It must be the fault of those Imperialist, Colonialist, Zionist, Racist, Apartheid Crusaders!
They are to blame for beginning this inhumane Christian occupation of rightfully Muslim lands that continues today in the form of the Colonial powers, the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the existence of the State of Israel.
That’s what Muslim apologists and hate-ranting imams/national leaders will tell you. And they are obviously totally unbiased and without political motives, so what they say MUST be true and unquestionably factual!
So let’s count the dates up to the Crusades, shall we?
——————————————-
634 A.D. Muslim invasion of Byzantine Christian Empire – Arab Muslims attack, invade and occupy Christian Syria, Armenia, Egypt, North Africa, Asia Minor, Crete and Sicily, and attempt to conquer the Byzantine Christian Empire’s capital Constantinople in Christian Turkey, until 1169 A.D. Many of these remain under Muslim occupation up to this very day.
634 A.D. Muslim invasion of Palestine – Caliphate Muslims attack, invade and occupy Christian Palestine. Jerusalem (which is mentioned 154 times in the Bible but exactly ZERO times in the Quran) falls to the Muslim occupiers in 638 A.D., until retaken by the Christian Crusaders in 1099 A.D.
650 A.D. Muslim invasion of Khazar – Arab Muslims attack, invade but fail to occupy Jewish and Christian Khazar (Ukraine and Russia), until 737 A.D.
652 A.D. Muslim invasion of Southern Italy – Syrian Arab Muslims attack, invade and occupy Christian Sicily and Italy, until 1091 A.D.
700 A.D. Muslim invasion of Nubia – Arab Muslims attack, invade but fail to occupy Christian Nubia, until 1315 when a Muslim king ascends the throne.
711 A.D. Muslim invasion of South-west Europe – Umayyad Muslims attack, invade and occupy Christian Spain, Portugal, Andora and Gibraltar, and try to invade France but are soundly trashed in the Battle of Tours, until 975 A.D.
846 A.D. Muslim Saracen sacking of Rome – Saracen Muslims attack, invade and pillage Rome, the very capital of the Christian church at that time. The unholy, sacrilegeous, disrespectful defilers rob the sacred relics of the Basilica of Saint Peter and Basilica of Saint Paul, but fail to breach the walls of the city. (Kudos to Eric Mudasi for insipiring this addition.)
1064 A.D. Muslim invasion of West Asia – Turkish Muslims attack, invade and occupy Asia Minor and Syria, until 1308. However, later events cause them to remain under Muslim occupation today.
1095 A.D. The First Crusade – First Crusade begins. Campaign is limited to retaking formerly Christian lands. Today, all the territory reclaimed from Muslim occupiers during the Crusades has returned to Muslim occupation – except for Israel, which has been returned to Jewish rule after 2500 years of occupation by various factions, including centuries of Muslim subjugation.
——————————————-
So according to jihadi apologists, all the suicide bombings, hostage taking, journalist beheading and general terrorism against noncombatants is justified by the Western Christian ‘invasions’ of ‘sovereign Muslim’ lands which began with the ‘illegal Crusades’.
In fact, Rome itself ought to be handed over to the Muslim World Caliphate as recompense for all that Christian Roman Empire-started conflict.
Even though 461 years of unprovoked, unjustified Muslim aggression preceded the Crusades.
Above via Adan Reyes.
And even though 50% of all the Christians in the world at the time of the 7th-century were wiped out in the next three centuries by the Muslim jihadists…:
– The church’s heartland at that time was the Middle East and Northern Africa (now almost completely dominated by Islam)
– 3200 churches were wiped out in North Africa
– 10,000 church buildings were destroyed in the century preceding the First Crusade
And even though the Crusades as a religious war were inspired by and copied the four centuries of Islamic jihad.
Because obviously, the Americano-Zionists used their demonic time-travel spells and godless capitalist technology to warp space-time and make the 1095 A.D. First Crusade happen before Islam was even founded.
Yes, it is obviously all the Western Christian Imperialists Crusaders’ fault. At the behest of their Elders of Zionism masters.
Full list of ‘Western Christian acts of first-aggression’ at this Wikipedia.
Quick background on the First Crusade’s starting here.
In-depth look at the destruction of Constantinople, with video:
On a tip from wits0, Four Myths about the Crusades which are: The crusades represented an unprovoked attack by Western Christians on the Muslim world; Western Christians went on crusade because their greed led them to plunder Muslims in order to get rich; Crusaders were a cynical lot who did not really believe their own religious propaganda; rather, they had ulterior, materialistic motives; The crusades taught Muslims to hate and attack Christians.
Similar summary as mine, with elaborations (tipped by ZT).
On a tip from hutch:
The Mythistory of the Crusades
by Ibn Warraq
…
The Crusades were a response to the desecration of the Christian shrines in the Holy Land, the destruction of churches, and the general persecution of Christians in the Near East. A Crusade to be considered legitimate had to fulfill strict criteria; one did not enter into it lightly for self aggrandizement. There had to be a legally sound reason. It was, in other words, waged for purposes of repelling violence or injury and the imposition of justice on wrongdoers. A Crusade was never a war of conversion, rather a rightful attempt to recover Christian territory which had been injuriously seized in the past. Only a recognized authority could formally declare a Crusade, and it had to be waged justly.
…the Crusades were a reaction against over three hundred years of jihad when the Eastern Christians were persecuted, and hundreds of churches destroyed… the conversion of the magnificent Byzantine Hagia Sophia into a mosque, (though admittedly this took place after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453—it was a mosque from 29 May 1453 until 1931…
I can only adumbrate the situation in the Holy Land a hundred years before Pope Urban II’s call in 1095 for a crusade to liberate Palestine. The cruelties of Caliph al-Hakim have been recorded by Christian and Muslim historians. In 1003, al-Hakim began the persecution of Jews and Christians in earnest. Historian Ibn al-Dawadari tells us that the first move in a series of acts was the destruction of the church of St. Mark. Al-Musabbihi, a contemporary, recounts that the Christians built this church without a permit—the building of new churches was not permitted. The Al-Rashida mosque was built in its place, eventually extending over, and desecrating Jewish and Christian cemeteries; surely an act of vandalism. The height of al-Hakim’s cruelties was the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, also known as the Church of the Resurrection, possibly the most revered shrine in Christendom, since it is considered by Christians as Golgotha, (the Hill of Calvary), where the New Testament says that Jesus was crucified, and even the place where Jesus was buried, and hence, of course, the site of the Resurrection. He ordered dismantled “the Church of the Resurrection to its very foundations, apart from what could not be destroyed or pulled up, and they also destroyed the Golgotha and the Church of St. Constantine and all that they contained, as well as all the sacred grave-stones. They even tried to dig up the graves and wipe out all traces of their existence. Indeed they broke up and uprooted most of them. They also laid waste to a convent in the neighbourhood….The authorities took all the other property belonging to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and its pious foundations, and all its furnishings and treasures.”6 According to Muslim sources the destruction began in September, 1007 C.E. “Most of the Muslim sources view the destruction as a reaction to its magnificence and the fact that it was a world centre for Christian pilgrims, among them many Christians from Egypt; to the splendid processions that were held in the streets of Jerusalem, and to the ‘Paschal fire’….”7
…
Many believe that modern Muslims have inherited from their medieval ancestors memories of crusader violence and destruction. But nothing could be further from the truth.18 By the fourteenth century, in the Islamic world the Crusades had almost passed out of mind. Muslims had lost interest, and, in any case, they “looked back on the Crusades with indifference and complacency. In their eyes they had been the outright winners. They had driven the crusaders from the lands they had settled in the Levant and had been triumphant in the Balkans, occupying far more territory in Europe than the Western settlers had ever held in Syria and Palestine.”
Again from hutch:
Surreal and Suicidal: Modern Western Histories of Islam
A mere decade after the birth of Islam in the 7th century, the jihad burst out of Arabia. Leaving aside all the thousands of miles of ancient lands and civilizations that were permanently conquered, today casually called the “Islamic world” — including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and parts of India and China — much of Europe was also, at one time or another, conquered by the sword of Islam.
Among other nations and territories that were attacked and/or came under Muslim domination are (to give them their modern names in no particular order): Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Sicily, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Belarus, Malta, Sardinia, Moldova, Slovakia, and Montenegro.
In 846 Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim Arab raiders; some 700 years later, in 1453, Christendom’s other great basilica, Constantinople’s Holy Wisdom (or Hagia Sophia) was conquered by Muslim Turks, permanently.
The few European regions that escaped direct Islamic occupation due to their northwest remoteness include Great Britain, Scandinavia, and Germany. That, of course, does not mean that they were not attacked by Islam. Indeed, in the furthest northwest of Europe, in Iceland, Christians used to pray that God save them from the “terror of the Turk.” These fears were not unfounded since as late as 1627 Muslim corsairs raided the Christian island, seizing four hundred captives and selling them in the slave markets of Algiers.
Nor did America escape. A few years after the formation of the United States, in 1800, American trading ships in the Mediterranean were plundered and their sailors enslaved by Muslim corsairs. The ambassador of Tripoli explained to Thomas Jefferson that it was a Muslim’s “right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims] wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners.”
In short, for roughly one millennium — punctuated by a Crusader-rebuttal that the modern West is obsessed with demonizing — Islam daily posed an existential threat to Christian Europe and by extension Western civilization.
…
Were the Dark Ages truly benighted because of the “suffocating” forces of Christianity? Or were these dark ages — which “coincidentally” occurred during the same centuries when jihad was constantly harrying Europe — a product of another suffocating religion? Was the Spanish Inquisition a reflection of Christian barbarism or was it a reflection of Christian desperation vis-à-vis the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who, while claiming to have converted to Christianity, were practicing taqiyya and living as moles trying to subvert the Christian nation back to Islam?
See also God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades and this post, or this summary in response to Obama’s idiotic a-historical pandering to jihadis, and what historians say about it.
Stefan Molyneux offers a verbal recap:
Tags: Caliphate, Christianity vs Islam, clash of civilizations, colonialism, Crusade, crusades, holy war, Islam vs Christianity, Islamic invasion, Israel, Jerusalem, jihad, Muslim invasions, Palestine, terrorism, Umayyad, war on terror, Western imperialism, Zionism, Zionist
THE SCOTTTCAST 
April 23, 08 at 11:30 am
http://www.historyofjihad.com/sitemap.html
April 23, 08 at 12:10 pm
interesting. not surprising though!!
April 23, 08 at 2:19 pm
[moderated] them all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brainless wussss-lim!
April 24, 08 at 10:59 am
In Kiev, the pagan Vladimir considered entreaties from Jews, Muslims and Christians. Of Judaism and Islam he learned that both necessitated circumcision and prohibited the consumption of swine. Islam further banned alcohol, though it permitted a man to have a large number of women. What to do? According to ”The Tale of Bygone Years,” first compiled two centuries later in the 1180’s, Vladimir listened to the Muslims, ”for he was fond of women and indulgence. . . . But circumcision and abstinence from pork and wine were disagreeable to him. ‘Drinking,’ he said, ‘is the joy of the Russes. We cannot exist without that pleasure.’ ” Vladimir took the plunge for the Christian faith. He also availed himself of an estimated 800 concubines.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/05/03/reviews/980503.03kotkint.html
April 24, 08 at 11:23 am
Test
April 24, 08 at 1:35 pm
so far, all the christians that i have met all my live, including americans, australians etc…. all of them are super aggressive.. more aggressive than all the terrorists in the muslim world………
but aggressive only in spreading the word of god. not putting a bullet in my head.
May 5, 08 at 11:31 am
The Crusades of the past were against the “infidels” which derives from words that mean “unfaithful.” The current war in Iraq is also against “infidels,” but the word “infidel” has lost its power as it has been overused to describe those that are non-christian. And, of course, the American government can’t blatantly attack Muslims as a whole so George W. Bush cleverly created a new word for “infidels” that would instill a new fear in people that would help perpetuate his “crusade” or “war.” That new word is “terrorist.” By using the word “terrorist” to describe the “infidels,” it is easier to support any fight against them. It is easier to justify the “war.” Out of the mouth of our President- “This Crusade, This War on Terrorism, is going to take a while.” (Islam without Illusions, pg. 111).
May 5, 08 at 11:41 am
As opposed to the very effective, descriptive and powerfully convincing words used by jihadists for non-Muslims, which are exactly the same as they were 1400 years ago: kaffir, dhimmi, abed, shirk, harbi darl-al harb.
Which translate roughly to infidel, second class citizen, slave, damned polytheist, non-Muslim of the house of war (i.e. enemy).
But a simple comparison for all of us who aren’t GW Bush or the ‘terrorists’ – GW Bush doesn’t want to blow up my cafe, or cut of my head, or rape my friends, or enslave me, or make me a perpetual second-class citizen just because I don’t have the same religion as them.
At worst, Bushie will force me to eat American food, watch American movies and play American video games. Which I and billions of people already willingly pay good money to do.
So even if it’s an unjust war in Iraq, the 23000 ‘terrorists’ killed can only make me smile.
Choose your sides.
May 5, 08 at 11:52 am
Seems to me Faustinah has relationships with Faust who made a pact with the devil, and now engages in sophistry on Bush`s Crusade as one against muslims. This an idea much loved by muslims clerics who indulge in narcissistic victimhood.
The crusades were never referred to as such by their participants. The original crusaders were known by various terms, including fideles Sancti Petri (the faithful of Saint Peter) or milites Christi (knights of Christ). They saw themselves as undertaking an iter, a journey, or a peregrinatio, a pilgrimage, though pilgrims were usually forbidden from carrying arms. Like pilgrims, each crusader swore a vow (a votus), to be fulfilled on successfully reaching Jerusalem, and they were granted a cloth cross (crux) to be sewn into their clothes. This “taking of the cross”, the crux, eventually became associated with the entire journey; the word “crusade” (coming into English from the French croisade, the Italian crociata, the Portuguese cruzada, or the German Kreuzzug) developed from this.
Since the 17th century, the term “crusade” has carried a connotation in the West of being a righteous campaign, usually to “root out evil”, or to fight for a just cause. In a non-historical common or theological use, “crusade” has come to have a much broader emphatic or religious meaning —substantially removed from “armed struggle.”
In a broader sense, “crusade” can be used, always in a rhetorical and metaphorical sense, to identify as righteous any war that is given a religious or moral justification.
A June 2, 1944 message to Allied troops before the Normandy landings, began with General Eisnehower stating, “Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force! You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months.” His later bestselling memoir was entitled Crusade in Europe.
Ardent activists may also refer to their causes as “crusades,” as in the “Crusade against Adult Illiteracy,” or a “Crusade against Littering.” In recent years, however, the use of “crusade” as a positive term has become less frequent in order to avoid giving offense to Muslims or others offended by the term.[citation needed] The term may also sarcastically or pejoratively characterize the zealotry of agenda promoters, for example with the moniker “Public Crusader” or the campaigns “Crusade against abortion,” and the “Crusade for prayer in public schools.”
May 5, 08 at 12:06 pm
So it would be equally fitting to call Faustinah a `Crusader For Islam`.
May 5, 08 at 1:28 pm
No, I don’t like Islam. I detest all religion and I detest violence. I’m just saying the word “infidel” has lost its spark so a new word has been created: “terrorist.” “Terrorist” has more effect on people to help gain support for war. Any war. Homeland security is at war with its own people calling certain American people terrorists when in fact they are not or at least don’t have anything to do with Islam. Besides, posting this was part of a class assignment so I thank you for your quick contributions.
May 5, 08 at 1:43 pm
In that case, I fully apologize for mis-equating you to the supporters of scumbag hatemongers of the world.
I am totally in favour of replacing the word ‘terrorist’, which has been adopted and hijacked by everyone with an axe to grind – including jihadists who call Americans, Jews, legitimate governments, and everyone else they don’t like ‘terrorists’.
I suggest the term ITC – Intentional Targeters of Civilians. This way, it doesn’t matter which side you are on – if you explode nail bombs on a school bus instead of targeting a guard post, you are an ITC. Same goes for launching missiles at a school instead of a fortified bunker.
The key word is ‘Intentional’ – meaning that if Hamas gunmen hide behind teenagers and Israeli soldiers kill some kids in the crossfire, the Hamas gunmen are the ITCs, as they are the ones who intended civilians to be part of the casualties.
Good luck with your project, I have tons more related info if you use the Search button.
May 5, 08 at 1:58 pm
Thanks. I will check it out.
What the hell is wrong with those people anyway?
May 5, 08 at 2:27 pm
Like I said, it’s our fault for messing with the space-time continuum and sending those cyborg lightsaber-wielding Crusaders back to 300 A.D. and traumatising the camel herders, leading to psychological problems and eventually the whole Jihad schtick.
And also for not converting to their religion.
What’s you project about anyway? I can post links from memory, faster that way.
May 6, 08 at 12:05 am
My project is done. It was for my English class. My paper was about the Crusades and we had to post a comment in a blog about our subject and write a little about what we posted and any responses we received. It was a very small project compared to the rest of the class assignments. Thanks again. Dirka Dirka.
May 12, 08 at 6:26 pm
An example? Many recall what happened in Rome, at St. Peter’s Basilica, the night of Christmas Day of the year 800. After the Mass, pope Leo III solemnly placed upon the head of Charlemagne the crown of the Holy Roman Empire.
That night, the basilica of St. Peter gleamed with breathtaking brilliance. A few years earlier, Leo III’s predecessor, pope Hadrian I, had covered the entire floor of the sanctuary with plates of silver; he had covered the walls with gold plates and enclosed it all with a balustrade of gold weighing 1,328 pounds. He had remade the sanctuary gates with silver, and had placed on the iconostasis six images also made of silver, representing Christ, Mary, the archangels Gabriel and Michael, and saints Andrew and John. Finally, in order to make this splendor visible to all, he had ordered the assembly of a candelabrum in the form of a huge cross, on which 1,365 candles burned.
But less than half a century later, none of this remained. And what happened remains generally unknown among Christians today.
What happened is that in 846 some Muslim Arabs arrived in a fleet at the mouth of the Tiber, made their way to Rome, sacked the city, and carried away from the basilica of St. Peter all of the gold and silver it contained.
And this was not just an incidental attack. In 827 the Arabs had conquered Sicily, which they kept under their dominion for two and a half centuries. Rome was under serious threat from nearby. In 847, the year after the assault, the newly elected pope Leo IV began the construction of walls around the entire perimeter of the Vatican, 12 meters high and equipped with 44 towers. He completed the project in six years. These are the “Leonine” walls, and significant traces of them still remain. But very few today know that these walls were erected to defend the see of Peter from an Islamic jihad. And many of those who do know this remain silent out of discretion. “Bridges, not walls” is the fashionable slogan today.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/44479?eng=y
May 20, 08 at 10:36 am
A MONUMENT TO MUSLIM “TOLERANCE”
“The sun was scorching. When I was about a league from the town, I saw a large tower rising in the midst of the plain, as white as Parian marble. I took the path which led to it… I sat down under the shade of the tower to enjoy a few moments’ repose. No sooner was I seated than, raising my eyes to the monument, I discovered that the walls, which I supposed to be built of marble or white stone, were composed of regular rows of human skulls; these skulls bleached by the rain and sun, and cemented by a little sand and lime, formed entirely the triumphal arch which now sheltered me from the heat of the sun… In some places portions of hair were still hanging and waved, like lichen or moss, with every breath of wind. The mountain breeze, which was then blowing fresh, penetrated the innumerable cavities of the skulls, and sounded like mournful and plaintive sighs.”
Such was the description of “Chele kula” given by Alphonse de Lamartine in his book “A Pilgrimage to the Holy Land… Made during a Tour in the East in 1832-1833” (Published in London, 1835, vol. 3, pp 105-106).
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/Chele-kula.html
May 20, 08 at 11:42 am
Though European Crusaders may have been sincere, they wandered off from the origins of Christianity when they slashed and burned and forced conversions. Jesus never used violence; neither did he call his disciples to use it. Given this historical fact, it is only natural that the New Testament would never endorse violence to spread the word of the true God. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Jesus.
In contrast, Muslims who slashed and burned and forced conversions did not wander off from the origins of Islam, but followed it closely. It is a plain and unpleasant historical fact that in the ten years that Muhammad lived in Medina (622—632), he either sent out or went out on seventy—four raids, expeditions, or full—scale wars, which range from small assassination hit squads to the Tabuk Crusade, described above (see 630). Sometimes the expeditions did not result in violence, but a Muslim army always lurked in the background. Muhammad could exact a terrible vengeance on an individual or tribe that double—crossed him. These ten years did not know long stretches of peace.
It is only natural that the Quran would be filled with references to jihad and qital, the latter word meaning only fighting, killing, warring, and slaughtering. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Muhammad. And after.
But this means that the Church had to fight back or be swallowed up by an aggressive religion over the centuries. Thus, the Church did not go out and conquer in a mindless, bloodthirsty, and irrational way—though the Christian Crusades were far from perfect.
Islam was the aggressor in its own Crusades, long before the Europeans responded with their own.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_truth_about_islamic_crusad.html
June 7, 08 at 4:48 pm
Completely false informative , baseless allegations against Islam and Moslem’s Ummah.
hutchrun
You’re nothing but another big mouth, retard minded ling head.
Though, I can answer each and every question of yours, however, I need man with honor not a man who spread hatred. for facts visit link below…
http://ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/contents.htm
June 9, 08 at 9:38 am
Bilal,
I will call your bluff on the Crusades by pointing out the historical fact that they started only as a RESPONSE to 461 looooooong years of continuous, unprovoked Moslem aggression and raise you countless crimes of Islam happening every single day in modern times.
June 10, 08 at 8:26 pm
Dear Scott Thong peace and blessings of God be upon you
something that we have to mind it that all world religions Christianity, Islam,Judaism etc.. talk about love, peace harmony.If a follower of certain religion whether Christian or Muslim commit a crime that doesn’t mean that lesson was given to him by his religion, or we say Christianity/Islam is responsible for that.Each and every religion keeps black sheep ,do we suppose to be sarcastic or talk dirty regarding religions. I’m asking you an straight forward question? Do you agree that Christianity permitted Adolf Hitler to kill millions of innocents? Do I suppose to consider Christianity responsible for genocide of Jews? G.Bush(Americans) made 89 expedition in last 100 years in which In Vietnam alone 8 million were perished while present Iraqi figures are in your forefront? Do you think Christianity is responsible for that? I don’t think so…Because I know/you know what Christianity is? or what does it teach? For each and every question regarding Islam, I’m here you can ask me in public as well as in private.
June 10, 08 at 8:37 pm
sorry to forget something. For more details what Islam has given to this world listen to your own research scholars in documentary” Empire of the Faith”
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Empire+of+the+faith&search_type=&aq=f
June 11, 08 at 8:57 pm
i really like what u said bilal afridi but if they could read the quran in arabic even in enligsh and truly understand they would know the difference
June 12, 08 at 8:56 am
Very well Bilal, I will ask you right here in the open.
Did GW Bush begin his invasion of Iraq stating that Christ has commanded him to?
Did the Catholic church bless Hitler’s purges as YHWH’s will, or were they simply cowed into submission by Mussolini?
Where at all in the Bible does Jesus command His followers to kill non-Christians in His name?
Contrast with these Suras that I dare you to refute as lies, mistranslations or taken out of context from Jihad Watch:
While Judeo-Christianity may have murderous and violent followers, its doctrines do not themselves call for violence and war. Islam is nothing like that.
Why do you assume that the jihadi conquests of Christian lands in medieval times by the Caliphs – the religious, political and spiritual successors to Mohammed himself – were not motivated by Islam… While trying to equivocate GW Bush to the champion of Christianity when hardly any serious Christian thinks him so?
If you have no response, I will assume your acceptance of this fact.
June 12, 08 at 10:03 am
I believe GW Bush merely prayed for guidance as a Christian ; he never said/claim anything near to the nonsense that God commanded him to invade Iraq.
June 12, 08 at 10:19 am
Dumb bilal still trying to think an answer after more than a month.
June 12, 08 at 12:38 pm
Nah, the dumb bilal got a lobotomy instead of a circumcision.
June 14, 08 at 8:37 pm
Dear Scott Thong peace and blessings of Allah be upon you
Many people have made it a trend these day to quote the Quran out of context in an effort to show that Islam promotes violence. Best effort was made recently by Cal Thomas is a high profile example.
anyways due to shortage of time in first instance I will touch only few of your questions regarding Judeo-Christianity while I prefer to answer in detail regarding Quranic suras questions.
This is pure nonsense. Thomas and others doing this are taking selected passages and reading them completely out of context to support whatever argument they wish to make. I can do the same thing with the Bible.
Here are some choice passages from the KJV Bible which when read in isolation makes the Bible appear to be a primer for evil:
1) In Leviticus 25:44-46, the Lord tells the Israelites it’s OK to own slaves, provided they are strangers or heathens.
2) In Samuel 15:2-3, the Lord orders Saul to kill all the Amalekite men, women and infants.
3) In Exodus 15:3, the Bible tells us the Lord is a man of war.
4) In Numbers 31, the Lord tells Moses to kill all the Midianites, sparing only the virgins.
5) In Deuteronomy 13:6-16, the Lord instructs Israel to kill anyone who worships a different god or who worships the Lord differently.
6) In Mark 7:9, Jesus is critical of the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as prescribed by Old Testament law.
7) In Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders killed anyone who refuses to be ruled by him.
Context is important, of course, and many of these seeming cruelties disappear when read as such. However, this would not stop a Christian terrorist from interpreting the Bible in a manner necessary to concoct a religious justification for unspeakable horrors, as Pope Urban II did, for example, when he preached the First Crusade in 1095 or as many American preachers did when they used Leviticus to defend slavery.
June 14, 08 at 8:40 pm
Cruelty and Violence in the 1st Four Books of the Bible
Genesis
1. God likes Abel’s dead animals better than Cain’s fruits and vegetables. Why? Well, no reason is given, but it probably has something to do with the amount of pain, blood, and gore involved. 4:3-5
2. Because God liked Abel’s animal sacrifice more than Cain’s vegetables, Cain kills his brother Abel in a fit of religious jealousy. 4:8
3. God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and “all flesh wherein there is breath of life.” He plans to drown them all. 6:7, 17
4. God repeats his intention to kill “every living substance … from off the face of the earth.” But why does God kill all the innocent animals? What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems God never gets his fill of tormenting animals. 7:4
5. God drowns everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to koala bears — all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all. 7:21-23
6. Noah kills the “clean beasts” and burns their dead bodies for God. According to 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all “clean” animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark. “And the Lord smelled a sweet savor.” 8:20
7. To free Lot from captivity, Abram sends an army of slaves to pursue and smite his captors. 14:14-15
8. God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless slaughter makes God feel better. 15:9-10
9. Hagar conceives, making Sarai jealous. Abram tells Sarai to do to Hagar whatever she wants. “And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled.” 16:6
10. Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two “virgin daughters” instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to “do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes.” This is the same man that is called “just” and “righteous” in 2 Pet.2:7-8. 19:7-8
11. God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining “fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven.” Well, almost everyone — he spares the “just and righteous” Lot and his family. 19:24
12. God threatens to kill Abimelech and his people for believing Abe’s lie. 20:3-7
13. God orders Abraham to kill Isaac as a burnt offering. Abraham shows his love for God by his willingness to murder his son. But finally, just before Isaac’s throat is slit, God provides a goat to kill instead. 22:2-13
14. Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, is “defiled” by a man who seems to love her dearly. Her brothers trick all of the men of the town and kill them (after first having them all circumcised), and then take their wives and children captive. 34:1-31
15. “The terror of God was upon the cities that were round about them.” I don’t know what the “terror of God” is, but I’ll bet it isn’t pleasant. 35:5
16. “And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him.” What did Er do to elicit God’s wrath? The Bible doesn’t say. Maybe he picked up some sticks on Saturday. 38:7
17. After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to “go in unto they brother’s wife.” But “Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and … when he went in unto his brother’s wife … he spilled it on the ground…. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also.” This lovely Bible story is seldom read in Sunday School, but it is the basis of many Christian doctrines, including the condemnation of both masturbation and birth control. 38:8-10
18. After Judah pays Tamar for her services, he is told that she “played the harlot” and “is with child by whoredom.” When Judah hears this, he says, “Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.” 38:24
19. Joseph interprets the baker’s dream. He says that the pharaoh will cut off the baker’s head, and hang his headless body on a tree for the birds to eat. 40:19
Exodus
20. Moses murders an Egyptian after making sure that no one is looking. 2:11-12
21. God threatens to kill the Pharaoh’s firstborn son. 4:23
22. God decides to kill Moses because his son had not yet been circumcised. 4:24-26
23. God will make sure that Pharaoh does not listen to Moses, so that he can kill Egyptians with his armies. 7:4
24. “And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD.” Who else could be so cruel and unjust? 7:5, 17
25. God tells Moses and Aaron to smite the river and turn it into blood. 7:17-24
26. The fifth plague: all cattle in Egypt die. 9:2-6
27. The sixth plague: boils and blains upon man and beast. 9:9-12
28. “For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.” Who else but the biblical god could be so cruel? 9:14
29. God kills all Egyptian cattle with hail. 9:19-20
30. The seventh plague is hail. “And the hail smote throughout the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and beast.” 9:22-25
31. These verses clearly show that the mass murder of innocent children by God was premeditated. 11:4-6 (see 12:29-30)
32. God will kill the Egyptian children to show that he puts “a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.” 11:7
33. God explains to Moses that he intends to “smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast. 12:12
34. After God has sufficiently hardened the Pharaoh’s heart, he kills all the firstborn Egyptian children. When he was finished “there was not a house where there was not one dead.” Finally, he runs out of little babies to kill, so he slaughters the firstborn cattle, too. 12:29
35. To commemorate the divine massacre of the Egyptian children, Moses instructs the Israelites to “sacrifice to the Lord all that openeth the matrix” — all the males, that is. God has no use for dead, burnt female bodies. 13:2, 12, 15
36. After hardening Pharaoh’s heart a few more times, God drowns Pharaoh’s army in the sea 14:4-28
37. Moses and the people sing praises to their murderous god. 15:1-19
38. “The Lord is a man of war.” Indeed, judging from his acts in the Old Testament, he is a vicious warlike monster. 15:3
39. God’s right hand dashes people in pieces. 15:6
40. Joshua, with God’s approval, kills the Amalekites “with the edge of the sword.” 17:13
41. “The Lord has sworn [God swears!] that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.” 17:14-16
42. Any person or animal that touches Mt. Sinai shall be stoned to death or “shot through.” 19:12-13
43. God gives instructions for killing and burning animals. He says that if we will make such “burnt offerings,” he will bless us for it. What kind of mind would be pleased by the killing and burning of innocent animals? 20:24
44. A child who hits or curses his parents must be executed. 21:15,17
45. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 21:24-25
46. If an ox gores someone, then both the ox and its owner must die. 21:28-29
47. “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Thousands of innocent women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse. 22:18
48. “Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.” Is it really necessary to kill such people? Couldn’t we just send them to counseling or something? 22:19
49. “He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” If this commandment is obeyed, then the four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god must be killed. 22:20
50. If you make God angry enough, he will kill you and your family with his own sword. 22:24
51. “The firstborn of thy sons thou shalt give unto me.” (As a burnt offering?) 22:29
52. God promises to “send his fear before the Israelites” and to kill everyone that they encounter when they enter the promised land. 23:27
53. Moses has some animals killed and their dead bodies burned for God. Then he sprinkles their blood on the altar and on the people. This makes God happy. 24:5-8
54. Get some animals, kill them, chop up their bodies, wave body parts in the air, burn the carcasses, and sprinkle the blood all around — in precisely the way God tells you. It may well make you sick, but it makes God feel good. 29:11-37
55. Have your killed and offered your bullock for a sin offering today? How about the two lambs you are supposed to offer each day? 29:36-39
56. Wash up or die. 30:20-21
57. Whoever puts holy oil on a stranger shall be “cut off from his people.” 30:33
58. Those who break the Sabbath are to be executed. 31:14
59. God asks to be left alone so that his “wrath may wax hot” and he can “consume them. 32:10
60. God orders the sons of Levi (Moses, Aaron, and the other members of their tribe that were “on the Lord’s side”) to kill “every man his neighbor.” “And there fell of the people that day about 3000 men.” 32:27-28
61. But God wasn’t satisfied with the slaughter of the 3000, so he killed some more people with a plague. 32:35
62. If you can’t redeem him, then just “break his neck.” Hey, it’s all for the glory of God. 34:20
63. Whoever works, or even kindles a fire, on the Sabbath “shall be put to death.” 35:2-3
Leviticus
64. God gives detailed instructions for performing ritualistic animal sacrifices. such bloody rituals must be important to God, judging from the number of times that he repeats their instructions. Indeed the entire first nine chapters of Leviticus can be summarized as follows: Get an animal, kill it, sprinkle the blood around, cut the dead animal into pieces, and burn it for a “sweet savor unto the Lord.” Chapters 1 – 9
65. Wringing off the heads of pigeons for God. 5:8-9
66. The holy law of trespass offering: Find an animal; kill it; sprinkle the blood around; offer God the fat, rump, kidneys, and caul; burn and eat it in the holy place, for “it is most holy.” 7:1-6
67. The priest must sprinkle the blood of the peace offerings. 7:14
68. Be careful what you eat during these animal sacrifices. Don’t eat fat or blood — these are for God. (And he doesn’t like to share!) 7:18-27
69. God gives instructions for “wave offerings” and “heave offerings.” He says these offerings are to be made perpetually “by a statute for ever.” Have you made your heave offering today? 7:30-36
70. Moses does it all for God. First he kills an animal; wipes the blood on Aaron’s ears, thumbs, and big toes. Then he sprinkles blood round about and waves the guts before the Lord. Finally he burns the whole mess for “a sweet savour before the Lord.” 8:14-32
71. More killing, sprinkling of blood, waiving animal parts, and burning carcasses “before the Lord.” 9:8-21
72. Two of the sons of Aaron “offered strange fire before the Lord” and “there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.” 10:1-2
73. If priests misbehave at the tabernacle by uncovering their heads, tearing their clothes, leaving with holy oil on them, or by drinking “wine or strong drink”, then God will kill them and send his wrath on “all the people.” 10:6-9
74. God’s treatment for leprosy: Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly off. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient’s right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally kill a couple doves and offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. 14:2-32
75. God explains the use of scapegoats. It goes like this: Get two goats. Kill one. Wipe, smear, and sprinkle the blood around seven times. Then take the other goat, give it the sins of all the people, and send it off into the wilderness. 16:6-28
76. If you upset God, he’ll cause the land to vomit you out. 18:25
77. “Whosoever shall commit any of these abominations … shall be cut off from among their people.” I’m not sure what being “cut off” means exactly, but I bet it isn’t any fun. 18:29, 19:8
78. Kill anyone who “gives his seed” to Molech. If you refuse, God will cut you and your family off. 20:2-5
79. “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.” Couldn’t we try spanking first? 20:9
80. Both parties in adultery shall be executed. 20:10
81. “And the man that lieth with his father’s wife … both of them shall be put to death.” Which? The man and his father? The father and his wife? Or the man and his father’s wife? Oh heck, just kill all three. 20:11
82. If a man “lies” with his daughter-in-law, then both must be killed. 20:12
83. Homosexuals must be executed. 20:13
84. If you “lie” with your wife and your mother-in-law (now that sounds fun!), then all three of you must be burned to death. 20:14
85. If a man or woman “lie with a beast” both the person and the poor animal are to be killed. 20:15-16
86. People with “familiar spirits” (witches, fortune tellers, etc.) are to be stoned to death. 20:27
87. A priest’s daughter who “plays the whore” is to be burned to death. 21:9
88. God gives us more instructions on killing and burning animals. I guess the first nine chapters of Leviticus wasn’t enough. He says we must do this because he really likes the smell — it is “a sweet savour unto the Lord.” 23:12-14, 18
89. Don’t do any work on the day of atonement or God will destroy you. 23:29-30
90. A man curses and blasphemes while disputing with another man. Moses asks God what to do about it. God says that the whole community must stone him to death. “And the children of Israel did as the Lord and Moses commanded.” 24:10-23
91. Anyone who blasphemes or curses shall be stoned to death by the entire community. 24:16
92. God tells the Israelites to “chase” their enemies and make them “fall before you by the sword.” He figures five of the Israelites will be able to “chase” a hundred of their enemies, and a hundred will be able to “put ten thousand to flight.” 26:7-8
93. God describes torments that he has planned for those who displease him. The usual stuff: plagues, burning fevers that will consume the eyes, etc. but he reserves the worst for the little children. He says “ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it”, “I will send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children”, and “ye shall eat the flesh of your sons .. daughters.” 26:16-39
94. All “devoted” things (both man and beast) “shall surely be put to death.” 27:28-29
Numbers
95. God displays his hospitality with the admonition: “The stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.” 1:51
96. Two of Aaron’s sons are killed by God for “offering strange fire before the Lord.” 3:4
97. God repeats his order (see 1:51) to kill any strangers who happen to come near. 3:10
98. Once again (see 1:51 and 3:10) God tells his favorite people to kill any strangers that come near. 3:38
99. Don’t touch or “go in to see when the holy things are covered.” God kills people who touch or look at uncovered holy things. 4:15, 4:20
100. “And when the people complained, it displeased the Lord: and the Lord heard it.” (He had his hearing aid on.) He then burns the complainers alive. That’ll teach them. 11:1
101. “And wile the flesh [of the quails] was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the Lord was kindled against the people, and the Lord smote the people with a very great plague. “The Bible isn’t too clear about what these poor folks did to upset God so much; all it says is that they had “lusted.” 11:33
102. More plagues and pestilence sent by God. God repeats one of his favorite promises: “your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness.” 14:12, 29, 14:32-37
103. God gives more instructions for the ritualistic killing of animals. The smell of burning flesh is “a sweet savour unto the Lord.” 15:3, 13-14, 24
104. The Israelites find a man picking up sticks on the sabbath. God commands them to kill him by throwing rocks at him. 15:32-36
105. Because of a dispute between Korah and Moses, God makes the ground open up and it swallows Korah and his family. And then, just for the hell of it, God has a fire burn 250 men (friends of Korah?) to death. 16:20-49
106. After God killed Korah, his family, and 250 innocent bystanders, the people complained saying, “ye have killed the people of the Lord.” So God, who doesn’t take kindly to criticism, sends a plague on the people. And “they that died in the plague were 14,700.” 16:41-50
107. God threatens to kill those who murmur. To which the people reply, “Behold, we die, we perish, we all perish …. Shall we be consumed with dying?” 17:12-13
108. According to this verse, it is wise to stay away from holy things and places — like churches. God will kill you if you get too close. 18:3
109. God shows us how to make new friends by saying : “The stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.” 18:7
110. God describes once again the procedure for ritualistic animal sacrifices. such rituals must be extremely important to God, since he makes their performance a “statute” and “covenant” forever. Why, then don’t Bible-believers perform these sacrifices anymore? Don’t they realize how God must miss the “sweet savour” of burning flesh? Don’t they believe God when he says “forever”? 18:17-19
111. Don’t get near holy things or “pollute” them. If you do, God will kill you. 18:22, 32
112. The purification of the unclean. These absurd rituals, cruel sacrifices, and unjust punishments are vitally important to God. He even insists that they are to be “a perpetual statute” to all humankind. 19:1-22
113. “And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities.” This verse demonstrates the power of prayer: If you ask God, he will destroy entire cities for you. 21:3
114. God sends “fiery serpents” to bite his chosen people, and many of them die. 21:6
115. God delivers the Amorites into Moses’ hands. (You’re in God hands with Moses.) So Moses does the usual thing, killing everyone “until their was none left alive.” 21:34-35
116. God’s people will kill like a lion and then “drink the blood of the slain.” 23:24
117. God, who is as strong as a unicorn, will eat up the nations, break their bones, and then pierce them through with his arrows. What a guy! 24:8
118. After the people “commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab,” Moses has them all killed. Then God tells Moses to hang their dead bodies up in front of him; God says that this will satisfy him. 25:1-5
119. When one of the Israelite men brings home a foreign woman, “Phinehas (Aaron’s grandson) sees them and throws a spear “through the man .. and the woman through her belly.” This act pleases God so much that “the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.” But not before 24,000 had died. 25:6-9
120. God tells Moses how to care for his neighbors by saying: “Vex the Midianites, and smite them.” 25:16-17
121. The ground swallow Korah and his companions and a fire consumes 250 men. 26:10
122. “And Nadab and Abihu died when they offered strange fire before the Lord.” When you go camping avoid making any unusual fires. 26:61
123. In these chapters, God provides ridiculously detailed instructions for the ritualistic sacrifice of animals. The burning of their dead bodies smells great to God. Eleven times in these two chapters God says that they are to him a “sweet savour.”
124. Under God’s direction, Moses’ army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: “Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins — Wow! [Even God gets some of the booty — including the virgins. (31:28-29)] 31:1-54 28-29
125. God killed all the Egyptian firstborn. 33:4
126. “The revenger of blood” must murder the murderer just as soon as he sees him. 35:19, 21
127. When a murder is committed the blood pollutes the land. The only way to cleanse it is to spill more blood by killing the killer. 35:33
June 14, 08 at 9:13 pm
Bilal, I’m not a Christian but am fully aware of those verses in the OT since my school days.
They are not meant for all-time as with how koranic verses are meant to be, to the letter of the word. That’s the essential difference. Also, no one follows them for a very very long time.
June 15, 08 at 8:53 am
I was right then that the bilal afridi was lobotomised `stead of being circumcised. This is what someone more well versed in Jihad says:
Modem writers by and large including modem apologists of Islam state that AyAts on jihAd were “revealed” to the Prophet after his migration to Medina. They explain that jihAd was the last course to which the Prophet was forced to resort because his “peaceful preaching in Mecca” was not only rebuffed but also met with “persecution by the Meccan pagans”. They locate and give a count of the Ayats on jihAd in the Medinan surAhs. Brigadier S.K. Malik has collected these Ayats in the context of military strategy; they add up to 267 spread over 17 sUrahs out of around 1457 Ayats spread over 23 sUrahs which were received by the Prophet at Medina.”33 The rest of the Ayats in the Quran – around 4754 in 91 Meccan sUrahs and around 1190 in 23 Medinan sUrahs -, the apologists insist, pertain to other subjects such as beliefs, prayers, rituals, ethics, social rules and regulations etc.
Brigadier Malik, however, does not agree with this concept of jihAd which, according to him, is far more comprehensive. Let us listen to what he has to say on the subjects. He writes:
The first step to this study is to understand the difference between total strategy, that is Jehad, and military strategy. The term, Jehad, so often confused with military strategy, is, in fact, the near-equivalent of total or grand strategy or policy in execution. Jehad entails the comprehensive direction and application of ‘power’ while military strategy deals only with the preparation for and application of force. Jehad is a continuous and never-ending struggle waged on all fronts including politica4 economic, social, psychological, domestic, moral and spiritual to attain the object of policy. It aims at a g the overall mission assigned to the Islamic State, and military strategy is one of the means available to it to do so. It is waged at the individual as well as collective level; and at internal as well as external front.
Waged in its true spirit, and with multiple means available to it, the Islamic concept of total strategy has the capacity to produce direct results. Alternately, however, it creates conditions conducive to the military strategy to attain its objectives speedily and economically. Military strategy thus draws heavily on the total strategy (Jehad) for its successful application. Any weakness or strength in the formulation, direction or application of the total strategy would affect military strategy in like manner. In the absence of Jehad, the preparation for and application of ‘force’ to its best advantage would be a matter of exception, not rule. Conversely, optimum preparation and application of military instrument forms an integral part of Jehad.34
The Hadis collections, commentaries on the Quran (tafsIr), and treatises on this specific Islamic lore also proclaim that the so-called Ayats on jihAd “revealed” at Medina pertain to only one form of jihAd, namely, jihAd bil saif – striving by the sword. At the same time they mention three other forms of jihAd as follows:
jihAd bil nafs: striving by the heart or conscience, that is, cursing the KAfirs silently or in private if conditions do not permit cursing them publicly by means of speech and writing etc.
jihAd bil lasAn: striving by the tongue or word of mouth, that is, preaching against the KAfirs publicly, pasting pejorative labels on them, and threatening them with the defeat and disgrace which await them in this world, and the doom hereafter.
jihAd bil qalam: striving by the pen, that is, writing down on paper and other materials what one has harboured in one’s heart or harangued in one’s speeches or plans to say at the appropriate opportunity. The written material is used for preservation of the Polemics as well as for its wider circulation.
Looked at from this comprehensive perspective, the whole of the Quran comes out unmistakably as a compendium on jihAd. It contains Ayats which were “revealed” to the Prophet vis-à -vis kufr (unbelief) and shirk (idolatry) while Islam was preached by him in private, and the small number of converts were organized in a secret society. These Ayats were recited by the faithful individually and silently, or in private gatherings of a few people. They constitute jihAd bil nafs. Next, came the jihAd bil lasAn either joined to jihAd bil qalam or undertaken separately or simultaneously. That was when Allah commanded the Prophet to preach Islam publicly after Muslims had functioned underground for three years and grown in numbers as well as in terms of self-confidence. During the next ten years – from 613 CE to 622 CE – the Quran grew considerably in size as well as subject-matter as it included not only those Ayats which had been “revealed” before 613 but also those which “came down” subsequently.
As regards AyAts which do not directly denounce or warn the unbelievers, they are obviously of an auxiliary or supplementary character; they are meant for marshalling the Muslims into a militant fraternity (ummah) on the basis of a common belief system, a common set of rituals, and a common code of conduct. JihAd in any form can be practised only when there is an organized and disciplined community, small or large, to practise it. And jihAd in the service of the only god, the only prophet, the only book, the only dIn, needs above all an only ummah.
So each of the five pillars of Islam – the only themes elaborated in the Quran – is a component of jihAd. Among them the first and topmost place goes to shahAdah or Kalimah (confession of faith, ImAn); it is a loud and clear declaration of jihAd or war on the unbelievers, made repeatedly and endlessly in every tenet and ritual of Islam. The other four pillars – salAt or namAz (prayers), zakAt (poor-tax), saum or rozah (fasting during Ramzan), and hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) – are aimed at fortifying the first pillar in the hearts and minds of the believers so that it becomes a passion and a war-cry. In short, we can conclude as follows:
June 15, 08 at 8:55 am
Firstly, the Quran is an exposition of the Kalimah or proclamation of jihAd in all its aspects, implications, dimensions and dynamics.
Secondly, it is an exhortation towards marshalling a gang of desperados for imposing the Kalimah on the rest of mankind by every means including the sword.
And jihAd bil saif prescribed in the Ayats “revealed” at Medina and practised by the Prophet during the last ten years of his life from 622 CE to 632 CE – is only the crowning piece in the Quran. Let the crowning piece stand where it does in all its glamour and glory, but the edifice which sustains it should not be viewed as something different or alien or antagonistic to it. The Quran as a whole is a unique piece of unity which runs throughout its seemingly diverse themes.
JihAd bil Saif
The book by Brigadier S.K. Malik to which we have referred above is a study of “striving by the sword” as elaborated in the Quran. It carries a Foreword by the late General Zia-ul-Haq who had seized power in Pakistan in 1977 after being appointed the Chief of the Army by Z.A. Bhutto, who was dictator of that country for more than a decade, and who promoted the concept of “proxy” or “low intensity” war against India – a war which continues in various forms and on several fronts till today. The General says:
Jehad fi sabilallah is not the exclusive domain of the professional soldier, nor is it restricted to the application of military force alone.
This book brings out with simplicity, clarity and precision the Quranic philosophy on the application of military force within the context of the totality that is Jehad. The professional soldier in a Muslim army, pursuing the goals of a Muslim state, cannot become ‘professional’ if in all his activities he does not take the ‘colour of Allah’. The nonmilitary citizen of a Muslin state must, likewise, be aware of the kind of soldier that his country must produce and the only pattern of war that his country’s armed forces must wage.35
Allah Bukhsh K. Brohi who served for some years as the Advocate-General of Pakistan, and who was that country’s ambassador in India at one time, has written a Preface for Malik’s book. He makes the following points:
The book is “a valuable contribution to Islamic jurisprudence”.36
“The most glorious word in the Vocabulary of Islam is Jehad, a word which is untranslatable in English but, broadly speaking, means ‘striving’, ‘struggling’, ‘trying’ to advance the Divine causes or purposes.”37
“Islam views the world as though it were bipolarised in two opposite camps – Darul-Salam facing Darul-Harb -; the first one is submissive to Allah’s purpose… but the second one is engaged in perpetuating defiance of Allah.”38
“The idea of Ummah of Mohammad, the Prophet of Islam, is incapable of being realized within the framework of territorial states .”39 He being the Last Prophet, his “Ummah participates in this (i.e. prophetic) heritage by a set pattern of thought, belief and practice … and supplies the spiritual principle of integration of mankind – a principle which is supra-national, supra-racial, supra-linguistic and supra-territorial”.40
The role of Muslim on the earth “is to communicate the same message of Allah and his practice (Sunnah) which they have inherited from their Prophet and if there be any one who stifles their efforts … he will be viewed as constituting membership of Darul-Harb and liable to be dealt with as such”.41
“The law of war and peace in Islam is as old as the Quran itself… In Islamic international law this conduct [of one state in relation to another] is, strictly speaking, regulated between Muslims and non-Muslims, there being viewed from Islamic perspective, no other nation… In Islam, of course, no nation is sovereign since Allah alone is the only sovereign in Whom all authority vests.”42
Malik himself starts his exercise with an Author’s Note in which he says:
“The Holy Quran is a source of eternal guidance for mankind.”43
“As a complete Code of Life, the Holy Quran gives us a philosophy of war as well. This divine philosophy is an integral part of the Quranic ideology. It is a philosophy which is controlled and conditioned by the word of Allah from its conception till conclusion.”44
“The Quranic military thought can be studied from several angles. It has its historical, political, legalistic and moralistic ramifications. This study is essentially a technical and professional research into the subject… Such a research is essential to put our subsequent study of the Muslim military history in its correct perspective.”45
The book has ten chapters and seven appendices attached to chapter nine which deals with ‘The Application of the Quranic Military Thought’ with particular reference to major battles fought by the Prophet – Badr, Uhud, Khandaq, Hodaibiyyah, Tabuk. In Appendix I, however, the author provides a complete fist of ‘The Holy Prophet’s Military Campaigns’ from 622 CE to 632 CE. It comprises 26 ghazwahs (expeditions led by the Prophet himself) and 55 saryas (expeditions sent by the Prophet under other commanders) – a total of 81 campaigns. He divides them into six periods as follows:46
Campaigns after migration to Medina (622 CE) and upto the Battle of Badr (624 CE) – 4 ghazwahs and 4 saryas, a total of 8.
Campaigns from the Battle of Badr (624 CE) to the Battle of Uhud (625 CE) – 6 ghazwahs and 5 saryas, a total of 11.
Campaigns from the Battle of Uhud (625 CE) to the Battle of Khandaq (627 CE) – 6 ghazwahs and 5 saryas, a total of 11.
Campaigns from the Battle of Khandaq (627 CE) to the Conquest of Khyber (628 CE) – 5 ghazwahs and 14 saryas, a total of 19.
Campaigns from the Conquest of Khyber (628 CE) to the Conquest of Mecca (630 CE) – 3 ghazwahs and 17 saryas, a total of 20.
Campaigns from the conquest of Mecca (630 CE) to the time of the Prophet’s death (632 CE) – 2 ghazwahs and 10 saryas, a total of 12.
The most significant revelations from the viewpoint of jihAd bil saif are provided by the author in Appendices H, IV, V and VI. They relate to the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq, Hodaibiyyah and Tabuk – sUrahs 8, 3, 33, 48 and 9 respectively. In Appendix HI, he provides in great detail ‘A Case Study of the Battle of Uhud’ from 11 March 625 CE when the Muslim army marched out of Medina, to 24 March when the Quraish retreated after inflicting a defeat on the faithful. He lists 6 psychological shocks suffered by the Muslims during this battle. These shocks are supposed to carry lessons for Muslims when they are faced with adversity.
June 15, 08 at 8:58 am
Taking into account the character of the basic text of Islam – the Quran – as a Manual on War, Islam cannot pass as a spiritual doctrine in any sense of the term. On the contrary, it stands exposed as a political ideology of predatory imperialism like
Christianity, Communism and Nazism with all of which its shares its source, namely, the Bible, as well as many psychopathological traits. Professor K.S. Lal has studied and taught the history of Islam in India for the last more than fifty years. He has written a dozen books, starting with his famous History of the Khaljis (1950). In his latest book (1999), he has reviewed the history of Islam in India in the light of Islamic scriptures – the Quran, the Hadis, the Sunnah, and the Shariat. His characterization of Islam as an ideology is being presented below:
“Islam is understood more correctly when it is called Muhammadanism. Muhammad is the central figure in Islam. He controls the hearts and minds of all Muslims everywhere…”69
“Fundamentalism is not accidental but essential to Islam… It sees unchangeability as strength. That is why the word reform is so abhorrent to Muslim thinkers and religious leaders …”70
“In Islam truth is established by the sword… dissent is hated as heresy and stamped out as infidelity …71 early medieval Indian Muslim chronicles mention the sword as the greatest harvester of converts. Islam was made to spread, as the old saying goes, with Quran in one hand and sword in the other. Sword was freely used in forcing people to become Musalmans…”72
“There is a uniqueness about Islam. Non-Muslims are to be converted to Islam freely. But once a Kafir becomes a Musalman, he has to remain one for ever thereafter. He is not permitted to renounce Islam or revert to his original faith. Punishment for such apostasy is death…”73
“Islam lacks any doctrine of coexistence… Muslim madrasas cannot shed their Kafir complex… The present adjustment of coexistence is a temporary expediency in India…74 It is the teaching of Islam to shun contact with non-Muslims except with a view to converting them… Muslim separatism expresses itself in many ways…”75
“In Islam all human beings are not treated as equals. It makes a distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims. A non-Muslim is a Kafir, an inferior being. Non-Muslims do not enjoy any human right in this world; they cannot enter Paradise after death…76 Islam has two sets of principles of morality, ethics and justice: one is for Muslims and the other for non-Muslims. Sincerity, well-wishing and brotherhood are for the believers and faithful…77 Islamic scriptures recommend setting Muslims against non-Muslims, believers against infidels to defend Islam and destroy unbelief. Individual and group killings of Kafirs is encouraged…”78
“Islam recommends Jihad or permanent war on adherents of other religions… This makes Islam a totalitarian and terrorist cult which it has remained ever since its birth.79… There have been wars but wars fought by Muslims are in the service of Allah. This gives Islamic belligerency divine sanction and terrorism becomes a divine command…”80
“Like proselytization, desecrating and demolishing the temples of non-Muslims is also central to Islam. Iconoclasm derives its justification from the Quranic revelations and the Prophet’s Sunnah or practice …81 non-Muslims cannot reclaim their desecrated temples. This is the law of Islam…”82
“Islam has all the ingredients of imperialism found anywhere in the world in any age… 83 By destroying the national spirit of non-Arab Muslims, Islam has demolished the Asian centres of civilization such as Egypt, Iran and India…”84
“The Islamic principles of denigrating the non-Muslims, of aggression and violence against them – principles that perpetually incite to riot and rapine – have boomeranged. However brave face the fundamentalists may try to put up, the victims of Islam today are by and large Muslims themselves. The Prophet must have known that violence begets violence and repeatedly exhorted Muslims not to kill one another after his death. He also had a premonition that violence of Islam against non-Muslims will be met with a backlash. There is a hadis in Sahih Muslim which says that once the Rasul opined that Islam which began in poverty in Medina would one day return to Medina in poverty. ‘Just as a snake crawls back and coils itself into a small hole, so will Islam be hunted out from everywhere and return to be confined to Mecca and Medina.’ The increasing power of the non-Muslim West and the disenchantment of Muslim dissidents point towards that possibility, howsoever remote.”85
Prof Lal has presented many other facets of Islam such as that Islam has no word for democracy; that secularism and Islam are mutually exclusive; that Islam can set up only a theocratic state; that Islam has institutionalised slavery and degraded women; and that Islam has laid waste many countries. But here we have been discussing Islam as “a religion of peace”.
June 16, 08 at 9:42 am
Finally, bilal reveals himself to be just like every pro-Islam troll I’ve ever gotten: Completely uninspired and has to resort to copy-pasting without investigating for himself.
I’ll debunk them all with just one sentence:
Just because the Bible records something, does not mean that it supports it.
To wit, the Bible records how Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Does that mean God is asking us to follow their example and disobey Him?
The Bible records how people blasphemed against God. Does this mean God thinks this is a good thing to do to Him?
MORONIC COPYCAT.
This is in stark contrast to SPECIFIC AND DIRECT COMMANDS TO COMMIT VIOLENCE IN THE QURAN, such as: Therefore, when ye meet the non-Muslims, smite at their necks; At length. (Sura 47:4)
————————
BILAL AFRIDI INSULTS AND MOCKS ISLAM!!!!
Even more moronic, many of the ‘cruelty and violence’ your copy-paste includes ARE ALSO MUSLIM STORIES, RULES AND RITUALS!!!!
Tell me that Islam does not believe in Nabi Noah and the flood. Tell me that modern Islam does not follow the Ancient Era Judaistic practices of korban of cows and punishment of homosexuals, magic-users and animal-sexers.
So bilal, you infidelic apostate who insults the Quran and the laws of Allah, you are given the fatwa of death for your blasphemy against Islam.
Enjoy, unbelieving fool!
June 16, 08 at 9:59 am
I doubt that bilal actually wrote that himself, being too eloquent for his usual standard.
Anyway, my response is a challenge:
Name me ONE modern-day incidence of Christians using quotes from the Bible to justify themselves as they commit violent atrocities against non-Christians.
When you finally manage to dig up a convoluted example, I’ll give you thousands of documented cases of Muslims using quotes from the Quran and Hadith to justify their violence and murder against non-Muslims happening EVERY DAY OF EVERY YEAR, TODAY.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
The scale is simply incomparable. Either Christians are less inherently violent, or the Christian holy book contains fewer verses encouraging violence.
I defy you to refute me.
June 18, 08 at 1:03 am
Dear Scott Thong peace and blessings of Allah be upon you
I thought in first instance that you are a sensible person and have decent knowledge regarding other religions; however my assessment was wrong about you. What I found in your posts is nothing but again same old repeated copy paste claims without judging and analyzing the material and again presented verses without context. Anyhow you asked me to rebut on your arguments regarding Jihadi verses; Here is response to your said claims;
1-“We will cast terror into the hearts of non-Muslims. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. (8:12)”
Here is the verse with full context;
Source:-submission.org/suras/sura8.htm
[8:12] Recall that your Lord inspired the angels: “I am with you; so support those who believed. I will throw terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved. You may strike them above the necks, and you may strike even every finger.”
Here what you and your fellow Christian abhorrently done to the said verse is quoted out of context because they are aware of the fact that actually answer lays in the next verse where it has been mentioned that if they fight God or messenger of God, then fight with them.
[8:13] This is what they have justly incurred by fighting GOD and His messenger. For those who fight against GOD and His messenger, GOD’s retribution is severe.
Actually these Suras represent the event of Badar war which was laid down by enemies of Makka.
[3:28] The believers never ally themselves with the disbelievers, instead of the believers. Whoever does this is exiled from GOD. Exempted are those who are forced to do this to avoid persecution. GOD alerts you that you shall reverence Him alone. To GOD is the ultimate destiny.
I have serious doubts on your mentality after all whats wron
g with these Suras; here in this context God advise the believers that choose your friends carefully or they gonna harm you.So whats so special in this; same massage is repeated in Bible on many occasions.
3-“Rouse the Muslims to the fight against non-Muslims. (8:65)”
Once again you quoted suras out of context because answer hide before and in up coming verses ,so what you done to spread misconception that , O’ Quran teaches lessons of hatred or violence,shame on.Here is the full details of the verses;
Source:- submission.org/suras/sura8.htm
[8:56] You reach agreements with them, but they violate their agreements every time; they are not righteous.
[8:57] Therefore, if you encounter them in war, you shall set them up as a deterrent example for those who come after them, that they may take heed.
[8:58] When you are betrayed by a group of people, you shall mobilize against them in the same manner. GOD does not love the betrayers.
[8:59] Let not those who disbelieve think that they can get away with it; they can never escape.
[8:60] You shall prepare for them all the power you can muster, and all the equipment you can mobilize, that you may frighten the enemies of GOD, your enemies, as well as others who are not known to you; GOD knows them. Whatever you spend in the cause of GOD will be repaid to you generously, without the least injustice.
[8:61] If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
[8:62] If they want to deceive you, then GOD will suffice you. He will help you with His support, and with the believers.
[8:63] He has reconciled the hearts (of the believers). Had you spent all the money on earth, you could not reconcile their hearts. But GOD did reconcile them. He is Almighty, Most Wise.
[8:64] O you prophet, sufficient for you is GOD and the believers who have followed you.
[8:65] O you prophet, you shall exhort the believers to fight. If there are twenty of you who are steadfast, they can defeat two hundred, and a hundred of you can defeat a thousand of those who disbelieved. That is because they are people who do not understand.
[8:66] Now (that many new people have joined you) GOD has made it easier for you, for He knows that you are not as strong as you used to be. Henceforth, a hundred steadfast believers can defeat two hundred, and a thousand of you can defeat two thousand by GOD’s leave. GOD is with those who steadfastly persevere.
4-“Then fight and slay the non-Muslims wherever ye find them (9:5)
Again quoted out of context. Once again here in this Suras
submission.org/suras/sura9.htm
[9:1] An ultimatum is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to the idol worshipers who enter into a treaty with you.
[9:2] Therefore, roam the earth freely for four months, and know that you cannot escape from GOD, and that GOD humiliates the disbelievers.
[9:3] A proclamation is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to
all the people on the great day of pilgrimage, that GOD has disowned the idol worshipers, and so did His messenger. Thus, if you repent, it would be better for you. But if you turn away, then know that you can never escape from GOD. Promise those who disbelieve a painful retribution.
[9:4] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.
[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[9:6] If one of the idol worshipers sought safe passage with you, you shall grant him safe passage, so that he can hear the word of GOD, then send him back to his place of security. That is because they are people who do not know.
It’s pathetic to believe that this verse talks about killing. I’m asking tell me the truth did you ever hear or seen that during a war a general set free the prisoners? No! But in the Quran Gods command the believers that if they want to take refuge give them and if they sought safe passage , you shall grant them safe passage and send him to a place of peace and security.
5- “O ye the Muslims take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they do not love Islam. (9:23)”
First of all, I would like to tell you that your claimed verse translation is not authentic, here is the actual translation of the verse;
[9:23] O you who believe, do not ally yourselves even with your parents and your siblings, if they prefer disbelieving over believing. Those among you who ally themselves with them are transgressing.
Again I’m asking whats so special in this verse that you and your Christian kinsmen quote it repeatedly.you know very well that Christianity and Islam is the name of monotheism there is no place for worshiping Idols until idol worshiper comes to the right path.
6-“O ye the Muslims! Truly the non-Muslims are unclean. (9:28 )”
Here is the actual translation of the verse;
9:28] O you who believe, the idol worshipers are polluted; they shall not be permitted to approach the Sacred Masjid after this year.
Once again false translation, anyways,So, what so special, same message repeated in Bible.
7-“O ye Muslims! fight the non-Muslims who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you. (9:123)”
Once again false translation just for turning the meaning in own favors. Have this;
[9:123] O you who believe, you shall fight the disbelievers who attack you – let them find you stern – and know that GOD is with the righteous.
8-“Therefore, when ye meet the non-Muslims, smite at their necks; At length. (47:4)”
Source:-submission.org/efarsi/arabic/sura47.html
[47:4] If you encounter (in war) those who disbelieve, you may strike the necks. If you take them as captives you may set them free or ransom them, until the war ends. Had GOD willed, He could have granted you victory, without war. But He thus tests you by one another. As for those who get killed in the cause of GOD, He will never put their sacrifice to waste.
I’m asking did you find any difference in translation that you quoted or the one I presented with proof. Sura actually talks regarding the war among the believers and unbelievers, if ever happens.
Dear Scott
So, Context is important other wise it will seem cruelity, I wouldn’t blame you for that because I know you know, who’s doing all this all around the globe. As well as your anger on copy paste is concern; I’m asking where you learned this that Quran contains above mentioned Suras. Did you produce them from your stomach or you copy pasted from a source? C’mon be realistic. Regarding your second post, I’ll certainly answer your raised questions? Because of time limitation give me one day…
Sincerely Yours
June 18, 08 at 9:46 am
Bilal, well done with your above comment. You are right to say that I was ignorant of the context of the above Suras. Taken in context, they do seem to indicate that the Quran does not teach violence except in relataliation for acts of aggression and war.
However, the definition of ‘acts of aggression and war’ is very su8bjective.
Did a nonMuslim step onto Muslim national territory? That is an act of war!
Did a nonMuslim refuse to adpot Islam? That is an aggressive insult!
Perhaps this is why so many ‘extremists’ are suicide-bombing up schoolchildren, blowing up women in the marketplace and beheading harmless old men? Because to their understanding, the entire non-Muslim world is in the wrong and has ‘declared war’ on the Ummah?
Maybe they do not even know how to take the above Suras in context. Indeed, even influential imams use these same verses to incite violence against Westerners.
See this post about how imams use Suras to preach violence and rape and kill all non-Muslims (and lawyer agrees it’s all good).
So I’ll say this:
Convince them that the Quran and Hadith do not teach violence against nonMuslims. Then I will be convinced that Islam truly does not preach violence.
The problem is not that nonMuslims like me are prejudiced, suspicious and do not understand Islam. The problem is that so many, many Muslims do not understand Islam the way you do, and act upon their interpretations with violence and war.
June 18, 08 at 10:01 am
The Fatiha (Opening) is the first sura (chapter) of the Qur’an and most common prayer of Islam. If you’re a pious Muslim who prays the five requisite daily prayers of Islam, you will recite the Fatiha seventeen times in the course of those prayers. According to an Islamic tradition, the Muslim prophet Muhammad said that the Fatiha surpassed anything revealed by Allah (“the God” in Arabic, and the word for God used by Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews, as well as Muslims) in the Torah, the Gospel, or the rest of the Qur’an. And indeed, it efficiently and eloquently encapsulates many of the principal themes of the Qur’an and Islam in general: Allah as the “Lord of the Worlds,” who alone is to be worshiped and asked for help, the merciful judge of every soul on the Last Day.
In Islamic theology, Allah is the speaker of every word of the Qur’an. Some have found it strange that Allah would say something like “praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds,” but the traditional Islamic understanding is that Allah revealed this prayer to Muhammad early in his career as a prophet (which began in the year 610 AD, when he received his first revelation from Allah through the angel Gabriel – a revelation that is now contained in the Qur’an’s 96th chapter) so that the Muslims would know how to pray.
It is for its last two verses that the Fatiha is of most concern to non-Muslims, and for which it has been in the news lately. A Shi’ite imam, Husham Al-Husainy, ignited controversy by paraphrasing this passage during a prayer at a Democratic National Committee winter meeting, giving the impression that he was praying that the assembled pols convert to Islam. Then Imam Yusuf Kavakci of the Dallas Central Mosque prayed the Fatiha at the Texas State Senate, giving rise to the same concerns.
The final two verses of the Fatiha asks Allah: “Show us the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast favoured; not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.” The traditional Islamic understanding of this is that the “straight path” is Islam — cf. Islamic apologist John Esposito’s book Islam: The Straight Path. The path of those who have earned Allah’s anger are the Jews, and those who have gone astray are the Christians.
The classic Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir explains that “the two paths He described here are both misguided,” and that those “two paths are the paths of the Christians and Jews, a fact that the believer should beware of so that he avoids them. The path of the believers is knowledge of the truth and abiding by it. In comparison, the Jews abandoned practicing the religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why ‘anger’ descended upon the Jews, while being described as ‘led astray’ is more appropriate of the Christians.”
Ibn Kathir’s understanding of this passage is not a lone “extremist” interpretation. In fact, most Muslim commentators believe that the Jews are those who have earned Allah’s wrath and the Christians are those who have gone astray. This is the view of Tabari, Zamakhshari, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, the Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Arabi, as well as Ibn Kathir. One contrasting, but not majority view, is that of Nisaburi, who says that “those who have incurred Allah’s wrath are the people of negligence, and those who have gone astray are the people of immoderation.”
Wahhabis drew criticism a few years back for adding “such as the Jews” and “such as the Christians” into parenthetical glosses on this passage in Qur’ans printed in Saudi Arabia. Some Western commentators imagined that the Saudis originated this interpretation, and indeed the whole idea of Qur’anic hostility toward Jews and Christians. Muslims all over the world learn as a matter of course that the central prayer of their faith anathematizes Jews and Christians.
But unfortunately, this interpretation is venerable and mainstream in Islamic theology. The printing of the interpretation in parenthetical glosses into a translation would be unlikely to affect Muslim attitudes, since the Arabic text is always and everywhere normative in any case, and since so many mainstream commentaries contain the idea that the Jews and Christians are being criticized here. Seventeen times a day, by the pious.
Please note that I am not saying that the anti-Jewish and anti-Christian interpretation of the Fatiha is the “correct” one. While I don’t believe that religious texts are infinitely malleable and can be made to mean whatever the reader wants them to mean, as some apparently do, in this case Nisaburi’s reading has as much to commend it as the other: there is nothing in the text itself that absolutely compels one to believe that it is talking about Jews and Christians. And it is noteworthy that in his massive and evocatively named 30-volume commentary on the Qur’an, Fi Zilal al-Qur’an (In the Shade of the Qur’an), the twentieth-century jihad theorist Sayyid Qutb doesn’t mention Jews or Christians in connection with this passage. At the same time, however, the idea in Islam that Jews have earned Allah’s anger and Christians have gone astray doesn’t depend on this passage alone. The Jews have earned Allah’s anger by rejecting Muhammad (2:87-90), and the Christians have gone astray by holding to the divinity of Christ (5:72).
The Hadith, the traditions of the words and deeds of Muhammad and the early Muslims, also contains material linking Jews to Allah’s anger and Christians to his curse, which resulting from their straying from the true path. (The Jews are accursed also, according to Qur’an 2:89, and both are accursed according to 9:30).
In light of these and similar passages it shouldn’t be surprising that many Muslim commentators have understood the Fatiha to be encapsulating these views.
June 18, 08 at 10:03 am
There is a subtle genius of the Koran, which takes the beautiful framework of Judaism that evolved into Christianity and then turns it against itself by promoting the tribal hatred and license for violence that is such a core principle for an unenlightened mind.
The Koran is the handbook for a theology which promotes the worse in human nature while suppressing the very things that makes us what God intended us to become, such as the working relationship of man and women, the love of others even if they are different and a sense of trying to understand what seems foreign in an effort to appreciate His creation instead of destroying it. Islam has spread through fire and the sword in an effort to counter God’s plan for creation. It’s goal is far beyond the Semitic mindset of theocracy, suppression of women and exclusion of all else since it requires the added nuance of destroying all else.
If the devil’s greatest trick was to convince mankind he does not exist, than Islam ranks beside him by having mankind believe Islam’s status of victim after almost two thousand years of genocide and wiping out cultures whenever it has the technology to spread its evil beyond the murders in smaller numbers we see today.
June 18, 08 at 11:01 am
let me share this story from the violent bible.
“‘You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?’ Upon hearing those lines Zerubel said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?’ Uzziel, a zealous Jew, decided to execute Zerubel’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Uzziel removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the temple, Zerubel, who was aware of the assassination, said, ‘You have helped the LORD and His servant.’ Uzziel said. ‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?’ ‘No,’ Zerubel answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.'”
bilal afradi, do you not agree that Islam is the one true religin and crhistian bible is full of violent? do you not agree that the story i have shared from the bible is evil and violent?
June 18, 08 at 8:09 pm
Dear Brother Scott Thong peace and blessings of Allah be upon
Thanks for understanding the truth regarding Quranic Suras. You said that the definition of ‘acts of aggression and war’ is very subjective, however I want to make it very clear that Quran clearly says that in act of war, if declared by an outsider enemy. I being a student of comparative religions totally agree with your views that most of the people (Muslims) across the world are not fully aware of the full context of said Suras and that’s the reason that influential imams use these same Suras to incite violence against Westerners and to fullfil their aims and objectives. Whats the out come, suicide bombing, killing of innocents etc.
Brother though, my words regarding Bible in my seconds posts were little hard and sarcastic if that ever hearted you, I sincerely apologize for my words and I take back. Brother, if you have any kind of difficulty in understanding Islam, let me know. That would be honour for me to solve the problems.
Dear Raymond peace and blessings of Allah be upon
I really don’t know whats your intension in posting and explaining Sura Fatiha? Or what do you want to say by quoting the Suras, that does this Sura tend to suggest that Christians and Jews are enemies of Muslims?
You said that “Islam spreaded through fire and the sword” May I ask you how? First of all I would like to tell you the meaning of Islam that what does it mean?
Islam is derived from the word ‘salaam’ which means peace secondly this a question aroses in Western people minds that, how can Islam be called the religion of peace when it was spread by the sword?
1. Islam means peace.
Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam’, which means peace. It also means submitting one’s will to Allah (swt). Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt).
2. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace.
Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and anti-social elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.
3. Opinion of historian De Lacy O’Leary.
The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book ’Islam at the cross road’ (Page 8):
’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.’
4. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years.
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 adhan, that is the call for prayers.
5. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians.
Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.
6. More than 80% non-Muslims in India.
The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.
7. Indonesia and Malaysia.
Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, ’Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?’
8. East Coast of Africa.
Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, ’Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?’
9. Thomas Carlyle.
The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book ’Heroes and Hero worship’, refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: ’The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can.’
10. No compulsion in religion.
With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur’an says in the following verse:
’Let there be no compulsion in religion:
Truth stands out clear from error’
[Al-Qur’an 2:256]
11. Sword of the Intellect.
It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125:
’Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord
with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are
best and most gracious.’
[Al-Qur’an 16:125]
12. Increase in the world religions from 1934 to 1984.
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?
13. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe.
Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?
14. Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson.
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’
Dear brother Bible
I can’t say anything regarding the Holy Bible because we believe in Holy Bible and our belief doesn’t fulfill until we accept Holy Bible as divine revelation from almighty God. so I’m sorry
June 19, 08 at 8:42 am
This bilal is full of crap. I`ll take one example:
6. More than 80% non-Muslims in India.
The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam.
______________________________________________________________
The Magnitude of Muslim Atrocities
(Ghazanavi to Amir Timur)
The world famous historian, Will Durant has written in his Story of Civilisation that “the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history”.
India before the advent of Islamic imperialism was not exactly a zone of peace. There were plenty of wars fought by Hindu princes. But in all their wars, the Hindus had observed some time-honoured conventions sanctioned by the Sastras. The Brahmins and the Bhikshus were never molested. The cows were never killed. The temples were never touched. The chastity of women was never violated. The non-combatants were never killed or captured. A human habitation was never attacked unless it was a fort. The civil population was never plundered. War booty was an unknown item in the calculations of conquerors. The martial classes who clashed, mostly in open spaces, had a code of honor. Sacrifice of honor for victory or material gain was deemed as worse than death.
Islamic imperialism came with a different code–the Sunnah of the Prophet. It required its warriors to fall upon the helpless civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the battlefield. It required them to sack and burn down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows, the Brahmins, and the Bhikshus invited their special attention in mass murders of non-combatants. The temples and monasteries were their special targets in an orgy of pillage and arson. Those whom they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves. The magnitude of the booty looted even from the bodies of the dead, was a measure of the success of a military mission. And they did all this as mujahids (holy warriors) and ghazls (kafir-killers) in the service of Allah and his Last Prophet.
Hindus found it very hard to understand the psychology of this new invader. For the first time in their history, Hindus were witnessing a scene which was described by Kanhadade Prabandha (1456 AD) in the following words:
“The conquering army burnt villages, devastated the land, plundered people’s wealth, took Brahmins and children and women of all classes captive, flogged with thongs of raw hide, carried a moving prison with it, and converted the prisoners into obsequious Turks.”
That was written in remembrance of Alauddin Khalji’s invasion of Gujarat in the year l298 AD. But the gruesome game had started three centuries earlier when Mahmud Ghaznavi had vowed to invade India every year in order to destroy idolatry, kill the kafirs, capture prisoners of war, and plunder vast wealth for which India was well-known.
MAHMUD AND MASOOD GHAZNAVI
In 1000 AD Mahmud defeated Raja Jaipal, a scion of the Hindu Shahiya dynasty of Kabul. This dynasty had been for long the doorkeeper of India in the Northwest. Mahmud collected 250,000 dinars as indemnity. That perhaps was normal business of an empire builder. But in 1004 AD he stormed Bhatiya and plundered the place. He stayed there for some time to convert the Hindus to Islam with the help of mullahs he had brought with him.
In 1008 AD he captured Nagarkot (Kangra). The loot amounted to 70,000,000 dirhams in coins and 700,400 mans of gold and silver, besides plenty of precious stones and embroidered cloths. In 1011 AD he plundered Thanesar which was undefended, destroyed many temples, and broke a large number of idols. The chief idol, that of Chakraswamin, was taken to Ghazni and thrown into the public square for defilement under the feet of the faithful. According to Tarikh-i-Yamini of Utbi, Mahmud’s secretary,
“The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at Thanesar] that the stream was discolored, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it. The Sultan returned with plunder which is impossible to count. Praise he to Allah for the honor he bestows on Islam and Muslims.”
In 1013 AD Mahmud advanced against Nandana where the Shahiya king, Anandapal, had established his new capital. The Hindus fought very hard but lost. Again, the temples were destroyed, and innocent citizens slaughtered. Utbi provides an account of the plunder and the prisoners of war:
“The Sultan returned in the rear of immense booty, and slaves were so plentiful that they became very cheap and men of respectability in their native land were degraded by becoming slaves of common shopkeepers. But this is the goodness of Allah, who bestows honor on his own religion and degrades infidelity.”
The road was now clear for an assault on the heartland of Hindustan. In December 1018 AD Mahmud crossed the Yamuna, collected 1,000,000 dirhams from Baran (Bulandshahar), and marched to Mahaban in Mathura district. Utbi records:
“The infidels…deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river…but many of them were slain, taken or drowned… Nearly fifty thousand men were killed.”
Mathura was the next victim. Mahmud seized five gold idols weighing 89,300 missals and 200 silver idols. According to Utbi, “The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naptha and fire, and levelled with the ground.” The pillage of the city continued for 20 days. Mahmud now turned towards Kanauj which had been the seat of several Hindu dynasties. Utbi continues: “In Kanauj there were nearly ten thousand temples… Many of the inhabitants of the place fled in consequence of witnessing the fate of their deaf and dumb idols. Those who did not fly were put to death. The Sultan gave his soldiers leave to plunder and take prisoners.”
The Brahmins of Munj, which was attacked next, fought to the last man after throwing their wives and children into fire. The fate of Asi was sealed when its ruler took fright and fled. According to Utbi, “…. the Sultan ordered that his five forts should be demolished from their foundations, the inhabitants buried in their ruins, and the soldiers of the garrison plundered, slain and captured”.
Shrawa, the next important place to be invaded, met the same fate. Utbi concludes:
“The Muslims paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels and worshipers of sun and fire. The friends of Allah searched the bodies of the slain for three days in order to obtain booty…The booty amounted in gold and silver, rubies and pearls nearly to three hundred thousand dirhams, and the number of prisoners may be conceived from the fact that each was sold for two to ten dirhams. These were afterwards taken to Ghazni and merchants came from distant cities to purchase them, so that the countries of Mawaraun-Nahr, Iraq and Khurasan were filled with them, and the fair and the dark, the rich and the poor, were commingled in one common slavery.”
Mahmud’s sack of Somnath is too well-known to be retold here. What needs emphasizing is that the fragments of the famous Sivalinga were carried to Ghazni. Some of them were turned into steps of the Jama Masjid in that city. The rest were sent to Mecca, Medina, and Baghdad to be desecrated in the same manner.
Mahmud’s son Masud tried to follow in the footsteps of his father. In 1037 AD he succeeded in sacking the fort of Hansi which was defended very bravely by the Hindus. The Tarikh-us-Subuktigin records: “The Brahmins and other high ranking men were slain, and their women and children were carried away captive, and all the treasure which was found was distributed among the army.”
Masud could not repeat the performance due to his preoccupations elsewhere.
MUHAMMAD GHORI AND HIS LEUTENANTS
Invasion of India by Islamic imperialism was renewed by Muhmmad Ghori in the last quarter of the 12th century. After Prithiviraj Chauhan had been defeated in 1192 AD, Ghori took Ajmer by assault.
According the Taj-ul-Ma’sir of Hasan Nizami, “While the Sultan remained at Ajmer, he destroyed the pillars and foundations of the idol temples and built in their stead mosques and colleges and precepts of Islam, and the customs of the law were divulged and established.”
Next year he defeated Jayachandra of Kanauj. A general massacre, rapine, and pillage followed. The Gahadvad treasuries at Asni and Varanasi were plundered. Hasan Nizami rejoices that “in Benares which is the centre of the country of Hind, they destroyed one thousand temples and raised mosques on their foundations”.
According to Kamil-ut-Tawarikh of Ibn Asir, “The slaughter of Hindus (at Varanasi) was immense; none were spared except women and children, and the carnage of men went on until the earth was weary.”
The women and children were spared so that they could be enslaved and sold all over the Islamic world. It may be added that the Buddhist complex at Sarnath was sacked at this time, and the Bhikshus were slaughtered.
Ghori’s lieutenant Qutbuddin Aibak was also busy meanwhile. Hasan Nizami writes that after the suppression of a Hindu revolt at Kol (modern day Aligarh) in 1193 AD, Aibak raised “three bastions as high as heaven with their heads, and their carcases became food for beasts of prey. The tract was freed from idols and idol worship and the foundations of infidelism were destroyed.”
In 1194 AD Aibak destroyed 27 Hindu temples at Delhi and built the Quwwat-ul-lslam mosque with their debris. According to Nizami, Aibak “adorned it with the stones and gold obtained from the temples which had been demolished by elephants”.
In 1195 AD the Mher tribe of Ajmer rose in revolt, and the Chaulukyas of Gujarat came to their assistance. Aibak had to invite reinforcements from Ghazni before he could meet the challenge. In 1196 AD he advanced against Anahilwar Patan, the capital of Gujarat. Nizami writes that after Raja Karan was defeated and forced to flee, “fifty thousand infidels were dispatched to hell by the sword” and “more than twenty thousand slaves, and cattle beyond all calculation fell into the hands of the victors”.
The city was sacked, its temples demolished, and its palaces plundered. On his return to Ajmer, Aibak destroyed the Sanskrit College of Visaladeva, and laid the foundations of a mosque which came to be known as ‘Adhai Din ka Jhompada’.
Conquest of Kalinjar in 1202 AD was Aibak’s crowning achievement. Nizami concludes: “The temples were converted into mosques… Fifty thousand men came under the collar of slavery and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus.”
A free-lance adventurer, Muhammad Bakhtyar Khalji, was moving further east. In 1200 AD he sacked the undefended university town of Odantpuri in Bihar and massacred the Buddhist monks in the monasteries. In 1202 AD he took Nadiya by surprise. Badauni records in his Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh that “property and booty beyond computation fell into the hands of the Muslims and Muhammad Bakhtyar having destroyed the places of worship and idol temples of the infidels founded mosques and Khanqahs”.
THE SLAVE (MAMLUK) SULTANS
Shamsuddin Iltutmish who succeeded Aibak at Delhi invaded Malwa in 1234 AD. He destroyed an ancient temple at Vidisha. Badauni reports in his ‘Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh’:
“Having destroyed the idol temple of Ujjain which had been built six hundred years previously, and was called Mahakal, he levelled it to its foundations, and threw down the image of Rai Vikramajit from whom the Hindus reckon their era, and brought certain images of cast molten brass and placed them on the ground in front of the doors of mosques of old Delhi, and ordered the people of trample them under foot.”
Muslim power in India suffered a serious setback after Iltutmish. Balkan had to battle against a revival of Hindu power. The Katehar Rajputs of what came to be known as Rohilkhand in later history, had so far refused to submit to Islamic imperialism. Balkan led an expedition across the Ganges in 1254 AD. According to Badauni,
“In two days after leaving Delhi, he arrived in the midst of the territory of Katihar and put to death every male, even those of eight years of age, and bound the women.”
But in spite of such wanton cruelty, Muslim power continued to decline till the Khaljis revived it after 1290 AD.
June 19, 08 at 8:42 am
THE KHALJIS
Jalaluddin Khalji led an expedition to Ranthambhor in 1291 AD. On the way he destroyed Hindu temples at Chain. The broken idols were sent to Delhi to be spread before the gates of the Jama Masjid. His nephew Alauddin led an expedition to Vidisha in 1292 AD. According to Badauni in Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, Alauddin “brought much booty to the Sultan and the idol which was the object of worship of the Hindus, he caused to be cast in front of the Badaun gate to be trampled upon by the people. The services of Alauddin were highly appreciated, the jagir of Oudh (or Avadh – Central U.P.) also was added to his other estates.”
Alauddin became Sultan in 1296 AD after murdering his uncle and father-in-law, Jalaluddin. In 1298 AD he equipped an expedition to Gujarat under his generals Ulugh Khan and Nusrat Khan. The invaders plundered the ports of Surat and Cambay. The temple of Somnath, which had been rebuilt by the Hindus, was plundered and the idol taken to Delhi for being trodden upon by the Muslims. The whole region was subjected to fire and sword, and Hindus were slaughtered en masse. Kampala Devi, the queen of Gujarat, was captured along with the royal treasury, brought to Delhi and forced into Alauddin’s harem. The doings of the Malik Naib during his expedition to South India in 1310-1311 AD have already mentioned in earlier parts.
THE TUGHLAQS
Muslim power again suffered a setback after the death of Alauddin Khalji in 1316 AD. But it was soon revived by the Tughlaqs. By now most of the famous temples over the length and breadth of the Islamic occupation in India had been demolished, except in Orissa and Rajasthan which had retained their independence. By now most of the rich treasuries had been plundered and shared between the Islamic state and its swordsmen. Firuz Shah Tughlaq led an expedition to Orissa in 1360 AD. He destroyed the temple of Jagannath at Puri, and desecrated many other Hindu shrines. According to ‘Sirat-i-Firoz Shahi’ which he himself wrote or dictated,
“Allah who is the only true God and has no other emanation, endowed the king of Islam with the strength to destroy this ancient shrine on the eastern sea-coast and to plunge it into the sea, and after its destruction he ordered the image of Jagannath to be perforated, and disgraced it by casting it down on the ground. They dug out other idols which were worshipped by the polytheists in the kingdom of Jajnagar and overthrew them as they did the image of Jagannath, for being laid in front of the mosques along the path of the Sunnis and the way of the ‘musallis’ (Muslim congregation for namaz) and stretched them in front of the portals of every mosque, so that the body and sides of the images might be trampled at the time of ascent and descent, entrance and exit, by the shoes on the feet of the Muslims.”
After the sack of the temples in Orissa, Firoz Shah Tughlaq attacked an island on the sea-coast where “nearly 100,000 men of Jajnagar had taken refuge with their women, children, kinsmen and relations”. The swordsmen of Islam turned “the island into a basin of blood by the massacre of the unbelievers”.
A worse fate overtook the Hindu women. Sirat-i-Firuz Shahs records: “Women with babies and pregnant ladies were haltered, manacled, fettered and enchained, and pressed as slaves into service in the house of every soldier.”
Still more horrible scenes were enacted by Firuz Shah Tughlaq at Nagarkot (Kangra) where he sacked the shrine of Jvalamukhi. Firishta records that the Sultan “broke the idols of Jvalamukhi, mixed their fragments with the flesh of cows and hung them in nose bags round the necks of Brahmins. He sent the principal idol as trophy to Medina.”
THE PROVINCIAL MUSLIM SATRAPS
In 1931 AD the Muslims of Gujarat complained to Nasiruddin Muhammad, the Tughlaq Sultan of Delhi, that the local governor, Kurhat-ul-Mulk, was practising tolerance towards the Hindus. The Sultan immediately appointed Muzzaffar Khan as the new Governor. He became independent after the death of the Delhi Sultan and assumed the title of Muzzaffar Shah in 1392 AD. Next year he led an expidition to Somnath and sacked the temple which the Hindus had built once again. He killed many Hindus to chastise them for this “impudence,” and raised a mosque on the site of the ancient temple. The Hindus, however, restarted restoring the temple soon after. In 1401 AD Muzaffar came back with a huge army. He again killed many Hindus, demolished the temple once more, and erected another mosque.
Muzaffar was succeeded by his grandson, Ahmad Shah, in 1411 AD. Three years later Ahmad appointed a special darogah to destroy all temples throughout Gujarat. In 1415 AD Ahmad invaded Sidhpur where he destroyed the images in Rudramahalaya, and converted the grand temple into a mosque. Sidhpur was renamed Sayyadpur.
Mahmud Begrha who became the Sultan of Gujarat in 1458 AD was the worst fanatic of this dynasty. One of his vassals was the Mandalika of Junagadh who had never withheld the regular tribute. Yet in 1469 AD Mahmud invaded Junagadh. In reply to the Mandalika’s protests, Mahmud said that he was not interested in money as much as in the spread of Islam. The Mandalika was forcibly converted to Islam and Junagadh was renamed Mustafabad. In 1472 AD Mahmud attacked Dwarka, destroyed the local temples, and plundered the city. Raja Jaya Singh, the ruler of Champaner, and his minister were murdered by Mahmud in cold blood for refusing to embrace Islam after they had been defeated and their country pillaged and plundered. Champaner was renamed Mahmudabad.
Mahmud Khalji of Malwa (1436-69 AD) also destroyed Hindu temples and built mosques on their sites. He heaped many more insults on the Hindus. Ilyas Shah of Bengal (1339-1379 AD) invaded Nepal and destroyed the temple of Svayambhunath at Kathmandu. He also invaded Orissa, demolished many temples, and plundered many places. The Bahmani sultans of Gulbarga and Bidar considered it meritorious to kill a hundred thousand Hindu men, women, and children every year. They demolished and desecrated temples all over South India.
AMlR TIMUR
The climax came during the invasion of Timur in 1399 AD. He starts by quoting the Quran in his Tuzk-i-Timuri: “O Prophet, make war upon the infidels and unbelievers, and treat them severely.”
He continues: “My great object in invading Hindustan had been to wage a religious war against the infidel Hindus…[so that] the army of Islam might gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the Hindus.” To start with he stormed the fort of Kator on the border of Kashmir. He ordered his soldiers “to kill all the men, to make prisoners of women and children, and to plunder and lay waste all their property”. Next, he “directed towers to be built on the mountain of the skulls of those obstinate unbelievers”. Soon after, he laid siege to Bhatnir defended by Rajputs. They surrendered after some fight, and were pardoned. But Islam did not bind Timur to keep his word given to the “unbelievers”. His Tuzk-i-Timuri records:
“In a short space of time all the people in the fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground.”
At Sarsuti, the next city to be sacked, “all these infidel Hindus were slain, their wives and children were made prisoners and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors”. Timur was now moving through (modern day) Haryana, the land of the Jats. He directed his soldiers to “plunder and destroy and kill every one whom they met”. And so the soldiers “plundered every village, killed the men, and carried a number of Hindu prisoners, both male and female”.
Loni which was captured before he arrived at Delhi was predominantly a Hindu town. But some Muslim inhabitants were also taken prisoners. Timur ordered that “the Musulman prisoners should be separated and saved, but the infidels should all be dispatched to hell with the proselytizing sword”.
By now Timur had captured 100,000 Hindus. As he prepared for battle against the Tughlaq army after crossing the Yamuna, his Amirs advised him “that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolators and enemies of Islam at liberty”. Therefore, “no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword”.
Tuzk-i-Timuri continues:
“I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolators, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives.”
The Tughlaq army was defeated in the battle that ensued next day. Timur entered Delhi and learnt that a “great number of Hindus with their wives and children, and goods and valuables, had come into the city from all the country round”.
He directed his soldiers to seize these Hindus and their property. Tuzk-i-Timuri concludes:
“Many of them (Hindus) drew their swords and resisted…The flames of strife were thus lighted and spread through the whole city from Jahanpanah and Siri to Old Delhi, burning up all it reached. The Hindus set fire to their houses with their own hands, burned their wives and children in them and rushed into the fight and were killed…On that day, Thursday, and all the night of Friday, nearly 15,000 Turks were engaged in slaying, plundering and destroying. When morning broke on Friday, all my army …went off to the city and thought of nothing but killing, plundering and making prisoners….The following day, Saturday the 17th, all passed in the same way, and the spoil was so great.that each man secured from fifty to a hundred prisoners, men, women, and children. There was no man who took less than twenty. The other booty was immense in rubies, diamonds, garnets, pearls, and other gems and jewels; ashrafis, tankas of gold and silver of the celebrated Alai coinage: vessels of gold and silver; and brocades and silks of great value. Gold and silver ornaments of Hindu women were obtained in such quantities as to exceed all account. Excepting the quarter of the Saiyids, the Ulama and the other Musulmans, the whole city was sacked.”
June 19, 08 at 8:46 am
The moron bilal then has the temerity to say that 80% of India is non muslim and that shows Islam to be peaceful.
What it shows is the failure of Islam to wipe out the non muslims of India. In fact what the non muslims did was to blast off the muslims to Pakistan. They should have done the same to the existing muslims in india.
June 19, 08 at 8:48 am
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’
Yeah. revelations speaks of the Beast.
June 19, 08 at 9:09 am
The English word “peace” means tranquility or serenity, silence, freedom from war, freedom from anxiety, a state of harmony between people etc. All the people love to enjoy peace in their lives. Many a times Muslims call Islam as peace. Specially, after 9/11, Islamists echo continuously—“Islam means peace”. Therefore—Islam can not condone terrorism or war. Now, does anybody know what the Islamic concept of peace is? Do you know the Islamic peace do not signify the same meaning we learned from the English Dictionary? Here is the real meaning of Islamic concept of peace.
Islamic understanding of peace means submission or surrender. Peace comes (according to Islam) only after one surrenders or submits one’s self. Submission or surrender to whom? Submission to only Allah (Islamic God) and his messenger Muhammad. Therefore peace (Islamic) exists only inside the Dar-ul-Islam—the house of submission, after the conversion to Islam. That is the ultimate meaning of Islamic peace. The false meaning of Islam as peace misguides the gullible western non-Muslims. Conniving Islamists misguided President Bush and his White House staffs by their cheap shot of Islamic peace.
Peace with non-Muslims (Hindus, idolaters), and also those people of the Books (Christians and Jews) is impossible in Islam. According to Quran and its teachings—they should be given a chance/invitation to accept Islam, or be subjugated and killed if necessary. People of the Books (Christians and Jews) are to be fought against until they are subdued. Here is what Holy Quran says:
9:29: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Books (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
To claim that Islam is a religion of peace is utterly untrue. Islam is committed to war, both by the example of Prophet Muhammad, (who fought against pagans and also against other tribes and religions until he subdued Mecca and Medina), and by the Quranic teachings supported by numerous Sahi hadiths. The Quran does teach that Muslims are never to initiate war, but Muslims are supposed to offer non-Muslims an opportunity/invitation to embrace Islam. If the non-Muslims refuse to accept Islam, this is viewed as aggression against Allah and Islam. Therefore Muslims are legitimately allowed to fight those aggressors until they are converted, or killed.
Most valid examples to my claim are the following Quranic verses below:
3:85: If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).
8:39: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere.
4:89:They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn renegades, sieze them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,”
22:19-22: These two antagonists dispute with each other about their Lord: But those who deny (their Lord),- for them will be cut out a garment of Fire: over their heads will be poured out boiling water. With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins. In addition there will be maces of iron (to punish) them. Every time they wish to get away therefrom, from anguish, they will be forced back therein, and (it will be said), “Taste ye the Penalty of Burning!” (What a sadist God?)
47:4: If you meet those who are infidels or non-believers, you cut their heads off and tie things around their necks, start a war and God will give victory and those who will die in the war fighting God will not forget their acts.
Now some sahi hadiths and quotes from Islamic thinkers:
(1) Alsaylu Jarar (4:518-519) by Al-Shawkani. Shawkani:
“Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam or submitting and paying Jizya tax (protection money for the Jews and the Christians only) or being killed. The verse about forgiving them are abrogated unanimously by the obligation of fighting in any case”.
(2) The Baydawi quoted in his book (The lights of Revelation, page-252):
“Fight Jews and Christians because they violated the origin of their faith and they do not believe in the religion of the truth (Islam), which abrogated all other religions. Fight them until they pay the poll-tax (Ziziya tax) with submission and humiliation.”
(3) The well-known Egyptian scholar, Sayyid Qutb, (Sayyid Qutb, Milestones, Revised Edition, chapter. 4, “Jihaad in the Cause of God”) notes four stages in the development of jihad:
1. While the earliest Muslims remained in Mecca before fleeing to Medina, God did not allow them to fight;
2. Permission is given to Muslims to fight against their oppressors;
3. God commands Muslims to fight those fighting them;
4. God commands the Muslims to fight against all polytheists.
Sayyid Qutb views each stage to be replaced by the next stage in this order, the fourth stage to remain permanent.
June 19, 08 at 9:11 am
(4) Introduction section of the English translation of Sahih Bukhari by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Medina Islamic University. In the same section Dr M. Muhsin Khan writes:
, “Then Allah revealed in Sura Bara’at (9) the order to discard (all) the obligations (covenants, etc.) and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the people of the scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizya (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians who do not embrace Islam and are under the protection of an Islamic government) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (9:29). So they (Muslims) were not permitted to abandon ‘the fighting’ against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the possibility of fighting against them.”
(5) Opinion by an Islamist General: Hamid Gul – the Islamist and former Pakistani general was interviewed by the BBC News, Monday, 5 August, 2002. This Jihadi General of Pakistan said, “Armed resistance, of the oppressed people, of the persecuted people, of the enslaved people – that jihad has the UN sanction. Who is Pervez Musharraf to say we should stop that, when the Koran says it and when the United Nations Charter backs it up? Musharraf says: “Stop the jihad, do this, that and the other.” No, no, no. He cannot. There is a clear-cut Koranic injunction”.
(6) Sahi Buchari #1246, page-1180: Hazrat Ali (ra) narrated, “Certainly I heard Prophet Muhammad saying, in the days of last era, there will be some people evolved who will talk very nice and gentle, but they will never have faith upon Allah, and their faith will be expelled from their heats like the way an arrow is expelled from a bow. Therefore, you would kill them where ever you find them, because whoever will kill them they will be rewarded by Allah at the Judgement day with heaven.
The above verses, opinions from various Islamic thinkers and Sahi hadith made Islam a religion of fear and terror and not a religion of peace by any means. There will be continuous war in the world as long as some fanatics will believe in Muhammad, his example and his teachings. The Islamic concept of peace meaning making the whole world Muslim is undoubtedly a mandate for war. After that peace will prevail in the earth of Allah. That is the ultimate exegesis of the Arabic word “Islam”.
Finding Excuse by the name of Wahabism (?):
Conniving Islamists and also some westerners find some lame excuse by saying that it is not the “real Islam”, actually it is the influence of “Wahabism” making the peaceful Islam a religion of terrorism throughout the world. Let us examine below the so called Wahabism.
What is Wahabism: many conniving Islamists want to blame Wahabism for the inherent intolerance of real Islam. That is, they want to portray Wahabism as the separate entity of Islam which is being misunderstood (by westerners) as the real peaceful Islam. Most western non-Muslims are also misguided by the so called Wahabite type of Islam, which according to some is not real/true peaceful Islam. Now what is actually Wahabism?
Wahabism is not a separate religion, nor it is a separate brand of Islam. Trully, this Wahabism is the new force to unite Islam into it’s true color existed in the early Islamic period of 7th century. That is the time of Prophet Muhammad and his four favorite disciples—Khula-faye-Rashedin. In the early 18th century Mohammad Ibn Abdul Wahab a famous Saudi religious extremist leader called for a renewal of Islamic spirit, moral cleansing and the stripping away of all innovations to Islam since the 7th century. His followers are called Wahabis or wahbite Islamists. Wahabism is not a new brand of Islam or any offshoot of Islam; Wahabism does not have any separate scriptural book, rather it is the real Islam. Followers of Wahabism prefer to identify themselves as Muwahiddun—which means “the unifiers”. Wahabism is simply the political Islam that has been adopted for power sharing purposes. It has no special practices, nor special rites, and no special interpretation of the religion Islam that differs from the main body of Sunni Islam. Wahabite followers consider every Muslims should follow the practice of Islam like Wahabite Muslims and regard all those who do not follow them as the heathens and enemies of Islam. Osama bin Laden is the true follower of Wahabism.
The followers of Wahabism including the Saudi Arabia’s ruling house of Saud insist they are simply practicing the “true” Islam of Prophet Muhammad. Wahabism got popularity to the west and the Muslim world during the aftermath of Iranian Revolution in 1979. Billions of Dollars were spent by saudi to influence Wahabism ideology as the counter force to Iranian Shiite ideology throughout the whole Muslim world by building thousands of Mosques, Madrassahs, Islamic centers etc. Pakistan was flooded with Wahabi madrassas (Islamic school or factory of terrorism) which was the main focus to the American media after the 9/11 episode as the breeding ground of Taliban and al-Qaeda Jhadi force.
Sheik Shishu a Kurdish Imam who is the follower of wahabism ( when asked by a Kurdish reporter about wahabism) said: “What is Wahabism?” there is no Wahabism, only true Islam”. Saudi students and Saudi citizen also have the similar opinions about Wahabism.
Conclusion:
Islam is not a religion of peace; rather Islam means surrender to the religion of Islam. If anybody surrenders to Islam only then Islam means peace! On another situation, Islam means peace only when Muslims are small minority (example: Muslims in the western world); but when Muslims get majority or even a considerable size, Islam means violence and intolerance to others. In that situation, Islam gets the divine mandate (Dictums of Quran and hadiths) to invite, force, subjugate, and even to fight to convert other people to bring them under the fold of Islam. Only after that—Islam means peace!
“It would be naïve to ignore in Islam a deep thread of intolerance toward unbelievers.”—Andrew Sullivan
June 19, 08 at 9:29 am
I too apologize if I criticized the Quran out of igorance.
Any proof to substantiate this claim? Because one can easily quote other historians who say the opposite. It is not possible to debunk the claims for every single one of the below:
List Muslim conquests on Wikipedia – Byzantine-Arab, Persia, Transoxiana, Sindh, Hispania, Caucasus, Nubia, Southern Italy, Anatolia, Byzantine-Ottoman
That is not what the history books say. Use your logic:
If the Umayyads did not use the sword, how did they defeat the furious Visigoth army in 712?
How did they partake in the Battle of Tours where the French defeated them in 732? Muslim writers mention 80,000 Muslim warriors marching northward. Were all these armed soldiers merely interested in friendly preaching?
How were 1500 Jewish families put to death in 1066?
In fact, in this comment and the two following it, Muslim scholars of the time record how the nonMuslims were slaughtered and mistreated.
The Copts are currently greatly oppressed, even though Islam is supposed to guarantee freedom of religion. (This is apart from all nonMuslims living as dhimmi second-class citizens under Islamic law.)
Wikipedia: Human rights abuses faced by Coptics
Persecution of Copts and other Christians by Muslims – By law they are banned from being president of the Islamic Republic of Egypt or attending Al Azhar University, and severely restricted from joining the police and army. By practice they are banned from holding any high political or commercial position. Under the 19th-century Hamayouni decrees, Copts must get permission from the president to build or repair churches — but he usually refuses.
For this, I will call upon kesava’s comments already above. I bet hutchrun and wits0 might have a thing or two to say on this as well.
If I may be snarky, this is what the Malaysian school history books say about how the Malacca Sultan converted to Islam:
As the Sultan lay sleeping, he had a dream. In it, a Muslim missionary spoke to him that he would be arriving the next morning to show him the path of truth.
When the Sultan woke up… He was circumsized (sunat). So the next morning, he waited in the port. And sure enough, the same Muslim missionary he saw in the dream was on an arriving ship.
(I am being completely serious and honest. This account is actually in the secondary school history books I read. FACTUAL HISTORY??!!)
So this is the joke I would make with my friends: If this guy can magically cut the tip off your manhood from miles away and across the seas, think what he can do you to from close range! You dare not convert???
Lololololol!!!!
In theory, but not in practise. See next reply.
Let me put it this way: If a person is born into a Muslim family, he/she is considered a Muslim.
From that day on, he/she may NEVER leave Islam, no matter what he/she comes to believe in. The penalty is imprisonment or death in every Muslim country in the world, except Nubia. Every single one.
Comparing the ‘growth rate’ of Islam and other religions is like comparing two pens of sheep. Whenever a sheep from my pen goes into your pen, you get to keep it. But when a sheep from your pen tries to coem to my pen, you either lock it in or you kill it.
Of course after a few decades, you will have more sheep than me!
———————————-
Honestly, if Islam did not use the sword, how do you explain how they ‘peacefully convinced’ the medieval Christian capital in Rome to ‘give away’ all the treasures and holy relics of the Basilica of St. Peter and the Basilica San Paolo fuori le Mura?
Do you really think that the Pope and the cardinals would freely donate all the extremely ancient, valuable and revered religious inheritances because they ‘liked’ the Arab visitors?
It may be myth that Islam spread solely by the sword. But it is a bigger myth to deny that Islam used the sword extensively.
In conclusion, Islam may seem to speak only of peace and justified defense against aggression. But repeatedly, its followers use it as their excuse to commit various atrocities against other people.
Why???????
Even as recently as the 1800s, Muslim pirates sponsored by Muslim nations were attacking and enslaving Westerners with this reasoning:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. – Barbary pirates
You have them to blame for getting America involved in the Middles East in the first place.
June 19, 08 at 9:47 am
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
My mistake
Sorry about that. This is the real one:
“‘You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?’ Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?’ Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, ‘You have helped Allah and His Apostle.’ Umayr said. ‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?’ ‘No,’ the Prophet answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.'” – Ishaq: 676
June 19, 08 at 11:10 am
It is worth noting that no muslim country is complaining or accusing Chinese to be islamophobes. Not a word, no riots or burning Chines embassies, or the Chinese flag or boycotting the imports of their prayers rugs between other things. Not even the Organization of Islamic Conference bringing the matter to the United Nations. Nothing, on the contrary, complete silence, or rather keeping their mouth shut. The reason is simple, they know that China don’t play games with islam.
This is what we always say, Islam is like a coil spring, you have to keep your foot on it, otherwise it’ll jump in your face. No need to say more.
http://www.sonsofapesandpigs.org/2008/06/hina-dont-play-games-with-isla.html
June 19, 08 at 12:26 pm
They roundly abused the HS members in a most threatening language and insisted that slogans like ‘Jai Sri Ram’ and ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ cannot be raised in Gangasagar! They maintained that these slogans are anti Islamic and it offends their religious sentiment! It belabours the intellect of even the most gullible as to how does raising one’s voice in the praise of God and motherland offends Islam!
http://hindusamhati.blogspot.com/2008/06/muslim-mob-attack-on-hindu-samhati-camp_16.html
June 23, 08 at 12:02 am
Dear Brother Scott Thong peace and blessings of Allah be upon
“Any proof to substantiate this claim? Because one can easily quote other historians who say the opposite”
Dear Scott you may not be aware of the fact that the phrase “Islam spreaded by Sword” actually for the first time engraved by British Machineries in late 17th century, during the colonial period, when they considered Islam major threat in between their aims and objectives. So what they done, they used all their means to sub due this nation.War, religious invasion, created false prophets amongst Muslims(Mirza Ghulam Ahmad etc..), who in his own book called himself a British seed, and so on I can count dozens. So what I realy want to say is that it’s a great myth created by Historians, for what reason? God has blessed you with knowledge and wisdom; I really don’t need to convince you. I request you to read following books written by; Sir Thomas W. Arnold, “The Preaching of Islam”, Marshall G. Hodgson, “The Venture of Islam”, Albert Hourani, “A History of the Arab People”, Ira Lapidus, “History of Islamic Societies”, L.S. Starorianos, “A Global Hisotry, the Human Heritage”
For more information regarding same topic listen what your own research scholars used to say; in documentary, “Islam, Empire of Faith”.
1- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH1CeEC-Ok8
2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCieNiCRaAw&feature=related
3- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzpbmRMSZnc&feature=related
4- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEgrXwAz8Qg
5- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8mvxb5XjjI
6- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlcFfo9Pe7w
7- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lXIMgcrSFU
“List Muslim conquests on Wikipedia – Byzantine-Arab, Persia, Transoxiana, Sindh, Hispania, Caucasus, Nubia, Southern Italy, Anatolia, Byzantine-Ottoman”
My dear brother, first of all I would like to ask you simple questions that, if follower of a certain religion kills someone do I suppose to call the religion killer? For sake of argument, if I consider that okey, do you really think the invaders or conquerers converted the people by using force? Be logical brother. There is famous quotation in Rigveda that you can conquer land but you can’t conquer hearts”.
“The Copts are currently greatly oppressed, even though Islam is supposed to guarantee freedom of religion.”
I didn’t see a logical answer instead of by passing the question? That there are 14 million Arabs Coptic Christians still living, if Muslims indeed had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian?
“80% non-Muslims in India.”
I’m asking again that if Muslims indeed had used the sword do you think, there would have been a single Hindu in India today?
If you don’t mind would you like to tell me regarding these two people are they Christians? Or Hindus because,I’ll answer better, if I’m aware of the opponents. kesava’s and hutchrun.
“If I may be snarky, this is what the Malaysian school history books say about how the Malacca Sultan converted to Islam:”
Amazing answer,I like it, I request you to read some above mention books or visit following link below;
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-52555/Malaysia
Some of your questions are purely political, so I decided to neglect them, if you do need answer, I’ll certainly answer…..
“Let me put it this way: If a person is born into a Muslim family, he/she is considered a Muslim.
From that day on, he/she may NEVER leave Islam, no matter what he/she comes to believe in. The penalty is imprisonment or death in every Muslim country in the world, except Nubia. Every single one.
Comparing the ‘growth rate’ of Islam and other religions is like comparing two pens of sheep. Whenever a sheep from my pen goes into your pen, you get to keep it. But when a sheep from your pen tries to coem to my pen, you either lock it in or you kill it.Of course after a few decades, you will have more sheep than me!”
I want you to answer simple questions?
1-why do 20000 thousand American Christians converting to Islam annually? (Numbers increasing)
2-Why 40000 Germans embraced Islam in 2007?
3-why 50000 Franks converted to Islam in 2007?
List can go upto Hundred countries……..
Would you like to tell me which Sword forced the Americans, German, Franks etc… to convert to Islam?
For more detail regarding Islam you can ask freely…….
June 23, 08 at 9:46 am
bilal,
You keep repeating the claim that if Islam had used the sword, there would be no Christians or other nonMuslims left.
But that is an untrue and wrong idea. You totally neglect the Islamic concept of DHIMMI, where nonMuslims were ALLOWED TO LIVE and keep their own religion as long as they submit to being inferior citizens.
And what about the long history of SLAVERY under Islam? Even your prophet took wives from among his slaves. Slavery is perpetuated by the sword, but the slaves still remain in their own religion.
Or do you seriously want to argue that Muslims convinced the nonMuslims to willingly live as slaves simply by describing the beauty of Islam to them????
Just take your logic the other way around: Did the Americans use force to invade Iraq? Did the European Colonial Powers use force to imperialize Africa and Asia?
NO!!!! According to your logic they didn’t – because there are still people who not Christian or who do not support democracy in those places.
Do you see the illogicity of your argument?
Besides, in India, there are still many Hindus simply because Islam FAILED to conquer the entire country! As kessava has stated earlier, the Hindu forces managed to defeat and eject the Muslim hordes.
———————–
They converted likely because of their being persuaded that Islam is the best or true way.
But you avoided my question: What about the sword that forces Muslims to STAY within Islam? The sword of sharia and apostasy laws?
Examples:
Iranian jailed, tortured for performing baptisms – “The church is growing at an absolutely phenomenal rate in Iran. Muslims are coming to know Christ; they’re getting involved with these house church groups.”
Lina Joy
Revathi Massosai
Abdul Rahman
You quote thousands of Westerners entering Islam. I ask you, if Islam did not force its people to remain within under threat of imprisonment and execution, how many would leave it for other religions as their hearts call them?
This is a sample of what would happen if Islam put down the sword it points at its own people:
In Africa Alone EVERY DAY, 16000 Muslims Leave Islam
3000 convert to Christianity DAILY in China
(If you claim my sources are biased and untrustworthy, I can easily say the same about yours.)
Imagine what would happen if Islam stopped bullying and killing apostates who tried to leave Islam?
In comparison, NO OTHER RELIGION forbids its people from leaving the religion – perhaps to join Islam.
So it is an unfair and imbalanced comparison. People are allowed to join Islam, but no Muslims are allowed to leave Islam.
———————–
You also repeatedly ignore the citations by myself and others that show how Muslim forces went to war to conquer territories, and these were viewed as FOR THE SAKE OF SPREADING ISLAM by even Islamic writers at the time.
The Islamic forces did not just attack for land and wealth and rape, but genuinely believed it was Allah’s will that they destroy idolaters and pagans.
The sword is not the sole reason for conversions to Islam in history and today, yes.
But neither is the sword 100% absent from the equation.
Even your own Islamic writers admitted it that the conquests and war, BY THE SWORD, were for the sake of Allah:
Tariq ibn Ziyad, commander of the invasion of Spain: “The Commander of True Believers, Alwalid, son of Abdalmelik, has chosen you for this attack from among all his Arab warriors; and he promises that you shall become his comrades and shall hold the rank of kings in this country. Such is his confidence in your intrepidity. The one fruit which he desires to obtain from your bravery is that the word of God shall be exalted in this country, and that the true religion shall be established here. The spoils will belong to yourselves.”
Firuz Shah Tughlaq, invader of India: “Allah who is the only true God and has no other emanation, endowed the king of Islam with the strength to destroy this ancient shrine on the eastern sea-coast and to plunge it into the sea, and after its destruction he ordered the image of Jagannath to be perforated, and disgraced it by casting it down on the ground. They dug out other idols which were worshipped by the polytheists in the kingdom of Jajnagar and overthrew them as they did the image of Jagannath…”
Mahmud Khalji, invader of India: “O Prophet, make war upon the infidels and unbelievers, and treat them severely. My great object in invading Hindustan had been to wage a religious war against the infidel Hindus…[so that] the army of Islam might gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the Hindus.”
Khalid Yahya Blankinship, Muslim American historian speaking on the Muslim conquest of Europe: “Stretching from Morocco to China, the Umayyad caliphate based its expansion and success on the doctrine of jihad–armed struggle to claim the whole earth for God’s rule, a struggle that had brought much material success for a century…”
Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Tripoli’s ambassador during the Barbary Muslim sea campaign of enslavement: “It is written in our Koran, that all nations which do not acknowledge the Prophet are sinners, whom it is the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who is slain in this warfare is sure to go to paradise.”
Osama bin Laden, terrorist leader yet admired by many Muslims worldwide: “We should fully understand our religion. Fighting is a part of our religion and our Sharia. Those who love God and his Prophet and this religion cannot deny that. Whoever denies even a minor tenet of our religion commits the gravest sin in Islam.”
Why are you being so stubborn, then?
June 24, 08 at 1:28 am
Dear Brother Scott Thong peace and blessings of Allah be upon
I really don’t know why do you be so prejudice and still sticked to the myth engraved by those whose are against Islam. Be sensible, you are a mature and sensible guy.I found my answer.Thanks brother.
“They converted likely because of their being persuaded that Islam is the best or true way.”.
may Allah Guide you to the right path
Bilal Afridi (M.A, Ph.d , University of Peshawar)
June 24, 08 at 8:31 am
“80% non-Muslims in India.”
I’m asking again that if Muslims indeed had used the sword do you think, there would have been a single Hindu in India today?
______________________________________________________________
The muslims tried to slaughter each and every living hindu in india. Pakistanis are in fact hindus and should revert to hinduism to save their own souls instead of joining their fathers and founder of islam in hell.
It was the Sikhs and Maharashrtrians who turned the tide against muslim evil in India. That is why there are more hindus than muslims in India. Not because Islam is good, but because muslim evil was stopped and chased back into the hell of Pakistan (including peshawar).
Pakistanis are made up mostly of low caste former hindus that were forcibly converted by the Arabs. That is why their country is such a mess. I fully support the shiites and sunnis in slaughtering and bombing each other out of existence so the world can know which is the true Islam. Only the white man is stupid but will not provide both sides with necessary ammunition to do this.
June 24, 08 at 8:37 am
1-why do 20000 thousand American Christians converting to Islam annually? (Numbers increasing)
_____________________________________________________________
More rubbish. Most are from the criminal system and are attracted to the philosophy that it is ok to steal from a non muslim.
Also:
some time back, I said 75% of new converts become apostates in US – on this thread – here
Some of you found it difficult to believe and asked for a source & Ref. – this is research conducted by a Prof. He mentions the stat. in the last minute of the video, according to his finding.
http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?p=370925
June 24, 08 at 8:44 am
“Muslims are leaving Islam in millions, which is unprecedented in human history. Islam is not the fastest growing religion (by conversions). Here are some of the recent News about Muslims leave Islam in droves and embrace other religions and ideologies which are compatible with Golden rule, Humanity.
2 million ethnic Muslims adopted baptism in Russia while only 2,5 thousand Russians converted to Islam – expert
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=513
Shiekh Ahmed Katani : “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity. These numbers are very large indeed”.
http://www.formermuslims.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=972
I can post more when that angel of peshawar replies.
June 24, 08 at 9:25 am
Prejudiced? Stick to myths? Be sensible?
Dude, I continually quote FACTUAL HISTORY and MUSLIM WRITING to you as proof of WHAT IS TRUE FACT.
And you still think that I am the one being prejudiced?
Tell me WHAT of my response is myth and false. Everything I quoted comes from reliable history, even from MUSLIM SCHOLARS of history!
Tell me, where do I lie or tell untruths?
I accuse that you simply cannot provide a logical, rational response to my claims (with evidence, citations and proof)… Because you do not WANT them to be true.
You simply do not and cannot accept the truth that Islam has a tarnished and bloody history.
Doesn’t your religion tell you to seek and accept the truth and reject ignorance? Yet you willfully ignore what you do not like to find out.
With your education, you really should be more open and accepting of truth.
June 24, 08 at 2:26 pm
Scott: “You simply do not and cannot accept the truth that Islam has a tarnished and bloody history.”
A tree is known by its fruit. That’s why all the denials and assertions with the accompanying revision of history. They are indoctrinated that way without which their faith will get shattered by the Light of Truth, historical evidence and Reality in no time at all. Reason is not thereby his strong point but, instead, assertions and tarring of any and all contrarian views. The natural stupor of unalloyed denial.
June 25, 08 at 7:58 pm
Filham Isaac, speaking for the Nineveh Advocacy Committee, told the human rights committee that Iraqi Christian churches were bombed, clergy murdered and unveiled Iraqi women raped or scarred with acid.
It’s part of a systemic — and very effective — campaign to ethnically cleanse the area of any non-Muslims, he said. Chaldean and Assyrian Christians, known as Chaldo-Assyrians, were once the largest Christian minority in Iraq. They are also the oldest, descendants of ancient Mesopotamians who adopted Christianity in the first century.
The Chaldean Catholic Church, the Syrian Catholic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Church of the East are among the Christian churches in Iraq.
Today, about 300,000, or one in three, is a refugee, he said.
“It’s at a crisis point,” Mr. Isaac’s colleague, Zaya Oshana, said later. “Christians will be completely annihilated.”
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=e7649576-0ebe-4b4f-b803-9a2c64449c41
September 27, 08 at 8:30 am
[…] – bookmarked by 1 members originally found by leoguime on 2008-09-05 Comment on Christianity vs Islam – Who Started This Whole Mess? by … […]
October 22, 08 at 1:43 pm
Great site, keep up the good work.
December 5, 08 at 3:29 am
First of all want to say you guys are the greatest.
Now I got my own story.., You want to know who started the whole mess? GOD did! Just this day,I had a revelation and had got a chance to speak directly to GOD. SO I asked him why he created 3 major religions based on same GOD but the mighty just replied.
“THERE HAS BEEN TOO MUCH VIOLENCE, TOO MUCH PAIN
NONE HERE IS WITHOUT A SIN
BUT I HAVE AN HONORABLE COMPROMISE
JUST WALK AWAY
GIVE ME THE BIBLE
THE QURAN
THE TALMUD
THE TORAH
AND I’LL SPARE YOUR LIVES.
JUST WALK AWAY, I WILL GIVE YOU SAFE PASSAGE TO HEAVEN
JUST WALK AWAY AND THERE WILL BE AN END TO HELL.
Then Fire and lightning erupted all around and he went into an entire rant about about how he told Noah to complete this gigantic ark in only 120 years then stuff all the living animals into it because GOD was bored and would flood the earth. And that other time when he pulled a prank on humankind when they tried to building the tower of babel to reach up to heaven.
January 27, 09 at 9:04 pm
Today, the Ancient City of Palymyra certifies that Christainity started in Syria. Thr Roman brought christainity to the land and stretch from china to entire Mesopatamia. We are looking at an archeaology dig that has revealed Christainity in the first century.
The Catholic –when Lord said on this rock you will build my church. This dispute that finding.
February 18, 09 at 11:41 am
thanks scott, Once again you have exposed important truths.
April 14, 10 at 8:49 am
YES, have to say NO to your story.
July 18, 10 at 9:05 pm
Islam didn’t spread by sword. Read William of Tyre at http://thecrusades.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/william-of-tyre/
July 19, 10 at 11:33 am
???
What does that have to do at all with the various wars of conquest and domination carried out in the name of Islam against not just Africa, Europe and West Asia, but as far as the Indian subcontinent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_in_the_Indian_subcontinent
I seriously doubt you can blame the Crusades for the mass slaughter of Hindus throughout the Mughal conquests.
July 19, 10 at 12:39 pm
The Crusades happened because of the Jihads. The previous Pope made the foolish mistake of apologizing for that!
It’s all there:
http://www.historyofjihad.com/
April 1, 11 at 2:44 am
Still smarting from the butt-hurt Caliph Umar al-Khattab, Salah ad-Din Al-Ayyubi and Sultan Mehmet al-Fatih dished out to the Byzantines and the Crusaders?
This post reeks of ignorance and historical blindness about the nature of the Futuhat campaigns and the Crusades, which are defensive wars. Typical of Christian missionaries and Islamophobes to count on the ignorance of the masses to make up lies about Islam being a religion of war.
April 1, 11 at 7:38 pm
Pray tell, how does the invasion of Christian Europe count as either ‘defensive’ or ‘spread not by the sword’?
April 1, 11 at 7:46 pm
“Pray tell, how does the invasion of Christian Europe count as either ‘defensive’ or ‘spread not by the sword’?”
Might want to ask Pope Urban II for the answer.
“The First Crusade (1096–1099) was a military expedition by Western Christianity to regain the Holy Lands taken in the Muslim conquest of the Levant, ultimately resulting in the recapture of Jerusalem. It was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II with the primary goal of responding to an appeal from Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, who requested that western volunteers come to his aid and help to repel the invading Seljuq Turks from Anatolia. An additional goal soon became the principal objective—the Christian reconquest of the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land and the freeing of the Eastern Christians from Islamic rule.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade
April 1, 11 at 7:48 pm
The Christian Crusades are offensive military wars which the Muslims fought back and won by the time Salah ad-Din al-Ayyubi took command, the Futuhat campaigns were not as the Muslims were invited by those occupied by the Byzantines to liberate them.
April 1, 11 at 8:01 pm
Wait, is your quote meant to refute me, or support me?
April 1, 11 at 8:07 pm
The Crusades being ‘offensive’ is kinda debunked by the paragraph you quoted.
As for ‘inviting people to liberate you’, does that mean that oppressed Christians in modern day Muslim states have the right to call upon America to invade and liberate them? Especially since basically all of these Muslim states were formerly Christian or pagan before the advent of Islam?
And if not, are the Muslims of Pattani/Aceh/Philippines/Palestine then justified in rising up militarily against their ‘oppressors’, or not?
(Note that I am not operating under the assumptions of ‘In the name of Islam = Always right no matter the circumstances’ and ‘Once a Muslim land, always a Muslim land’ which kind of preclude any debate.)
April 1, 11 at 8:32 pm
“The Crusades being ‘offensive’ is kinda debunked by the paragraph you quoted.”
No it wasn’t…the Muslims have been controlling the area around Syria/Palestine long before Pope Urban II decided to wage his personal military war to conquer Muslim lands under the pretense of “liberation”. On the other hand, the Futuhat campaigns were clearly at the invitation of the population at the time, there are numerous records to prove this.
“As for ‘inviting people to liberate you’, does that mean that oppressed Christians in modern day Muslim states have the right to call upon America to invade and liberate them? ”
You are asking a rather silly question, no? Back then there was no concept of the nation-state and there was no such thing as customs, visa, passport or the like. People can move around freely in any part of the world.
“And if not, are the Muslims of Pattani/Aceh/Philippines/Palestine then justified in rising up militarily against their ‘oppressors’, or not?”
Different issue altogether.
April 1, 11 at 10:27 pm
I still don’t see how every one of the pre-Crusades events I list in the post can be justified as ‘defensive’ or ‘provoked’.
Further, whether the Crusades were aggressive or defensive is one thing – whether they were carried out in accordance with or in opposition to the Christian Scriptures and the teachings of Jesus is another.
April 1, 11 at 10:42 pm
I could see it that way were I menj – he has to see it that way through his distorted glasses. I would be donning his distorted glasses, too, to see it that way. And I would be wrong. Just like he.
August 11, 11 at 9:43 pm
[…] And not to justify one of Anders Breivik’s excuses for his attack, but 461 years of unprovoked invasion and pillage preceded the First Crusade. […]
September 23, 11 at 1:11 am
I read good articles about that subject in this web-blog http://crusades-medieval.blogspot.com
November 8, 11 at 8:45 pm
Islam is peace…
[…]Christianity vs Islam – Who Started This Whole Mess? « LEADING MALAYSIAN NEOCON[…]…
May 15, 12 at 1:30 pm
Why are people so gullible as to choose between either of these religions, when both Christian and Islam literally beat their religions into them after they had first enslaved.them? We should stay as far away from either of them
No one knows anything about God, or even the name of God. The earth is over 4.5 billion years old, yet little man in his present form, has only been here about 250,000 years.
May 16, 12 at 12:08 am
Dejesus Romeri,
In Islam,its okey..no matter hard you beat, Allah ie god will keep His religion firm.But.. you dont know..
And as a Muslim we never stay away from our religion. Why? Because as a believer; there is good for him in everything and this applies only to a believer. If prosperity comes to him, he expresses gratitude to Allah and that is good for him; and if adversity befalls him, he endures it patiently and that is better for him.” [Muslim]
And I like to clear you about god in christianity a bit. Jesus is not God. In Islam he is a manifestation of Allah.
May 16, 12 at 9:53 am
loop, I think Dejesus Romeri would be rather more upset with Islam than Christianity in the modern times… After all, Christianity has mostly stopped the whole ‘beat their religions into them after they had first enslaved.them’ thing.
May 18, 12 at 12:21 pm
Scott Thong, something that Dejesus Romeri should understand that Islam has no upset in the past and modern because Allah promised His guidance on a straight way and verily granted a manifest victory for those who follow and fulfil His favour on Islam..
May 18, 12 at 12:48 pm
If Islam has no upset, then why do so many followers of Islam get so upset over things and riot, burn, chop heads, bomb, etc? Tell us that.
May 18, 12 at 3:09 pm
Islam has no upset but Christianity is a master of war.That’s what Bob Dylan said about it. The christians get upset with the Muslim’s privileges.So “you fasten the triggers, for them to fire then you sit back and watch when the death counts gets higher.” Really you now ‘enslaved them’ thing?
May 18, 12 at 3:43 pm
Funny, Christian in Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia, almost all the Middle East are suffering and dying due to the ‘Muslims’ privileges’. Yet no news of Christians using war or enslaving Muslims in revenge.
Care to explain, loop? Or give some examples of Muslims being tortured, kicked out of jobs, murdered, raped, imprisoned, kidnapped, forcibly married, enslaved, their mosques burned down in Christian-majority countries just because they refuse to convert to Christianity?
May 18, 12 at 4:19 pm
Examples from just today’s Barnabas Persecution Update:
– Christian families in desperate need; armed militants wreak havoc in Syria: Ten Christian families were expelled from their village in Syria by armed militants as jihadists hijack the anti-government uprising and wreak havoc across the country.
– Indonesian authorities close Christian worship places after Islamist protests: The authorities have sealed off 17 Christian places of worship in a semi-autonomous Indonesian province following a protest from hard line Islamist groups, who oppose the buildings.
– Christian gathering in Uzbekistan raided by police in bomb search claim: Secret police raided a Christian gathering in a home in Uzbekistan claiming to be searching for a bomb.
– Christians threatened while trying to save graveyard in Pakistan: Christians in Pakistan have been threatened and abused while trying to save their Christian graveyard from being turned into farmland in a dubious takeover bid.
You find me one, ONE news item from today regarding Christian persecution of Muslims.
Persecution and murder of Muslims is carried out BY MUSLIMS:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
2012.05.17 (Farah, Afghanistan) – Seven people are shot or blasted to death during a sustained Fedayeen assault on a house.
2012.05.15 (Mosul, Iraq) – Seven Iraqis are taken out by a Shahid suicide bomber.
2012.05.15 (Mombasa, Kenya) – A woman dies from a gunshot wound to the chest as Islamists assault a nightclub.
2012.05.15 (Quetta, Pakistan) – Two Shiite brothers are murdered by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi gunmen.
2012.05.14 (Pattani, Thailand) – An elderly Buddhist man is shot several times in the torso by Muslim ‘rebels’.
2012.05.14 (Himreen, Iraq) – A man and his son are pulled out of their home and executed by Mujahideen.
May 19, 12 at 10:25 am
‘Care to explain, loop?’
Same old scott, you’re so ugly I forgot how to spell. Like I said before you and yourself regime always view one’s own culture as good, beautiful,logical,sensible and true and then by extension viewing other peoples’ cultures as less, as ungood, or bizarre.
There were not only being tortured but their mind were persuade or force to follow.They were manipulated not only to convert to Christianity but to their gold and glory:
‘..under no circumstances would you for a single moment tolerate an independent Islamic state’-Lord Cromer..Modern Egypt.N.Y.,1908. P.563.
Many more Scott but you are never clear of what I do as I am clear of what you do.
“..almost all the Middle East are suffering and dying due to the ‘Muslims’ privileges’”.
If only they really follow Islam wisely not for worldly pleasures. Surely Allah will granted them with victory.
May 21, 12 at 11:14 am
Hah! Decribing yourself much, loop?
Your quotes always come from long dead scholars and known apologists for Islam.
Mine are NEWS REPORTS from this month, this week, this day!
Again I challenge you! Show me a recent news report of Christians kidnapping Muslims, or beheading them, or imprisoning them, or suicide bombing them… Just because they refuse to convert to Christianity! Not news reports from 1000 years ago please!
YOU CANNOT DO IT!!! Your arguments are stale and dead end, yet you cannot see it – you refuse to see it!
You always view your own culture as good, beautiful, logical, sensible and true and view other peoples’ cultures as less, as ungood, or bizarre. Right loop? But tell me whose culture is committing so many horrific things every single day!
Actually, I pity and have compassion for you… Because it must be SO PAINFUL to your great pride that you look around every day, and it is INFIDELS like the Americans, Chinese, Europeans, Russians, Indians who are out dominating the world while the Middle East rots in backwardness. And the Jews keep making new discoveries in science and winning Nobel prizes while your last great discovery was 1000 years ago!
It must make you so confused and angry… WHY ARE THE CHOSEN PEOPLE OF LOOP NOT SUCCEEDING IN LIFE????
Maybe they are too full of sin and do not ‘really follow Islam wisely not for worldly pleasures’???
Surely Allah will granted them with victory if they did!
So they are all apostates??? That must be why the Middle East has the least successful, respected and admired nations in the world???
Poor, poor loop… I am sorry for you. So I will give you MERCY and stop making you think of ALL THE FAILURE!!!!
May 21, 12 at 11:26 pm
The Middle East backwardness?
But secularism in Europe is quickly passing away now and Islam, peaceful, radical, and fundamental, is quickly taking over.Muslims are building hundreds of new mosques across the continent and Europe Scott! Does that mean Islam is backward? Maybe you ‘ve forgotten during Easter mass at the Vatican Pope Benedict XVI seek to draw attention to the erosion of the Catholic faith and the rise of Islam in Europe. Who is backward,Scott? As in Britain, Mohammed is now the most popular name for baby boys ahead of Jack and Harry. Look with your heart..are you happy with Lady Gaga making fool of your Judas ?
History is repeated Scott..
They turn Middle East upside down but then Allah makes His religion rises in Europe. Do you know the story of Moses and Pharoah, Scott? Pharoah issued a decree to slay any male child that would be born to the children of Israel. But Allah AlMighty made Moses finds a home in the Pharoah’s palace just after his birth!!See.. how great The Almighty Allah planned His world.
SUCCEEDING IN LIFE????
No points dominating the world, making discoveries and winning nobel prizes but leaving the many principles that Christ brought to live by. Just wondering if Christ will still ask for “Father to forgive for they don’t know what they are doing”.Wierd Scott to claim dominating the world and nobels but don’t know what they are doing!!! Mercy Scott, I’m aware that Allah my Lord was much more merciful to me than yours.
Scott o Scott.. no points gaining the world but lost the soul.Wisdom is better than winning nobels and more.. being corrupted Scott!!!
May 22, 12 at 12:11 pm
Peaceful? Hahahahahaha! Do you really believe that, loop? With all the riots, beatings, harassment of women and homosexuals, attacking police, and even bombings or shootings every now and then?
Really???
Considering that Muslims in European countries have the following:
YES!!! Backwards!!!
Meanwhile, despite the constant persecution and no-building-allowed in the Middle East and other Muslim countries, Christianity is surging and expanding.
Which is better proof of a religion’s strength? Expanding under friendly conditions and the caveat that all those born or marrying into it must become Muslim and can never ever leave? Or expanding under life-threatening conditions?
It is also probably the most popular for the FBI most wanted:
And many terrorists too:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/08/mohammed-coefficient.html
…You Do realize that Moses was a Jewish Jew who led the Jews to occupy Israel, right?
I agree, but what about all that glorifying Allah? Discovering the creation of Allah? Bringing goodness and mercy and blessing to Allah’s humans? All that boasting about Islam’s science and philosophy and great civilization advances 1000 years ago?
I mean, when nonMuslims, nonChristians and nonJews look at the achievements, happiness, knowledge, kindness, advancement of Islam, Christianity and Judaism… Who do you really think they will admire, look up to and want to join?
What kind of testimony to the unbelievers are you giving?
And seriously, how many ordinary Muslims do you think even know their scriptures? Not just memorize the Arabic without even understanding Arabic like a parrot!
SIMPLE QUESTION FOR LOOP: According to proper and correct understanding of Islam, should Muslims war and kill all nonMuslims or not?
(You also still cannot cite me a news article of Christians killing or persecuting Muslims for their refusal to accept Jesus.)
September 1, 12 at 11:51 pm
God is NOT an author of chaos. He’s not interested in religion because it does not SAVE you! Jewish history from the establishment of Mosaic theocracy(Judaism) is filled with lapses, recoveries and relapses. Christ’s mandate therefore wasn’t to come & purify Judaism nor to establish another religion (He’s not just another prophet). U can wash Ur skin in hydrogen peroxide & pray 99 times a day, it doesn’t connect U back to God’s standard of purity.
HE knows of Ur religious zeal (that is, if U have one). But HE has to redeem U, and it comes at a price. In the law when U sin U bring certain animals as precribed by the law to be killed after Ur sin must have been pronounced on their heads(Leviticus). They bear Ur guilt and die in Ur place cos the penalty for sin is death!(Rom 6:23). It’s called propitiation.
That saves U for a while but a slave to sin that U are, U will inevitably sin again! The sacrifice is the Drug but U need a Vaccine.
To make U impervious to sin through HIS grace, God concocted THE vaccine: Joshua (saviour) son of Joseph…son of David who is called Christ, Messiah (Anointed). In Him NO violence was found. He didn’t go about killing people by waging religious wars, cos He’s not establishing one. He came for a sole purpose: To carry Ur guilt & die in Ur place, (so far U’re Homo sapiens sapiens) making a lasting propitiation for U & all mankind.(Heb 10:8,9,10).
”For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering…”(Rom8:3. NIV).
This is the Message of the cross. (Heb10:17,18).
Religion (& its zeal) will only make U see people as opponents then U want to convert them to Ur cause at all costs. U’ll think U’re helping God in Ur blindness & folly. Who are U to help the Sovereign Almighty?
September 28, 12 at 5:45 pm
Believe in the lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved!!! 🙂
August 5, 15 at 4:05 am
And the writer of this article also is “totally unbiased and without policy agenda”, I’m sure.
August 5, 15 at 4:30 am
Scott, you ignorant sumbitch – and all you others, claiming the great innocence of christianity, and claiming that all muslims are jihadists… COME ON!!!! You’re looking for current news about christian violence on muslims ?!?! Start with the present and recent invasions of the u.s. and it’s western allies of Afghanistan, Iraq. The despicable Guantanamo Bay facility. The less modern but no less relevant genocides perpetrated by christian invaders of North America, Australia, Pacific islands and so on… I mean, the list is practically ENDLESS. Modern and historical. And the difference is, that’s the christian MAINSTREAM. Unlike the RADICAL muslims responsored for the atrocities committed “in the name of allah”.
In the bible, as we’ve seen, god, time after time, instructs his followers to commit acts of violence, be it upon humans or upon animals. Most of the love required of christians is for god himself, not for his fellow man, or the other species we share this earth with.
It’s all so sickening.
The only solution, in the end, is just to leave this place for the truly PEACEFUL. The non human species of this planet.
August 5, 15 at 4:32 am
Above that is meant to read “the invasions BY the u.s. and it’s western allies….”
August 5, 15 at 4:48 am
And, Scott, you ARROGANT sumbitch, your summary is a frikkin JOKE. Funny, but not funny, pathetic but not empathetic….
Seriously?!? “seeking truth”?!?! That is an INSULT to all honest people. A “free thinker”?! Just because you read the bible high on crystal meth and go off on racist rants doesn’t mean you are a free thinker. And, “trying to be a saint”?!?! I mean, sainthood is just a goddamned joke anyways, but you would NEVER achieve sainthood, unless it were as the patron saint of the Ku Klux Klan. And EVERYTHING ELSE in that summary is just a summary of an egocentric morons delusions of grandeur. Try some lithium, or some other anti psychotics instead of the meth, why don’t you.
I wish I’d never come across this page whilst looking for an objective, unbiased account of who “threw the first stone” in the HORRIFIC violent history of christian/muslim wars.
Now I just want to puke and hope the next flight to some distant planet, unoccupied by this ludicrously self aggrandizing species.
August 5, 15 at 12:12 pm
Well sure I put my chips in Christianity’s pile, but even so I offer an objective argument in my blog post. Can you dispute that?
Now, now, you’re getting all overexcited.
Where do I ever generalize like that?
You have to make the distinction between violence carried out by peoples or nations who generally follow a certain religion, and violence carried out in the name of a certain religion. Correlation does not imply causation.
Some examples: The USA took pains not to allow proselytising by Christian soldiers towards the local Muslim populace. Many of their soldiers are irreligious or atheist, only nominally Christian, or members of other religions – including Islam.
Even the Democrats who hate GW Bush’s guts seldom attribute his invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to wanting to convert them to Christianity. They mostly insinuate he has oil/Blackwater profit interests, is trying to outdo daddy’s Gulf War victory, or is just a violence-crazed warmonger like they think all Republicans are.
You have better footing here, as many of the colonial conquests were done ‘For Glory, God and Gold’. A pertinent example would be the Goa Inquisition. But note that your examples above do not cover any Muslim peoples invaded by Christians, which is the focus of my blog post.
Anyway, I by no means deny that Christians have committed many atrocities in the past. After all, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” – Romans 3:23
But that just leads me to another point: That what those ‘Christians’ did went against the teachings and life examples of Jesus and the Bible – they committed atrocities despite their religion’s teachings. Just one example passage: “Love your enemies” – Matthew 5:44
Whereas what the Muslim invaders and jihadists did and still do today are according to the teachings and life examples of Mohammad and the Quran – they commit atrocities because of their religion’s teachings. Just one example passage: “Strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” – Quran 8:12
Seriously, just take some recent example like the Kosher Mart shooter in the Porte de Vincennes siege – he apologetically said to his victims that he’s not psycho, he is just following the commands of his religion. Or look at what Islamic State and (allegedly) ‘lone wolf’ attackers on Western soil love to do, chop heads off just like Quran 8:12 commands.
Despite and Because of – there is a world of difference there, if one is mature enough to think it through.
Funny how that would make Mohammad himself a ‘RADICAL muslims’ – war & invasions & violent raids, execution of almost a thousand unarmed prisoners who had agreed to surrender peacefully, rape, assassination of critics, etc
Anyway, I already refuted your misguided notion about ‘christian MAINSTREAM’ earlier.
This is a polemic often raised, and thus it is easily responded to. You could even have quickly Googled it yourself, if you were so inclined.
First, the instructions to ‘commit violence’ are exclusively or almost exclusively found in the Old Testament. Most of us are not Bronze Age Israelite Jews following Moses around the desert, if you didn’t notice. The ceremonial law has been fulfilled by Jesus’ self-sacrifice, hence we don’t even practise animal sacrifices anymore.
Second, instructions such as ‘Kill everything in Jericho when you take the city’ are limited commands, meant for a one-time-only event. This is in stark contrast to Quran, Hadith and Sunna commands and examples which are not limited to any timeframe or location – hence why jihadis still use them as inspiration and justification for their attacks.
POP QUIZ: Cite the last time a Christian mass killer cited a Bible passage as clear instructions commanding him to kill nonChristians. Much harder than citing a Muslim example eh?
Third, not directly relevant to my ‘Christianity compared to Islam’ direction, but something polemics raise a lot: The Biblical God commanding the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites seems harsh, but it is not murder – God is the creator and sustainer of life, He has the sole right to take away life.
Though experiment: If all the Canaanites had instead suddenly died in their sleep, would that be as big an outrage as the Israelites killing them by the sword? Why? Both would be by God’s sovereign will. In fact, He has done such things before in the cases of Sodom and the Great Flood.
Here you are making a mistaken assumption. Jesus summarizes the two most important rules as “Love God, and love your neighbor” – Matthew 22:36-40, further commands it “A new command I give you: Love one another” – John 13:34, and his apostle John explains that “If you don’t love your brother, you don’t love God, so love one another” – 1 John 4:10-11
I have to agree that it is all mankind’s fault, as our sin is what corrupted the perfect world into the Nature Red in Tooth & Claw version we have today.
But you are mistaken if you think that if all humans suddenly disappeared, there would be no cruelty, senseless killing and suffering. Just look at dolphins and cats, they hunt and kill and torture for sport!
In any case, the world will be redeemed to perfect peace, with no death, after Jesus returns and (1000 years later) replaces heaven and earth with new versions.
Dude, I said I seek truth. I never claimed to have found it and am now the sole holder of it. Yeesh, give a guy some credit for trying, will ya?
Yes, In my opinion I do think freely. I am proud to admit that my conclusions and beliefs regarding various matters – global warming, gun ownership and violence, absolute vs relative morality, implementation of religious-based norms as national law, evolution, and more – have been changed (and sometimes, changed back again) when I find good arguments and data. Even within Christian beliefs, doctrines and Biblical interpretation, my views have been changed by study and discussion. The capability to change one’s notions, isn’t that a demonstration of unfettered thinking?
What about you then, if you were presented with good arguments that go against your currently-held opinion about Christians and Christianity, could you change your mind? Are you able to think freely?
And please cite me these ‘racist rants’. PRO TIP: ‘Muslim’ is not a race. Although in practise, the dhimmi system greatly resembles apartheid – just substitute ‘religious affiliation’ for ‘race’.
C’mon dude, I phrased it that way just to play on the term ‘Latter Day Saint’. I meant saint as in ‘good person’, not the Roman Catholic concept of sainthood.
I don’t find what I listed as very egocentric or boastful. For example, if I were really full of myself, I’d have said “Already am a saint” or “I know the truth” right?
But you DID find out ‘who threw the first stone’ right? Admit it, it wasn’t the Crusades that started it!
March 11, 16 at 4:47 pm
Christian were persecuted by rulers in Rome when they took over they persecuted everyone including the pagans. Since they took over the middle east they persecuted all the pagans in the middle east and even tried to convert the pagans in Arabia. In fact the Christians invaded Arabia a less than 30 years before Islam was found in a Crusade. Thus you can claim the Christians first started the crusade just like the invasion of the Americas. In fact you will not see a country in the world which was not invaded or occupied by European Christians.
March 11, 16 at 5:02 pm
I’ll be the first to admit that people and governments who claim to be Christian do no act in ways that befit the title… “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” – Romans 3:23.
That having been said, human history is a series of new groups rising up and trampling on prior groups. And in the case of this particular comparison, it is no contest that Islam rose up and trampled on Christianity – not the other way round. Even if you want to argue over the exact details in the Middle East where Islam first arose, it’s an order of magnitude harder to argue that it was also the case in the Muslim invasions of Europe.
Only this time, the trampled group i.e. Christians did not end up totally extinct. Instead, they survived and thrived up to this day, where they are clearly dominant over Islam once again. Thus arises the utterly hypocritical and ridiculous argument exists that claims it was Christianity that first picked a fight with Islam all the way from the start to today.
April 21, 16 at 10:33 pm
[…] attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world.” In reality, they were a counteroffensive against Islamic expansionism. Islamic armies invaded the Byzantine Empire in 634, southern Italy in 652, and the Iberian […]
August 15, 16 at 1:51 pm
So we can say christians started the holocaust right? And the christians started the black vs white racism in the 1800s? No. You cant blame one group of muslims/christians/jews/whatever for the whole religion. Hitler was christian so does that automatically make the holocaust caused by christians? Or the KKK killing numberous blacks. They were based off christianity so that must mean christians are not only racist but terrorists as well
August 16, 16 at 11:20 am
The difference here is, the early periods of conquest were under the official auspices of Islam’s foremost authorities and leaders.
In fact, some of the invasions and occupations were launched by Mohammad himself.
This further conflates with the Quran & Hadith which specifically command the conquest, subjugation and outright murder of nonMuslims. Hence, the Islamic attacks I list are because of what Islam teaches & commands.
Contrast this with the New Testament imperatives towards peace, particularly those uttered by Jesus. Hence, whatever atrocities by Christians you cite above are in spite of and contrary to what Christianity teaches & commands. (Or can you deny that it was Christians acting on Christian principles who ended the anti-Black racism that was the Atlantic slave trade?)
December 28, 16 at 4:15 pm
[…] in his article “Christianity vs Islam – Who Started This Whole Mess?” presents a detailed timeline of all Muslim aggression prior to the Christian response, but I’ve reproduced a condensed […]
May 31, 17 at 2:13 am
DEUS VULT
September 29, 20 at 7:17 am
I am sharing.