sword of islam - thread inspired by shak.

Ok, I've been seeing a lot of reactions here ..

"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 myth that historians have ever repeated." ~ De Lacy O Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" (Page 8)

I hope you've read this book Jamhead.

Ok here is some gyaan for you if you think Islam was spread by the sword:

1. Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years:
The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the call for prayers.

2. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians. The muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations.

3. Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. Ok a question for you all, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?"

4. With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Quran says in the following verse:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error" Al-Quran 2:256
It was the sword of intellect.

5. An article in Reader's Digest Almanac, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in "The Plain Truth" magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?
The percentage increase is mentioned in one of the link you gave too..@Jammy

An excerpt:
Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson rightly says, "People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realize that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day MUHAMMED (pbuh) was born".

I throw an open challenge to anyone out there to show me even one verse of the Quran which promotes Killing of innocent etc

 

^ nicely done notty!

you know whats wrong? jamhead has been reading books which are based on 'perceived' reality, personal opinions and distorted facts ... and they are written in such a way that any prejudiced person would fall for it and take them as the 'truth' .. what he has not done is read the source .. whats the source? holy quran ofcourse! ... thats where the true teachings of islam can be found!


so i'll reiterate your invitation notty, here is the link to the verses of quran on jihad .. i would like jamhead to read these with an open mind and tell me if there is anything wrong with islamic teachings on jihad ... THEN i want him to compare these 'true' teachings with the bullshit he has been reading all his wasted life adn then be the judge ...


https://www.muhajabah.com/quran-jihad.htm

by the way where i he? chickened out already?

 

Please visit https://www.news.faithfreedom.org/

I have everything against almost every ideology/religion, not just Islam.

 

I knew the first one to come would be from Chapter 9. The problem is everyone is bombarded a lot against Islam by misinterpreting the Quran.
Quran is to be understood on the whole and in context. I'm sure you don't know the context of this Verse. Anyway ..

The muslims and the Pagans had a peace treaty which was broken by the Pagans and the muslims were attacked, aggressed and had to deal with many battles that were imposed upon them.

Also Jizya means compensation. Since the Pagans attacked and aggressed them, after the war they are required to compensate for the damage inflicted on the peaceful community.

The muslims had to deal with 365 Pagan Arab tribes, 3 Jewish tribes (Bani Qaynuqaa, Bani Al-Natheer, and Bani Quraytha) and some Christian tribes as well.

Force is required to maintain peace. They were on a battlefield and were fighting in self defence.

So would you order your forces not to kill during the battle?

Islam bashers take this worse out of context and quote it to show that it promotes killing of innocent people.

Hope that clears the misconception.

 

Lol .. I get a bad rep for post 21 .. All I did was said the truth ..

@Bad rep giver : What was wrong about that post is particular? Enlighten me.

 

History doesnt dictate nor allow us to predict the future. Stop being stupid and learn to respect a religion for what it truly was meant to be. Not what it might have become in the eyes of a few wayward morons. I am with Notty, Shak and Waleed.

 

^^hey me 2
well actually i was defending revolutions

 

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1128382/posts#excerpts

https://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=6631

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somnath#History

 

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Idol_Temples


Minhaj-us-Siraj, a 13th century historian writes [1] about the destruction of Somanath:

When Sultan Mahmud ascended the throne of sovereignty his illustrious deeds became manifest unto all mankind within the pale of Islam when he converted so many thousands of idol-temples into masjids and captured many of the cities of Hindustan… He led an army to Naharwala of Gujarat, and brought away Manat, the idol from Somnath, and had it broken into four parts, one of which was cast before the centre of the great masjid at Ghaznin, the second before the gateway of the Sultan’s palace, and the third and fourth were sent to Makkah and Madinah respectively.” Mahmud’s coins struck at Lahore in the seventh year of his reign describe him as the “right hand of the Caliph” and “the breaker of idols.”

Shams Siraj Afif in Tarikh-e-Firozeshahi (AD 1357) writes about Firuz Shah Tughluq (1351-1388) [2]:

"A report was brought to the Sultan that there was in Delhi an old Brahman who persisted in publicly performing the worship of idols in his house; and that people of the city, both Musulmans and Hindus, used to resort to his house to worship the idol. The Brahman had constructed a wooden tablet (muhrak), which was covered within and without with paintings of demons and other objects… An order was accordingly given that the Brahman, with his tablet, should be brought into the presence of the Sultan at Fîrozabad. The judges and doctors and elders and lawyers were summoned, and the case of the Brahman was submitted for their opinion. Their reply was that the provisions of the Law were clear: the Brahman must either become a Musulman or be burned. The true faith was declared to the Brahman, and the right course pointed out, but he refused to accept it. Orders were given for raising a pile of faggots before the door of the darbar. The Brahman was tied hand and foot and cast into it; the tablet was thrown on top and the pile was lighted. The writer of this book was present at the darbãr and witnessed the execution. The tablet of the Brahman was lighted in two places, at his head and at his feet; the wood was dry, and the fire first reached his feet, and drew from him a cry, but the flames quickly enveloped his head and consumed him."

https://www.bharatvani.org/books/jihad/ch6.htm

 

https://orbat.com/site/cimh/kings_master/kings/mahmud_ghaznavi/Mahmud Ghaznavi.html

^^^ with that i wash my hands off this thread for now.

 

Jamhead, either you are not getting it or you have bitten more than you can chew, cuz now you are just trying to escape this thread by posting stale old web links that have nothing to do with the discussion and then saying you are 'washing your hands off', buddy, we havent even started yet!!

i am pretty disappointed now because this time around i was sure that you would put forth a valid argument that will decide this debate once and for all, however after invitations from me and notty you have been unable to point out anything wrong with the 'true' teachings of islam perhaps because indeed islam preaches peace and respect for fellow humans, in now way does jihad gives one licence to kill innocent human beings, its the interpretation and the ideology that has gone wrong at some time in the past, and to that i admit that it was not just and the people who committed those sins shall be punished accordingly.

let me put it in simple english so that you can understand what is the topic here ..

here we are not talking about the actions of misguided souls, nor are we talking about atrocities that were committed, we are talking about 'the role of islam' in all that has happened ... how has islam as a religion played its part in advocating violence and aggression, how is islam as a religion responsible for these acts, where and how does islam preach injustice and innocent killings.

i am sorry to say but the web links that you have provided have nothing to do with the topic, you are just trying to wriggle out of this debate yet again and wash your hands off as quickly as possible before you get anymore humiliation, but this time my friend .... it aint happening!

if you want to blame islam then bring up things against 'islam' not 'muslims' .. see the difference? islam .. muslims? two different things right? thats ma boy!!


waiting for the reply ..

[EDIT] oh by the way you can ask your buddies to help you out here if you want .. i dont mind promise.

 

havn't posted in IGT for ages!!...but jamhead u get the credit for making me post again!!

anywayzz i dont see any reply for post #21..me thinks it's either becoz u got stoned or dont hv an answer....
boy u washed ur hands toooo soon!!!

 

Ok Jammy .. rather everyone ..

Don't judge a car by its driver.

If you give a mercedes to someone who doesn't know how to drive and he does an accident you can't say the car is terrible.

Judge Islam according to its teachings not by its followers. Black sheeps are there in ever community. The temple destruction what you're talking about was done for their own materialistic needs(Ghaznawi and the likes I think)

The desperate attempt that you made by giving a list of verses which talk of Jihad doesn't hold weight. All verses are context dependent.

Lets take an example from this link which you provided-> https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1128382/posts#excerpts
of how people are deceived by the Anti-Islamic bigots.

Here's one of the quote from your link: "009:005:…slay the idolaters wherever you find them…take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush…"

First of all it is an incomplete quote. Anyway do you even know the context of the verse?

As I said earlier there was a battle going on and muslims were oppressed and persecuted. And they were fighting in self defence. This verse was revealed during this battle to boost the morale of muslims. They(Anti-Islamists) pick up a verse out of context and project it as barbaric.

Now if America is in a war with Vietnam, Will an army general tell his soldiers not to kill the enemy? Think of it.

Plus quoting just this verse is a clear deception. Because the next verse (Quran 9:6) says
"If amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the Word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge"

Now I ask you a question. Which army general in a battlefield will say that if anyone from the enemy asks you for asylum and is ready for peace, not only forgive them but also ESCORT him to a place where he can be secure. Tell me which army general?

NO Islam basher will quote the context and the immediate next verse to you because its an answer in itself.

Mere quoting doesn't prove anything buddy. You should have an insight about what you are quoting.

Rest shak already explained.

 

^ i agree with notty,the above link (provided by jamhead) only gives the partial verses, plus if you read complete verses, quran explicitly states that one is allowed to fight ONLY in self defence, in defence of ones country, defences of ones religion and to protect the religion ..

...i urge you to read those verses in their full context to uderstand the true meaning .. word jihad in square brackets that is introduced by the author every now and then seemingly at random does not do justice at all!

 

Jamhead, i admire you for your tenacity and often respect you. But this time it's just childish, you have to recognize that all these arguments you are making are against specific individuals/muslims and none of these are valid against Islam. Or was that not your original intention to begin with?

 

There is a massive problem in trying to define self defence.

 

u kinda spk lyka preist !


anyways i agree to u on this one

 

pls dun say bad to islam ! or any religion


yeah do abuse d extremists

 

I think the problem comes when people commit crimes in the name of religion, this is when it becomes tough for a neutral person to judge whether the fault is with the perpetrator or the motivator. Its not so easy to seperate the two out, especially when its occuring in such huge numbers.

The only problem i c with any of the religion is that the moderates remain calm..no matter what. I think its at these times that moderates need to come out strongly and protect their religion being tainted by the extremtists which is clearly lacking in this case too.

 

That so true. Courts around the world still struggle when it comes to justify a crime in the name of self-defence....how do you expect a layman to come up with a clear definition of self-defence.

I think its this lack of clarity that is leading a bunch of people in the wrong direction. People are really sensitive about their religions and even the slightest of things can hurt them. And in anger who thinks straight?? they are bound to twist statements in religious books to what suits them. Which is wht is going on here.