Quote:

Undoubtedly taking the initiative in fighting has a great effect in spreading Islam and bringing people into the religion of Allah in crowds.Hence the enemies of Islam are filled with fear of Jihad. Islam spread by means of proof and evidence to those who listened to the message and responded to it, and spread by means of force and the sword to those who were stubborn and arrogant, until they were overwhelmed and became no longer stubborn, and submitted to that reality. islamqa.info/en/43087

Is Sheik Munajid saying those who reject Islam are stubborn and arrogant?

The Caliphate has spread by the sword just like it did in the old days, the beheading videos are evidence of this.

Islam was an ideology invented for the purpose of building an empire.

freediver wrote on Dec 13^th, 2015 at 7:59am:

Islam was an ideology invented for the purpose of building an empire.

No - Islam was spread for the peoples need to have a sky fairy.

For the moslem; ISLAM IS INDOCTRINATED SUPREMACISM

For the non-moslem; ISLAM IS IMPOSED WAR [NOT PEACE]



Yadda wrote on Nov 8^th, 2008 at 12:28pm:

When muslim 'missionaries' invaded north Africa, and southern Europe in the 700's, they came not with persuasion, but with their swords. ISLAM is about war fighting, deception, accumulating the booty of this world. ISLAM is about seeking political, worldly, power.

ISLAM is of SATAN,      ...not the creator.



Moslems living within Australia will claim their aim is to bring ISLAM to Australia - peacefully.

Because 'ISLAM is peace'.
/sarc off




ISLAM is not peace.

ISLAM as a philosophy, is indoctrinated supremacism.


I claim, that moslems are following the direction of their clerics.

And i say moslem clerics have an agenda for total war against all unbelievers.

This doctrine is espoused by ISLAMIC texts, and by real, rightly guided, moslems.

But what do ISLAMIC jurisprudence experts, and clerics, say themselves, on this matter of war with 'unbelievers'???



They clearly say that....

ISLAM IS WAR, AGAINST DISBELIEVERS, FOR ALLAH'S RELIGION.



ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE EXPERT
EXAMPLE #1



Q.
Was Islam spread by the sword?

A.

Quote:

"......Undoubtedly taking the initiative in fighting has a great effect in spreading Islam and bringing people into the religion of Allaah. ....The defeatists among the Muslims come out to defend Islam, and they want to disavow Islam of this so-called lie, so they deny that Islam was spread by the sword, and they say that jihad is not prescribed in Islam. ....If Islam was only spread by peaceful means, what would the kuffaar have to be afraid of? ....Would the kuffaar be afraid of being told, become Muslim, but if you do not then you are free to believe and do whatever you want? or were they afraid of jihad and the imposition of the jizyah and being humiliated? That may make them enter Islam so that they may be spared this humiliation." ....The fact that the sword and power were means of spreading Islam is not a sources of shame for Islam, rather it is one of its strengths and virtues. ....The [muslim] defeatists should fear Allaah lest they distort this religion and cause it to become weak on the basis of the claim that it is a religion of peace. Yes, it is the religion of peace but in the sense of saving all of mankind from worshipping anything other than Allaah and submitting all of mankind to the rule of Allaah.

http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/43087

...so declares a real, rightly guided, muslim, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Munajid.

A person, a muslim cleric, who knows ISLAMIC jurisprudence.


Quote:

"Sheikh Muhammad Al-Munajid is an Islamic cleric......in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He is notable for his many Islamic edicts."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Muhammad_Munajid


Quote:

"Welcome to Islam Question & Answer! This site aims to provide intelligent, authoritative responses to anyones question about Islam, whether it be from a Muslim or a non-Muslim, and to help solve general and personal social problems. Responses are composed by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, a known Islamic lecturer and author."

http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/islamqapages/2



ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE EXPERT
EXAMPLE #2

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh is the ISLAMIC equivalent of 'The Archbishop of Canterbury' in Saudi Arabia.

And this is what he had to say...


Quote:

September 23, 2006 "...the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh. ...Saudi Arabia's most senior cleric also explained that war was never Islam's ancient founder, the prophet Mohammed's, first choice: "He gave three options: either accept Islam, or surrender and pay tax, and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their religion under the protection of Muslims." Thus, according to the Grand Mufti, the third option of violence against non-Muslims was only a last resort, if they refused to convert or surrender peacefully to the armies of Islam....."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20460114-601,00.html




Please, seek the truth for yourself.

Islam did spring up at the right time to develop and empire, interestingly enough, at EXACTLY the time the Roman Empire had collapsed - linked maybe?

plus or minus a few centuries

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:08am:

Islam did spring up at the right time to develop and empire, interestingly enough, at EXACTLY the time the Roman Empire had collapsed - linked maybe?

The East Romans and Persians had exhausted each other from war. The rising Islamic empire swooped in and filled the vacuum. They certainly rose at an opportune time.

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 8:13am:

plus or minus a few centuries

Nope

From the wikipedia entry:

The Western Roman Empire began to disintegrate in the early 5th century as Germanic migrations and invasions overwhelmed the capacity of the Empire to assimilate the migrants and fight off the invaders.[citation needed] The Romans were successful in fighting off all invaders, most famously Attila the Hun,[citation needed] though the Empire had assimilated so many Germanic peoples of dubious loyalty to Rome that the Empire started to dismember itself.[citation needed] Most chronologies place the end of the Western Roman Empire in 476, when Romulus Augustulus was forced to abdicate to the Germanic warlord Odoacer.[23][better source needed] By placing himself under the rule of the Eastern Emperor, rather than naming himself Emperor (as other Germanic chiefs had done after deposing past Emperors), Odoacer ended the Western Empire by ending the line of Western Emperors.[citation needed]

The empire in the East — often known as the Byzantine Empire, but referred to in its time as the Roman Empire or by various other names — had a different fate. It survived for almost a millennium after the fall of its Western counterpart and became the most stable Christian realm during the Middle Ages. During the 6th century, Justinian briefly reconquered Northern Africa and Italy, but Roman possessions in the West were reduced to southern Italy and Sicily within a few years after Justinian's death.[24] In the east, partially resulting from the destructive Plague of Justinian, the Romans were threatened by the rise of Islam, whose followers rapidly conquered the territories of Syria, Armenia and Egypt during the Byzantine-Arab Wars, and soon presented a direct threat to Constantinople.[25][26] In the following century, the Arabs also captured southern Italy and Sicily.[27] Slavic populations were also able to penetrate deep into the Balkans.

The Romans, however, managed to stop further Islamic expansion into their lands during the 8th century and, beginning in the 9th century, reclaimed parts of the conquered lands.[28] In 1000 AD, the Eastern Empire was at its height: Basileios II reconquered Bulgaria and Armenia, culture and trade flourished.[29] However, soon after the expansion was abruptly stopped in 1071 with their defeat in the Battle of Manzikert. The aftermath of this important battle sent the empire into a protracted period of decline. Two decades of internal strife and Turkic invasions ultimately paved the way for Emperor Alexius I Comnenus to send a call for help to the Western European kingdoms in 1095.[25]

The east roman empire certainly "collapsed" in terms of its occupation of the near east and its "roman" identity at the time of islam's rise. They never really recovered after losing their main bread basket of egypt. Thereafter it wasn't much more than a Greek rump state.

Let’s all do the right thing and blame Islam. The quicker we do that, the quicker we can move onto getting rid of those hideous tinted races.

Melanias purse wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 3:00pm:

Let’s all do the right thing and blame Islam. The quicker we do that, the quicker we can move onto getting rid of those hideous tinted races.

They are here to stay I'm afraid strawberry sweetcake. Stopping more coming out is our aim.

the good ole boys wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 3:03pm:

Melanias purse wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 3:00pm: Let’s all do the right thing and blame Islam. The quicker we do that, the quicker we can move onto getting rid of those hideous tinted races. They are here to stay I'm afraid strawberry sweetcake. Stopping more coming out is our aim.

I know it's our aim, Homo, but we can still aim to deport those races we hate. It is, after all, our right in a free society.

Having an aim isn't racist, shurely.

freediver wrote on Dec 13^th, 2015 at 7:59am:

Islam was an ideology invented for the purpose of building an empire.

You are quite right; Islam and all the other religions are nothing but tools for some powerful people to gain power and wealth.
You surprise me in your other post, how knowledgeable you seem to be on Roman History.

Phlegm, exclaimed,  'nope' in arguing against someting year seven history students know. The Roman Empire died in the a.r.s.e a long time before Islam became a force. I love it when people put their foot in it.

It was a copy and paste job from wikipedia.

All religions and ideologies get 'used' for wealth and/or power by manipulative people. Islam was invented for power by Muhammed.

Paste them.

freediver wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 1:14am:

Islam was invented for power by Muhammed.

Muhammad was given the offer of unlimited power in Mecca by the Pagan Quraysh if he would just cease and desist from calling the idols that the Pagans worshiped false gods and from calling people to monotheism. That would have had him the key to the Kaaba, complete control of Mecca and the pilgrims coming into it. It would have also made him even more rich, beyond belief.

Instead, he refused. That basically put his people into exile on the outskirts of Mecca and their tribulations lasted more than 10 years and struggled for the rest of his life.

If it was about power then why go through more than a decade of that?

He wanted to invent his own religion, not manage the affairs of the existing ones. He wanted the world, not Mecca. A bunch of dancing pagans were never going to give him that. They probably irritated him, going by his later mistreatment of them.

This is the first I have heard of this offer in Mecca. The story I have heard is one of endless victimhood. They mocked him and spat on him. The children laughed at him. Maybe because he sat down to pee. Even the dogs bit him - and you know what he did to them.

freediver wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 1:14am:

It was a copy and paste job from wikipedia. All religions and ideologies get 'used' for wealth and/or power by manipulative people. Islam was invented for power by Muhammed.

Blasphemy -

in Iran they would kill you.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 6:59am:

They probably irritated him, going by his later mistreatment of them.

What mistreatment FD?

Try not to confuse the pagans with the jews this time.

Some context:


Quote:

"O Quraish, what do you think of the treatment that I should accord you?" And they said, "Mercy, O Prophet of Allah. We expect nothing but good from you." Thereupon Muhammad declared: "I speak to you in the same words as Yūsuf spoke to his brothers. This day there is no reproof against you; Go your way, for you are free."[9] Muhammad's prestige grew after the surrender of the Meccans. Emissaries from all over Arabia came to Medina to accept him.[10] Ten people were ordered to be killed:[11] Ikrimah ibn Abi-Jahl, Abdullah ibn Saad ibn Abi Sarh, Habbar bin Aswad, Miqyas Subabah Laythi, Huwairath bin Nuqayd, Abdullah Hilal and four women who had been guilty of murder or other offences or had sparked off the war and disrupted the peace.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Mecca

10 people? For the conquest of the entire city? What other horrifying mistreatment did Muhammad inflict on the pagans?

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 6:59am:

He wanted to invent his own religion, not manage the affairs of the existing ones. He wanted the world, not Mecca. A bunch of dancing pagans were never going to give him that. They probably irritated him, going by his later mistreatment of them.

So he chose to endure massive persecution and years of famine and war just to suit his own interest in having a religion where he himself was still seen as a man and not worshiped and he couldn't do as he pleased rather than accept the essential kingship full of wealth and everything he could ever desire on earth of the Meccans and have all of the surrounding peoples submit to him when they came to Mecca and for what exactly? He would have known he couldn't have the world in his lifetime?

His later mistreatment of the Meccans? Do tell? When he took Mecca he didn't treat the Meccans as they treated him, he also didn't massacre all of the men and take into slavery all of the women, despite the fact that this is exactly what the pagans would have done if they took Medina.


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 6:59am:

This is the first I have heard of this offer in Mecca. The story I have heard is one of endless victimhood. They mocked him and spat on him. The children laughed at him. Maybe because he sat down to pee. Even the dogs bit him - and you know what he did to them.

A lot of Muslims look at the world from a position of victimhood, as if they are the world's most persecuted people, as if it justifies atrocities later committed by Muslims

I'm a Muslim and I'll have none of that behavior. Certainly, there are factors that lead to extremism and terrorism that we can work on but it never justifies nor mitigates the responsibility that a person must take for their actions. 

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 9:04am:

A lot of Muslims look at the world from a position of victimhood, as if they are the world's most persecuted people, as if it justifies atrocities later committed by Muslims I'm a Muslim and I'll have none of that behavior. Certainly, there are factors that lead to extremism and terrorism that we can work on but it never justifies nor mitigates the responsibility that a person must take for their actions.

A lot of non muslims say if you read the fine print in the Quran it tells you it isn't from Allah.
quran.com/4/82

So what do you consider the factors that lead muslims to become terrorists, was Tarek Fatah right in saying the doctrine of armed jihad against the kuffar is responsible?

I found this site a little bit interesting regarding this very topic...

http://www.novelguide.com/reportessay/history/general-history/religions-spread-through-conquest

"To put it bluntly, as this article does, "Islam was mainly spread through Arab territorial conquests (Sudo, 4)." However, upon examination, it is not fair to make the generalization that Islam is a religion of violence, and one notices when looking at world religion on a whole, one finds that Islam was no more violent than any other religion. In fact, not only is Islam not a fundamentally violent philosophy, but we can also see that many other religions normally considered "non-violent," such as Christianity or Hinduism, have been spread through bloody conquest. Thus, in searching for a universal constant of history, we ought not fall into the "fallacy of abstractions," as Sydney J. Harris keenly puts it, and assume that because of isolated incidents and conflicts of territorial ambitions, that all religions have violent tendencies."

I have always thought to single out just one of any specific social grouping as the antithesis of all things evil is the product of limited critical thinking...

This of course is not to say that some who profess to follow Islamic teachings do not do evil acts, clearly they do. What it clearly highlights though, we are all capable of doing evil regardless of the social, ideological and/or religious teachings we profess to follow.

To my mind, the more we endeavour to label one social grouping, the more we facilitate ongoing perpetration of evil... In short, Muslim bash all you want, BUT you are part of the problem and nothing to do with a solution...

A bit more interesting reading...

http://www.worldology.com/Christianity/rise_christianity.htm

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 10:00am:

So what do you consider the factors that lead muslims to become terrorists, was Tarek Fatah right in saying the doctrine of armed jihad against the kuffar is responsible?

To be frank with you it is an incredibly broad subject, but my experience in having worked in the field of preventing Islamic Extremism in the USA, is that at its core, mental deficiency either through a lack of development or trauma in some way or another is a major common factor in all cases.

As is the case that people who have violent tendencies and urges, will find any justification that they can to carry out violence to satisfy their urges.

Any ideology can be used by any person to justify the usurpation of the wealth and rights of others. 

Terrorism in itself is a method of warfare and the more modern assertion that it is unjustified all the time is wrong. There are some times when terrorism can most definitely be justified.

What can't be justified however is the deliberate targeting of non combatants.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 8:25am:

freediver wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 6:59am: They probably irritated him, going by his later mistreatment of them. What mistreatment FD? Try not to confuse the pagans with the jews this time. Some context: Quote: "O Quraish, what do you think of the treatment that I should accord you?" And they said, "Mercy, O Prophet of Allah. We expect nothing but good from you." Thereupon Muhammad declared: "I speak to you in the same words as Yūsuf spoke to his brothers. This day there is no reproof against you; Go your way, for you are free."[9] Muhammad's prestige grew after the surrender of the Meccans. Emissaries from all over Arabia came to Medina to accept him.[10] Ten people were ordered to be killed:[11] Ikrimah ibn Abi-Jahl, Abdullah ibn Saad ibn Abi Sarh, Habbar bin Aswad, Miqyas Subabah Laythi, Huwairath bin Nuqayd, Abdullah Hilal and four women who had been guilty of murder or other offences or had sparked off the war and disrupted the peace.[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Mecca 10 people? For the conquest of the entire city? What other horrifying mistreatment did Muhammad inflict on the pagans?

Did you know that pagans are not permitted to enter Mecca, even though it was essentially a centre for pagan ritual? That is a far greater power trip than pandering to them.

Islam gives Jews and Christians 'protected' status - effectively second class citizens. The pagans are even lower on the ladder. They were pushed out of the entire region eventually.

The capture of Mecca followed Muhammed's vulgar displays of violence in Medina. Why do Muslims hold it up as some kind of moral virtue that he was able to intimidate them into surrender? It's like a Nazi saying how wonderful Hitler was for not slaughtering everyone.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 11:16am:

Did you know that pagans are not permitted to enter Mecca, even though it was essentially a centre for pagan ritual? That is a far greater power trip than pandering to them.

Mecca was a centre for Monotheism long before it was for idol worship. 


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 11:16am:

Islam gives Jews and Christians 'protected' status - effectively second class citizens. The pagans are even lower on the ladder. They were pushed out of the entire region eventually.

This was done after Muhammad and not during his life. During his life, the non Muslim tribes that were a part of the state had equal rights and not second class citizenship.


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 11:16am:

The capture of Mecca followed Muhammed's vulgar displays of violence in Medina. Why do Muslims hold it up as some kind of moral virtue that he was able to intimidate them into surrender? It's like a Nazi saying how wonderful Hitler was for not slaughtering everyone.

So why didn't he exact vengeance on them for persecuting the Muslims so badly?

Vulgar displays? Preposterous.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 11:16am:

The capture of Mecca followed Muhammed's vulgar displays of violence in Medina. Why do Muslims hold it up as some kind of moral virtue that he was able to intimidate them into surrender? It's like a Nazi saying how wonderful Hitler was for not slaughtering everyone.

FD you specifically referred to Muhammad's mistreatment of the pagans of Mecca. Yet I just demonstrated to you that when he re-entered Mecca he chose mercy, despite their repeated attempts to annihilate him and his followers.

Lafayette - if you stick around you'll get familiar with FD's posting style - he'll come out with the most bs claim, then when its disproven he'll quietly abandon it - then some time later he'll come up with the same bs claim, but in a slightly watered down form.

Case in point - this was the claim in its original form:


freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 8:58am:

Like I said, he talked his way in, then turned into a mass murderer. When he was weak, he was polite. As soon as he gained any power he turned into a murderous lunatic. He was invited in to end the feuding. He did this by expelling and/or slaughtering all three Jewish tribes so he could turn it into a Muslim stronghold from which to rob and eventually slaughter the Meccans.

See we have gone from "slaughter" to the more watered-down "mistreatment".

Quote:

FD you specifically referred to Muhammad's mistreatment of the pagans of Mecca. Yet I just demonstrated to you that when he re-entered Mecca he chose mercy, despite their repeated attempts to annihilate him and his followers.

So what happened to those Pagans Gandalf? Do you hold Abu's delusion that they all voluntarily converted to Islam? Am I morally superior if I show you some Mercy first before driving you out of the city?

They did convert - and as far as we know they did so voluntarily. Religion was tribal and very much political in those days. The records show that the Quraish leaders converted -  it makes perfect sense that members of a tribe would follow the religious affiliations of their leaders.

But you seem to be claiming here, as you have previously, that the pagans were ethnically cleansed out of Mecca - do you stand by that? Which is it FD - were they forcibly converted or driven out? If ethnically cleansed, where did they go? Where is the record of them being driven out?

Is this what you mean by 'mistreatment' - just your confused bs about them being forcibly converted and/or ethnically cleansed - but you're not sure which?

Come now, G, fair's fair.

Sometimes a question is just a question.

Quote:

They did convert - and as far as we know they did so voluntarily. Religion was tribal and very much political in those days. The records show that the Quraish leaders converted -  it makes perfect sense that members of a tribe would follow the religious affiliations of their leaders.

Of course. And men peed sitting down.


Quote:

But you seem to be claiming here, as you have previously, that the pagans were ethnically cleansed out of Mecca - do you stand by that?

How many pagans are there in Mecca today?


Quote:

Which is it FD - were they forcibly converted or driven out? If ethnically cleansed, where did they go? Where is the record of them being driven out?

I believe Islam has records of forced mass migrations (as well as slaughters) from the region. Muhammed "predicted" that the region would be cleansed of all non-Muslims, which of course was a self fulfilling prophesy.


Quote:

Is this what you mean by 'mistreatment' - just your confused bs about them being forcibly converted and/or ethnically cleansed - but you're not sure which?

Like I keep telling you Gandalf, shariah law is mistreatment of pagans - even more so than Jews and Christians. Perhaps you could try responding to the first time I answered.

Lafayette:


Quote:

Mecca was a centre for Monotheism long before it was for idol worship.

Do you have any evidence, or do you merely mean there were so Christians and Jews there? Or do you mean that the pagans tended to choose one of the pagan Gods?


Quote:

This was done after Muhammad and not during his life. During his life, the non Muslim tribes that were a part of the state had equal rights and not second class citizenship.

Muhammed started his political career by getting rid of (mostly slaughtering) the three large Jewish tribes of Medina. Can you quote where Muhammed said anything about equal rights?


Quote:

So why didn't he exact vengeance on them for persecuting the Muslims so badly?

Political expediency? What do you think of his 'prediction' that the entire area would be cleansed of non-Muslims? Does that count as revenge?


Quote:

Vulgar displays? Preposterous.

So what do you call the execution of 800 unarmed Jews in one day? Just a little misunderstanding?

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 3:36pm:

I believe Islam has records of forced mass migrations (as well as slaughters) from the region.

Abu?

Put it in the Wiki, FD.

I believe Islam has records of forced mass migrations (as well as slaughters) from the region. By freediver.


They are still doing it.

I believe the biggest source of Jewish immigrating to Israel after WWII was the neighbouring Muslim states. While the developed world was reeling from the horrors of the holocaust, the Muslims were busy rounding them up to finish the job off. Of course, they lacked Hitler's efficiency and are still busying themselves taking knives to a gunfights.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 2:49pm:

So what happened to those Pagans Gandalf? Do you hold Abu's delusion that they all voluntarily converted to Islam? Am I morally superior if I show you some Mercy first before driving you out of the city?

That all depends on the terms of surrender. The Pagans asked for no terms whatsoever and left it all to Muhammad. They just surrendered.

When conquest occurs and you have no terms then you have no rights. If you refuse to do what the victors want then you can either leave the state or die.

The truth is though that the Pagans of Mecca had thought that their gods would save them like God saved Mecca in the Year of the Elephant but that didn't happen. The Conquest of Mecca was one primarily because the Pagans were so arrogant about their false gods that they thought themselves invincible.

It was a triumph of monotheism and the belief of the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, over polytheism and their man made deities.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 3:36pm:

I believe Islam has records of forced mass migrations (as well as slaughters) from the region.

Right, so you'll have no problem showing me the records of forced migrations from Mecca to back up your claim the pagans there were ethnically cleansed. So are we settled on the 'forced migration' version of your 'mistreatment' of the Meccan pagans? Or is it the forced coversion, or the "slaughter" version? I'm confused.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 3:42pm:

Do you have any evidence, or do you merely mean there were so Christians and Jews there? Or do you mean that the pagans tended to choose one of the pagan Gods?

Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaaba.


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 3:42pm:

Muhammed started his political career by getting rid of (mostly slaughtering) the three large Jewish tribes of Medina. Can you quote where Muhammed said anything about equal rights?

Read the Medina Compact. The Jewish tribes of Medina were not second class citizens at all. They were completely equal to Muslims in all respects under Muhammad.


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 3:42pm:

Political expediency? What do you think of his 'prediction' that the entire area would be cleansed of non-Muslims? Does that count as revenge?

Of non Muslims or their beliefs?


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 3:42pm:

So what do you call the execution of 800 unarmed Jews in one day? Just a little misunderstanding?

Punishment the state has the right to mete out to those guilty of treason against the state.

They were citizens of the State that swore an oath to the state and instead of leaving the state and renouncing that oath to fight it from outside, they decided to assist the Pagans from Mecca during the Battle of the Trench and attacked the State from within, almost causing the battle to be lost.

Many states even today punish treason with the death penalty.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 3:49pm:

While the developed world was reeling from the horrors of the holocaust, the Muslims were busy rounding them up to finish the job off

Right, so they rounded them up to gas them... but accidentally sent them on planes to leave the country?

Quote:

That all depends on the terms of surrender. The Pagans asked for no terms whatsoever and left it all to Muhammad. They just surrendered.

They had learnt from Muhammed's previous negotiations that any conditions would be meaningless anyway. Muhammed just proclaimed some excuse to kick them out or slaughter entire tribes. They were probably just hoping they wouldn't die.


Quote:

When conquest occurs and you have no terms then you have no rights. If you refuse to do what the victors want then you can either leave the state or die.

I see you are familiar with Islam already.


Quote:

The truth is though that the Pagans of Mecca had thought that their gods would save them like God saved Mecca in the Year of the Elephant but that didn't happen. The Conquest of Mecca was one primarily because the Pagans were so arrogant about their false gods that they thought themselves invincible.

;D So invincible they should surrender to their enemies?


Quote:

It was a triumph of monotheism and the belief of the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, over polytheism and their man made deities.

Hi Abu.


Quote:

Right, so you'll have no problem showing me the records of forced migrations from Mecca to back up your claim the pagans there were ethnically cleansed. So are we settled on the 'forced migration' version of your 'mistreatment' of the Meccan pagans? Or is it the forced coversion, or the "slaughter" version? I'm confused.

I would consider all to be mistreatment Gandalf. If you find it too confusing, I will stop providing examples for you.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 3:49pm:

I believe the biggest source of Jewish immigrating to Israel after WWII was the neighbouring Muslim states. While the developed world was reeling from the horrors of the holocaust, the Muslims were busy rounding them up to finish the job off. Of course, they lacked Hitler's efficiency and are still busying themselves taking knives to a gunfights.

Actually the biggest source of migration to Israel after WW2 was from the Soviet Union, the former Soviet Union and also from Ethiopia. Not as much from Muslim states.

Perhaps you should check your facts.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:02pm:

They had learnt from Muhammed's previous negotiations that any conditions would be meaningless anyway. Muhammed just proclaimed some excuse to kick them out or slaughter entire tribes. They were probably just hoping they wouldn't die.

Didn't work like that.


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:02pm:

I see you are familiar with Islam already.

That's the case with all conquest. Submit, leave or die.


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:02pm:

;D So invincible they should surrender to their enemies?

Well when their idols didn't save their butts that would certainly shake their faith to the core and make them surrender.


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:02pm:

Hi Abu.

I'm not your father.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:02pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 3:49pm: I believe the biggest source of Jewish immigrating to Israel after WWII was the neighbouring Muslim states. While the developed world was reeling from the horrors of the holocaust, the Muslims were busy rounding them up to finish the job off. Of course, they lacked Hitler's efficiency and are still busying themselves taking knives to a gunfights. Actually the biggest source of migration to Israel after WW2 was from the Soviet Union, the former Soviet Union and also from Ethiopia. Not as much from Muslim states. Perhaps you should check your facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries

The Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries or Jewish exodus from Arab countries (Hebrew: יציאת יהודים ממדינות ערב‎, Yetziat yehudim mi-medinot Arav; Arabic: هجرة اليهود من الدول العربية والإسلامية‎ hijrat al-yahūd min ad-duwal al-'Arabīyah wal-Islāmīyah) was the departure, flight, evacuation and migration, of 850,000 Jews,[1][2] primarily of Sephardi and Mizrahi background, from Arab and Muslim countries, mainly from 1948 to the early 1970s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

Consequently, the population of Israel rose from 800,000 to two million between 1948 and 1958.[169] Between 1948 and 1970, approximately 1,150,000 Jewish refugees relocated to Israel.


Quote:

Didn't work like that.

Yes, I am sure the slaughter of the third tribe and expulsion and attacks on the first two completely escaped their attention. After all, these were pagans, incapable of learning until they converted to Islam. Only then did they understand Muhammed's plan.


Quote:

That's the case with all conquest. Submit, leave or die.

Islam literally means submission. But the choice is implicit.


Quote:

Well when their idols didn't save their butts that would certainly shake their faith to the core and make them surrender.

So despite surrendering unconditionally, they were still expecting their idols to 'save' them?

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:07pm:

The Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries or Jewish exodus from Arab countries (Hebrew: יציאת יהודים ממדינות ערב‎, Yetziat yehudim mi-medinot Arav; Arabic: هجرة اليهود من الدول العربية والإسلامية‎ hijrat al-yahūd min ad-duwal al-'Arabīyah wal-Islāmīyah) was the departure, flight, evacuation and migration, of 850,000 Jews,[1][2] primarily of Sephardi and Mizrahi background, from Arab and Muslim countries, mainly from 1948 to the early 1970s. Consequently, the population of Israel rose from 800,000 to two million between 1948 and 1958.[169] Between 1948 and 1970, approximately 1,150,000 Jewish refugees relocated to Israel.

That's still not more than the migration from the then Soviet Union and later Former Soviet Union.

I'll also remind you that the Jewish people lived longer and in more peace in the Muslim world than they did at the hands of Europeans


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:07pm:

Yes, I am sure the slaughter of the third tribe and expulsion and attacks on the first two completely escaped their attention. After all, these were pagans, incapable of learning until they converted to Islam. Only then did they understand Muhammed's plan.

The Pagans were far worse so it's not like they would have been shocked by anything that Muhammad did.



Quote:

That's the case with all conquest. Submit, leave or die.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:07pm:

Islam literally means submission. But the choice is implicit.

Submission to God, not to man.


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:07pm:

So despite surrendering unconditionally, they were still expecting their idols to 'save' them?

They surrendered unconditionally when their idols didn't save them.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:02pm:

If you find it too confusing, I will stop providing examples for you.

Good idea FD - you haven't provided any examples, but never mind, as long as you don't have to actually substantiate a claim.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 3:42pm:

Muhammed started his political career by getting rid of (mostly slaughtering) the three large Jewish tribes of Medina. Can you quote where Muhammed said anything about equal rights?

Why would you even bother with this line FD?

Your whole narrative, for as long as I've been here, has always been that Muhammad used deceit to win over the jews while he was weak, and then used their trust to bide his time and become more powerful - and then finally when he was powerful enough, slaughtered them as he had always intended to. With this narrative, surely you would expect Muhammad to sweet talk the jews with talk of equality and such no?

Quote:

I'll also remind you that the Jewish people lived longer and in more peace in the Muslim world than they did at the hands of Europeans

What was the typical life expectancy?


Quote:

The Pagans were far worse so it's not like they would have been shocked by anything that Muhammad did.

So they knew it was coming, surrendered anyway, yet still expect their Gods to save them from Muhammed?


Quote:

Submission to God, not to man.

And who is God's rep that you submit to? Muhammed, or the Caliph. If this were to be taken literally, Islam would have no political component. Islam pays it mere lip service, like it does to every noble concept.


Quote:

They surrendered unconditionally when their idols didn't save them.

After ten of them died?


Quote:

Your whole narrative, for as long as I've been here, has always been that Muhammad used deceit to win over the jews while he was weak, and then used their trust to bide his time and become more powerful - and then finally when he was powerful enough, slaughtered them as he had always intended to.

Yep, that is pretty much what happened. Islam is full of peace and love from the time when Muhammed was in a position of weakness. It is full of hate and murder from the time he came to power.


Quote:

With this narrative, surely you would expect Muhammad to sweet talk the jews with talk of equality and such no?

Is this not what the various treaties were about? I expect he did exaclty this. But to a Muslim, equality does not preclude such slaughter. The devil is in the details, you see.

Actually, maybe that is giving Muhammed too much credit. Muhammed "sweet talked" the Jews by telling them he is their prophet, that they actually already know this, and then threatening them if they did not come to their senses with the same fate as a previous tribe he expelled and attacked.

After all, if he talked of equality, there was always a risk his followers might choose to take him seriously.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:42pm:

What was the typical life expectancy?

Not any less than a Muslim's.


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:42pm:

So they knew it was coming, surrendered anyway, yet still expect their Gods to save them from Muhammed?

Contrary to what you think they probably didn't think they'd all be massacred (despite the fact that this is what they'd have done) because they knew of Muhammad's mercy. Otherwise why not fight?


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:42pm:

And who is God's rep that you submit to? Muhammed, or the Caliph. If this were to be taken literally, Islam would have no political component. Islam pays it mere lip service, like it does to every noble concept.

The Qur'an says that all mankind is God's vicegerent.

People, particularly those that wish to use Islam as a force to control people will argue that a Caliph is supposed to be the sole ruler but that is not consistent with the Qur'an nor the Sunnah.


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:42pm:

After ten of them died?

Facing an army of 10,000 Muslims and only 10 Pagans died.

Quote:

Not any less than a Muslim's.

Let's just make it up as we go along, shall we?


Quote:

Contrary to what you think they probably didn't think they'd all be massacred

And they weren't. Threatening people with a sword can be far more useful than cutting their throat with it. But either way, Islam was spread by the sword.


Quote:

despite the fact that this is what they'd have done

Actually, it was highly unusual for the time. I think Gandalf managed to find one example that was sort of contemporary.


Quote:

because they knew of Muhammad's mercy

;D Is this a reference to his recent slaughter of an entire Jewish tribe because some considered allying themselves with the Meccans?


Quote:

Otherwise why not fight?

You really don't understand this do you? It was the same way every other military empire spread across the ancient world. Not by slaughtering everyone in their path. That just makes people fight you harder.


Quote:

The Qur'an says that all mankind is God's vicegerent.

I guess it must be ture then.


Quote:

People, particularly those that wish to use Islam as a force to control people will argue that a Caliph is supposed to be the sole ruler but that is not consistent with the Qur'an nor the Sunnah.

Even the most lopsided dictatorship is a team effort. Don't mistake this for virtue (unless you are a muslim, in which case it is compulsory).


Quote:

Facing an army of 10,000 Muslims and only 10 Pagans died.

So make up your mind. Did their idols save them or not? You are the one spinning BS about how spreading Islam by the sword is actually a demonstration of which is the one true religion.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:42pm:

So they knew it was coming, surrendered anyway, yet still expect their Gods to save them from Muhammed?

Evidently Muhammad saved them from Muhammad.

You've never really reconciled the Mecca conquest with your narrative FD - wasn't the Banu Qurayza incident supposed to herald the new norm in Muhammad's rule - rape, pillage, slaughter wherever he went? And yet here he is - an army of 10 thousand, conquers his arch enemy the Quraysh (the ones who chased him out of Mecca in the first place), secures their unconditional surrender - he could do whatever he wants with them.  And what does he do? Grants mercy.

...or are we still going with the ethnic cleansing version which no one else has ever heard of?

Quote:

You've never really reconciled the Mecca conquest with your narrative FD

Except of course, for my last few posts. But I suppose you mean my other narrative. Let me know what that is, and I'll do my best.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 6:20pm:

Let's just make it up as we go along, shall we?

Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 6:20pm:

And they weren't. Threatening people with a sword can be far more useful than cutting their throat with it. But either way, Islam was spread by the sword.

No, if Islam was spread by the sword, there wouldn't have been Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists living under Muslim empires. Instead, like when Christianity spread, the non Christian inhabitants of the places conquered by Christian empires would have been killed if they didn't convert.


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 6:20pm:

Actually, it was highly unusual for the time. I think Gandalf managed to find one example that was sort of contemporary.

It wasn't unusual for the time, it was common practice amongst the Arabs to slaughter the men of a tribe and take the women and children into slavery.


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 6:20pm:

;D Is this a reference to his recent slaughter of an entire Jewish tribe because some considered allying themselves with the Meccans?

Muhammad didn't judge them for their crimes. They asked for another judge and were granted that specific judge, who was a scholar of Jewish law. He judged them according to their own laws.

Had Muhammad been their judge he probably would have just exiled them like he did the other two tribes.


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 6:20pm:

You really don't understand this do you? It was the same way every other military empire spread across the ancient world. Not by slaughtering everyone in their path. That just makes people fight you harder.

So you're asserting that Muhammad treated the pagans so badly, but he didn't massacre them and now you're faulting him for that? LOL.


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 6:20pm:

I guess it must be ture then.

You're talking about Islam, I'm telling you what the Qur'an says. Truth is often separate from facts.


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 6:20pm:

Even the most lopsided dictatorship is a team effort. Don't mistake this for virtue (unless you are a muslim, in which case it is compulsory).

Again, you're just engaging in hyperbole.


freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 6:20pm:

So make up your mind. Did their idols save them or not? You are the one spinning BS about how spreading Islam by the sword is actually a demonstration of which is the one true religion.

Again, if Islam was spread by the sword then people would have been forced to convert to Islam or killed and we know that this isn't the case because Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists all were able to practice their religions under 'Islamic' rule. Islam spread mostly through trade.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 6:30pm:

Quote: You've never really reconciled the Mecca conquest with your narrative FD Except of course, for my last few posts. But I suppose you mean my other narrative. Let me know what that is, and I'll do my best.

But, FD, your other narrative is that the Muselman has always been out to take away the Freeeeedoms of decent white people everywhere.

Always absolutely never ever.

And to reinforce this narrative, we must engage in an all-out propaganda war, smearing Muslims, rewriting history and spreading porkies at every turn. You know this. We all do.

It’s the post-2007 narrative, after you discovered Freeeedom. And as we all know, to defend Freeeeedom, we must overturn every Western value we’ve adopted since the Enlightenment: truth, justice, religious freedom, the lot.

The price of Freeeeedom is eternal vigilance, no?

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 6:30pm:

Except of course, for my last few posts. But I suppose you mean my other narrative. Let me know what that is, and I'll do my best.

so I take it we're sticking with the 'driven out of Mecca' version?

If you could just show me the historical evidence of that actually happening, that'd be super.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 7:38am:

freediver wrote Yesterday at 6:20pm: You really don't understand this do you? It was the same way every other military empire spread across the ancient world. Not by slaughtering everyone in their path. That just makes people fight you harder. So you're asserting that Muhammad treated the pagans so badly, but he didn't massacre them and now you're faulting him for that? LOL.

No one really knows what FD is asserting - FD doesn't even know what FD is asserting. First it was a massacre, then it was expulsion from the city, then it was forceful conversion. FD is actually trying to maintaining all three at once - hopping from one to another while refusing to dismiss any of them.

Or maybe FD is ready to come clean - would you like to disown any of them now FD? Given that you are now arguing about the sinister nature of Muhammad staying his hand against the Meccans - surely we can at least dismiss the massacre version yes?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 8:32am:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 7:38am: freediver wrote Yesterday at 6:20pm: You really don't understand this do you? It was the same way every other military empire spread across the ancient world. Not by slaughtering everyone in their path. That just makes people fight you harder. So you're asserting that Muhammad treated the pagans so badly, but he didn't massacre them and now you're faulting him for that? LOL. No one really knows what FD is asserting - FD doesn't even know what FD is asserting. First it was a massacre, then it was expulsion from the city, then it was forceful conversion. FD is actually trying to maintaining all three at once - hopping from one to another while refusing to dismiss any of them. Or maybe FD is ready to come clean - would you like to disown any of them now FD? Given that you are now arguing about the sinister nature of Muhammad staying his hand against the Meccans - surely we can at least dismiss the massacre version yes?

I get the feeling that FD just hates things that he doesn't understand and learns by having an opinion, voicing that opinion and letting people show him the lack of logic and reason in it, and so he just keeps letting his opinions evolve continuing this process and maybe he'll eventually hove some more properly evolved thinking that is less based on hate and ignorance and more based on logic and reason.

FD evolving? Good heavens no - for FD the doors of ijtihad have been firmly closed since 2007. His purpose here is not to learn or understand, its to score points. As you can see, he does that by dissecting your post up and giving inane one line "replies" to isolated sentences - completely losing track of the overall argument. Thats how he's able to do things like maintaining three different version of the fate of the Meccans simultaneously.

What is interesting though is to look back on his pre-2008 posts, and you'll actually see a reasonable person saying perfectly reasonable things on the subject. Things like cautioning against tarring all muslims with the same brush, and opining that terrorism has far more to do with the politics of the middle east, than it does with anything innate in Islamic theology. But all those thoughts have been ruthlessly exorcised from post-2007 FD. Any such talk is spineless apologism that must be ruthlessly hunted down and mocked. You know he even created a thread dedicated to naming and shaming such talk - its called "spineless apologetics".

Now now, you two. If FD is a devout disciple of devolution, that is his right in a free society. If FD wants to regress to an atavistic, tribal and even pre-literate stage of human development, we must all respect this. FD does have rights, you know.

We may not agree with what FD has to say, but we'll fight to the death for his right to say it, no?

You have to be careful reading thread titles.
I looked at this and what I saw at first glance was: Was Islam spread by Karnal

I'm sure Karnal has spread things from time to time but I doubt if it was anything as infectious as Islam

bogarde73 wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 10:36am:

You have to be careful reading thread titles. I looked at this and what I saw at first glance was: Was Islam spread by Karnal

Sometimes a question is just a question, Bogie.

Quote:

Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?

Sure. Let's start with the 800 Jews Muhammed slaughtered in one day in order to cement his control over Medina. Do you think this shortened their life expectancy? Or does that one not count because they deserved it, on account of them being scheming Jews?


Quote:

No, if Islam was spread by the sword, there wouldn't have been Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists living under Muslim empires.

Let's dumb it down a bit. Spread by the sword does not mean spread by executing every non-believer. That sort of thing makes political expansion of the empire complicated. By the way, they did ethnically cleanse large areas around Mecca of all non-Muslims.


Quote:

It wasn't unusual for the time, it was common practice amongst the Arabs to slaughter the men of a tribe and take the women and children into slavery.

Can you cite some evidence?


Quote:

Muhammad didn't judge them for their crimes. They asked for another judge and were granted that specific judge, who was a scholar of Jewish law. He judged them according to their own laws.

Sure. Just like the Nazis didn't gas the Jews and knock the gold teeth out of the corpses. It was their fellow Jews who did all that nasty work. Kind of clever of the Nazis don't you think, to maintain their moral superiority like that but still get the job done? I wonder where they got that idea from...


Quote:

So you're asserting that Muhammad treated the pagans so badly, but he didn't massacre them and now you're faulting him for that? LOL.

I am not 'faulting' him for not slaughtering them. I am just trying to point out the obvious to you.


Quote:

Again, you're just engaging in hyperbole.

So can you explain what this "no such thing as an Islamic Caliph" bit is about then?




Quote:

so I take it we're sticking with the 'driven out of Mecca' version?

Non-Muslims are banned from Mecca Gandalf. I'm sure we deserved it for some reason....


Quote:

If you could just show me the historical evidence of that actually happening, that'd be super.

What's wrong with the cases I have already presented? You seem to be confused by me presenting examples of more than one strategy at a time.


Quote:

No one really knows what FD is asserting - FD doesn't even know what FD is asserting. First it was a massacre, then it was expulsion from the city, then it was forceful conversion.

It was all of these things Gandalf. I am asserting that Islam was spread by the sword. There is no clearer case of this than Islam.

This seemed relevant to throw up once again...


Phemanderac wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 10:25am:

"To put it bluntly, as this article does, "Islam was mainly spread through Arab territorial conquests (Sudo, 4)." However, upon examination, it is not fair to make the generalization that Islam is a religion of violence, and one notices when looking at world religion on a whole, one finds that Islam was no more violent than any other religion. In fact, not only is Islam not a fundamentally violent philosophy, but we can also see that many other religions normally considered "non-violent," such as Christianity or Hinduism, have been spread through bloody conquest. Thus, in searching for a universal constant of history, we ought not fall into the "fallacy of abstractions," as Sydney J. Harris keenly puts it, and assume that because of isolated incidents and conflicts of territorial ambitions, that all religions have violent tendencies." http://www.novelguide.com/reportessay/history/general-history/religions-spread-through-conquest

It seems to me that neither side of this little topic is being entirely consistent with the whole truth...

Clearly, the sword was at least one instrument used to spread the word...Clearly though, ALL words have been spread, in part at least, with the sword (or its technological equivalent...)

freediver wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 12:57pm:

What's wrong with the cases I have already presented? You seem to be confused by me presenting examples of more than one strategy at a time.

There have been no cases FD - you mention the banu Qurayza ad-nauseum as you always do, but they were jews. Thats literally the only case you presented. But we are talking about pagans. At least be honest - you have cited no cases of pagans being slaughtered or ethnically cleansed by Muhammad. Zip, zilch.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 1:20pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 12:57pm: What's wrong with the cases I have already presented? You seem to be confused by me presenting examples of more than one strategy at a time. There have been no cases FD - you mention the banu Qurayza ad-nauseum as you always do, but they were jews. Thats literally the only case you presented. But we are talking about pagans. At least be honest - you have cited no cases of pagans being slaughtered or ethnically cleansed by Muhammad. Zip, zilch.

And we'll fight to the death for FD's right to do so.

Freeeedom, innit.

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 1:12pm:

Clearly, the sword was at least one instrument used to spread the word...Clearly though, ALL words have been spread, in part at least, with the sword (or its technological equivalent...)

I would say more accurately that new "words" as you put it - as in religions or cultures or even philosophies - ride on the back of the existing bureaucratic structures of the society they are replacing or imposing themselves on. Alexander the Great placed Greek culture on top of the still intact Persian machinery of government, christianity spread courtesy of the efficient transport and communication infrastructure of the Roman Empire - and Islam sat on top of the remnants of two once great empires that controlled most of the middle east.

In regards to Islam, what tends to get ignored amongst the hysteria is the fact that when muslim armies captured key centres like Damascus or Jerusalem, they were not fighting to overthrow a grassroot native regime or society - in the case of these two cities, they were fighting another foreign regime, controlled from Constantinople. For the actual natives, they were simply seeing the handing over of their city from one foreign occupier to another. But still, there is no question that the treatment of the locals was significantly better under the muslims. Regarding the spread of the religion amongst the populations, the caliphate actually had an economic interest in having a large population of non-muslims, who paid the jizya tax (in lieu of the zakat tax for muslims). In return the dhimmis were afforded rights to practice their religion and were protected subjects of the state. Also they were not required to join the military. Inevitably though most of the population adopted islam through osmosis, with significant minorities of jews, christians and Zoroastrians remaining.

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 1:12pm:

Clearly, the sword was at least one instrument used to spread the word...Clearly though, ALL words have been spread, in part at least, with the sword (or its technological equivalent...)

Generally when people talk about a religion being spread by the sword, they mean that people were forced to convert or die or leave. The Islamic empires may have spread through military conquest, as all others did. But Islam as a religion was not forced on the inhabitants of those places. Islam forbids this very unequivocally in the Qur'an.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 2:42pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 1:12pm: Clearly, the sword was at least one instrument used to spread the word...Clearly though, ALL words have been spread, in part at least, with the sword (or its technological equivalent...) Generally when people talk about a religion being spread by the sword, they mean that people were forced to convert or die or leave. The Islamic empires may have spread through military conquest, as all others did. But Islam as a religion was not forced on the inhabitants of those places. Islam forbids this very unequivocally in the Qur'an.

Wait until Moses and Yadda have their way with you, Lafayette. They'll give you every quote on Jihadwatch and Islamthereligionofpeace. They're quite generous that way.

Moslem == a follower of Islam.

Google: every Moslem is a latent wannabe homicidal maniac.

Merry Christmas, Lafayette.

Melanias purse wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 2:59pm:

Wait until Moses and Yadda have their way with you, Lafayette.

A picnic compared to the mind-numbingly stupid circular routine FD will put him through.

Melanias purse wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 2:59pm:

[ Wait until Moses and Yadda have their way with you, Lafayette. They'll give you every quote on Jihadwatch and Islamthereligionofpeace. They're quite generous that way. Moslem == a follower of Islam. Google: every Moslem is a latent wannabe homicidal maniac. Merry Christmas, Lafayette.

Merry Christmas to you, too.  8-)

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:22pm:

I'll also remind you that the Jewish people lived longer and in more peace in the Muslim world than they did at the hands of Europeans

4000 jews were killed by muslims in a single day, Granada massacre 1066 Al Andulus.

Is that an example of living longer and in peace?

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 7:38am:

No, if Islam was spread by the sword, there wouldn't have been Christians, Jews... It wasn't unusual for the time, it was common practice amongst the Arabs to slaughter the men of a tribe and take the women and children into slavery.

Sheik Munajid said Islam was spread by the sword in the link in the OP, are we to believe your nonsense or what Sheik Munajid says?

The Persian Cyrus the Great outlawed slavery around 530BC, slavery returned to Persia after the Islamic conquest of Persia.

When $Profit Mo was telling muslims not to bury their daughters alive did Persia have a female ruler?

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 4:12pm:

The Persian Cyrus the Great outlawed slavery around 530BC, slavery returned to Persia after the Islamic conquest of Persia.

No Baron, slavery returned to Persia during the Sassinid period - hundreds of years before Islam came along. This has been pointed out to you before.


Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 4:06pm:

4000 jews were killed by muslims in a single day, Granada massacre 1066 Al Andulus. Is that an example of living longer and in peace?

Compared to the European treatment - yes it is.

Baron did the jews fleeing the Christian conquerors of Spain find refuge in muslim lands?

Quote:

There have been no cases FD - you mention the banu Qurayza ad-nauseum as you always do, but they were jews.

Scheming Jews, no less.


Quote:

Thats literally the only case you presented.

What about Mecca, does that count? After all, we were talking about Mecca, the city that non-Muslims are now forbidden from.


Quote:

But we are talking about pagans.

They are non-Muslims too.


Quote:

At least be honest - you have cited no cases of pagans being slaughtered or ethnically cleansed by Muhammad. Zip, zilch

.

I also cited his 'prediction' that the entire area would be cleansed of all non-muslims. All of these examples I have presented, and you have ignored, except to use them as evidence of me of changing my mind.


Quote:

In regards to Islam, what tends to get ignored amongst the hysteria is the fact that when muslim armies captured key centres like Damascus or Jerusalem

Doesn't sound like spreading Islam by the sword at all, does it?


Quote:

In return the dhimmis were afforded rights to practice their religion

So why is Islamic law so hostile to pagans?


Quote:

Also they were not required to join the military. Inevitably though most of the population adopted islam through osmosis

What about Muslim men capturing lots of female slaves and wives? Or is that what you mean by osmosis?


Quote:

Generally when people talk about a religion being spread by the sword, they mean that people were forced to convert or die or leave.

Or remain as second class citzens. Islam spread behind the borders of the rapidly expanding Caliphate, by 'osmosis' as Gandalf likes to put it. The Caliphate did not spread by people adopting the religion then joining the political state. Generally, when people talk about spreading religion by the sword, they mean exactly what the Caliphate did. Nothing lives up to the


Quote:

The Islamic empires may have spread through military conquest, as all others did.

You say this to equate it to other religions, yet what was the "Christian" empire? Most historical Christian empires fought other Christian empires and nations, well after the religion had already spread there. It was not until the discovery of the new world that Christianity spread on the back of a political expansion. When Jesus died, he had a handful of followers. When Muhammed died, he was running a rapidly expanding empire. The spread of Islam by the sword is the example set by Muhammed and written in to the Koran and Hadith, and the example followed by later Muslims.


Quote:

But Islam as a religion was not forced on the inhabitants of those places. Islam forbids this very unequivocally in the Qur'an.

Except where it explicitly encourages it. Even Gandalf cites examples of people faced with a choice of converting to Islam or dying. He also cites the example of the Islamic state discriminating against non-Muslims economically, backed up by the sword. Islam is equally at ease offering non-Muslims a slow death or a fast one.

You haven’t mentioned the 800 Jews killed in a day yet, FD.

Are you trying to tease us?

freediver wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 10:38pm:

I also cited his 'prediction'

Yes we know FD - you have no examples. Thanks for confirming.


freediver wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 10:38pm:

Or remain as second class citzens. Islam spread behind the borders of the rapidly expanding Caliphate, by 'osmosis' as Gandalf likes to put it. The Caliphate did not spread by people adopting the religion then joining the political state. Generally, when people talk about spreading religion by the sword, they mean exactly what the Caliphate did.

Christianity spread by banning and persecuting pagans by successive Roman emperors and forcing them to convert - at that time still the vast majority of the population. Thats what I would call 'spreading religion by the sword'. In stark contrast the muslim conquerors permitted their subjects to retain their religion and had rights of worship - but according to you thats somehow a most heinous instance of spreading religion by the sword.

Quote:

In stark contrast the muslim conquerors permitted their subjects to retain their religion and had rights of worship

Does that include pagan subjects Gandalf? Do you concede that they were treated even worse than Jews and Christians under Shariah law?

Also, you cited earlier some examples of small numbers of Jews who escaped Muhammed's slaughter of the last big tribe in Medina, on condition they 'support' the Islamic State. What exactly did that 'support' involve?

We're talking about dhimis FD - you were making the case that the system of dhimitude was somehow 'spreading Islam by the sword' - remember?


freediver wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 10:38pm:

Or remain as second class citzens. Islam spread behind the borders of the rapidly expanding Caliphate, by 'osmosis' as Gandalf likes to put it. The Caliphate did not spread by people adopting the religion then joining the political state. Generally, when people talk about spreading religion by the sword, they mean exactly what the Caliphate did. Nothing lives up to the

By the way, nothing lives up to the... what?

Were you about to say that nothing lives up to the horrendous barbarity of the way Islam spread - but then you remembered the way christianity was spread, by mass persecution of the pagans in the Roman Empire - and you realised it was a pretty tall order, even for you, to compare that favourably to the muslims allowing freedom of religion in their empire?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 12:37pm:

By the way, nothing lives up to the... what? Were you about to say that nothing lives up to the horrendous barbarity of the way Islam spread - but then you remembered the way christianity was spread, by mass persecution of the pagans in the Roman Empire - and you realised it was a pretty tall order, even for you, to compare that favourably to the muslims allowing freedom of religion in their empire?

Now, that's a question.

Only FD could argue that an official state policy of protecting freedom of religion, including houses of worship - amounts to spreading religion by the sword.

Quote:

We're talking about dhimis FD - you were making the case that the system of dhimitude was somehow 'spreading Islam by the sword' - remember?

Sure. The sword is how they became dhimmis, or slaves. So how does it work Gandalf? The Muslims invade, take all the women that they want as wives (up to 4) and the rest as slaves. The female slaves can win their freedom by bearing their owner a son, who is of course a Muslim and belongs to the father. But hey, the mother is free to do as she pleases now, right? Even practice her religion, so long as it is not paganism?

Is this what you mean by Osmosis Gandalf? If you cannot chop the paganism out of them, or talk it out of them, you breed it out of them? And of course, it is all voluntary, like the time those Jews escaped from their tribe just before Muhammed slaughtered it?


Quote:

Only FD could argue that an official state policy of protecting freedom of religion, including houses of worship - amounts to spreading religion by the sword.

Does this include paganism Gandalf? What about that pagan house of worship in the middle of Mecca? How is it protected?

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 7:05pm:

And of course, it is all voluntary, like the time those Jews escaped from their tribe just before Muhammed slaughtered it?

Thanks, FD, we were all waiting for that one. An oldie but a goodie.

Another request if I may - that scheming Jew Moh tortured for his gold.

Tell us that one, and you’ll have covered every point you’ve made in 8 years.

And in only 6 pages too. Not even the Wiki’s that concise.

If you tell us about the scheming Jew, you can spend the next 20 pages asking Lafayette and G questions. Who knows?

They may even confess.

Do you think Islam was spread by the sword?

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 9:36pm:

Do you think Islam was spread by the sword?

Are you trying to make it to the 7th page?

The massacres and forced evictions of Pagans in Arabia - by Freediver.

synopsis:

1. the execution of 10 people after the conquest of Mecca
2. a "prediction" that paganism would be wiped out from Arabia
3. The execution of the Banu Qurayza - who were... um... non-pagan.

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 7:05pm:

Sure. The sword is how they became dhimmis, or slaves.

They had been subjects of a foreign ruler before Islam came - thats the point I made before. When the muslims came, they simply passed from one ruler to another - but there is no question that under their muslim rulers they were treated far better, and had far more religious freedoms. Syriac christians, for example, were persecuted by the East Romans for their rejection of the Council of Chalcedon, and the East Romans were particularly brutal against the jews - banning them from Jerusalem. When the muslims overthrew the Romans, the rights for all christians were restored, and the very first order by the Caliph after capturing Jerusalem (bloodlessly), was to allow jews back in and opened their temple. I'm not aware of any widespread enslavement of the conquered people - but I do know that there are repeated references to terms of surrender that specifically ruled out enslavement. And of course, there were no pagans, so the issue of what to do with them never came up.

And if you look at the actual terms of the surrender of all the major cities - Damascus, Jerusalem, Alexandria etc - they are remarkably generous- no enslavement, religious rights retained and always safe passage for people who didn't want to live under muslim rule. The final proof in the pudding is seen in the beginning of the Islamic Golden Age. You'll remember that you and Soren and others are always keen to point out that the bulk of the scholarship that propelled this intellectual age was done by non-muslims. While not true (the intellectual age was inspired and led by arabs - as Soren once proved in a source he tried to use to prove the opposite), it is absolutely true that the christian and jewish scholarly tradition experienced an unprecedented boom under the caliphate, and they were an instrumental part of the intellectual flowering under Islamic rule. Indeed - how these poor oppressed dhimis suffered.

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 7:05pm:

What about that pagan house of worship in the middle of Mecca?

There simply would not be many (if any) pagan houses of worship anywhere, pagans tended to worship nature and not make religious buildings all  that often.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 2:42pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 1:12pm: Clearly, the sword was at least one instrument used to spread the word...Clearly though, ALL words have been spread, in part at least, with the sword (or its technological equivalent...) Generally when people talk about a religion being spread by the sword, they mean that people were forced to convert or die or leave. The Islamic empires may have spread through military conquest, as all others did. But Islam as a religion was not forced on the inhabitants of those places. Islam forbids this very unequivocally in the Qur'an.

No, that's not entirely consistent. At times religion was not forced and at other times it was...

Islam honestly is not so very different to any other faith at the end of the day. All the best "lessons" under the sun are only as good as the individual people acting on them, living by them, interpreting them and/or thinking it their business to spread them to others. That's a big part of my personal overall problem with organised religion.

All faiths and ideologies have, at some level at the very least, been spread by the sword or eradicated by it.

It is a major sign of the human races immaturity as a species that we can debate one brand of bloody minded violence as being better, more worthy or just than another brand of the same bloody minded violence.

Now that can hardly be all the fault of Islam.

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 7:59am:

freediver wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 7:05pm: What about that pagan house of worship in the middle of Mecca? There simply would not be many (if any) pagan houses of worship anywhere, pagans tended to worship nature and not make religious buildings all  that often.

He's referring to the Kaaba which had all the idols removed and became the central shrine of Islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 7:26am:

The massacres and forced evictions of Pagans in Arabia - by Freediver. synopsis: 1. the execution of 10 people after the conquest of Mecca 2. a "prediction" that paganism would be wiped out from Arabia 3. The execution of the Banu Qurayza - who were... um... non-pagan.

This is good Gandalf, well done. More than one example at a time. However, you left out the bit where they actually fulfilled Muhammed's prediction. You left out the status of pagans as even lower than Jews and Christians.

Now that you have gotten your head around that, here is a list of some of Muhammed's efforts to spread Islam by the sword:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad

The last one on the list:

May 632 [336]      Invade Palestine and attack Moab and Darum[337]      
Local population "slaughtered" by Muslims, "destroying, burning and taking as many captives as they could"

The second last one:

April 632 [322]      Demolish the Temple of Dhul Khalasa worshipped by the Bajila and Khatham tribes[333]      
300 killed by Muslims

Is the destruction of this temple an example of the "protection" offered to houses of worship you were going on about earlier? Do you think this lends proper Islamic support for the modern destruction of great monuments we see being carried out by Muslims?


Quote:

He's referring to the Kaaba which had all the idols removed and became the central shrine of Islam.

Were they removed for their own protection Gandalf?


Quote:

Islam honestly is not so very different to any other faith at the end of the day. All the best "lessons" under the sun are only as good as the individual people acting on them, living by them, interpreting them and/or thinking it their business to spread them to others. That's a big part of my personal overall problem with organised religion.

Good point Phem. Take Muhammed for example. His religion is all peace and freedom, as Gandalf so keenly points out. But Muhammed was more into the rape and pillage side of things. Yet for some reason his actions in particular always reflect badly on Islam.


Quote:

It is a major sign of the human races immaturity as a species that we can debate one brand of bloody minded violence as being better, more worthy or just than another brand of the same bloody minded violence. Now that can hardly be all the fault of Islam.

Are you suggesting that Islam is a "brand" of bloody minded violence, and it is immature to ask whether it is better or worse than others?

Gandalf you never explained what you meant by Osmosis. Did you make that up, or did you hear it used by another Muslim in this context? Is it an attempt to give the process an air of scientific credibility, or a euphemism for rape?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 7:26am:

The massacres and forced evictions of Pagans in Arabia - by Freediver. synopsis: 1. the execution of 10 people after the conquest of Mecca 2. a "prediction" that paganism would be wiped out from Arabia 3. The execution of the Banu Qurayza - who were... um... non-pagan.

You're forgetting that scheming Jew who was tortured for his gold, G.

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 8:40am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 7:26am: The massacres and forced evictions of Pagans in Arabia - by Freediver. synopsis: 1. the execution of 10 people after the conquest of Mecca 2. a "prediction" that paganism would be wiped out from Arabia 3. The execution of the Banu Qurayza - who were... um... non-pagan. This is good Gandalf, well done. More than one example at a time. However, you left out the bit where they actually fulfilled Muhammed's prediction.

You covered that one with a question, FD.


freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 9:36pm:

Do you think Islam was spread by the sword?

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 8:40am:

Now that can hardly be all the fault of Islam. Are you suggesting that Islam is a "brand" of bloody minded violence, and it is immature to ask whether it is better or worse than others?

Take note of the highlighted bit that was from my post....

Now, what do you think the answer might be?

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 9:19am:

Gandalf you never explained what you meant by Osmosis. Did you make that up, or did you hear it used by another Muslim in this context? Is it an attempt to give the process an air of scientific credibility, or a euphemism for rape?

You've got him there, FD. You've got G supporting mass rape.

You managed to pin this one on Abu too. Nice work.

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 9:19am:

Gandalf you never explained what you meant by Osmosis. Did you make that up, or did you hear it used by another Muslim in this context? Is it an attempt to give the process an air of scientific credibility, or a euphemism for rape?

When the muslims invaded the middle and near east occupied by jews, christians and zoroastrians, the inhabitants passed from one foreign ruler to another. Under their new rulers they were afforded the status of dhimmis - which as I have demonstrated, gave them far more rights and freedoms than they had under their previous foreign rulers (which goes a lot towards explaining their rapid advance). The muslim rulers had an economic incentive to retain and protect the religious freedom of their subjects - as these dhimmis paid the jizya tax instead of the zakat tax. And since the jizya was simply a "rolling over" of the previous regime's taxation, there was no extra burden on the subjects. And in fact there were exemptions for people who couldn't afford it or for any dhimmis who chose to join the military.

This was the reality of the caliphate during its expansion: a small ruling elite of muslims ruling over a large population of non-muslims, who far from being forced to convert, were given every rights and protection to retain their religion. And in fact the early caliphate relied on this arrangement in terms of their tax revenues. The inhabitants were happy not merely because the change in regime "rolled over" existing worship and taxation arrangements, but made them considerably better. That the non-muslim populations prospered under Islamic rule is demonstrated in the cultural and intellectual flowering of these communities during the Golden Age.

Gradually over the centuries, the populations became more and more muslim - an inevitable consequence of continued and stable rule by muslims. It would be the same anywhere - South and central American paganism was gradually replaced by christianity through the same osmosis effect (though with considerably more bloodshed than happened under the caliphate), much of central Africa becomes christian after decades of French and British rule etc. While the non-muslims are not widely persecuted under the caliphate (nothing compared to the treatment of non-christians in Europe), there are obviously incentives to become muslim, the same as any subject population whose religion/culture is different to their rulers.

And yet, even after centuries of Islamic rule the non-muslim populations remained as very significant minorities. Compare this to Christianity when it imposed itself on pagan Europe - none were spared, they were either killed or force-converted. Same for the conquest of muslim Spain - the muslims, as well as the jews (who of course thrived under muslim rule), were ethnically cleansed. Its only been in the last few decades that non-muslims have left the middle east in significant numbers - the Palestinian population was close to 50% christian in the early 20th century if I'm not mistaken. You obviously don't see anything like that in terms of the non-christian population of Europe - until they started to be imported in during the last few decades.

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 9:59am:

freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 8:40am: Now that can hardly be all the fault of Islam. Are you suggesting that Islam is a "brand" of bloody minded violence, and it is immature to ask whether it is better or worse than others? Take note of the highlighted bit that was from my post.... Now, what do you think the answer might be?

Sometimes a question is just a question, Phem.

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 9:59am:

freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 8:40am: Now that can hardly be all the fault of Islam. Are you suggesting that Islam is a "brand" of bloody minded violence, and it is immature to ask whether it is better or worse than others? Take note of the highlighted bit that was from my post.... Now, what do you think the answer might be?

You are waffling Phem. Don't assume people know what you are trying to say. We can only see what you actually post.


Quote:

When the muslims invaded the middle and near east occupied by jews, christians and zoroastrians, the inhabitants passed from one foreign ruler to another. Under their new rulers they were afforded the status of dhimmis - which as I have demonstrated, gave them far more rights and freedoms than they had under their previous foreign rulers (which goes a lot towards explaining their rapid advance). The muslim rulers had an economic incentive to retain and protect the religious freedom of their subjects - as these dhimmis paid the jizya tax instead of the zakat tax.

So when you say osmosis, you mean using tax policy to discriminate against non-Muslims and give the Muslims a long term upper hand?

What about the sex slavery bit? Do you think that contributed?


Quote:

This was the reality of the caliphate during its expansion: a small ruling elite of muslims ruling over a large population of non-muslims, who far from being forced to convert, were given every rights and protection to retain their religion.

Do you think sending an army to slaughter pagans and destroy their temple counts as protection?


Quote:

That the non-muslim populations prospered under Islamic rule is demonstrated in the cultural and intellectual flowering of these communities during the Golden Age.

What about being wiped out from a large area around Mecca? Is that a flowering?


Quote:

Gradually over the centuries, the populations became more and more muslim - an inevitable consequence of continued and stable rule by muslims.

Do you think the tax policy helped? What about the rules on wives and sex slaves? What about the death penalty for leaving Islam?

Also, for some reason I cannot get you to comment on the status of pagans being even lower than that of Jews and Christians. Did that help with the 'voluntary' conversion of pagans? Are you having trouble understanding the question?


Quote:

While the non-muslims are not widely persecuted under the caliphate (nothing compared to the treatment of non-christians in Europe), there are obviously incentives to become muslim, the same as any subject population whose religion/culture is different to their rulers.

So setting up a religious state to conquer large areas, then using the law to pressure people into conversion from within it's borders, is not "spreading Islam by the sword"?


Quote:

And yet, even after centuries of Islamic rule the non-muslim populations remained as very significant minorities.

What percentage of Meccans are non-Muslim?

FD, you can't argue against my points about the spread of Islam in non-pagan areas by constantly referring back to the conquest of pagan areas.

Its nearly as stupid as trying to prove that pagans were massacred  by Muhammad - by constantly referring to a massacre of jews.


freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:21am:

So when you say osmosis, you mean using tax policy to discriminate against non-Muslims and give the Muslims a long term upper hand?

By osmosis, I mean allowing the non-muslims to remain non-muslims, and even giving them protections to remain non-muslims - but many of them becoming muslim anyway, over a long period. The exact opposite to what happened in Christian Europe.

The tax policy was no worse than what they had under the previous regime - in fact it was in many ways better. So you have no argument there.

Quote:

FD, you can't argue against my points about the spread of Islam in non-pagan areas by constantly referring back to the conquest of pagan areas.

I didn't realise the middle east was already carved up into pagan and non-pagan areas.


Quote:

Its nearly as stupid as trying to prove that pagans were massacred  by Muhammad - by constantly referring to a massacre of jews.

Does a massacre of pagans count?


Quote:

By osmosis, I mean allowing the non-muslims to remain non-muslims, and even giving them protections to remain non-muslims - but many of them becoming muslim anyway, over a long period. The exact opposite to what happened in Christian Europe.

Can you give any examples where Christians were more effective in creating Christian only areas than the region around Mecca?


Quote:

The tax policy was no worse than what they had under the previous regime - in fact it was in many ways better. So you have no argument there.

So it is not spreading Islam by the sword unless the new rulers use novel techniques to encourage conversion after the invasion?

Here is a list of the issues you are too embarrassed to touch:

The use of sex to spread Islam - Muslim men taking up to four wives including non-Muslims, plus additional sex slaves. These sex slaves could only be obtained by the sword. The marriage imbalance and sex slavery would have created a strong and perverse incentive for Muslim men to seek out conquest and help spread Islam by the sword.

Female slaves being able to gain their 'freedom' by bearing their owner a son.

Muhammed's predecessors following through on his 'prediction' that the area around Mecca would be rid of all non-Muslims.

The fact that all non-Muslims are still banned from mecca.

Actual slaughter of pagans and destruction of their temple by Muhammed, because their temple was competing with the one in Mecca in attracting pagans.

The death penalty for leaving Islam. Do you think that might have involved a sword?

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:56am:

I didn't realise the middle east was already carved up into pagan and non-pagan areas.

It was. Arabia was the only pagan area left. I pointed this out to you before.


freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:56am:

So it is not spreading Islam by the sword unless the new rulers use novel techniques to encourage conversion after the invasion

Having an incentive to keep a large population of non-muslims - and acting through on that by granting unprecedented rights and freedoms for non-muslims to remain non-muslim cannot be termed spreading a religion by the sword by any stretch of the imagination. Only you can manage such mental gymnastics.


freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:56am:

Here is a list of the issues you are too embarrassed to touch: The use of sex to spread Islam

I think I'll stick to the facts. You go ahead with your hysteria though.

Muhammad was constantly rejected by people around him

Went to bed constantly bitter

One day he wakes up claiming god's spoken to him telling everyone should unite

He went preaching and managed to get 10,000 followers/lunatics across several tribes

Led the 10,000 on a conquest and conversion by the sword to Islam for the next 20 years

During this time - he married a 45 years old then a 6 years old who he banged as soon as she turned 9

This girl's father then claimed he's the heir when Muhammad passed and founded Sunni Muslim

Have I missed anything here

And try look up a book called Tripoli Pirates

They were muslim pirates - they asked for "protection money" of from all infidels sailing in that area or you need to convert to Islam

Quote:

Having an incentive to keep a large population of non-muslims

So your argument is that one of the incentives to convert to Islam was also an incentive to not get them to convert to Islam, therefor it was not an incentive and Islam was not spread by the sword?


Quote:

and acting through on that by granting unprecedented rights and freedoms for non-muslims to remain non-muslim

So how did that work for pagans? Or is this where you switch back to pretending it is only about jews and Christians?


Quote:

I think I'll stick to the facts. You go ahead with your hysteria though.

Which of these facts is incorrect? So far your only disagreement appears to be how you spin it.

The use of sex to spread Islam - Muslim men taking up to four wives including non-Muslims, plus additional sex slaves. These sex slaves could only be obtained by the sword. The marriage imbalance and sex slavery would have created a strong and perverse incentive for Muslim men to seek out conquest and help spread Islam by the sword.

Female slaves being able to gain their 'freedom' by bearing their owner a son.

Muhammed's predecessors following through on his 'prediction' that the area around Mecca would be rid of all non-Muslims.

The fact that all non-Muslims are still banned from mecca.

Actual slaughter of pagans and destruction of their temple by Muhammed, because their temple was competing with the one in Mecca in attracting pagans.

The death penalty for leaving Islam. Do you think that might have involved a sword?


Quote:

They were muslim pirates - they asked for "protection money" of from all infidels sailing in that area or you need to convert to Islam

This is like Jizya. It is actually proof that Islam was not spread by the sword, because the pirates had an incentive to not let them convert to Islam. It was an elaborate trick to maintain a non-Muslim tax base, disguised as an incentive to convert to Islam. This makes perfect sense to Muslims.

Well in simple terms FD, I don't understand why you have your panties in a twist about Islam being spread by the sword, it's not all that unique.

Just another organised religion doin' it's thing.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 7:57am:

The final proof in the pudding is seen in the beginning of the Islamic Golden Age. You'll remember that you and Soren and others are always keen to point out that the bulk of the scholarship that propelled this intellectual age was done by non-muslims. While not true (the intellectual age was inspired and led by arabs - as Soren once proved in a source he tried to use to prove the opposite), it is absolutely true that the christian and jewish scholarly tradition experienced an unprecedented boom under the caliphate, and they were an instrumental part of the intellectual flowering under Islamic rule. Indeed - how these poor oppressed dhimis suffered.

By the usual sleight of hand you conflate Arab and Muslim. Even today there are a (rapidly diminishing) number of Arab Christians of what used to be the Christian Eastern Roman Empire.

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 2:23pm:

Well in simple terms FD, I don't understand why you have your panties in a twist about Islam being spread by the sword, it's not all that unique. Just another organised religion doin' it's thing.

You mean all the Christian charities in the Third World are no different to ISIS and Al Qaeda and Muslim terrorists??

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 1:38pm:

So your argument is that one of the incentives to convert to Islam was also an incentive to not get them to convert to Islam, therefor it was not an incentive and Islam was not spread by the sword?

Nope - just your usual nonsense.


freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 1:38pm:

So how did that work for pagans? Or is this where you switch back to pretending it is only about jews and Christians?

I'm not pretending - it is only about jews and christians - and zoroastrians. This conversations has only ever been about your bs idea that the jizya/dhimmi system meant spreading Islam by the sword. And the only way you can maintain it is by continually bringing up the irrelevant nonsense about pagan massacres and ethnic cleansing - since the truth, that having an incentive to keep non-muslims non-muslim, and enacting policies to achieve that is the very opposite of spreading Islam by the sword - which of course is a little inconvenient for your tired meme.


freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 1:38pm:

The death penalty for leaving Islam. Do you think that might have involved a sword?

Which of course has nothing to do with how Islam spread in the first place. Even Abu supports the idea that Quran 2:256 (no compulsion in religion) applies to non-muslims coming under Islamic rule - there's a direct theological refutation of your claim right there.

Soren wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 3:23pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 2:23pm: Well in simple terms FD, I don't understand why you have your panties in a twist about Islam being spread by the sword, it's not all that unique. Just another organised religion doin' it's thing. You mean all the Christian charities in the Third World are no different to ISIS and Al Qaeda and Muslim terrorists??

Not at all. Allah Uakbar and Hallelujah are two distinct linguistic utterances used to celebrate a head being lopped off in the name of Gud.

Blessed is the name of the Lord, old boy.

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 2:23pm:

Well in simple terms FD, I don't understand why you have your panties in a twist about Islam being spread by the sword, it's not all that unique. Just another organised religion doin' it's thing.

The Muslims are still of the opinion conversion by the sword is in vogue e.g. beheading

The Christians stopped this some years ago

Maqqa wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 4:38pm:

The Christians stopped this some years ago

Indeed Maqqa. After Christian Rome ethnically cleansed the hundreds of thousands of pagans at the point of the sword, and after Charlemagne was done forcefully converting the pagan saxons, the Christians needed a bit of a breather - but still had time for periodic massacres of the jews. Then they continued where they had left off in the new world - the massacres there making their previous work look like school play.

Still, clearly the true barbarity here was with the musselman - for their horrific "discriminatory" jizya tax - that allowed non-muslim subjects to retain their religion and protected rights to practice it. Clearly when railing against religions 'spreading by the sword', we should reserve our ire for the muslims, who even after 1400 years of rule still retains non-muslim populations - but definitely not the Christians who ruthlessly eliminated all traces of pre-christian cultures with brute force in a matter of decades.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 5:02pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 4:38pm: The Christians stopped this some years ago Indeed Maqqa. After Christian Rome ethnically cleansed the hundreds of thousands of pagans at the point of the sword, and after Charlemagne was done forcefully converting the pagan saxons, the Christians needed a bit of a breather - but still had time for periodic massacres of the jews. Then they continued where they had left off in the new world - the massacres there making their previous work look like school play. Still, clearly the true barbarity here was with the musselman - for their horrific "discriminatory" jizya tax - that allowed non-muslim subjects to retain their religion and protected rights to practice it. Clearly when railing against religions 'spreading by the sword', we should reserve our ire for the muslims, who even after 1400 years of rule still retains non-muslim populations - but definitely not the Christians who ruthlessly eliminated all traces of pre-christian cultures with brute force in a matter of decades.

You lost Maqqa when you started going into details, G.

And you lost FD when you started on the Christians.

Lucky you picked him back up with some details he can chew on for a while.

Melanias purse wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 5:09pm:

Lucky you picked him back up with some details he can chew on for a while.

FD will always have his 800 jews beheaded in one day - thats a debating point for all seasons. Especially when we're talking about persecution of non-jews.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 5:18pm:

Melanias purse wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 5:09pm: Lucky you picked him back up with some details he can chew on for a while. FD will always have his 800 jews beheaded in one day - thats a debating point for all seasons. Especially when we're talking about persecution of non-jews.

True. I’m just hanging out for the scheming Jew being tortured for his gold. The repetition is addictive. I’m hooked.

The good thing about FD’s posts is there are no surprises. You always know what you’re going to get.

Melanias purse wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 5:45pm:

I’m just hanging out for the scheming Jew being tortured for his gold.

I was waiting for that too. Maybe its finally dawned on FD that no one actually believes that story except FD.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 5:02pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 4:38pm: The Christians stopped this some years ago Indeed Maqqa. After Christian Rome ethnically cleansed the hundreds of thousands of pagans at the point of the sword, and after Charlemagne was done forcefully converting the pagan saxons, the Christians needed a bit of a breather - but still had time for periodic massacres of the jews. Then they continued where they had left off in the new world - the massacres there making their previous work look like school play. Still, clearly the true barbarity here was with the musselman - for their horrific "discriminatory" jizya tax - that allowed non-muslim subjects to retain their religion and protected rights to practice it. Clearly when railing against religions 'spreading by the sword', we should reserve our ire for the muslims, who even after 1400 years of rule still retains non-muslim populations - but definitely not the Christians who ruthlessly eliminated all traces of pre-christian cultures with brute force in a matter of decades.

I guess we can classify "Christian Rome" as some years ago

Quote:

Well in simple terms FD, I don't understand why you have your panties in a twist about Islam being spread by the sword, it's not all that unique. Just another organised religion doin' it's thing.

I am happy to concede it was Phem.


Quote:

I'm not pretending - it is only about jews and christians - and zoroastrians.

Why is not about pagans?


Quote:

This conversations has only ever been about your bs idea that the jizya/dhimmi system meant spreading Islam by the sword.

Don't forget the slaves Gandalf. Here is that list for you again. I have added a point to the beginning.

Islam followed the political boundaries of a militant empire spread by the sword under its name.

The use of sex to spread Islam - Muslim men taking up to four wives including non-Muslims, plus additional sex slaves. These sex slaves could only be obtained by the sword. The marriage imbalance and sex slavery would have created a strong and perverse incentive for Muslim men to seek out conquest and help spread Islam by the sword.

Female slaves being able to gain their 'freedom' by bearing their owner a son.

Muhammed's predecessors following through on his 'prediction' that the area around Mecca would be rid of all non-Muslims.

The fact that all non-Muslims are still banned from mecca.

Actual slaughter of pagans and destruction of their temple by Muhammed, because their temple was competing with the one in Mecca in attracting pagans.

The death penalty for leaving Islam. Do you think that might have involved a sword?


Quote:

And the only way you can maintain it is by continually bringing up the irrelevant nonsense about pagan massacres and ethnic cleansing

Are you saying Muhammed did not massacre pagans and destroy their temple? Perhaps he got the Jews to do it so it is really their fault?


Quote:

since the truth, that having an incentive to keep non-muslims non-muslim, and enacting policies to achieve that is the very opposite of spreading Islam by the sword - which of course is a little inconvenient for your tired meme.

So that is really all that you have? One of the incentives imposed by the Islamic State to convert to Islam was actually an incentive to not 'have them convert'? It was better to have them fund the war machine financially than lop their head off?


Quote:

Which of course has nothing to do with how Islam spread in the first place.

You don't think that the death penalty for apostasy helped Islam spread?


Quote:

Even Abu supports the idea that Quran 2:256 (no compulsion in religion) applies to non-muslims coming under Islamic rule

Sure. He also thinks that the death penalty for apostasy does not contradict it.


Quote:

FD will always have his 800 jews beheaded in one day - thats a debating point for all seasons. Especially when we're talking about persecution of non-jews.

So who is it about then Gandalf? When I gave examples of Muhammed slaughtering pagans, you decided it was not about them either.


Quote:

I was waiting for that too. Maybe its finally dawned on FD that no one actually believes that story except FD.

And of course 1400 years of Muslims who passed down the story. Were Muslims in the habit of passing down lies that obviously tarnished Muhammed's name? Or did they not even realise that it was a bad look?

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 8:39am:

Islam followed the political boundaries of a militant empire spread by the sword under its name.

A religion spreading by the sword = force converting inhabitants that come under the empire's rule at the tip of the sword. The non-muslims were given unprecedented protections and rights to retain their religion. No one but you has the mental gymnastics to call this 'spreading Islam by the sword'. This was how Christianity spread in Europe, not Islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 2:55pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 25th, 2015 at 8:39am: Islam followed the political boundaries of a militant empire spread by the sword under its name. A religion spreading by the sword = force converting inhabitants that come under the empire's rule at the tip of the sword. The non-muslims were given unprecedented protections and rights to retain their religion. No one but you has the mental gymnastics to call this 'spreading Islam by the sword'. This was how Christianity spread in Europe, not Islam.

What percentage of Europe's Christian converts do you think were forced?

How do you reconcile "unprecedented protections" With Muhammed's unprecedented destruction of pagan temples and slaughtering of pagans. Was it for their own good?

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 4:32pm:

How do you reconcile "unprecedented" protections With Muhammed's destruction of pagan temples and slaughtering of pagans.

You're really not getting the whole "I'm talking about post-Muhammad/Jizya system not =  spreading Islam by the sword" thing are you?
Shall we get back to your thesis on how the caliphate jizya system that grants religious rights to non-muslims really equates to spreading Islam by the sword? Or are you literally incapable of prosecuting that case without constantly referring back to irrelevant pre-caliphate history?

Do you actually think that its somehow worse than how Christianity was spread in Europe - with actual forced conversions?

So in order to accept your argument that Islam was not spread by the sword, we must ignore the fact that Muhammed spread Islam by the sword?

What year should we start from?

Well we've pretty much covered your fairy tales about massacres and forced evictions of pagans in Mecca - which amounts to 1. execution of 10 people upon conquering Mecca 2. a "prediction" that Arabia would be cleansed of pagans and 3. your trusty 'all purpose' debating point about the execution of the non-pagan Banu Qurayza.

But this is boring - always has been for the 3 years you've hammered on about it.

Now the debate has moved on to a particular thesis you started to come up with about the Caliphate dhimmi system somehow equating to spreading Islam by the sword:


Quote:

freediver wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 10:38pm: Islam spread behind the borders of the rapidly expanding Caliphate, by 'osmosis' as Gandalf likes to put it. The Caliphate did not spread by people adopting the religion then joining the political state. Generally, when people talk about spreading religion by the sword, they mean exactly what the Caliphate did. Nothing lives up to the

- but your thesis ends abruptly just as it was starting to get interesting. Were you seriously going to say something like "Nothing lives up to the... brutality of the dhimmi system" - along those lines? Did it sound as stupid even to you as it really is, and thats why you couldn't bring yourself to finish writing it?

Your thesis is in dire need of elaboration and explanation, thats what I've been trying to get from you. So you might appreciate my frustration when you have little argument other than to constantly revert back to the pre-caliphate history to explain a thesis on caliphate history. So how about we start fresh? Lets start with the key phrase "Generally, when people talk about spreading religion by the sword, they mean exactly what the Caliphate did." You need to explain how an empire that had a particular financial incentive to keep their subject population non-muslim, and enacted policies that incentivised that population to remain non-muslim (with a more generous tax system than they had before, and protecting their religious rights) - can in any way be equated to spreading Islam by the sword. And preferably an explanation that references the relevant period, and not the period before the system in question even existed.

Gandalf can you explain why Muhammed slaughtering pagans and destroying their temple is not relevant here? What time frame would you like to restrict the discussion to?


Quote:

Your thesis is in dire need of elaboration and explanation

No problem. Here is that list again. Feel free to choose one item from the list and pretend it is the extent of my argument. Or better still, choose something not even on the list.

Islam followed the political boundaries of a militant empire spread by the sword under its name.

The use of sex to spread Islam - Muslim men taking up to four wives including non-Muslims, plus additional sex slaves. These sex slaves could only be obtained by the sword. The marriage imbalance and sex slavery would have created a strong and perverse incentive for Muslim men to seek out conquest and help spread Islam by the sword.

Female slaves being able to gain their 'freedom' by bearing their owner a son.

Muhammed's predecessors following through on his 'prediction' that the area around Mecca would be rid of all non-Muslims.

The fact that all non-Muslims are still banned from mecca.

Actual slaughter of pagans and destruction of their temple by Muhammed, because their temple was competing with the one in Mecca in attracting pagans.

The death penalty for leaving Islam. Do you think that might have involved a sword?

Sorry, I thought you were going to elaborate on how the actual jizya/dhimmi system works as a mechanism for spreading Islam by the sword - you know like you started to before cutting yourself off...


Quote:

Islam spread behind the borders of the rapidly expanding Caliphate, by 'osmosis' as Gandalf likes to put it. The Caliphate did not spread by people adopting the religion then joining the political state. Generally, when people talk about spreading religion by the sword, they mean exactly what the Caliphate did.Nothing lives up to the

You said yourself - the 'spread by the sword' meme refers to "what the Caliphate did"  and the caliphate wasn't conquering and slaughtering pagans. They were conquering christian, jewish and zoroastrian areas, and enacting policies that specifically gave them incentives to remain non-muslim. This is "what the Caliphate did" - policies that for anyone with an ounce of common sense would be the very opposite of spreading Islam by the sword.

But never mind, clearly you are determined to stick to any and every debating point but those related to the dhimmi tax system, so carry on.

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 6:10pm:

Gandalf can you explain why Muhammed slaughtering pagans and destroying their temple is not relevant here?

Oh I don't know FD - somehow this statement of yours seems to answer this:


polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Generally, when people talk about spreading religion by the sword, they mean exactly what the Caliphate did

Quote:

Sorry, I thought you were going to elaborate on how the actual jizya/dhimmi system works as a mechanism for spreading Islam by the sword - you know like you started to before cutting yourself off...

How about you stick to what I actually posted Gandalf.


Quote:

You said yourself - the 'spread by the sword' meme refers to "what the Caliphate did"  and the caliphate wasn't conquering and slaughtering pagans. They were conquering christian, jewish and zoroastrian areas, and enacting policies that specifically gave them incentives to remain non-muslim.

Sounds to me like you are trying to invent something I said by cutting and pasting a few words at a time.

When Muhammed slaughtered pagans and destroyed their temple, does that count? If not, why not?

Are you seriously suggesting that the first Islamic Caliphate never encountered pagans?


Quote:

This is "what the Caliphate did" - policies that for anyone with an ounce of common sense would be the very opposite of spreading Islam by the sword.

So we must ignore Muhammed slughtering pagans and destroying their temple because it is all somehow undone by the Caliphate taxing non-Muslims at a higher rate than Muslims?


Quote:

Oh I don't know FD - somehow this statement of yours seems to answer this:

How does it answer it Gandalf? Are you trying to restrict the time frame somehow so that Muhammed's rape and pillage doesn't count?

Quote:

Are you trying to restrict the time frame somehow so that Muhammed's rape and pillage doesn't count?

You did that yourself by specifically saying 'spread by the sword' refers to the caliphate. Would you like to see the quote again?

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

How about you stick to what I actually posted Gandalf

ok FD - would you like to go on the record now as saying the jizya/dhimmi system was *NOT* a mechanism for spreading Islam by the sword then?

speaking of 'what you actually posted' - I are you going to explain what you were going to say before you cut yourself off mid sentence: "Generally, when people talk about spreading religion by the sword, they mean exactly what the Caliphate did.Nothing lives up to the" ??

I'm really dying to know.

Quote:

You did that yourself by specifically saying 'spread by the sword' refers to the caliphate. Would you like to see the quote again?

So when I cite an example of Muhammed slaughtering Jews, that does not count because we were talking about pagans. And when I cite an example of Muhammed slaughtering pagans, that does not count either because we were talking about the caliphate, which of course has nothing to do with Islam (and through some obscure Islamic sleight of hand, never even encountered any pagans). And you have no choice but to argue this because it is my fault.

Does that about sum it up Gandalf?

Can you clarify where exactly the goal posts are now, because you have shifted them so many times I have lost track. Please tell me which time period and which religious group you would like me to find an example of Muslims slaughtering.


Quote:

ok FD - would you like to go on the record now as saying the jizya/dhimmi system was *NOT* a mechanism for spreading Islam by the sword then?

It was part of it, though discriminatory taxation was obviously one of the less extreme aspects of it.


Quote:

speaking of 'what you actually posted' - I are you going to explain what you were going to say before you cut yourself off mid sentence: "Generally, when people talk about spreading religion by the sword, they mean exactly what the Caliphate did.Nothing lives up to the" ??

No gandalf, I am going to see how much you will attempt to read into a copy and paste error.

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 9:36pm:

So when I cite an example of Muhammed slaughtering Jews, that does not count because we were talking about pagans. And when I cite an example of Muhammed slaughtering pagans, that does not count either because we were talking about the caliphate, which of course has nothing to do with Islam (and through some obscure Islamic sleight of hand, never even encountered any pagans). And you have no choice but to argue this because it is my fault. Does that about sum it up Gandalf?

Yep - you summed it up pretty well. Like I said, after making a specific comment about "what the caliphate did" in relation to spreading Islam by the sword, you then spend your whole time ranting on about anything and everything except what the caliphate did.


freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 9:36pm:

It was part of it, though discriminatory taxation was obviously one of the less extreme aspects of it.

;D I suppose thats the closest I'll get to an FD acknowledgement of the absurdity of thinking that a policy specifically aimed at retaining and protecting non-muslim's religion is somehow 'spreading Islam by the sword'.

It seems that in order to accept your argument that Islam was not spread by the sword, we must accept your restriction of the debate to a certain time period, a certain geographic region, a certain religious group, and a certain set of tax laws.

All of this because I mentioned the Caliphate and cut the end off a

Can you clarify what these restrictions are? You change your mind about what religious group you are restricting the debate to. You won't say what time period, except that any examples I give fall out of it, and the geographic region seems to be another way of defining pagans out of the debate.

Okay, so Islam wasn’t spread by the sword.

But G, can you say that it was?

Ask him.again, FD. Was Islam.spread by the sword?

Please don’t say no this time, G.

freediver wrote on Dec 27^th, 2015 at 8:27am:

Can you clarify what these restrictions are?

Sure FD - in fact I'll quote again the goalposts that you yourself set:


Quote:

Generally, when people talk about spreading religion by the sword, they mean exactly what the Caliphate did

But really what you meant was "when people talk about spreading religion by the sword, they mean what Muhammad did to the pagans before the caliphate existed". Why else would continually try and back this statement up by referring to events before the caliphate?

I'm just interested in talking about the point you yourself raised FD - hence my frustration whenever I ask you to elaborate you revert to familiar territory that has nothing to do with the caliphate. If you never had a point to make about the caliphate, and you meant what Muhammad did to the pagans all along, just say so.

Gandalf do you think that Muhammed's slaughtering of Jews and pagans is evidence of Islam being spread by the sword?

Was the Caliphate a religious and militant state? Did Islam spread on the back of it's conquests?

Do you think the Caliphate became a different state when Muhammed died?

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 10:25am:

Gandalf do you think that Muhammed's slaughtering of Jews and pagans is evidence of Islam being spread by the sword? Was the Caliphate a religious and militant state? Did Islam spread on the back of it's conquests? Do you think the Caliphate became a different state when Muhammed died?

The caliphate was not conquering pagans - there were literally none left. They conquered jews, christians and zoroastrians - all of which Islam considers 'people of the book' - and therefore eligible for the dhimmi system. And since the dhimmi system grants unprecedented rights of worship and a more generous tax system than the people had before - I would think "most people" would consider that the very opposite to "spreading Islam by the sword". So thats why I continue to ask you to justify how "most people" would consider "what the caliphate did" as spreading religion by the sword - in vain it seems. I'm especially curious how you can be so adamant about this  system being spread by the sword while demurring over what the Christian emperors of Rome did to spread Christianity amongst an overwhelmingly pagan population in the late 4th century.

Quote:

The caliphate was not conquering pagans - there were literally none left.

By when were there none left Gandalf? You keep hinting at a timeline but never saying what it is. Are you saying Islam was not spread by the sword because it wiped out the pagans before the Caliphate got going?

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 11:09am:

Are you saying Islam was not spread by the sword because it wiped out the pagans before the Caliphate got going?

But FD this is not about whether or not Islam spread by the sword during Muhammad's time - I'm merely asking you to justify your claim that "most people" think of "what the caliphate did" when they talk about Islam spreading by the sword.

Did you actually mean that? Why didn't you just say "most people think of Muhammad slaughtering pagans and jews when talking about Islam spreading by the sword"? Clearly thats all you want to talk about.

Who started the Caliphate Gandalf?

I have already provided the justification - see my earlier list of issues you are afraid to discuss. You are welcome to try to justify taking mistreatment of pagans off the list with your "already wiped them out" argument - hence my suggestion that you clarify the time period and geographic region you are attempting to restrict the debate to. It is fun watching you try to chalk up points with that one.

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 1:15pm:

I have already provided the justification - see my earlier list of issues you are afraid to discuss.

Yes, the rounding up of women and creating an "Islamic breeding program".  Its a novel idea, but I think I'll just stick to the actual facts.

It is hardly novel Gandalf. It was a Muslim who gave me the details. Do you disagree with any of them?

Any luck narrowing down the time frame and geographical area to one that makes Islam look good?

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 2:57pm:

It is hardly novel Gandalf. It was a Muslim who gave me the details.

Abu?

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 2:57pm:

It is hardly novel Gandalf.

Right, so when "most people" talk about Islam spreading by the sword - they are really referring to some sinister caliphate Islamisation program of systematically rounding up non-muslim women to be raped by muslims as part of a mass breeding program. Did you get a tin-foil hat for christmas FD?


Quote:

It was a Muslim who gave me the details.

Humour me FD - show me a quote.

There you go, FD. He’s confessed. You’ve done it.

The 2007 FD can now return.

We have daily evidence of Islamic violence against any and all non-Muslims.


Who could possibly imagine that Islam was spread peacefully?

Soren wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 6:39pm:

We have daily evidence of Islamic violence against any and all non-Muslims. Who could possibly imagine that Islam was spread peacefully?

That’s a question, dear boy.

Was Islam spread by the sword?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 6:24pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 2:57pm: It is hardly novel Gandalf. Right, so when "most people" talk about Islam spreading by the sword - they are really referring to some sinister caliphate Islamisation program of systematically rounding up non-muslim women to be raped by muslims as part of a mass breeding program. Did you get a tin-foil hat for christmas FD? Quote: It was a Muslim who gave me the details. Humour me FD - show me a quote.

Tell me which part you disagree with and I will see if I can track down the relevant quote.

Did you know that Muhammed once congratulated one of his soldiers for preventing the women escaping while they were sacking their village?

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 8:09pm:

Tell me which part you disagree with and I will see if I can track down the relevant quote.

The whole breeding program thing.

You said a muslim explained it all to you - at least give me the executive summary. Or just make something up.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Faith_Ratchet#The_sex_ratchet

I’ve always wondered, FD. What’s a ratchet?

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 2:19pm:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Faith_Ratchet#The_sex_ratchet

Thanks FD - but I asked about the muslim you said explained this elaborate breeding program to you. The only sources in this wiki are 1. you repeating the conspiracy and 2. both muslims present rejecting the idea and emphasising the fact that slavery is discouraged in Islam.

You specifically said a muslim explained the scheme to you - I'm just interested in hearing what he/she actually said.

Quote me.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 2:23pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 1:15pm: I have already provided the justification - see my earlier list of issues you are afraid to discuss. Yes, the rounding up of women and creating an "Islamic breeding program".  Its a novel idea, but I think I'll just stick to the actual facts.

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 2:57pm:

It is hardly novel Gandalf. It was a Muslim who gave me the details. Do you disagree with any of them?

So that is me claiming that a Muslim explained the scheme to me?

Do you disagree with any of the details?

Or does it only count if I can find a Muslim who shares my view on Islam?

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 12:01pm:

So that is me claiming that a Muslim explained the scheme to me?

err yes.


freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 12:01pm:

Or does it only count if I can find a Muslim who shares my view on Islam?

You stated that a muslim gave you the details - I'm merely asking what they actually said. So far you've only given me your ratchet article that references two threads - both of which the only two muslims emphasise that slavery was discouraged.

I said Muslims gave me the details. I did not say they gave me the broad concept. Muslims like Abu, Falah etc gave me all the Islamic laws on how women, and sex slaves in particular, are treated.

The same Muslim who said that slavery was discouraged also said that a female captive could earn her freedom by bearing her owner a son. Of course, the son belonged to the Muslim man and became a Muslim. I never got a sensible explanation on what was expected of a woman who earns 'freedom' in this manner.

"Discouraging slavery" is not a detail. It is an attempt to polish a turd.

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:29pm:

I said Muslims gave me the details. I did not say they gave me the broad concept. Muslims like Abu, Falah etc gave me all the Islamic laws on how women, and sex slaves in particular, are treated.

I see. I actually thought you meant a muslim came up with this 'sex slave breeding program' concept and revealed it to you - but its in fact entirely your own spin. Shame, you had me all interested there for a bit.

So anyway, back to the original question - do you disagree with any of the details of it, or do you merely want to spin it differently,  like focusing on how Islam "discourages" slavery?

I disagree that sex slaves were part of a specific and deliberate breeding program to spread Islam.

Its what I call baseless nonsense.

So you agree with all the details but want to put a positive spin on it?

What details FD? Specific reference to what actually happened during the caliphate please - not just the nonsense you read on the blurb of "Islamophobia for dummies".

What do you think of the rule about sex slaves gaining their 'freedom' by bearing their owner a son?

Or is that too vague for you?

I think its extremely dishonest to imply thats the only condition for emancipation - let alone use it as a basis for a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory about a sinister breeding program to spread Islam.

Its actually quite absurd the idea that slavery was a specific tool to "breed" Islam across its subject population. As far as I know the vast majority of slaves remained non-muslim. Also how prevalent was sex slavery in reality? You provide not a shred of evidence of what actually happened - just the "theory" that muslims were doctrinally permitted to collect sex slaves, which predictably will just illicit your usual inane retort "prove that it wasn't the case" - right?  :P

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 12:26pm:

Its actually quite absurd the idea that slavery was a specific tool to "breed" Islam across its subject population. As far as I know the vast majority of slaves remained non-muslim. Also how prevalent was sex slavery in reality?

When these slaves were captured what happened to their husbands and fathers were they killed?

$Profit Mo's wives had a whinge about him banging his sex slaves, did Maria the Coptic Christian give $Profit Mo a son called Ibrahim?

Sheik Munajid's website says sex slaves are halal for muslim men-
islamqa.info/en/10382

More here-
islamqa.info/en/13737

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:29pm:

I said Muslims gave me the details. I did not say they gave me the broad concept. Muslims like Abu,..

Ah.

Quote:

I think its extremely dishonest to imply thats the only condition for emancipation

Oh dear. I hope no-one was doing that. Is that the only thing you think of it? Don't be afraid to have an opinion Gandalf.


Quote:

Its actually quite absurd the idea that slavery was a specific tool to "breed" Islam across its subject population.

Perhaps it was just a coincidence. What else was slavery useful for? Are you going to make the same argument you did with taxes and insist it was not used to impose Islam because they had a strong financial incentive to maintain it?


Quote:

As far as I know the vast majority of slaves remained non-muslim.

Makes sense. After all, that is how they became slaves in the first place. Do you just mean until they died, or their descendents also?


Quote:

Also how prevalent was sex slavery in reality?

As far as I know most slaves in Islamic lands were women. Similar to what ISIS is doing today.


Quote:

You provide not a shred of evidence of what actually happened

No-one has asked me to.


Quote:

just the "theory" that muslims were doctrinally permitted to collect sex slaves

That's what Muslims tell me. Do you disagree?


Quote:

which predictably will just illicit your usual inane retort "prove that it wasn't the case" - right?

Let's start with whether you disagree Gandalf. Or for that matter, whether you will allow yourself to have an opinion.

Yes FD - I disagree until you can show me some evidence for this sex-slave breeding program to spread Islam. Does that sound reasonable?

How about we start with how prevalent sex slavery actually was under the caliphate - instead of your usual "they were allowed, therefore it must have been universal".

Quote:

Yes FD - I disagree until you can show me some evidence for this sex-slave breeding program to spread Islam.

Do you want me to find evidence that sex slaves were treated this way, or that Muslims admitted they were using rape to spread Islam by openly giving it a politically incorrect label? Once more I cannot tell whether it is the substance or the spin you take issue with.


Quote:

Does that sound reasonable?

It sounds like meaningless waffle.


Quote:

How about we start with how prevalent sex slavery actually was under the caliphate - instead of your usual "they were allowed, therefore it must have been universal".

Normally I would start with whether it happened before getting into the prevalence of it, but if you want to go first, you can start wherever you want.

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:21pm:

Do you want me to find evidence that sex slaves were treated this way, or that Muslims admitted they were using rape to spread Islam by openly giving it a politically incorrect label? Once more I cannot tell whether it is the substance or the spin you take issue with.

Evidence that sex slavery was used as a tool to 'breed' Islam across the subject population.

We can start with how widespread sex slavery was in the caliphate if you like...

...or not, whatever you want FD.


freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:21pm:

Normally I would start with whether it happened before getting into the prevalence of it, but if you want to go first, you can start wherever you want.

Ah good point FD - get me to prove your claim for you.

Did it happen on the scale you are talking about? Can you at least tell me that? And before you ask, yes I disagree that it did. Or to put it another way, yes I disagree with the "details" of your theory.

Quote:

Evidence that sex slavery was used as a tool to 'breed' Islam across the subject population.

Does the use of sex slaves count as evidence? Or do we have to find a stamp on their forehead saying "only to be used as a tool to breed Islam across the subject population"?


Quote:

Did it happen on the scale you are talking about?

This is your tangent Gandalf, not mine.


Quote:

And before you ask, yes I disagree that it did.

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 8:37pm:

This is your tangent Gandalf, not mine.

Is this what you mean by "details" - just my little tangents?

If sex slaves were, as I strongly suspect, limited to the caliph and a very small number of his ruling class - then it couldn't have been part of a breeding program to spread Islam. You don't consider this little consideration important?

What "details" would we actually need to make your theory believable - from a historical point of view?

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 8:37pm:

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

Everything - but lets start with the scale - what you just described as a "tangent".

If sex slavery was not practiced on a large scale, then its a bit of a stretch to describe it as a specific program to spread Islam through breeding isn't it? How then can the issue of scale be dismissed as nothing but a tangent?

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 8:37pm:

Quote: Evidence that sex slavery was used as a tool to 'breed' Islam across the subject population. Does the use of sex slaves count as evidence? Or do we have to find a stamp on their forehead saying "only to be used as a tool to breed Islam across the subject population"? [quote]Did it happen on the scale you are talking about?

This is your tangent Gandalf, not mine.[/quote]

I’m confused. I thought it was your tangent, FD. You know, to avoid having to prove Islam was spread by the sword.

You must have meant to.ask, was Islam spread by the womb?

It’s an easy mistake to make.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 9:06pm:

What "details" would we actually need to make your theory believable - from a historical point of view?

Oh, any old post by Abu should do. It’s all in the Wiki.

If you ask nicely enough, FD will post a completely unrelated link.

Something with a formula would be good, FD.

Quote:

If sex slaves were, as I strongly suspect, limited to the caliph and a very small number of his ruling class

They must have each had quite a few then, given the large slavery industry that supplied the Caliphate and the high proportion of female victims.


Quote:

You don't consider this little consideration important?

All considerations will be considered. I have not heard this one before and am surprised you were so shy in showing it to me.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2016 at 7:44am:

They must have each had quite a few then, given the large slavery industry that supplied the Caliphate and the high proportion of female victims.

Yah thats what I'm asking FD - you can't just throw around phrases like "given the large slavery industry that supplied the caliphate" - without providing actual evidence. How large was it? Do you actually understand yet the relevance of this little "detail" in propping up your theory - or do you still dismiss it as one of my tangents?

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 5^th, 2016 at 1:41am:

freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2016 at 8:37pm: Quote: Evidence that sex slavery was used as a tool to 'breed' Islam across the subject population. Does the use of sex slaves count as evidence? Or do we have to find a stamp on their forehead saying "only to be used as a tool to breed Islam across the subject population"? [quote]Did it happen on the scale you are talking about? This is your tangent Gandalf, not mine.

I’m confused. I thought it was your tangent, FD. You know, to avoid having to prove Islam was spread by the sword.

You must have meant to.ask, was Islam spread by the womb?

It’s an easy mistake to make. [/quote]

;D - this.

Poor FD - I wonder if he regrets saying that "what the caliphate did" is what "most people" think of when talking about spreading religion by the sword - when all he wanted to talk about was what Muhammad did. So he then had to scramble for something else - since the actual caliphate policies of granting the religious freedoms of non-muslims kinda doesn't quite fit the meme. So we get this interesting breeding program theory - the details of which apparently don't matter and can be dismissed as 'tangents' - even though FD can't come up with a shred of evidence for the program.

Let’s just say FD’s not having much luck.

Maybe Yadda will drop in to offer some kind words and some food for thought.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 5^th, 2016 at 10:35am:

freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2016 at 7:44am: They must have each had quite a few then, given the large slavery industry that supplied the Caliphate and the high proportion of female victims. Yah thats what I'm asking FD - you can't just throw around phrases like "given the large slavery industry that supplied the caliphate" - without providing actual evidence. How large was it? Do you actually understand yet the relevance of this little "detail" in propping up your theory - or do you still dismiss it as one of my tangents?

Gandalf this is hardly the first discussion we have had on Islamic slavery. Here is a good starting point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Slavery_in_the_Muslim_World

Two rough estimates by scholars of the number of slaves held over twelve centuries in Muslim lands are 11.5 million and 14 million.

Among black slaves, there were roughly two females to every one male.


Quote:

If sex slaves were, as I strongly suspect, limited to the caliph and a very small number of his ruling class

Do you have any evidence that this was limited to nobles? Why do you "strongly suspect" this?

were they all sex slaves FD?

Do you think the Muslims documented the extent of their rape Gandalf? Are you asking me for statistics from centuries ago?

Why do you think there were twice as many female slaves?

Why do you think ISIS is so heavily focused on sex slaves?

;D - FD's "evidence"

Yes, and it’s all in.the Wiki. Abu, ratchets, the lot. If FD’s questions don’t make you see reason, nothing will.

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 12:43pm:

Yes, and it’s all in.the Wiki

Indeed - FD has no end of quotes of FD proving that FD is right.

So over 10 million slaves, a high proportion of women among them, and all of Islam's rules regarding sex with them - this does not count as evidence?

What would count as evidence Gandalf?

Does Islam compel you try to put a positive spin on this?


Quote:

If sex slaves were, as I strongly suspect, limited to the caliph and a very small number of his ruling class

Where did you get this from Gandalf? Did you just make it up?

Just to confirm FD - when you say most people think of what the caliphate did when they think of spreading Islam by the sword - its the sex-slave breeding program you are referring to?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 5:13pm:

Just to confirm FD - when you say most people think of what the caliphate did when they think of spreading Islam by the sword - its the sex-slave breeding program you are referring to?

It is. Cunning, no? A sinister Muselman project of eugenic control.

And they would have got away with it if it wasn’t for FD.

So over 10 million slaves, a high proportion of women among them, and all of Islam's rules regarding sex with them - this does not count as evidence?


polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 5:13pm:

Just to confirm FD - when you say most people think of what the caliphate did when they think of spreading Islam by the sword - its the sex-slave breeding program you are referring to?

I am referring to the list of examples I gave about a dozen times earlier in the thread whenever you had the same misunderstanding.


Quote:

If sex slaves were, as I strongly suspect, limited to the caliph and a very small number of his ruling class

Did you just make this up Gandalf? Why are you afraid to say where you got it from?

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 5:20pm:

I am referring to the list of examples I gave about a dozen times earlier in the thread whenever you had the same misunderstanding.

Yes, and everything except the sex slave breeding-program theory related only to what Muhammad did (ie before the caliphate) - so it is just the sex slave breeding-program right?


freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 5:20pm:

Did you just make this up Gandalf? Why are you afraid to say where you got it from?

I've only ever heard sex slaves/concubines in reference to the caliph and some of his ruling elite. I found this strange, since if there really was this systematic breeding program going on I would have thought there would be more references to it in the broader muslim population.

Quote:

Yes, and everything except the sex slave breeding-program theory related only to what Muhammad did (ie before the caliphate) - so it is just the sex slave breeding-program right?

So you keep saying. But you won't answer even the most basic questions on this assertion - eg what time frame are you attempting to restrict it to? Did Muhammed not start the Caliphate?

Also, can you clarify the geographic region you are restricting it to in order to pretend the Caliphate never encountered pagans? Who wiped them all out? Muhammed?


Quote:

I've only ever heard sex slaves/concubines in reference to the caliph and some of his ruling elite. I found this strange, since if there really was this systematic breeding program going on I would have thought there would be more references to it in the broader muslim population.

Other than not hearing about it, do you have any reason to think it was not more widespread? Why do you think there were so many more female slaves?

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 5:46pm:

So you keep saying. But you won't answer even the most basic questions on this assertion - eg what time frame are you attempting to restrict it to?

When you refer to "what the caliphate did" I tend to view that as the time of the caliphate - funnily enough.


freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 5:46pm:

Did Muhammed not start the Caliphate?

umm no.


freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 5:46pm:

in order to pretend the Caliphate never encountered pagans?

So which pagans did the caliphate encounter?

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 5:20pm:

So over 10 million slaves, a high proportion of women among them, and all of Islam's rules regarding sex with them - this does not count as evidence? polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 5:13pm: Just to confirm FD - when you say most people think of what the caliphate did when they think of spreading Islam by the sword - its the sex-slave breeding program you are referring to? I am referring to the list of examples I gave about a dozen times earlier in the thread whenever you had the same misunderstanding. Quote: If sex slaves were, as I strongly suspect, limited to the caliph and a very small number of his ruling class Did you just make this up Gandalf? Why are you afraid to say where you got it from?

Where does the 10 million slaves figure come from?

The Wiki?

Quote:

umm no.

As far as I am concerned it was the same state, particularly in the context of whether Islam was spread by the sword.


Quote:

So which pagans did the caliphate encounter?

No idea, but it is a bit ludicrous to suggest they were already wiped out  from the huge area conquered by the Caliphate. Perhaps this is why you were attempting to limit the Caliphate geographically. The alternative is to suggest that they only existed within Arabia and outside the final extent of the Caliphate, and Muhammed was successful in wiping all of them out within Arabia before he died.


Quote:

Where does the 10 million slaves figure come from?

Wikipedia. I posted the link earlier.

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 8:17am:

No idea

Ah

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 8:17am:

As far as I am concerned it was the same state, particularly in the context of whether Islam was spread by the sword.

It would have been a lot easier just to say you really meant 'what Muhammad did' when you said 'what the caliphate did' - instead of inventing this absurd cock and bull fairy tale about some sex slave breeding program, now wouldn't it?


freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 8:17am:

it is a bit ludicrous to suggest they were already wiped out  from the huge area conquered by the Caliphate.

No its not - there were no pagans in the territory conquered by the caliphate outside the Arabian peninsular - not in Persia, not in the middle east, not in the near east, not in North Africa and not in Spain. Comprende?

Quote:

It would have been a lot easier just to say you really meant 'what Muhammad did' when you said 'what the caliphate did' - instead of inventing this absurd cock and bull fairy tale about some sex slave breeding program, now wouldn't it?

If I intended to restrict my criticism to Muhammed, yes, but I didn't. Why is this distinction so important to you? Do you think the Caliphate behaved better under Muhammed's successors?


Quote:

No its not - there were no pagans in the territory conquered by the caliphate outside the Arabian peninsular - not in Persia, not in the middle east, not in the near east, not in North Africa and not in Spain. Comprende?

I understand what you are saying Gandalf. I just don't believe it. Nor do I believe that they were all wiped out by Muslims within the Arabian peninsula before Muhammed died, but I would enjoy you trying to assert that they were.

lol why don't you believe it FD? Its a pretty basic fact of history - by the 6th century, paganism in the near/middle east was reduced to the Arabian peninsular. You know who wiped them out? The Christians.

You said yourself you had no idea - so why on earth would you contest this?

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 1:41pm:

If I intended to restrict my criticism to Muhammed, yes, but I didn't.

Have you grasped yet the fact that when you say "what the caliphate did" you restrict the timeframe to the time after Muhammad?

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 8:17am:

Quote: umm no. As far as I am concerned it was the same state, particularly in the context of whether Islam was spread by the sword. [quote]So which pagans did the caliphate encounter?

No idea, but it is a bit ludicrous to suggest they were already wiped out  from the huge area conquered by the Caliphate. Perhaps this is why you were attempting to limit the Caliphate geographically. The alternative is to suggest that they only existed within Arabia and outside the final extent of the Caliphate, and Muhammed was successful in wiping all of them out within Arabia before he died.


Quote:

Where does the 10 million slaves figure come from?

Wikipedia. I posted the link earlier.[/quote]

I can’t find your link, FD, but Wikipedia asserts 11 to 14 million slaves in the Muslim over twelve centuries, including the 20th. Children of slaves were freed under Ottoman rule if they became Muslims.

But let us compare and contrast. Guess how many slaves were sent to the Americas in the 18th and 19th centuries alone. A small clue: the slave trade formed 5% of the British economy in the early 19th century..

Slaves were not freed for becoming Christian, so I guess we can say Christianity was not spread by the sword.

But I think we can safely say that capitalism was. Freeeeedom, no?

Quote:

Children of slaves were freed under Ottoman rule if they became Muslims.

Good point Karnal. This proves that slavery was not used to spread Islam.


Quote:

lol why don't you believe it FD? Its a pretty basic fact of history - by the 6th century, paganism in the near/middle east was reduced to the Arabian peninsular. You know who wiped them out? The Christians.

Are you trying to limit discussion of the Caliphate to the middle east? Is there some off-hand comment from me that you would like to use to justify this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Iran

Christianity has a long history in Iran, dating back to the early years of the faith. It has been practiced in Iran longer than the state religion, Islam. It has always been a minority religion

http://www.historyofjihad.org/africa.html

In the 7th century, the Berbers lived in uneasy peace with the Byzantines, who ruled the coastal cities of North Africa, after defeating the Vandals a century before. The ancient city of Carthage was the Byzantine capital in Africa. Some Berbers were Christians (with a notable tendency towards heresy), some were Jewish, and some adhered to their ancient polytheist religion. Before the end of the century the region faced a new calamity, the traditional rivals of the Berbers, the Byzantines were defeated and driven from Africa by the Muslim Arab hordes who poured out of the Arabian Peninsula and flattened everything in their wake.

https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=146162908X

Their influence spread among the pagan Berber population so that by the sixth century many Berber tribes had converted to Judaism. In some cases entire Berber tribes in the Atlas Mountains became Judaized.

Quote:

Their influence spread among the pagan Berber population so that by the sixth century many Berber tribes had converted to Judaism. In some cases entire Berber tribes in the Atlas Mountains became Judaized.

Good point FD.

Good point, FD. Slavery was not used to spread Islam. The caliphate was motivated by the belief that Muslims never never never shall be slaves.

If you don’t mind me saying, you’re fighting an uphill battle here. The caliphate was probably the most enlightened empire of its time. Jews, Christians and Muslims had their own courts and lived under their own civil laws. The caliphate was the centre of global trade, knowledge and civilisation for centuries. ISIL’s model of a caliphate could not be more different to the Ottomans.

If you want to show Islam being spread by the sword, you’d do better to focus on some Bedouin tribes, including the House of Saud. But if you believe Muhammed, his purpose was to end such tribal rivalry and unite the Arabian peninsular.

The division we see today has been fostered by Uncle, who picked favourites and annointed dynasties in every country in the region, funding coups and deposing democratically elected governments in key oil states such as Iran. The very borders of those states, of course, were drawn up by Europe. And today, seeing a Western vacuum,, even Russia’s weighing in.

To be honest, I’m at a loss to understand how anyone could attribute Middle Eastern politics and power grabs to Islam. The Middle East has always been subject to external empires. The caliphate was the closest the Middle East has come to a form of home rule. Without a doubt, it was more tolerant and inclusive than the regimes offered up  by Uncle today.

The Shah had a secret police trained by Uncle. The Saudis have an execution squad facilitated by Uncle. The Egyptian generals have torture cells with CIA observers.

And Israel has nuclear weapons aimed at every one of these states, all paid for and supplied by guess who.

Can I ask a quick question of my own, FD? I’m curious.

Was capitalism spread by the sword?

The French model was to spread liberty by the sword. Capitalism was part of that.

So you think Islam was not spread by the sword because it is all America's fault?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 5:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 5:11pm: the 'hundreds of thousands' dead was muslims vs muslims.  it was not the Allies.  muslims have an apaling habit of murdering each other by the millions eg Iran vs Iraq and who can forget ISIS who ahve killed far more muslims than 'infidels' When the Nazi top brass were tried at Nuremberg, the "supreme crime" was not the crime of killing millions of Russians and Poles, or even killing 6 million jews - it was the crime of 'aggressive war' - invading other countries unprovoked from which all the other atrocities spawned from. Put simply, no aggressive war, and there is no holocaust and no mass slaughter of Russians, Poles etc. Invading Iraq is another case of 'aggressive war' - from which all the subsequent atrocities spawned from. Even if it wasn't the US doing all the slaughtering, they enabled it all through engaging in aggressive war: no invasion of Iraq, no sunni-shiite civil war, and no ISIS. And I'm only going to make this point once - I've been round this merry-go-round too many times over many years - and I'm not doing it again.

Gandalf would you say that the explosion of the Caliphate across the middle east, north Africa and southern Europe, bringing Islam with it, was also a "supreme crime"?

Sure - aggressive war is bad and I don't condone it by anyone.

The differences I suppose were
1. 1000+ years ago, just about everyone was doing it
2. it was not the industrialised, mass warfare that overwhelmingly targeted civilians - that Justice Jackson was talking about - but relatively clean and swift campaigns that only targeted the regime forces (who incidentally were themselves occupiers)
3. Far from spawning unspeakable suffering as the Nazi invasions did - the muslims unquestionably improved the life of the inhabitants and spawned great prosperity in the lands they conquered.

Would you describe it as a "supreme crime"?

When did "everyone" stop doing it?

Looking at the modern footprint of the Caliphate, how do you explain the overwhelming backwardness of it?

Would you say that the slaves captured were a "target" of the warfare?

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 7:59am:

The French model was to spread liberty by the sword. Capitalism was part of that. So you think Islam was not spread by the sword because it is all America's fault?

No, I think Amerika is just a symptom of capitalism. Uncle doesn’t enter and buy up countries for himself, as Mother did. Uncle does it for his friends, the oil, engineering, arms and construction companies. Amerika is sold off too. Uncles subjects don’t profit from this. Amerika has one of the highest violent crime rates in the world. It has the highest incarceration rate. It has one of the highest income gaps of developed nations. Homelessness, unemployment and poverty are rife.

This is the model Uncle exports, and often demands. If Uncle wasn’t running the show, one of his brothers or cousins would. And when Amerika gowes, someone else will.

I don’t know about Islam being spread by the sword, but it seems quite irrelevant, don’t you think? If you can show it, please do. If you can’t, no problem. I’m sure those Ottomans were complete bastards, but their scope and bastardry could not possibly rival Uncle’s.

Take the Saudis - the harshest regime in modern times. It’s beheaded almost 500 people in the last year. It amputates the hands of thieves. It stones women to death. Covertly, it funds the hardest, most fundamentalist militant groups around. It gave us al Qaida, and probably ISIL.

The Saudis are Uncle’s man in Arabia. Uncle trains and arms their troops. Uncle built their cities, ports and power plants. He supports the House of Saud to keep the oil flowing. If the Saudis don’t accept Uncle’s offer of help, they’ll go the way of Saddam, as everybody knows. For now, they’re free to hack heads. Uncle guarantees it.

Who knows? The caliphate probably supported similar regimes in its time. But this is not that time. Uncle professes to support Freeeedom, as do you. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. When the Ottomans put recalcitrants’ heads on stakes outside the city gates, they were sending their message out. Don’t f vck with us.

Today, Uncle uses CNN and Fox News.

You know this, I know this, the entire world knows it. Capitalism is not spread by the sword, but by air strikes, drones and covert action. The entire history of the world, including Islam, pales in comparison.

If you were secular in your world view, FD, you’d set your sites on the real malevolent force at hand. But you’re not, and you can’t.

You blame Islam, no?

Quote:

I don’t know about Islam being spread by the sword, but it seems quite irrelevant, don’t you think?

Should we start a different thread for this tangent Karnal? Or is every thread actually about blaming the US, or whatever dark forces are pulling the strings...

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 3:53pm:

Quote: I don’t know about Islam being spread by the sword, but it seems quite irrelevant, don’t you think? Should we start a different thread for this tangent Karnal? Or is every thread actually about blaming the US, or whatever dark forces are pulling the strings...

If you don’t like the answers, perhaps you should refrain from asking the questions, no?

Don’t answer that.

Iraq’s Oldest Christian Monastery Destroyed by Islamic State
St. Elijah’s Monastery stood as a place of worship for 1,400 years

http://www.wsj.com/articles/iraqs-oldest-christian-monastery-reduced-to-field-of-rubble-1453287029

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/8912/production/_87809053_elijah.jpg

It makes PERFECT sense to stop all Muslim immigration to the West until we can relaiable and to our own satisfaction, tell Muslims who do this from  Muslims who do not.

At present, there is no way to tell the difference.  The onus MUST be put on Muslims who want to come to the West to prove that they are not jihadi caliphate-mongers.  It is NOT for the West to give them the benefit of the doubt - they have betrayed that trust far, far too many times. And they have not demonstrated any ability or willingness to reign in the jihadi monsters.

Of course banning every Muslim.doesn’t make sense, as every schoolboy knows.

But just think, the buildings, the antiquities - but more importantly, the communities - all destroyed by ISIL. Forget the beautiful monastery. What about the thousand year old order that gave it breath?

All gone.

I’m.not sure if we’ve seen such a destructive crowd before - not in the past century, anyway.

Who wouldn’t ban, kill and even nuke ISIL?

Banning them is the least we could do.

Melanias purse wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 8:58pm:

Of course banning every Muslim.doesn’t make sense, as every schoolboy knows. But just think, the buildings, the antiquities - but more importantly, the communities - all destroyed by ISIL. Forget the beautiful monastery. What about the thousand year old order that gave it breath? All gone. I’m.not sure if we’ve seen such a destructive crowd before - not in the past century, anyway. Who wouldn’t ban, kill and even nuke ISIL? Banning them is the least we could do.

It makes PERFECT sense to stop all Muslim immigration to the West until we can reliable and to our own satisfaction, tell Muslims who do this from  Muslims who do not.