It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Conspiracy of the Sword

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   
It seems that there is a VERY prevalent idea that Islam was spread by the Sword, and held in place by the sword. As far as I can tell, it was propagated by early Christians, and after a while it was so wholey permeated throughout the Christian Europe as to be taken as the whole and complete truth. When Europe moved away from Christianity, they still kept these ideas.

Since it is (as far as I see) Christianity that originally propagated the idea of Conversion by the Sword, my post may at some times appear to be a Christianity vs. Islam thing. Please understand that this is not a attack on the Christian faith as much as it is a comparison of what the so-called "Christian people" was practicing at the time of their accusations.

The earliest demonstrations against a foreign state was the campaign of Tabuk against the Greeks. It started when the Greeks assassinated the envoy sent by the Muslims. Probably nothing would have been heard about the spread of Islam by the sword if it wasn't for this battle.

Now, a lot of Christians compare Muhammad's life negatively with the life of Jesus Christ. I don't really think it's a valid comparison. Jesus lived in a time and place that was relatively civilised. Muhammad lived in a barbarous time and place. Jesus was not a head of state. Muhammad was a head of state. If you compare Muhammad to Moses, or to Abraham, or to David, it'll be more logical. Even Muhammad didn't go to the excesses that these Prophets are said to have gone to in the Bible. Can a "Holy" person not practice self-preservation? Should Muhammad have accepted to have been wiped out place before the completion of his mission? Even Jesus, if you notice, was not against the preservation of his message. In fact, Jesus is supposed to return at the end of times and defeat (I'm assuming militarily, though I'm sure there are other interpretations) the Anti-Christ.

Now, one thing that I contend is that Muhammad ever followed the policy of "Convert or Die". Muhammad advocated self-defense, and striving against oppression. He never followed a policy of "You are not muslim, therefore you must be attacked". Any battle he fought was to prevent him and his followers from being eradicated. He did say that if the person converted, they wouldn't be fought. I hope the difference can be appreciated: It is as if a person from the enemy came and said "Now I am on your side". This wasn't, of course, the only way out. They could make a treaty (which they did), they could surrender (which they did), or they could fight a bloody battle (which they did). Only the last option necessarily entailed loss of life.

The Quran itself is very clear in this: "There is no compulsion in religion", "Fight those who fight you". Some people claim that the Quran can be easily distorted to allow "killing of infidels" (and I suppose it has been), but that is true for the Bible as well (how were the Crusades justified?): "Compel them to come in"? Even the verse I linked above.

One thing is certain. Islam never had an "Inquisition". There is an immensely diverse religious mix in what was/is the Islamic world, while in what was once the Christian world, there is only Christianity and a small amount of Judaism (until very recently, of course). People make much of the terms Dar-ul-Harb and Dar-ul-Islam (they altogether ignore Dar-ul-Amaan), but this was a bit that was added after Muhammad died. They also seem to forget Christianity's own versions of Christendom and Heathendom.

It is unfortunate and weirdly ironic that the moment that Christianity gained prominence (and is accessible to the large number of people that it is), was through means that were decidedly "unchristian"- Constantine's defeat of Maxentius, and from that moment on, it followed a path that was also decidedly unchristian. There is no doubt how Christianity was "spread" from this point on. Because of this (or perhaps to hide this fact), people probably wanted to believe that Islam's incredible growth was due to "conversion by the sword". While Islam did have it's share of spilt blood (and it seemed to have gotten more common closer in history), to say that it was greater than (or even as much as, considering the headstart by Christianity), is unfair.

An example of this is in Persia. The Sasanian empire was at an all time low. It HEAVILY taxed the masses, the only priviledged groups being the priesthood and the ruling oligarchy. Thus, when the Muslims conquered Yezdjard, the drop in all the burden caused Persia to be forever connected to Islam.

There are numerous "contrasting" examples. Christian recapture of Jerusalem vs Muslim recapture of Jerusalem. Muslim rule over Al-Andalus vs Christain rule, etc.

Not to say that Muslims did not have their share of manic bloodthirsty rulers, but they were definitely a minority. An example of Al-Hakim, who's burning of the Church in the city of Jerusalem lead to the crusades. There is no doubt there was something psychotic about him. The odd thing was that the Crusades only started AFTER he had been deposed, and the Church rebuilt (with the help of the Byzantians).

I'm just saying that it was somewhat unfair that Islam should be labelled a bloodthirsty religion by a group that burnt/hung/imprisoned/branded/tortured/mutilated/scourged/thumbscrewed all those who even expressed a preference for some other creed. It's even more unfair that hundreds of years later, this lie should still be believed.




posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I have learned the following recently. Muhammad gave the koran in 2 parts. The first part was composed of peaceful verses and he presented it to people. It was rejected, so he then comprised more, and this new part promotes violence and conquering and the sword as the way to spread Islam.

My edit is this:
As I have been waiting to interject something I know personally this is a good time.

A lady who goes to the church I do, went to Jordan on an archaeological dig 3 or 4 years ago. She met a muslim man and at some point within a short period of time, married him. She then had to go through many hoops to get him to be able to come to the U.S. because of 9/11. He eventually came and lived with her for less than 1 year, then took off and is in the U.S., but hiding, and the authorities are looking for him. During the brief time he interacted with the people of my church, he told my pastor something that he has brought to the attention of the congregation.

My pastor and he were having a discussion concerning the Bible and Koran etc..

He told my pastor this, "Why don't you stupid christians just give up, Islam is going to take over the world!"



[edit on 22-10-2006 by dbrandt]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Yes, you mentioned this in a thread earlier. I think I gave a reply to it also. You introduced the concept of abrogation, and I said that there really wasn't any (as far as Quranic verses over Quranic verses go). As I said, there is NOTHING in the Quran promoting use of the sword to spread Islam. To defend when attacked, yes. To fight during war, yes. But not to spread Islam. Islam cannot be spread by the sword.

The Quran was revealed to Muhammad as events occured during his life. When he went to Medinah, and the Meccan's started massing for an attack, a verse came that yes, they were allowed to fight them. Muhammad in Medinah became, technically, a head of state as well as a religious leader. It would be obvious that verses corresponding to his current position would be revealed. This did not mean that the verses during his stay in Makkah were nullified, or that verses along the same vein as when he was in Makkah did not continue.

It is odd to say that the verses were "rejected". Rejected by who? How is compromise equate to violence and the sword?

EDIT: I cannot answer for your Jordanian person, and he cannot answer for me or for any other muslim. What he says is what he says- neither here nor there.
Someone may tell me that in a few years every square mile of land will have a McDonalds. How's that relevant to anything? Is there evidence? Is it an opinion? Is it an attitude?



[edit on 22-10-2006 by babloyi]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
Yes, you mentioned this in a thread earlier. I think I gave a reply to it also. You introduced the concept of abrogation, and I said that there really wasn't any (as far as Quranic verses over Quranic verses go). As I said, there is NOTHING in the Quran promoting use of the sword to spread Islam. To defend when attacked, yes. To fight during war, yes. But not to spread Islam. Islam cannot be spread by the sword.


You don't really believe that Islam defended itself all the way to Spain, do you?

Here is a letter that Khalid ibn al-Walid sent to the Persians:
Become Muslim and be saved. If not, accept protection from us and pay the Jizya. If not, I shall come against you with men who love death as you love to drink wine.

It is highly improbable that Khalid misunderstood what Jihad was. Khalid was one of Muhammed's companions! The letter also shows what alternatives non-Muslims have. They are:
1. Become Muslim
2. Become dhimmi (third-class citizen)
3. Die
It is worth noting that it was Muhammed who started the aggressions against his fellow Arabs, not the other way round. Arabia was a polytheistic land, and thus religiously tolerant. Most tribes were polyteistic, but there was also a number of Jewish tribes, as well as heretical Christians. The two last mentioned groups were oppressed within the Byzantine Empire, but in Arabia there was no religious oppression at this time.
When Muhammed started preaching his new religion in Mecca, they probably thought that he was mad, but they didn't attack him. It was when he started ridiculing their gods that they became angry on him. During his preaching in Mecca, Muhammed probably got only about 80-200 Muslims. Almost all verses in the Quran encouraging tolerance and patience come from this period. The verses encouraging wars and massacres on infidels come from the Medinan period, when Muhammed was strong.

Muhammed started to raid Meccan caravans. Of course, the Meccans were not particularly happy about this. The Meccans and their allies fought various battles against the Muslims, but were not able to decisively defeat them. It is worth noting that Muhammed also attacked caravans during the "sacred months". The "sacred months" were months in which all fighting in Arabia was forbidden. This was to allow trade to flourish in the region. Thus, Muhammed was below the morals of his contemporaries.

Muhammed also raided Byzantium.

Was this person a good man worthy of admiration? Was his religion peaceful and tolerant? Who has misunderstood Islam? Is it al-Qaeda, or is it Islam's apologetics? Remember that according to Islam, Muhammed is a role model, the one to emmulate.

Yes, Christianity is dangerous, intolerant and with a barbaric book, no doubt about that. But that doesn't make Islam innocent.

Islam is also terrible for its own people, not just morally but economically.
For instance, the sheer threat of harm to be caused if you question the religion or the religious leaders, creates a culture of not questioning (obviously), this impacts on education, whereby instead of questioning, rote learning (or just believing what your told) becomes prevalent, this then affects science, which then affects the countries economics per its scientific based industries (and even development as it pertains to change).



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
As far as I'm concerned Catholics do not represent true Christianity! The Catholics although the largest sect of Christianity is the whore of babylon in my opinion. When ever a group of people follow the Christian bible literally they are first & foremost persecuted by Papal Bulls.
How can Pope Leopold say "what profit this myth Christ has brought us" in the 10th century only to have a pope decree to be Vicaar in Christ in the 11th centruy (1213 A.D.) and claim to own the world until Christ's return.
If people actually read the bible and lived accordingly there could be no violence from Christians. Remember it was the Catholic Church that caused most of the violence against Europeans, Jews, the Moors, and launched the crusades. It was the knight's templars that we can thank for intrest (usary).
If it wasn't for the Catholics; Muslims & Christians would get along in my opinion.
The Secret societies like the Freemasons & Jesuits are behind the propaganda & indoctrination of anti-islam. I know I once fell for it until I began to research it.
How ever absolute power corrupts absolutely and the Muslim Caliphates used Islam for empire building not to spread the message of God just like the Catholics church abused it's power for wealth & and the disposing of European Monarchs.
The world can never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest/Imam. Sorry not very Christain of me but it's a quote I saw on another post that is so true.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Babloyi, thank you for sharing this....I hope it is heard in the same spirit in which is given, but alas - if it were that easy, there would be 'peace in the middle east' and over the whole world, wouldn't there? Yet it still behooves us to continue to be peacemakers... And so God bless you for your efforts!

It would do everyone well, who wishes to respond without thinking too much on the things which are stated in the OP, to do some research (it really doesn't take a whole lot of work, actually - the information is available and easily accessed but it is an open mind which brings the fruit of understanding) into WORLD EVENTS in particular TIMES and ERAS and LOCALES....

And yes, above all - quit the nonsensical comparisons that have no common ground for legitimate basis....

The only truth that will remain (in the very near future) is that of BROTHERHOOD. Agape love and true unity among the children (ALL children - both spiritual and physical) of Abraham...who is literally the earthly father of the multitude of humanity on this planet.


Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother:
thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.
The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the LORD in their third generation.
~Deuteronomy 23:7-8


No religion is the 'right' one - three religions have sprang up among the descendants of Abraham - and countless nations! All have put their sword to the neck of their brethren at one time or another. None are innocent but the guilt can be repented of if one puts down the sword and embraces his brother in true recognition.

In the verse I cited, above, the 'third generation' is mentioned....the meaning of which is: Adam's generation was the 'first' and the 'second' one started with Noah and will end when 'Faithful and True' arrives on the white horse of purity and peace....

The 'third' generation is the human race of the coming age...and then we will all see one another as brothers instead of enemies.

'Age' = 'aeon' = 'generation'

And so I pray for the blessed light of that dawn, and what it will bring for all of us, every time the sun comes up in the present day!



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
1.How's that relevant to anything? 2.Is there evidence? 3.Is it an opinion? 4.Is it an attitude?



1.Everything is relevant, unless someone's eyes are closed and ears are plugged.
2.yes, 9/11 etc.
3.yes and his belief.
4.yes and his faith.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
And when a person's eyes and ears don't work (or are 'plugged') then 'relevant' becomes 'relative.'




posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Ersatz, you greatly condense the content of the letters (which I seem to remember came from the Caliph Umar, not Khalid Bin Waleed, despite the fact that Khalid Bin Waleed may have lead the army). It was also demanded of Yezdjard that he reduce all those heavy taxes on the people, that he set a system of administration of justice where all were equal regardless of rank, royalty or office. The alternative was yes, paying a tribute. However, I don't see how this is relevant, because at the point you are talking about, it was Yezjard who was bringing his army against the muslims.

You seem to believe that the rulers of (then) Persia and it's people were the same thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I mentioned before, the royalty and priesthood held a priviledged position by stamping down the masses. In the end, Yezjard was killed by his own people, who happily accepted muslim rule.

I find it funny that you say that Arabia was religiously tolerant. Muhammad and his followers were persecuted for their beliefs uptil the point where they had to leave their homes and migrate to a city far away. They didn't attack him? Suuuuuuure. Being religiously diverse does not equate being religiously tolerant.

I explained the Makkah vs Madinah revealations thing above, if you choose to ignore that, hey, go ahead. There was definitely nothing that encouraged warring and massacring.

I don't know where you get the info about Muhammad raiding during the "sacred months" or how this has anything to do with trade flourishing. Muhammad carried out some (one?) raid against caravans supplying the Meccans who were preparing to attack Muhammad (in what later became the Battle of Badr).

Muhammad raided Byzantium? This is the most hilarious statement in your whole post, and unfortunately dashes your credibility to smithereens. Muhammad never left Arabia. The one "campaign" Muhammad was involved in against the Byzantians was at Tabuk, which was in Arabia, was instigated by Byzantium, and did not even involve any fighting (in the end the two armies didn't even meet).

I didn't say that Christianities barbarousness (heh...is that a word?) makes Islam innocent. I said that Islam is no more guilty (and perhaps less). I generally agree with your last paragraph, but then Islam itself encourages questioning. It's unfortunate that current "traditionalists" do not understand this.

BattleOfBatoche, it's not just Catholicism that is to blame. Things were just as bloody after Protestants came to power (the victim and aggressor were just reversed). Perhaps it is the secret societies that started it all, but the average joe is doing pretty well carrying on the job.

QA, I'm really sorry for turning this into a bucketful of "islam vs christianity", but I just wanted to clarify the stuff, after all that's where the original criticisms of Islam came from.

dbrandt, I said what I said because Islam does not support this view of "Islam must conquer the world", infact, the Quran says that the diversity of humanity is MEANT TO BE SO. That is why I said that what the Jordanian man said was irrelevant (at least in the context of this thread). Btw, how is 9/11 evidence for Islam's "wish to conquer the world"?

[edit on 23-10-2006 by babloyi]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
QA, I'm really sorry for turning this into a bucketful of "islam vs christianity", but I just wanted to clarify the stuff, after all that's where the original criticisms of Islam came from.

I don't think that you have (done the bucketful thing) but I do appreciate your posts because you do add a necessary ingredient to such discussions - it is the way of many people to turn it into an 'us' or 'them' thing - but I never perceive you as one of them.


infact, the Quran says that the diversity of humanity is MEANT TO BE SO.


Wow...that's cool. Of course, the bible says the SAME THING, in somewhat different words - but I don't know too many christians that understand that - I'm not sure what the common belief is regarding the overthrowing of the Tower of Babel, since it's not usually a topic that comes up...

But I think it is a lesson on diversity (with some deeper import underneath)...

What, exactly, does the Quran say about it? (diversity, that is)

Something else, in the Hebrew bible, that most christians don't realize (or acknowledge or whatever):


And He shall judge between many peoples, and will decide for strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, And they shall not still learn war.
But they shall sit each one under his vine and under his fig tree; and there shall be no trembling; for the mouth of Jehovah of Hosts has spoken,
For all peoples will walk, each one in the name of his god; and we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God forever and ever.
~Micah 4:3-5


Obviously tolerance (even for other religions and their various names for God) is going to be the rule when there is no more war for mankind....

And it is going to be because GOD SAID SO, not because any religion or country or people is going to have their way.



Truly, I can't wait!



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
The phrase "If Allah had so wished it, he would have made you a single people" shows up many times in the Quran. Here is one occurence:


Surah 5:48
To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;


Not to say that we were not all united at one time in the past. The Surah 21 (The Prophets) there is a description given of how God assisted all of the Prophets (I'm not even sure of the English versions of some of their names) including David, Solomon, Job, etc., and then it has this verse:


Surah 21:92
Verily, this brotherhood of yours is a single brotherhood, and I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore serve Me (and no other).
But (later generations) cut off their affair (of unity), one from another: (yet) will they all return to Us.
Whoever works any act of righteousness and has faith,- His endeavour will not be rejected: We shall record it in his favour.


The brotherhood of humanity. You'll notice, not even here is there any talk of conquering under Islam. We are all one in that at the end of the day, we will all be answerable to God.

[edit on 23-10-2006 by babloyi]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
The brotherhood of humanity. You'll notice, not even here is there any talk of conquering under Islam. We are all one in that at the end of the day, we will all be answerable to God.


I really do not know what you are trying to defend, there are hundreds of sites that confirm that Mohammed was a cruel warlord:

Mohammed was in fact a terrorist, criminal and murderer whose entire life was based on victimizing innocents and indulging in mindless violence, carnage and massacre. He was a man who destroyed peace wherever he went, and in its place brought terror, carnage and death.

Mohammed's trail of violence, hatred and bloodshed that would destroy the once flourishing culture of Arabia. The story has been documented in detail by his biographers, - surprise raids on trade caravans and tribal settlements, the use of plunder thus obtained for recruiting an ever growing army of greedy desperados, assassinations of opponents, blackmail, expulsion and massacre of the Jews of Medinah, attack and enslavement of the Jews of Khayber, rape of women and children, sale of these victims after rape, trickery, treachery and bribery employed to their fullest extent to grow the numbers of his religion Islam.
He organised no less than 86 expeditions, 26 of which he led himself.

Koran 2:216
"Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, you knew not."

Koran 2:217
"They question you (O Mohammed) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great transgression but to turn men from the way of Allah and to disbelive in Him and the inviolable place of worship and to expel its people thence is a greater transgression, for persecution is worse than killing"

Koran 8:65
"O Prophet exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you 20 steadfast,they will overcome 200 and if there be of you a 100, they shall overcome a 1000, because the disbelievers are a folk without intelligence"

Koran 8:67-68
"It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. You desire the lure of this world and Allah desires for you the hereafter and Allah is Mighty, Wise.. Now enjoy what you have won as lawful and good and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful."

(Koran 8:55-57)
"Lo, the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe."

"Those of them with whom you made a treaty and then at every opportunity they break their treaty and they keep not duty to Allah, If you come on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, so that they may remember."

Aren’t they those who kill and maim in cold blood, aren’t they the followers of Islam?

Who was responsible for the bombing of New York, Madrid, London, Riyadh and Cairo, … and the list can go on and on.

One wonders, who is the real culprit who imparted this image of Islam?

After all this, do the Muslims still demand from others – the non-Muslims – to respect Muslims and Islam?

skeptically.org...

www.myspace.com...

www.flex.com...

And a pedophile? ( at 53 years old he married a 6 years old girl)
www.homa.org...


Are all these who write about him mad?



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ersatz
I really do not know what you are trying to defend, there are hundreds of sites that confirm that Mohammed was a cruel warlord

Hundreds of sites, ey? That is exactly my point. I suppose this is an extention of the propaganda against Islam- Attack the founder, and you damage the base. Why else would you bring irrelevancies like a site with "Contradictions in the Quran, woo!" and "oh, he was a pedophile!" into a discussion about the Conspiracy of the Sword of Islam (We'll get to the pedophile point in a bit, but I apologise, but I'm not going to refute each and every "contradiction" in some biased website. Read the verses mentioned yourself. You'll be disappointed.). Not propaganda you say? There was a genuine wish to get to the truth, you say? Then WHY, may I ask are the "facts" presented SO FULL OF HOLES? Like the thing about Byzantium. That Muhammad and his followers attacked first in Makkah. You just picked that off some website, no? Even in this post. Lets skip past the terrorist, criminal, violence speech, (once flowering culture of Arabia? hahaha. I wouldn't exactly call hundreds of warring illiterate tribes a flowering culture) till we come to the first FACT.

Yes, fighting is ordained to the muslims. When there is reason! "Fight those who fight you" "Fight those who drive you from your homes", "Oppression is worse than fighting". I finally got what you were talking about "Sacred months". I'm sorry to break it to you, but it's the Meccans who broke the treaty of the sacred months first. To unarmed pilgrims nonetheless!
Yes, when muslims are required to fight, then they must fight. That is in the Quran. It should also be in every person's basic logic of self-preservation.

Then there is where you quote passage 8:55-57 as if it's two seperate quotes (at least it looked like to me at first. I was going to ask where you got the 2nd quote from). Am I misunderstanding something? They are those who break their treaties. If you come against them in war fight them. This makes muslims bloodthristy?

You also mention 8:67-68. Basic translation: Take no prisoners. You do realise that people who surrender are not prisoners, right? They say "We don't wish to fight you", and are let go, or they say "We believe in God", and change sides.

I'm not sure how Muhammad's marriages fit in with this topic, but you do realise that Muhammad lived in a 7th century Arabian desert right? Where women matured young and married young. BTW, did you know that Aisha also had another suitor before Muhammad? If Muhammad was so bent on fulfilling his lustful needs, why was his first wife 15 years his senior? Why did he marry Sawdah bint Zam'ah, an old widow? Marriage is about more than lust and love. It is to provide support. It was to cement ties and relations between families. Lust and love come through the marriage, not necessarily the other way around.



Are all these who write about him mad?

They are certainly not mad. They have a very clever agenda which I'm trying to expose.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
Yes, fighting is ordained to the muslims. When there is reason! "Fight those who fight you" "Fight those who drive you from your homes", "Oppression is worse than fighting". I finally got what you were talking about "Sacred months". I'm sorry to break it to you, but it's the Meccans who broke the treaty of the sacred months first. To unarmed pilgrims nonetheless!
Yes, when muslims are required to fight, then they must fight. That is in the Quran. It should also be in every person's basic logic of self-preservation.


You are not interested in any other version apart from the comfortable, heroic "truth" you think you know.
The area I live in (South of France, near Nice) was at the receiving hand of over 600 years of raiding by Muslim pirates, (Saracens) the atrocities they committed are still remembered by the people that live here. All that cruelty was not defensive I can assure you. They were finally defeated by the Genoese fleet at the end of the 14th century.


If Muhammad was so bent on fulfilling his lustful needs, why was his first wife 15 years his senior? Why did he marry Sawdah bint Zam'ah, an old widow? Marriage is about more than lust and love.


The widow was rich, he did it for money.



They are certainly not mad. They have a very clever agenda which I'm trying to expose.


Do try and read a couple of those links.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ersatz

Originally posted by babloyi


If Muhammad was so bent on fulfilling his lustful needs, why was his first wife 15 years his senior? Why did he marry Sawdah bint Zam'ah, an old widow? Marriage is about more than lust and love.


The widow was rich, he did it for money.



That's what I have also learned about first wife. She was rich, money is a powerful intoxicant.

[edit on 25-10-2006 by dbrandt]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Amazing how people make up their own information based on no research whatsoever. So your argument is that he married her for the money, based on your view of Kadijah's age? Please tell us what age has to do with money. If it was for the money, then explain to us all why Muhammad's family was already a rich family, being born into the Quraish.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Amazing how people make up their own information based on no research whatsoever. So your argument is that he married her for the money, based on your view of Kadijah's age? Please tell us what age has to do with money. If it was for the money, then explain to us all why Muhammad's family was already a rich family, being born into the Quraish.


Mohammed married Khadija Bibi who was his employer and 15 years his senior. At that time Mohammed was 25 years old. He was Khadija Bibi's 3rd husband. Khadija Bibi was a rich widow when she married Mohammed. For the first time in his life, Mohammed enjoyed a luxurious life.

This shows the nature of Mohammed who married his employer so that he can live a rich life without putting in a single day's work.

Khadija Bibi died when Mohammed was 49 years old. Between the ages of 49 and 63 the "prophet" married at least 11 times.

Note: Works of A. Ghosh, Robert E. Burns, and Anwar Shaikh have been used as sources.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   
But is not Islamic countries a way of life to cut peoples heads off and hands by the sword? If this is not Islamic scare mongering within its own nations?

But do kidnappers have the right to cut peoples heads off too? It its in their belief then its by default to do so, not sure how other Islamic countries tolerate other religions other than it self, but could anyone who is a Muslim have a right to mistreat a non Muslim for their different faith? Would they get punished? Or would the law be leaneant on them?
I was Just wondereing would an individual Muslim be punished for his acts and if he stoped or injured a Chritian for spreading the word of the Bible? Who would win the case?
I will look into this would not mind an answer, for example in Iran or UAE.

But I think Islam is spread by the the fear of the Sword not by fear of God.
It helps contain the people in the Islamic bubble. In America they have capital punishment but not amputation, somet thing slightly different but still controvercial in todays thinking.

But I have to ask since when did Islam not spread via some form of violence?
Let alone other relgions and dictatorships that too can be accused of?

Which ever side one is on we all see the worst in others no one is perfect.



[edit on 25-10-2006 by The time lord]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
The brotherhood of humanity. You'll notice, not even here is there any talk of conquering under Islam. We are all one in that at the end of the day, we will all be answerable to God.


Excellent! Thanks babloyi!

And there is but ONE GOD.

Is there an on-line source of the Quran that is searchable, that you know of? Something like the equivalent of biblegateway.com or such? I would like to be able to search myself, but so far I haven't found any site like that.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by The time lord
Which ever side one is on we all see the worst in others no one is perfect.


This reminds me of a conversation I had with my mother-in-law recently. She said she was watching 'God's Learning Channel' and there was this guy on there who was a former Muslim, converted to be a christian...

And so he had been going on and on, even giving examples (that he felt were 'proof') that Islam is 'the antichrist' and blah blah blah, so on and so on...

And on my way home from visiting with her, I was thinking of how this is often the case (especially among those who convert from one Abrahamic religion to another) - invariably the individual will see that which they used to be as the 'evil' one because they must somehow believe that now they are part of the 'good' one (since they converted, they obviously feel they made a change for the better, I would suppose.)

And it is all just head games - that have nothing to do with faith or belief or even 'being right' (because THAT is a human idea - one that God probably laughs at us for - however good-naturedly I'm sure we seem as fools for thinking, any of us, ever, that we are 'right' about something ONLY He knows the full and whole story about).

In fact, it seems to me, to be more of an issue that is inherently religion's curse - the need for men to seek self-justification through their choice of religion - and the method is always one of comparison....saying 'since HE is wrong, then I am RIGHT.'

Or something like that. I can't put it into words that well, but I'm sure someone might get my drift.

ANOTHER thing:

If 'guns don't kill people, people kill people,' then why can't we see that

Religions don't kill people, people kill people!!!

And religions don't hate - people hate....



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join