating from the Prophet. At least 3 people also need to confirm and corroborate that they have heard the verse as being true, word for word, ergo it was a rather hard task for Uthman's appointed assistant to gather the verses of the Qur'an (he was Zaid ibn Tsabit, correct me please if I am wrong). It was even more so considering that the Arabs were living in deserts and may be separated from each other.

In the Qur'an there is a particular verse, stating that the Qur'an is personally guarded by God to be unceasingly whole and holding fast to be true until the Day of Judgement...call me nonsensical, but I believe this is true...of course, it takes faith to believe but this cannot be proven. However, I believe that there have been no changes to the Qur'an since it was compiled 1400 years ago methinks, and as a Caliph whose duty is to ensure completeness of the Qur'an and uphold integrity, I would say that the Qur'an from Uthman is the most complete.

Even so, I feel that God knows more than I do , so I can only verify the Qur'an's accuracy as humanly accurate as possible.

As such, the very 1st New Testament is the one most likely to be uncorrupted, true? What i refer to be changed is the ones that has been passed down over the years.

And technically, the original New Testament WAS from Jesus/ Prophet Isa...just that they were not made into book form until after his death...just like the Qur'an the original New Testament is The Word of God...the paper and ink is the work of Men.




As such therein lies the question: Which is more accurate. Uthman had finalised the versions of the Qur'an so as to avoid mishaps arising from other Qur'ans which may be incomplete or even fabricated.

You see, for a verse in the Qur'an to be valid, it has to have a line of descendence originating from the Prophet. At least 3 people also need to confirm and corroborate that they have heard the verse as being true, word for word, ergo it was a rather hard task for Uthman's appointed assistant to gather the verses of the Qur'an (he was Zaid ibn Tsabit, correct me please if I am wrong). It was even more so considering that the Arabs were living in deserts and may be separated from each other.

In the Qur'an there is a particular verse, stating that the Qur'an is personally guarded by God to be unceasingly whole and holding fast to be true until the Day of Judgement...call me nonsensical, but I believe this is true...of course, it takes faith to believe but this cannot be proven. However, I believe that there have been no changes to the Qur'an since it was compiled 1400 years ago methinks, and as a Caliph whose duty is to ensure completeness of the Qur'an and uphold integrity, I would say that the Qur'an from Uthman is the most complete.

Even so, I feel that God knows more than I do , so I can only verify the Qur'an's accuracy as humanly accurate as possible.

How do you know the version he decided upon was the correct one? There is simply no way to know. Besides, if god existed and wanted to reveal a message to humanity wouldn't he include some kind of information that was unknowable at the time it was written and could be confirmed as true later? The Koran would impress me if it contained maybe a description of nuclear fission or something. Since it doesn't contain something like that I figure it's just the ideas of Muhammad and nothing divine.

How do you know the version he decided upon was the correct one? There is simply no way to know. Besides, if god existed and wanted to reveal a message to humanity wouldn't he include some kind of information that was unknowable at the time it was written and could be confirmed as true later? The Koran would impress me if it contained maybe a description of nuclear fission or something. Since it doesn't contain something like that I figure it's just the ideas of Muhammad and nothing divine.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/dyktb.html
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/scislam.html
-the whole shebang and much much more general science in the Qur'an

An extract:

The last example I would cite from Dr. Bucaille's book is what I consider a very interesting one, because this example illustrates where the Qur'an showed the people facts that have not even been discovered without the help of the information given in the Qur'an. This example is about the story of the Pharaoh and Moses which was presented in the Qur'an in more than one Sura.

The Verses which inspire Dr. Bucaille to do the research around this incident are in Sura 10, Verses 90 to 92, which mean as follows:

"We (Allah) took the children of Israel across the sea. Pharaoh with his hosts pursued them in rebellion and hostility till, when the fact of his drowning overtook him he said: I believe there is no True God except the God in whom the Children of Israel believe. I am of those who submit themselves to Him. (It was said to him) 'Now! Thou has rebelled and caused depravity: This day we save thee in the body so that thou mayest be a sign for those who come after thee' But verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our signs."

This is what the Holy Qur'an said about the story of Moses and the Pharaoh and the sign Allah left for the people who come after the Pharaoh to see who has a revelation from Allah and who does not have. Let us hear from Dr. Bucaille how he conducted research to verify this Qur'anic story:

"In June 1975, the Egyptian high authorities very kindly allowed me to examine the parts of the Pharaoh's body that had been covered until then. They also allowed me to take photographs... What may already be derived from this examination is the discovery of multiple lesions of the bones with broad lacunae, some of which may have been mortal although it is not yet possible to ascertain whether some of them occurred before or after the Pharaoh's death. He most probably died either from drowning, according to the scriptural narrations, or from very violent shocks preceding the moment when he was drowned or both at once. The connection of these lesions with the deterioration whose sources have been mentioned above renders the correct preservation of the mummy of the Pharaoh somewhat problematical, unless precautionary and restorative measures are not taken very soon. These measures should ensure that the only concrete evidence which we still possess today concerning the death of the Pharaoh of the Exodus and the rescue of his body, willed by God; does not disappear with the passage of time. It is always desirable for man to apply himself to the preservation of relics of his history, but here we have something which goes beyond that: it is the material presence of the mummified body of the man who knew Moses, resisted his pleas, pursued him as he took flight and lost his life in the process. His earthly remains were saved by the Will of God from destruction to become a sign to man, as it is written in the Qur'an.

Those who seek among modern data for proof of the veracity of the Holy Scriptures will find a magnificent illustration of the verses of the Qur'an dealing with the Pharaoh's body by visiting the Royal Mummies Room of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo! "

In short, in the Qur'an Pharaoh's body was mentioned to be able to be recovered in the future even 1400 years ago...when the Arabs had little notion where it even was. Thus, the book guarantees that the Human Race finds the Pharaoh's body 1400 years ago...and so we did in recent times...
Go figure, huh...

This challenge was present in the Qur'an in Sura no. 17, verse no. 88 which is translated as follows:


" Say: If the whole of mankind and Jinn were together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they back up each other with help and support."
Years passed and nobody was able to meet the challenge. Later (after several years) the challenge in the Qur'an was eased asking for anyone to produce even ten Suras like those in it. This was in the Quran in Sura no. 11, verse no. 13 which is translated as follows:


" or they may say, "He forged it" Say, "Bring ye then ten Suras forged, like unto it, and call (to your aid) whomsoever ye can, other than Allah! If ye speak the truth"
Again years passed and nobody was able to successfully meet the challenge. Later the challenge was eased for the second time to produce one Sura like or similar to the Suras in the Qur'an. The challenge (to anyone) to produce one Sura was presented in the Qur'an in more than a Sura, one of them was in Sura no. 2, Verse no. 23 which is translated as follows:


"And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers besides Allah, if what you say is true."
Since then, more than fourteen hundred years have passed, and nobody has been able to meet the challenge, and nobody will, because the Qur'an is the only existing book containing the word of Allah which no man can match or imitate. The most eloquent people in the Arabic language spent years going over and searching the Qur'an, trying to find any weak or inadequate word or sentence, but they could not. They even went further, trying to find a way to substitute a word or a sentence in the Qur'an, hoping to convey a similar meaning as the original one, but they failed to do so.


What challenge? To write a "holy" scripture? Plenty of folks have written scriptures. It's only the preference that Islam's followers have for the Koran that makes their book seem privileged in their eyes. To a Mormon, a Buddhist, a Taoist, a Jew or a Christian the Koran doesn't appear superior to their own scriptures.

One of these books is a specialized book in embryology entitled The Developing Human by Dr. Keith L. Moore, published by W.B. Saunders, 1982. In the third edition of this book, Dr. Moore said:


"It is cited in the Koran, the holy book of the Muslims, that human beings are produced from a mixture of secretions from the male and the female. Several references are made to the creation of a human being from a sperm drop and it is also suggested that the resulting organism settles in the woman like a seed, six days after its beginning. (The human blastocyst begins to implant about six days after fertilization.) The Koran, (and prophet saying), also states that the sperm drop develops 'into a clot of congealed blood' (an implanted blastocyst or a spontaneously aborted conceptus would resemble a blood clot.) Reference is also made to the leech-like appearance of the embryo... "
This was part of what Dr. Moore wrote in his book. Later, after more research and study of the Qur'anic terms used to describe the development of the embryo in the mother's womb and other related descriptions, Dr. Moore found that the Qur'anic terms and statements are amazing in their scientific accuracy.

Dr. Moore seems pretty easy to amaze. First of all, since animals and humans only become pregnant after sex, and since it was clearly known even to the Hebrews long before Muhammad that a man's semen is necessary to get a woman pregnant (see the passage in the OT about Onan spilling his seed outside the woman) I'm not impressed by that "revalation". Secondly, a clot of blood is not a blastocyst. A blastocyst, in fact, has no blood in it. It's undifferentiated stem cells. Once again the Koran fails the test. God doesn't seem to know much about the humans he supposedly created, does he?

Now the question is: if the Qur'an describes these scientific facts with great accuracy, how could it be a human work? Let us see what Dr. Maurice Bucaille said after he had read the Qur'an:


"My first goal was to read the Qur'an and to make a sentence by sentence analysis of it... my approach was to pay special attention to the description of numerous natural phenomena given in the Qur'an; the highly accurate nature of certain details referring to them in the Book, which was only apparent in the original, struck me by the fact that they were in keeping with present-day ideas although a man living at the time of Mohammed couldn't have suspected this at all...what initially strikes the reader confronted for the first time with a text of this kind is the sheer abundance of subjects discussed... whereas monumental errors are to be found in the Bible I could not find a single error in the Qur'an. I had to stop and ask myself: if a man was the author of the Qur'an how could he have written facts in the seventh century A.D. that today are shown to be in keeping with modern scientific knowledge?... What human explanation can there be to this observation? In my opinion there is no explanation; there is no special reason why an inhabitant of the Arabian Peninsula should have had scientific knowledge on certain subjects that was ten centuries ahead... It is an established fact that at the time of the Qur'anic Revelation, i.e. within a period of roughly twenty three years straddling Hegira (622 A.D.), scientific knowledge had not progressed for centuries and the period of activity in Islamic civilization, with its accompanying scientific upsurge, came after the close of the Qur'anic revelation."
In addition to what Dr. Bucaille said, there are more examples from different scientific fields other than embryology.

Since the Koran was wrong with respect to embryology, I'd be curious to see what examples Dr. Bucaille found and if they're equally wrong.

The Qur'an states several facts about astronomy which were discovered in the late twentieth century. One of these facts is about the expansion of the universe. Let us see what Dr. Bucaille said about that:


"The expansion of the universe is the most imposing discovery of modern science today. It is a firmly established concept and the only debate centres around the way this is taking place. It was first suggested by the general theory of relativity and is backed up by physics in the examination of the galactic spectrum; the regular movement towards the red section of their spectrum may be explained by the distancing of one galaxy from another. Thus the size of the Universe is probably constantly increasing and this increase will become bigger the further away the galaxies are from us. The speeds at which these celestial bodies are moving may, in the course of this perpetual expansion, go from fractions of the speed of light to speeds faster than this."
The following Verse of the Qur'an Sura 51, verse 47 where God is speaking, may perhaps be compared with modern ideas;


"The heaven, we have built it with power. Verily we are expanding it."
"Heaven" is the translation of the word "sama" and this is exactly the extraterrestrial world that is meant. "We are expanding it" is the translation of the plural present participle "musi'una" of the verb "aus'a" meaning "to make wider, more spacious, to extend, to expand".

That doesn't work for me. Too vague. It could be interpreted as "God is still adding to the universe", which isn't happening. The total ammount of mass and energy is pretty static. It could be interpreted as saying the universe is expanding as modern physics describes, but it's a pretty big leap to take one single sentence and assume it describes such a complex process.

Another example from a different scientific field is about the living things in general which we can find in more than one verse in the Qur'an. For example Sura 21, Verse 30 was chosen by Dr. Bucaille to present how the Qur'an talked about these scientific facts. The Verse is translated as follows:


"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then we clove them asunder and we got every living thing out of the water. Will they then not believe?"

The notion of "getting something out of something" does not give rise to any doubts. The phrase can equally mean that every living thing was made of water (as its essential component) or that every living thing originated in water. The two possible meanings are strictly in accordance with scientific data. Life is in fact of aquatic origin and water is the major component of all living cells. Without water, life is not possible. When the possibility of life on another planet is discussed, the first question is always: does it contain a sufficient quantity of water to support life?
So Islam contradicts itself? If every living thing came from the water then Islam should support evolution. I checked on this website http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=255 and it had this to say. In your question, if 'evolution' implies that man is actually an evolved form of a certain other creature, then Islam does not affirm such a standpoint. According to the Qur'an, Adam (pbuh) - the first man - was a direct creation of God, as a man. The Qur'an does not support that Adam evolved from another species. It goes on to say that man was created from clay. To shape clay you must mix it with water. Therefore the Koran clearly wasn't talking about scientific evolution of life from aquatic forms, but rather it was using the old made from clay myth.

Verily, in cattle there is a lesson for you. We give you to drink of what is inside their bodies, coming from a conjunction between the contents of the intestine and the blood, a milk pure and pleasant for those who drink it."
"From a scientific point of view, physiological notions must be called upon to grasp the meaning of this verse. The substances that ensure the general nutrition of the body come from chemical transformations which occur along the length of the digestive tract. These substances come from the contents of the intestine. On arrival in the intestine at the appropriate stage of chemical transformation, they pass through its wall and towards the systematic circulation. This passage is effected in two ways: either directly, by what are called the Lymphatic vessels', or indirectly, by the portal circulation. This conducts them first to the liver, where they undergo alterations, and from here they then emerge to join the systematic circulation. In this way every thing passes through the blood-stream.. The constituents of milk are secreted by the mammary glands. These are nourished, as it were, by the product of food digestion brought to them via the bloodstream. Blood therefore plays the role of collector and conductor of what has been extracted from food, and it brings nutrition to the mammary glands, the producers of milk, as it does to any other organ. Here the initial process which sets everything else in motion is the bringing together of the contents of the intestine and blood at the level of the intestinal wall itself. This very precise concept is the result of the discoveries made in the chemistry and physiology of the digestive system. It was totally unknown at the time of the Prophet Mohammed and has been understood only in recent times. The discovery of the circulation of the blood, was made by Harvey roughly ten centuries after the Qur'anic Revelation. I consider that the existence in the Qur'an of the verse referring to these concepts can have no human explanation on account of the period in which they were formulated."
It would be obvious to people of any age that food travels through the intestines to give life. It would be quite obvious to cow and goat herders that lactating livestock that are starving produce less milk. Also that anemic livestock will produce less milk. This isn't some mystic revalation, only clever interpretation of readily available information.

This is what the Holy Qur'an said about the story of Moses and the Pharaoh and the sign Allah left for the people who come after the Pharaoh to see who has a revelation from Allah and who does not have. Let us hear from Dr. Bucaille how he conducted research to verify this Qur'anic story:

"In June 1975, the Egyptian high authorities very kindly allowed me to examine the parts of the Pharaoh's body that had been covered until then. They also allowed me to take photographs... What may already be derived from this examination is the discovery of multiple lesions of the bones with broad lacunae, some of which may have been mortal although it is not yet possible to ascertain whether some of them occurred before or after the Pharaoh's death. He most probably died either from drowning, according to the scriptural narrations, or from very violent shocks preceding the moment when he was drowned or both at once. The connection of these lesions with the deterioration whose sources have been mentioned above renders the correct preservation of the mummy of the Pharaoh somewhat problematical, unless precautionary and restorative measures are not taken very soon. These measures should ensure that the only concrete evidence which we still possess today concerning the death of the Pharaoh of the Exodus and the rescue of his body, willed by God; does not disappear with the passage of time. It is always desirable for man to apply himself to the preservation of relics of his history, but here we have something which goes beyond that: it is the material presence of the mummified body of the man who knew Moses, resisted his pleas, pursued him as he took flight and lost his life in the process. His earthly remains were saved by the Will of God from destruction to become a sign to man, as it is written in the Qur'an. So pharoh drowned. That was known long before the Koran was written, no? The Hebrews' own history mentions Pharoh leading the Egyptian army against them and the army being drowned.

Sorry, I'm not impressed. If the Koran gave accurate descriptions of things that we only know today because of advanced scientific instruments I'd be likely to believe. I see no evidence of that though.

What challenge? To write a "holy" scripture? Plenty of folks have written scriptures. It's only the preference that Islam's followers have for the Koran that makes their book seem privileged in their eyes. To a Mormon, a Buddhist, a Taoist, a Jew or a Christian the Koran doesn't appear superior to their own scriptures.

Dr. Moore seems pretty easy to amaze. First of all, since animals and humans only become pregnant after sex, and since it was clearly known even to the Hebrews long before Muhammad that a man's semen is necessary to get a woman pregnant (see the passage in the OT about Onan spilling his seed outside the woman) I'm not impressed by that "revalation". Secondly, a clot of blood is not a blastocyst. A blastocyst, in fact, has no blood in it. It's undifferentiated stem cells. Once again the Koran fails the test. God doesn't seem to know much about the humans he supposedly created, does he?

Since the Koran was wrong with respect to embryology, I'd be curious to see what examples Dr. Bucaille found and if they're equally wrong.

That doesn't work for me. Too vague. It could be interpreted as "God is still adding to the universe", which isn't happening. The total ammount of mass and energy is pretty static. It could be interpreted as saying the universe is expanding as modern physics describes, but it's a pretty big leap to take one single sentence and assume it describes such a complex process.

So Islam contradicts itself? If every living thing came from the water then Islam should support evolution. I checked on this website http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=255 and it had this to say. It goes on to say that man was created from clay. To shape clay you must mix it with water. Therefore the Koran clearly wasn't talking about scientific evolution of life from aquatic forms, but rather it was using the old made from clay myth.

It would be obvious to people of any age that food travels through the intestines to give life. It would be quite obvious to cow and goat herders that lactating livestock that are starving produce less milk. Also that anemic livestock will produce less milk. This isn't some mystic revalation, only clever interpretation of readily available information.

So pharoh drowned. That was known long before the Koran was written, no? The Hebrews' own history mentions Pharoh leading the Egyptian army against them and the army being drowned.

Sorry, I'm not impressed. If the Koran gave accurate descriptions of things that we only know today because of advanced scientific instruments I'd be likely to believe. I see no evidence of that though.


I'm inclined to agree. Many Muslims seem to feel a need to PROVE their religion to everyone by saying it predicted modern science. I get the same feeling around these people as I do when talking to intelligent design theorists. They're trying to twist around science.

I mean, one of them gave me a speech about how foolish I was for not thinking that Adam was some kind of giant and we are small now because DNA degrades over time, and degraded DNA leads to low quality humans. And low quality humans are smaller.

I'm a biology student and there are many mechanisms to prevent the 'decay' of DNA information. Usually when there is a DNA problem it just causes cancer and the INDIVIDUAL dies, his offspring being unaffected.
Also, I don't see the correlation between 'DNA quality' and size. Bigger is better? Science doesn't say that. Whatever is most suited to generate reproductively viable offspring in that particular environment is the measure of species fitness, not size.

I'm inclined to agree. Many Muslims seem to feel a need to PROVE their religion to everyone by saying it predicted modern science. I get the same feeling around these people as I do when talking to intelligent design theorists. They're trying to twist around science.

I mean, one of them gave me a speech about how foolish I was for not thinking that Adam was some kind of giant and we are small now because DNA degrades over time, and degraded DNA leads to low quality humans. And low quality humans are smaller.

I'm a biology student and there are many mechanisms to prevent the 'decay' of DNA information. Usually when there is a DNA problem it just causes cancer and the INDIVIDUAL dies, his offspring being unaffected.
Also, I don't see the correlation between 'DNA quality' and size. Bigger is better? Science doesn't say that. Whatever is most suited to generate reproductively viable offspring in that particular environment is the measure of species fitness, not size.

Well I'll look at the evidence and if it's convincing I might buy into the religion, but I haven't seen anything convincing yet.

What challenge? To write a "holy" scripture? Plenty of folks have written scriptures. It's only the preference that Islam's followers have for the Koran that makes their book seem privileged in their eyes. To a Mormon, a Buddhist, a Taoist, a Jew or a Christian the Koran doesn't appear superior to their own scriptures.


The challenge is to try and equal the Qur'an...and see if mankind can equal or even surpass it. Also, try examining it closely...from the Arabic language it is half poetry, half prose...and there are more secrets to be discovered...HOWEVER, do take note that the Qur'an is not a book of science, but it merely uses science to try and appeal to the modern world that this is the correct religion. Moreover,as a literary person I find the Qur'an particularly interesting. I do urge you if you do have the spare time to find out more about it, be it from Muslim or non-Muslim sources before formulating your opinion that the Qur'an equals other scriptures - in all aspects.

If you are inclined to disagree that it is the right one to follow, then I cannot say anything further because to me religion is a discovery, not compulsion.


Dr. Moore seems pretty easy to amaze. First of all, since animals and humans only become pregnant after sex, and since it was clearly known even to the Hebrews long before Muhammad that a man's semen is necessary to get a woman pregnant (see the passage in the OT about Onan spilling his seed outside the woman) I'm not impressed by that "revelation". Secondly, a clot of blood is not a blastocyst. A blastocyst, in fact, has no blood in it. It's undifferentiated stem cells. Once again the Koran fails the test. God doesn't seem to know much about the humans he supposedly created, does he?
A clot of blood may not specifically refer to a blastocyst, rather the general process of growth and development after insemination and fertilisation...so it may have been likened to a clot of blood forming. Or perhaps a clot of blood refers to them being cells clumped together...in this respect a blastocyst or aborted foetus have clusters of cells similar to a clot...ergo, one must read the Qur'an in Arabic to get its full meaning because in Islam a translation is not a Qur'an as the translator uses his viewpoint to translate, thus it is no longer the word of God. Unfortunately, for me to read it in Arabic on the net is hard, because some of you may not understand.

Furthermore, the idea of pregnancy in the old days was that the female was the one responsible for the defects in a baby, not the male.


That doesn't work for me. Too vague. It could be interpreted as "God is still adding to the universe", which isn't happening. The total ammount of mass and energy is pretty static. It could be interpreted as saying the universe is expanding as modern physics describes, but it's a pretty big leap to take one single sentence and assume it describes such a complex process.

I would not say it to be static, because we have proven that via Quantum Tunnelling created energy out of pure vacuum. Futhermore, NASA has discovered that the universe is shaped like Toricelli's Trumpet in the way it expands. Perhaps it is being ambiguous so as to allow the people of today, armed with science and knowledge, to decipher the actual meaning of the verse. Its like observing The Last Supper...if an uninformed tourist sees it he would have thought it to be just a painting, but an art major would have known the spilling of the salt and the symbolisms within the picture are not just for show.


So Islam contradicts itself? If every living thing came from the water then Islam should support evolution. I checked on this website http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=255 and it had this to say. It goes on to say that man was created from clay. To shape clay you must mix it with water. Therefore the Koran clearly wasn't talking about scientific evolution of life from aquatic forms, but rather it was using the old made from clay myth.

From clay, one may mean that we are shaped of the material found from the clay/soil/earth. For example, we have minerals, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc., which can be found in the composition of earth. Water is the carrier of chemicals, a good solvent and a medium of reactions. Ergo, to mix clay with water in this aspect may mean creating chemicals from the composition of clay and water.


It would be obvious to people of any age that food travels through the intestines to give life. It would be quite obvious to cow and goat herders that lactating livestock that are starving produce less milk. Also that anemic livestock will produce less milk. This isn't some mystic revalation, only clever interpretation of readily available information.

Note that in the days 1400 years ago, there was little or no widespread intestinal knowledge or science to speak of in the Arab lands, ergo few people would have the time to even know that the intestines was the organ that played a part in digestion. Remember the erroneous theory of the 4 Humors by the Greeks? Why was there a mistake?


So pharoh drowned. That was known long before the Koran was written, no? The Hebrews' own history mentions Pharoh leading the Egyptian army against them and the army being drowned.

Also do note that the Original Torah is considered to be another Word of God. In Islam, we believe 4 "Words of God" were sent down, beginning with the Original David's Psalm, Original Torah, Original New Testament and the Qur'an.
However, we believe that the hands of Man has corrupted the 1st three scriptures into what it is today. Ergo, the the drowning of the Pharaoh was known from the time of the Torah onwards...however, I urge you to check again the Bible and the Torah and see if they did mention the preservation of the body of the Pharaoh.


Sorry, I'm not impressed. If the Koran gave accurate descriptions of things that we only know today because of advanced scientific instruments I'd be likely to believe. I see no evidence of that though.
Belief is in the heart of the beholder, my friend, and if you do not see that then it is your choice not to because I have no right to force you to believe. I am merely here to try and clear some misconception of Islam...and answer queries along the way.

However, I used to know a website that allows me to calculate the speed of light correct to 4~6 decimal places from the verses of the Qur'an itself...I will source it out hopefully for you. God-willing, I may be able to show you...but try not to expect anything though...


I'm inclined to agree. Many Muslims seem to feel a need to PROVE their religion to everyone by saying it predicted modern science. I get the same feeling around these people as I do when talking to intelligent design theorists. They're trying to twist around science.

I mean, one of them gave me a speech about how foolish I was for not thinking that Adam was some kind of giant and we are small now because DNA degrades over time, and degraded DNA leads to low quality humans. And low quality humans are smaller.

I'm a biology student and there are many mechanisms to prevent the 'decay' of DNA information. Usually when there is a DNA problem it just causes cancer and the INDIVIDUAL dies, his offspring being unaffected.
Also, I don't see the correlation between 'DNA quality' and size. Bigger is better? Science doesn't say that. Whatever is most suited to generate reproductively viable offspring in that particular environment is the measure of species fitness, not size.

Having dabbled in rudimentary Biology meself, I agree with you that size may not matter. However, perhaps by confirming the artifacts of Adam that we can hopefully find one day, maybe they tend to be larger than us for reasons unknown other than DNA Degeneration...but I do disagree that bigger is better.