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.
For several weeks now, I have been engaged in a dialogue about religious differences and cultural misunderstandings with a Muslim male who has no personal exposure to "Western women" -- I felt that we were bridging a gap, both paying attention, asking questions back and forth to make sure we understood one another. It was civilized and informational....even "friendly" in the sense of "I'd be happy to tell you what I know and how I feel, and have some questions for you as well..." Sadly, some boundary was apparently crossed, or some nerve struck, that caused damage to the forward momentum, and I was then told I sounded like I was accusing. I can only hope that somehow I am not misconstrued or misunderstood.
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Also, I recall you were the one posting those maps showing how all those countries became Islamized through bloody conquest. Have you changed your stance on this matter?
Military conquests by Muhammad and early Caliphs
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
How did Mohammad convert all of Arabia in his lifetime, if his intent was(as you say) to conquer people, yet discourage them from conversion, so he could benefit from higher-taxes?
• In 628 Muhammad laid siege to the Jewish tribe in Khaibar with an army of 2,000. After the Jews surrendered Muhammad allowed the Jews to stay on in return for an annual tribute of half of their produce.
• In 630 Muhammad besieged Mecca with a force of 10,000 men. When Mecca surrendered with little resistance Muhammad didn't force the citizens to convert.
• In 630 Muhammad negotiated a treaty with the Christian Prince of Aylah - in return for tribute the people retained freedom to worship as Christians.
Source: Gabriel, R.A. (2007) Muhammad: Islam's first great general. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, USA.
For instance, Hindus in India did at times suffer religious persecution designed to encourage conversion to Islam. Destruction of Hindi temples, Mosques being built on top of them, punitive taxation of Hindus and persecution in general.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sajuek
So what exactly is your point? You might not realize it, but that certainly isn't the first time in human history that former allies became enemies.
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Were muslims conquering everybody by the sword?
Or were they busy discouraging people from converting so as to be able to collect more taxes...as you said?
Which is it?
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
If the muslims were indeed the intolerant conquerors as often portrayed, India would have been a muslim country by now.
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
That said, keep your rancid bigotry and spread it among your own kind.
Did the Crusaders conquer some Muslim states - yes.
Did they force Muslims to convert to Islam - no
I am at a loss why you are so confused.
Historical facts are not rancid bigotry. It is interesting that you feel you must resort to personal abuse when your viewpoint of Islamic history is challenged.
Originally posted by logical7
The thing is that i have tried to talk openly with others and seen that even after a long time they still have the same prejudices and then it feels like a waste of time.
What is found in extremism is extreme literalism, acceptance of whatever traditions fit the situation they want fit, and militancy, rather than any learning, this is based in politics of this day, and the need to have a religion to twist in effort to gain more followers.
It requires a degree of respect, a quality that appears to be lacking in both camps. People who allow themselves to be herded into the basket also allow other folks, those in control of that particular basket of sacrificial lambs, to also issue opinion for them, neglecting to think for themselves. They can have no more respect than they are issued, and sadly that demonstrates to my mind a supreme lack of respect for even themselves - how then can they respect anyone else in order to get along? That's true of many Muslims, and equally true of many Christians. They believe what they are told to believe about others, rather than finding out for themselves, and in the process gaining and giving some much needed respect.
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Were muslims conquering everybody by the sword?
Or were they busy discouraging people from converting so as to be able to collect more taxes...as you said?
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled".
Source: Koran 9:29
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Also, what Hadith / Koranic verse can you produce to prove that
"Early in its history of conquest, Islamic rulers actually discouraged conversion to Islam by conquered people. Non-Muslims paid higher taxes."
Bukhari (11:626)
- "The Prophet said, 'No prayer is harder for the hypocrites than the Fajr and the 'Isha' prayers and if they knew the reward for these prayers at their respective times, they would certainly present themselves (in the mosques) even if they had to crawl.' The Prophet added, 'Certainly I decided to order the Mu'adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses.'"
Bukhari (11:626)
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
So that renders invalid the canard that Islam spread by the sword.
Also, I recall you were the one posting those maps showing how all those countries became Islamized through bloody conquest. Have you changed your stance on this matter?
• At Kheibar in 628 C.E., the Muslim army was 2,000 combatants.
• When Muhammad mounted his assault on Mecca (630 C.E.) he did so with 10,000 men.
• And at the Battle of Hunayn a few months later his army numbered 12,000.
Source: Islamic Imperialism: A History by Karsh, E. (2007)
I would see "fundamentalism" as studying up on Adam, on Ibrahim, on the founders of the religions BEFORE all the divisions took place, which as near as I can tell started with Ibrahim's sons. Ibrahim and the patriarchs before him were some of the last common ground that Christians and Muslims stood upon. Therefore, they are the "fundamentals"
(3:64) Say: 'People of the Book! Come to a word common between us and you: that we shall serve none but Allah and shall associate none with Him in His divinity and that some of us will not take others as lords beside Allah.' And if they turn their backs (from accepting this call), tell them: 'Bear witness that we are the ones who have submitted ourselves exclusively to Allah.'
(3:65) People of the Book! Why do you dispute with us about Abraham even though the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed until after the time of Abraham? Do you not understand?
(3:66) Behold, you are those who have disputed greatly concerning matters which you knew; why are you now disputing about matters that you know nothing about? Allah knows it whereas you do not know.
(3:67) Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian; he was a Muslim(verb meaning submitter), wholly devoted to God. And he certainly was not amongst those who associate others with Allah in His divinity.