The truth about Islam

Originally posted by Fitzpatrick
I have to disagree with this even though this is not the case these days the islamic religion did more good for the world thank chrisitans in the past. Many books that were burnt by the church were preserved by muslims.

Its not about the religion its about the people if everyone followed religions rules there would be no problems the porblems are with societys.

Actually, i have heard in the past some people claim that the Muslim nation were the reason why there was a renaissance of learning and books in Europe and the world, and that much of the knowledge that the world has is because of them.

In fact the truth is far from what has been claimed. The early Arabs were nomads, they didn't have a home, they didn't have libraries, in fact all the works that have been attributed to the Arabs written by other ethnic groups that were, some still are, living in the middle east. People who were slowly conquered by the newly converted Muslims, as they set forth to spread Islam to the world by the sword.

It was people like the Christian Assyrians, the original people of Iraq, and Iran who actually provided the world with the wonderful books of knowledge that they had written. When Arabs began conquering lands in the middle east, they assimilated entire cultures, proclaiming things that these cultures did, as if the Arabs had done them themselves.

[edit on 9-5-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
It was people like the Christian Assyrians, the original people of Iraq, and Iran who actually provided the world with the wonderful books of knowledge that they had written.s.

Actually, i have heard in the past some people claim that the Muslim nation were the reason why there was a renaissance of learning and books in Europe and the world, and that much of the knowledge that the world has is because of them.
Sure, after they islamicised. The arabs, as you note, were a nomadic people, who spread to their current boundaries and helped convert most of the peoples in those boundaries. Regardless, when they took over, they didn't burn all the pagan books and thought, unlike the christians. In iran, for example, there are still zoroasteriansm, whereas you won't find any cults to mithras in europe anymore.

Christianity is older than islam, and thus was in places like Iran long before it. Christianity was also around when classical civilization was still alive. The spread of the works of antiquity had more to do with antiquity tho than with christianity. It was fortunate that the christians in iran and iraq and egpyt didn't completely destroy the works of knowledge that they had in the interveneing period before moslem domination. The muslims learned from that knowledge, expanded upon it, and actively maintained it. Thats why places like moorish spain where havens of culture, compared to 'barbaric' dark ages europe. Slowly that information flowed back into europe, and the europeans also started paying more attention to their own stores of knowledge. Thats why the Rennainsance started in Italy (as opposed to iceland or scotland).

Also, the assyrian christians aren't necessarily the orignal people of iraq, there were other tribes and peoples there long before them, including arabs. The arabs were throughout much of the area that is their core-land now, they just werent' the masters of those lands.

I haven't been on ATS in a few months, and frankly I'm surprised that this thread is still rolling along [struggling along?] from last November.

My perspective, from many years as a student of comparative religions, is that it is much easier to distort [both mistakenly, and when you choose to] when looking from the outside than it is to really put some time and effort into learning first and judging afterwards. Whether you agree with "Ibn Iblis's" hatred of Islaam or not should depend on the real content of the religion as it is understood and practised by most of its adherents, not errors or half-truths about it.

For example, "Ibn Iblis" is mostly accurate when he says:

[posted on 14-11-2004 at 04:20 AM Post Number: 953241]
OK, first of all you are utterly clueless if you think there is one correct, conclusive translation of Qur'anic verses. My Qur'an is translated by Muslims, and it is not watered down for Western eyes. I provided the links to the Qur'an along with info on who the translators are. They are authoratative and the translations are authentic. Just because the wording you found differs from mine does not mean I'm rewording the verse.

However, where he errs [both logically and factually]is that there can be NO translation that is "authoratative" [sic]. All Muslim scholars, from all legal schools of interpretation, agree that only the Arabic Qur'an that has been handed down both in written and in oral transmission is actually "Qur'an." Any attempts at translation, whether made by a Muslim or not, are at best partial commentaries on one layer of meaning of the 'Ayat [the verse] being translated.

The AlHilali-Khan translation that "Ibn Iblis" uses is exactly as he represents it, written by and for Muslims. But again, there is a bit more to the story he left out. It is primarily an English version written by, and for the purposes of, the Wahhabi cult. It is put out by "Darussalam Publishers and Distributors" in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Wahabis are an extremist minority sect that was nearly extinct until the British supported them in the intrigues leading up to, during, and following the destruction of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. The current "Royal Family" in Saudi Arabia was basically a street gang in Riyadh that caused so much trouble to legitimate Muslim authorities during the Ottoman years that they became prime flunkies for the Brits to use as a wedge into the Middle East.

Wahhabis have persecuted and killed tens of thousands of Muslims, perhaps more, belonging to the traditional schools of interpretation, especially since they seized the Holy Cities and proclaimed "Saudi Arabia" in the years following WW I.

Ther are many Muslims who still refuse to refer to the region as "Saudi Arabia" unless they are referring to the regime, as opposed to the land which is "Arabistan." It is similar in some ways to what we might see if Al Capone was a rabid Fundamentalist and conquered the USA with the backing of Stalin, and then set up the Kingdom of "Capone's America." That is what "Saudi" means: "belonging to the Saud family."

To conclude this point, the US government has followed in the footsteps of the British Empire in this respect, too. Hence the bizarre alliance you see between the USA & Saudi Arabia on the one hand, while there is an ever tighter arrangement between the US and Israel, Saudi Arabia's enemy!

Anyway, the geostrategic point is "divide & conquer." The theological point is that Wahhabism, and it's export version "Salafism," is not endorsed by anthing resembling a significant percentage of today's 1.2 billion Muslims, and has no generally recognized place in Islamic tradition either. Books and websites that represent otherwise are almost always subsidised by the Saudis, or else covertly by the British or American governments.

MUSLIM SCUM, WAKE UP PEOPLE!
SPREAD THE WORD

video.google.com...

www.hauns.com...

www.apostatesofislam.com...

littlegreenfootballs.com...

mosquewatch.blogspot.com...

www.usawakeup.org...

www.cbn.com...

www.scribd.com...

www.youtube.com...

americancivilization.net...

www.islammonitor.org...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...