thipps said:
If what the historian De Lacy O’Leary has said is an 'opinion', then what all you have said is, at best, an 'opinion' as well.
oh, yes, absolutely. i agree. i just don't find this o'leary chap (or thomas carlyle, either) very convincing. what i was objecting to was the implication that he is, unarguably, right. it's clearly arguable and i have argued with it.
I dont know if you have read 'Friend's post at:
http://www.comparative-religion.com...read.php?t=1834
Its "Friend"'s 3rd post in that thread. Please read the 13 points there. I dont want to bore everyone here with more quotes from more historians to add to those 13, i believe they are more than enough.
thank you - they are an excellent place to start:
OK - just because a word means something, it doesn't mean that what is done in the name of the word is what the word meant - after all, we would both be quick enough to point out that sometimes undemocratic things are done in the name of "democracy".
It also means submitting one’s will to Allah (swt).
submitting our will to that of G!D (which is a fundamental precept of judaism and christianity as well) requires that we know what that will is and can
translate it into action.
Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt).
the more obvious realistic (as opposed to this theoretical) conclusion for me is that human interpretation will always be required and, as we have seen, it is possible to [mis]interpret or indeed subvert G!D's will by forcing it agree with our will. therefore, this first point fails to provide protection from religiously inspired violence done in the name of [eventual] peace.
2. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace....It is precisely for this reason that we have the police....Islam promotes peace.
OK, the first two parts of this i agree with completely; society must be able to enforce its norms. however, the third part assumes that there is only one form of "peace" and it is this that both islam and the police promote - and we both know it's not that simple, i hope.
At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.
OK - but this also requires somebody (a human again) to interpret the meaning of what constitutes "oppression" and somebody (another human) to do the exhorting on behalf of islam. likewise, the objectives of "peace and justice" are theoretical headings which are too vague to work without (ooh, more human) interpretation. for example, if you kill all people that disagree with you, you get a type of peace. similarly, sharia law as applied in saudi, or under the taleban is of course a form of justice, as is halachic (jewish religious) law, but both can and have be argued against as unjust in some of their applications - indeed, the nature of secular "justice" is just as hotly disputed.
The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert.
actually, sometimes they did. there's plenty of documentary evidence of jews having to convert on pain of death, although it was generally under the almohads and almoravids. the point is that it's not entirely 800 years of peace and harmony.
Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.
OK, but the crusaders being horrid isn't really an argument for why islam is absolutely about peace, as opposed to being merely "nicer than the crusaders". that's not something which works in a modern context.
Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.
certainly in egypt, syria and iraq copts are generally a tolerated minority. the copts i have met (mostly egyptian) seem to have been discriminated against, treated as agents of the west and are apparently kept on as a whipping-boy by the ruling (neo-baathists) when they need a scapegoat for the jihadis to vent their fury on rather than the rulers themselves.
here, i think, a comparison is useful. we all know that jews have remained jews in europe for 2000 despite the most disgusting discrimination and persecution - there wasn't even the pretence of tolerance, or indeed anything *but* the sword. yet they maintained their judaism, sometimes even in secret. obviously their survival is not evidence of christian tolerance, but of jewish faith and stubbornness. the same could be said of the copts. again, this isn't exactly an unarguable case for islamic utopia - even saddam kept his 30 pet jews alive for propaganda purposes.
6. More than 80% non-Muslims in India. The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.
oh, come *on*. you are ignoring a rather important one of the mughals. whilst babur, akbar, jehangir and shah jehan were all very tolerant and allowed freedom of worship, the emperor aurangzeb was an entirely different sort of man - and his extremism led to the downfall of his empire. so, again, not exactly conclusive.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/mughal/index.shtml
7. Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?"
one may ask. and i don't know the answer to this. do you? however, your presumption that there was absolutely no intolerance or coercion i think is just as unwarranted as a presumption that islam was spread *only* by the sword. i am saying that the sword was an *element*, but i don't know how much, only that it can't have been non-existent as a consideration.
8. East Coast of Africa. Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, "Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?"
one might even point at the government of sudan, which has spent 20 years trying to spread islam by the sword - and the AK47. the east coast of africa development of islam is, i would say, largely on the back of trade - unfortunately, it is also quite a lot about the slave trade (as indeed are many of the western empires, so i'm not singling islam out for condemnation) and this, arguable, is neither peaceful nor tolerant, especially given that slaves would usually have been forcibly converted to islam, just as american slaves were usually forcibly converted to christianity. the sultans of oman and zanzibar didn't get rich by trading coconuts for beads.
With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur’an says in the following verse: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error" [Al-Qur’an 2:256]
i'm familiar with this surah and have myself in the past used it many times to argue *in favour* of islam against those who would attack it. nonetheless, the same post-hoc rationalisation is possible by people saying they aren't really "compelling" as such, just pointing out errors in truth. even if it's not even possible to misinterpret this verse, it's certainly possible to argue that it is less important or superseded by subsequent considerations in the Qur'an and hadith - and i believe this is often the position of the salafis and wahhabis. of course, from my point of view this makes them wrong, but that's them being wrong, not the Qur'an - the Qur'an i don't have a problem with, but with some of those who interpret it.
11. Sword of the Intellect. It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125: "Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious." [Al-Qur’an 16:125]
oh, i *love* this!!! that's really a great phrase. what a fantastic place to start interfaith dialogue from - it is similar to that in our tradition described as an "argument for the sake of heaven". unfortunately, there are many muslims who clearly do not observe the teachings of the Qur'an in this respect - and, again, like i said before, my problem is with these people, not islam or the Qur'an. it never has been.
At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?
firstly, i wasn't talking about this century - i was talking about the entire history of islam, which includes the conquest of spain - in fact, i believe the battle of roncesvalles, between the frankish emperor charlemagne and a muslim army, took place in france, in 778, nearly 300 years before the first crusade. are you seriously suggesting this army was carrying flowers and making a peaceful "invitation to islam"? but even if you ignore that (and, say, things like the ottoman siege of vienna, for example) the recent increase in islam - rather like the increase in christianity has not been achieved by *exclusively peaceful* means - that's my point.
about the last point also, one needn't be so literal as to interpret a "sword" as a "war" - coercion and oppression don't require a war to operate. the AK47 has been a major factor, as, increasingly, are explosives, missiles and the like. even in france and the UK peer pressure, bullying and intimidation are rife. you should see the way some groups behave on UK university campuses - then tell me it's all love and peace. of course, i'm not saying such a successful spread was down to coercion - i don't believe that. in the USA particuarly i believe that islam is spreading by the "sword of intellect", appealing to the disenfranchised and disenchanted - but also benefiting greatly from freedom of speech, freedom of worship and all the things that are denied in non-democratic parts of the world.
in conclusion, i should say personally that i do believe islam has much to offer the seeker after G!D and i believe it is particularly important to have good relationships between jews and muslims. all i'm saying is drop the rose-tinted spectacles - they'll only embarrass you in the long run if you find yourself defending something which is based - "feelgood" messages that fail to reflect reality or ask too much in terms of stretching credibility will suffer a disadvantage in the "greater jihad".
postmaster said:
the dominating Jew with his pockets full of money is getting his way
well, if vajradhara won't say it, i will. this is an antisemitic remark which i have reported to the board moderators. if this is your view, postmaster, you are an antisemite and a bigot and i have nothing more to say to you.
b'shalom
bananabrain
The Israelites were from Judea.
