Didn't the Christians capture Jerusalem in the crusades to either convert Jews and Muslims to Christianity or either kill them? We can play this game all night Shadow and it wont go anywhere.

 

 

 

Let's look at the basis of the religion. Can you do that? Can you NOT compare Islam to Christianity? Because I'm offended every [bleep]ing time a person reacts like only Christians debate against Islam.

 

 

 

If you ever look at the history of Islam, it was first and foremost a political tool. Muhammad used "Allah" to get people to his side. When he had enough support, he waged war to capture territories in the Middle East. Muhammad wasn't interested in making life better for these people. He was interested in uniting them under one standard. Muhammad isn't your typical public relations officer sent by god, he was a war general.

 

 

 

The ironic thing is, that even after Muhammad spending all that time going to war to convert as much as he can, the Muslims still found a way to [bleep] things up. A while after Muhammad died, they split because they couldn't agree which person to follow.

 

 

 

I'm agnostic. If I can take away every form of organized religion altogether, I would. But Islam itself is too painful to understand.

Like with every religion, interpretations are different for each sect or person. If they see it this way, so be it. In certain cases I believe it is justified, in most cases it's not.

Didn't Muhammad conquer Arabia to convert everyone to Islam?

 

 

 

Yes, not only Arabia, but parts of Egypt, Jordan and Yemen.

 

 

 

Killed many Jews too.

 

 

 

[hide=My Strong Opions]Frankly this "prophet" Mohammed was nothing but a mentally ill, pedophilic, barbaric desert nomad, use used a thin veil of religion to seek a conquest over greater arabia. He had sex with a 9 year old for crying out loud. This is what this prophet preaches, "metaphor"

 

 

 

Thank, the person upstairs that this has changed (slightly) in the past 500 years or so.[/hide]

If a person is taught and raised their entire life that killing the enemy is one of the best things you can do, and that the enemy is anyone not of the same religion...can we honestly blame that individual for their actions? The simple, and only correct answer, is no.

 

 

 

Now don't get me wrong, I don't KNOW how suicide bombers are brought up as kids and what is all taught to them, but I can say with a fair amount of certainty that they aren't all just insane people. Chances are it's how they were brought up, and likewise they will raise their kids in the same way and the cycle just repeats itself.

 

 

 

So you can say that what they're doing isn't justified no matter what, but they'll just turn around and say that purposely killing a cow when it's not absolutely necessary (person who kills it is starving etc) isn't justified no matter what. It's all subjective, you saying that they aren't justified or that they're bad people does not make it a fact. Also, while I wish it didn't happen, truth is it does and probably will for a very long time in the future ahead, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go around proclaiming that they are horrible people and are acting immorally - because I for one am of the opinion that those who try to be moral police are extremely ignorant.

So ignorance makes them innocent?

I do think ignorance makes them ignorant. Not quite innocent, but ... Not quite malevolent. Somewhere in between. That sense of "right and wrong" can be overrode, you know. At least for the split second it takes to push the button or pull the trigger ...

 

 

 

That goes for all military, of course. I don't see much "honor" in life-taking period. Although, I guess, self-defense ...

 

 

 

I don't really know what I believe. I'm a teenager. So...Suck it. Get back to you after college.

So ignorance makes them innocent?

 

I never said ignorance makes them innocent. What I said that them killing someone doesn't make them a bad person, especially when they're merely doing what they've been taught to do their entire life.

 

 

 

There is a difference between someone knowing the difference between A and B then proceeding to choose B versus someone who's only ever known B and is therefore forced (in a sense) to choose B. How people act is mainly derived from how they were raised, so put that suicide bomber in a different situation - say he grew up in a small rural community in the United States - and I can almost guarantee you he's not going to turn out to be a suicide bomber.

 

 

 

Also, I'd be willing to wager that in a lot of those kinds of situations (suicide bombings and the likes), the person isn't doing it out of hatred for those he's killing, but out of a desire for what they believe is a greater good.

So ignorance makes them innocent?

 

I never said ignorance makes them innocent. What I said that them killing someone doesn't make them a bad person, especially when they're merely doing what they've been taught to do their entire life. You are saying ignorance makes them innocent. How is it to just turn your back on that innate, human sense that killing someone is wrong.These values are instilled within us, yet still these people ignore it. This makes them murders, not by force but by choice.

 

 

 

There is a difference between someone knowing the difference between A and B then proceeding to choose B versus someone who's only ever known B and is therefore forced (in a sense) to choose B. How people act is mainly derived from how they were raised, so put that suicide bomber in a different situation - say he grew up in a small rural community in the United States - and I can almost guarantee you he's not going to turn out to be a suicide bomber. I agree, nature not nurture. However, again every human being knows what is wrong and what is right. These people do not even question what they are doing. I agree partly that the blame rests upon the shoulders of the "parents" of these people, and childern, and this indoctrination has been going on for several centuries.

 

 

 

Also, I'd be willing to wager that in a lot of those kinds of situations (suicide bombings and the likes), the person isn't doing it out of hatred for those he's killing, but out of a desire for what they believe is a greater good. Yes they are doing it out of hatred,, because they have been taught to hate. They ignore the primeval base of reason. They believe that the "greater good" can only be achieved through force and violence. It has been ingrained into their minds that hatred is the greater good, and hatred is the only thing these people think of.

For Muslim Radicals it is indeed good.

I agree, nature not nurture. However, again every human being knows what is wrong and what is right.

 

 

 

Are you serious? "Every human being knows what is wrong and what is right"?

 

 

 

"Wrong" and "Right" aren't even firmly defined. How on earth is anyone supposed to inherently know what is right and what is wrong? What defines right? Morality? But people don't always follow the same moral code.

 

 

 

Talk to any vegetarian and he or she will tell you that eating an animal is bad. Talk to any farmer and they will tell you that eating an animal is perfectly okay, good even, because it's your consumption of animals that makes their living. Talk to any gourmet and they will tell you that eating an animal is good, because animals provide many ingredients for meals, and good meals are an essential part of a good life.

 

 

 

Right and wrong are perspectives. The same issue can be both horribly, horribly wrong from one perspective, and perfectly right in another light, when both views can be considered perfectly legit. How about murder? Is a vigilante right or wrong to hunt and kill gangsters who would likely threaten, hurt, and kill dozens more if not stopped? Some would say it's "right" because it makes society safer. Some would say it's "wrong" because that is the purpose of government, law enforcement, etc. But what if the police are corrupt? What if the government is restrained by bureaucracy?

 

 

 

Look at the American Revolution. You are the most powerful society in the world. Your people have died trying to protect these thirteen colonies. Your money has been spent on keeping the colonies afloat during the harsh times. You have done everything and anything you can for them. You ask for a small amount of payment in return, and they answer you with guns and bayonets. Is it truly wrong to demand payment for the services you have rendered them? From England's perspective, taxation without representation was perfectly right. You had to be adamant, because it is meant to be a mutually beneficial agreement. They need to help support their own causes. Yet from the American perspective, this was completely, absolutely wrong. How can any person just waltz in and help themselves to part of your money, regardless of reason? You deserve representation in this.

 

 

 

Right and Wrong aren't defined. Hell, they don't even truly exist. They are imaginary labels that we, humans, place upon actions and ideals, based on your OWN perspective. In a society where they are taught that violence is the answer, murder in the name of your people is on par with our own policemen, being pushed into killing a dangerous criminal, or our own soldiers, fighting because they believe it is for our country.

I believe there are, to some extent, morals imprinted into every human being, but they can be overrode without too much difficulty.

Vegetarianism is a trivial topic, no one is "born" vegetarian. They are influenced (religion, parents etc...)

 

 

 

I agree to some extent morals can be viewed differently based on your perspective.

 

However somethings are universal, life and death.

 

 

 

Regarding your example about the American and the British, I wouldn't really know.

 

But as you hae explained it, then definitley.

 

 

 

This however only affected two parties, and that too by a matter that was fundamentally flawed from the very begginging. To be asking and examining these types of questions, which have deep rooted arguments and meanings, you must first go to the cause.

 

Right and Wrong aren't defined. Hell, they don't even truly exist. They are imaginary labels that we, humans, place upon actions and ideals, based on your OWN perspective. In a society where they are taught that violence is the answer, murder in the name of your people is on par with our own policemen, being pushed into killing a dangerous criminal, or our own soldiers, fighting because they believe it is for our country.

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

I'd like to point out a certain "quote".

 

Hindu mythology states that there are an infinite number of unvierses and each of these have their own laws, morals, ethics and social values.

 

 

 

However in your example, about the policeman, you must weigh and consider every factor, every variable.

 

 

 

Has this dangerous criminal endangered lives before, is he capable of killing.

 

Also of the policeman, what are his own personal values on taking another life ?

 

A life is a life. No matter who it belongs to.

So ignorance makes them innocent?

 

 

 

Speaking of ignorance, your knowledge of the history of these battles and Muhammad is extremely limited, and ignorant.

Right and Wrong aren't defined. Hell, they don't even truly exist. They are imaginary labels that we, humans, place upon actions and ideals, based on your OWN perspective. In a society where they are taught that violence is the answer, murder in the name of your people is on par with our own policemen, being pushed into killing a dangerous criminal, or our own soldiers, fighting because they believe it is for our country.

 

 

 

Generally speaking, what society and the law deems as wrong are things that have detrimental effects to others. Things that make the world a worse place to live in. I don't see how the fact that they disagree contributes anything towards their justification in doing said actions.

So ignorance makes them innocent?

 

 

 

Speaking of ignorance, your knowledge of the history of these battles and Muhammad is extremely limited, and ignorant.

 

 

 

Sorry I didn't post an excerpt of the encyclopedia.

 

 

 

But I was just trying to make a point. Instead of you brilliantly responding to my reply, you give me this [cabbage]. Awesome.

I would like to say one thing, and one thing only. A muslim has never killed anyone. As soon as a muslim person kills someone they denounce their faith, same thing goes for commiting suicide. And lets not forget THE BIBLE is based on the Qu'ran.

Will do.

 

 

 

Didn't Muhammad conquer Arabia to convert everyone to Islam?

 

 

 

No, this is false.

 

 

 

Islam is inherently a religion of tolerance. The Qur'an states very clearly and emphatically that "there is no compulsion in religion." This means exactly that. Every man and woman have a right to choose (or not choose) religion. Contrary to popular (and Orientalist) propaganda, Islam did not spread by the sword under Muhammad. There is absolutely no evidence in history of such forced conversions during his conquests. A muslim is not a muslim unless he or she believes. It cannot be forced upon anyone. In contrast, in its 1400 years of history, Muslims were often seen as liberators of the oppressed people everywhere.

 

 

 

The fact is, early Muslims faced a great deal of persecution and Arabia Muhammad was born in was a corrupt, war-torn society. Barbaric practices of female infanticide, slavery, violence were all rampant in this virtually lawless society. The battles that Muhammad (in the Battle of Uhud and the battle of Badr, for example) and his followers fought were for their survival.

 

 

 

Karen Armstrong gives an excellent and fair account of the history of early Islam. I'll quote her here: (You can read it in its entirety here: http://www.islamfortoday.com/armstrong01.htm)

 

 

 

Pre-Islamic Arabia was caught up in a vicious cycle of warfare, in which tribe fought tribe in a pattern of vendetta and countervendetta. Muhammad himself survived several assassination attempts, and the early Muslim community narrowly escaped extermination by the powerful city of Mecca. The Prophet had to fight a deadly war in order to survive, but as soon as he felt his people were probably safe, he devoted his attention to building up a peaceful coalition of tribes and achieved victory by an ingenious and inspiring campaign of nonviolence. When he died in 632, he had almost single-handedly brought peace to war-torn Arabia.

 

 

 

 

 

In the Koran, therefore, the only permissible war is one of self-defense. Muslims may not begin hostilities (2: 190). Warfare is always evil, but sometimes you have to fight in order to avoid the kind of persecution that Mecca inflicted on the Muslims (2: 191; 2: 217) or to preserve decent values (4: 75; 22: 40). The Koran quotes the Torah, the Jewish scriptures, which permits people to retaliate eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but like the Gospels, the Koran suggests that it is meritorious to forgo revenge in a spirit of charity (5: 45). Hostilities must be brought to an end as quickly as possible and must cease the minute the enemy sues for peace (2: 192-3).

 

 

 

Islam is not addicted to war, and jihad is not one of its "pillars," or essential practices. The primary meaning of the word jihad is not "holy war" but "struggle." It refers to the difficult effort that is needed to put God's will into practice at every level--personal and social as well as political. A very important and much quoted tradition has Muhammad telling his companions as they go home after a battle, "We are returning from the lesser jihad [the battle] to the greater jihad," the far more urgent and momentous task of extirpating wrongdoing from one's own society and one's own heart.

 

 

 

Islam did not impose itself by the sword. In a statement in which the Arabic is extremely emphatic, the Koran insists, "There must be no coercion in matters of faith!" (2: 256). Constantly Muslims are enjoined to respect Jews and Christians, the "People of the Book," who worship the same God (29: 46). In words quoted by Muhammad in one of his last public sermons, God tells all human beings, "O people! We have formed you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another" (49: 13)--not to conquer, convert, subjugate, revile or slaughter but to reach out toward others with intelligence and understanding.

I asked if Muhammad invaded Arabia, not if the religion of Islam agrees with the invasion itself. Yes, of course Islam is against violence. The same way that Christianity is against violence. But that ideal did not stop the Crusades from happening did it? If the Catholics followed Jesus' path, the Crusades would never have happened.

 

 

 

This is an article that expands on the concept of Jihad, http://www.studying-islam.org/articletext.aspx?id=771

 

 

 

The first thing that is evident from these verses is that Muslims should not merely fight the Quraysh if they resist them in offering Hajj, but the Quran goes on to say that they should continue to fight the Quraysh until the persecution perpetrated by them is uprooted and Islam prevails in the whole of Arabia. This, obviously, was a very big responsibility and could not have been imposed on an Islamic state without giving due consideration to its moral as well as military might. Consequently, the Quran explained that this aspect had been taken into account, and as a result the extent of responsibility would vary in different phases of the Prophets struggle.

 

 

 

Inherently a religion of tolerance? That's ironic considering the split of the Sunni/Shia

 

 

 

(From the website you linked) http://www.islamfortoday.com/shia.htm

 

 

 

Mu'awiya declared himself caliph. Ali's elder son Hassan accepted a pension in return for not pursuing his claim to the caliphate. He died within a year, allegedly poisoned. Ali's younger son Hussein agreed to put his claim to the caliphate on hold until Mu'awiya's death. However, when Mu'awiya finally died in 680, his son Yazid usurped the caliphate. Hussein led an army against Yazid but, hopelessly outnumbered, he and his men were slaughtered at the Battle of Karbala (in modern day Iraq). Hussein's infant son, Ali, survived so the line continued. Yazid formed the hereditary Ummayad dynasty. The division between the Shia and what came to be known as the Sunni was set.

 

 

 

For people who don't know, Sunni/Shia are the two largest denominations of Islam. The bloodbath that occurred between these two sects happened because they couldn't agree on a leader.

 

 

 

Here's a BBC article on the separation, http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... ia_1.shtml

 

 

 

Despite being hopelessly outnumbered, Hussein and his small number of companions refused to pay allegiance to Yazid and were killed in the ensuing battle. Hussein is said to have fought heroically and to have sacrificed his life for the survival of Shi'a Islam.

 

 

 

The line between the two sects still show even now in modern times.

 

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16882299/

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Assailants struck Shiite worshippers in three Iraqi cities Tuesday, killing at least 36 people in bombings and ambushes during the climax of ceremonies marking Ashoura, the holiest day in the Shiite calendar.

 

 

 

Police, meanwhile, questioned hundreds of suspects rounded up after a fierce weekend battle aimed at preventing even deadlier attacks.

 

 

 

The surge in violence came a day after Iraqs army announced it had killed the leader of a heavily armed cult of messianic Shiites called the Soldiers of Heaven in a gunbattle aimed at foiling a plot to attack leading Shiite clerics and pilgrims in the southern city of Najaf.

 

 

 

Bombers target Shiite worshippers

*sigh* I thought I made it quite clear:

 

 

 

Islam did not spread by the sword under Muhammad. There is absolutely no evidence in history of such forced conversions during his conquests.

 

 

 

All of his conquests were in self-defense.

I would like to say one thing, and one thing only. A muslim has never killed anyone. As soon as a muslim person kills someone they denounce their faith, same thing goes for commiting suicide. And lets not forget THE BIBLE is based on the Qu'ran.

 

 

 

 

 

Where did you get that load of crap from.

 

 

 

Qu'ran was compiled in about 650 AD, oldest section around 633 AD. (Note AD, Anno Dominus)

 

While the oldest part of the Bible, the Torah, or The Five Books of Moses were complied around 1500 BC.

 

 

 

Note, I capitalized all the names. Don't raise an issue here. Please.

*sigh* I thought I made it quite clear:

 

 

 

Islam did not spread by the sword under Muhammad. There is absolutely no evidence in history of such forced conversions during his conquests.

 

 

 

All of his conquests were in self-defense.

 

 

 

You need to read over my post again, that's not the only argument I made.

 

 

 

And can you honestly tell me that when he came back to Mecca, that was under self-defense? That was an act of war. People didn't like Muslims and they kicked him out. He came back with military might and took over Mecca.

 

 

 

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/saud ... a-kaba.htm

 

 

 

The prophet Muhammad, preaching monotheism and the Day of Judgment, faced mounting opposition in Mecca. The Quraysh persecuted and harassed him and he and his followers eventually migrated to Medina in 622 CE. In 630 CE, Muhammad and his followers returned to Mecca as conquerors and rededicated the Ka'ba as an Islamic house of worship. Henceforth, the traditional annual pilgrimage was to be a Muslim rite, the Hajj.

I would like to say one thing, and one thing only. A muslim has never killed anyone. As soon as a muslim person kills someone they denounce their faith, same thing goes for commiting suicide. And lets not forget THE BIBLE is based on the Qu'ran.

 

 

 

 

 

Where did you get that load of crap from.

 

 

 

Qu'ran was compiled in about 650 AD, oldest section around 633 AD. (Note AD, Anno Dominus)

 

While the oldest part of the Bible, the Torah, or The Five Books of Moses were complied around 1500 BC.

 

 

 

Note, I capitalized all the names. Don't raise an issue here. Please.

 

 

 

Not to mention that Muhammad based Islam on Christianity and Judaism. Not many people realize that Moses and Jesus are also prophets in the Islamic religion.

*sigh* I thought I made it quite clear:

 

 

 

Islam did not spread by the sword under Muhammad. There is absolutely no evidence in history of such forced conversions during his conquests.

 

 

 

All of his conquests were in self-defense.

 

 

 

You need to read over my post again, that's not the only argument I made.

 

 

 

And can you honestly tell me that when he came back to Mecca, that was under self-defense? That was an act of war. People didn't like Muslims and they kicked him out. He came back with military might and took over Mecca.

 

 

 

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/saud ... a-kaba.htm

 

 

 

The prophet Muhammad, preaching monotheism and the Day of Judgment, faced mounting opposition in Mecca. The Quraysh persecuted and harassed him and he and his followers eventually migrated to Medina in 622 CE. In 630 CE, Muhammad and his followers returned to Mecca as conquerors and rededicated the Ka'ba as an Islamic house of worship. Henceforth, the traditional annual pilgrimage was to be a Muslim rite, the Hajj.

 

 

 

Yes, I can. As you stated, they persecuted and harassed his people. He had a treaty with the Quraysh, that their allies broke (which, their allies were provided with supplies from the Quraysh). The treaty was broken, and they conquered Mecca.

 

 

 

When Muhammad entered Mecca, he did not want bloodshed. He divided his army into six and each of these groups was to enter Mecca through a different route. He ordered his commanders to avoid bloodshed unless attacked. In order to prevent bloodshed, he also made this announcement: "Those who shelter in the Kaba are safe; those who shelter in the house of Abu Sufyan are safe, and those who remain confined to their houses are also safe."

 

 

 

He spoke of mercy and humility, entered Mecca on the back of his mule and proceeded toward the Kaba in utmost modesty. He stopped at the Kaba (where Idols continued to be worshipped) and asked those who assembled there: How do you expect me to treat you? You are a noble man, the son of a noble man, they answered. Muhammad then said:

 

 

 

This day no reproach shall be on you. God will forgive you; He is the Most Merciful of the Merciful.

 

 

 

It is important to note that during the Hijrah, Muhammad and his followers were persecuted to the point that they had to flee from Mecca. He returned to his home, victorious over the people that had so long oppressed him and his people.

 

 

 

I don't see how returning home, avoiding as much bloodshed as possible, when your people were attacked is an offensive regime.

Sorry source? Just because he did not want, he did not mean to, he wasn't suppose to, doesn't mean he didn't come in with an army, killed off the people standing in his path and erected Islam as the city's religion.

 

 

 

The fact that he came back to Mecca and took over it is not an act of self-defense.

 

 

 

http://books.google.ca/books?id=PCGhbTr ... &lpg=PA295

 

 

 

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

 

He also testified in McLean v. Arkansas, defending creationism.

 

 

 

There goes that guy's credentials.

 

 

 

Frank Turek:

 

 

 

http://crossexamined.org/

 

 

 

I wouldn't recommend going to his website, it's full of viruses. Just a quick browse of it will tell how laughable this guy is as an author.

 

 

 

David Limbaugh:

 

 

 

LOL! You mean, Rush Limbaugh's son? Wow.

 

 

 

Your book is a rag, garbage.

 

 

 

My sources:

 

 

 

-Karen Armstrong

 

-Sir Thomas W. Arnold in his book, "The Preaching of Islam"

 

-Marshall G. Hodgson in his book, "The Venture of Islam"

 

-Albert Hourani in his book, "A History of the Arab People"

 

- Ira Lapidus in his book, "History of Islamic Societies"

 

- L.S. Starorianos in his book, "A Global Hisotry, the Human Heritage"

 

 

 

Research their names, they're all people that study this history in depth, and have received awards for their work. They're not some nutty fundie Muslims, either. As a matter of fact, Armstrong was a Nun. Your sources are laughable, at best. Defending creationism? No field study in Middle Eastern history? More than likely Turek has a degree from a diploma mill, Geisler is a young Earth Evangelical so it's not surprising why he has a twisted view of history towards Muslims, and Limbaugh is nothing but a hate monger.