Islam According To The Qur'an/hadeeths Interpreted By:

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1285033' date='May 31 2007, 01:47 AM']I'll be waiting for you to comment on Socrates' and my posts. Surely it ain't you...[/quote]

I'm definately going to comment upon the Sura's, I'm just stacking my research, so my response is clear. It will probably be posted by tomorrow [dang it's 1AM], I mean today, later-on.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them; besiege them; and lay in ambush everywhere for them. If they convert and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. Qur'an 9:5[/quote] This scripture itself is violent, and that's just the way that it goes, as the Bible also has some violent scriptures but what is the context? If you read the old testament, there are scriptures in which it says to kill the non-believer too, so what is the context of this scripture?

It's simple, it's historical, and that fact can be proven very easily. During that era, there was a battle going on between the Muslims and the Byzintines, it was called battle of Tabouk. This scripture, most historians and scholars agree [no matter religious affiliation] was historical in the context of that battle. It wasn't given as a scripture to be applied everyday, but specifically during the battle of Tabouk.

I don't have lots of time, but I will respond to each one of the Surahs one by one, in due time.

Reza

Edited May 31, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1285280' date='May 31 2007, 05:18 PM']This scripture itself is violent, and that's just the way that it goes, as the Bible also has some violent scriptures but what is the context? If you read the old testament, there are scriptures in which it says to kill the non-believer too, so what is the context of this scripture?

It's simple, it's historical, and that fact can be proven very easily. During that era, there was a battle going on between the Muslims and the Byzintines, it was called battle of Tabouk. This scripture, most historians and scholars agree [no matter religious affiliation] was historical in the context of that battle. It wasn't given as a scripture to be applied everyday, but specifically during the battle of Tabouk.

I don't have lots of time, but I will respond to each one of the Surahs one by one, in due time.

Reza[/quote]
Yes, and the context is a battle of Muslims fighting and slaying Christians.

And 4:47 and 9:29 specifically call for Muslims to curse and fight to submission Christians and Jews (People of the Book) who refuse to submit to Islam.

And that is exactly how Islam was spread in its first century - by Muslims riding into a town, preaching Islam, then fighting those who refused to submit. (Yes, I know how much you hate the inconvenience of historical fact being brought into this discussion, but I believe it is vital to seeing how the original Muslims understood the Qu'ran and Islam.)

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1285402' date='May 31 2007, 07:22 PM']Yes, and the context is a battle of Muslims fighting and slaying Christians.

And 4:47 and 9:29 specifically call for Muslims to curse and fight to submission Christians and Jews (People of the Book) who refuse to submit to Islam.

And that is exactly how Islam was spread in its first century - by Muslims riding into a town, preaching Islam, then fighting those who refused to submit. (Yes, I know how much you hate the inconvenience of historical fact being brought into this discussion, but I believe it is vital to seeing how the original Muslims understood the Qu'ran and Islam.)[/quote]

Don't jump to conclusions so fast there donkey ;-)

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1285402' date='May 31 2007, 07:22 PM']Yes, and the context is a battle of Muslims fighting and slaying Christians.[/quote] The context wasn't in the form of grouping all Christians together, but specifically those that the Muslims were fighting in that specific battle, "Tabouk".

[quote]And 4:47 and 9:29 specifically call for Muslims to curse and fight to submission Christians and Jews (People of the Book) who refuse to submit to Islam.[/quote] Why does "fighting" always have to involve violence? Couldn't fighting possibly mean with the tongue also? Technically you're fighting Islam right now, with your typing but does that mean violence? Jesus Christ himself demonstrated fighting without violence in Matt 10:24.

This particular verse was written after the Peace Treaty of Hudaibiyah, and after 1/3rd of the Arabian Peninsula was under Islamic Suriah Law and the Muslims were at war with the Quraish [and had conquered them too]. After conquering Mecca, among other events, the Byzintines attacked a place known as Zat-u-Talah, killing over 40 people. The Christian gov of Busra was responsible for putting to death several Muslim leaders of those particular areas. Keep in mind that these people were individuals that claimed Christianity [I'm not saying weather they were or not]. Prior to this verse being written, the Caesar of those particular Christian groups, had said to the Muslims: "You will have to choose one of the two things. Either give up your Islam and win your liberty and your former rank, or remain a Muslim and face death."

Therefore it's important to realize that this particular scripture was written specifically to those Christians, not Christians universally. The Tax on Christians had everything to do with that particular battle, and not nessessarily on every Christian together.

Reza

[Oik]

[quote]Being that several individuals [not just mortify]believe that the only method to true Muslims being peaceful, is to denounce their religion, I decided the only proper thing to do is to dedicate a thread to him [and those that agree with him], as to give him [them] an opportunity to prove everyone else wrong. Since Muslims don't believe in the supremacy of a man, but are sola scriptures as Protestants but with the Qur'an as their Holy Book, this shouldn't be difficult for Mortify [and the others] to prove everyone else wrong. It might even be educational to those of us that were raised Muslim or among Muslims that fundementally disagree with them.

I'm very much looking forward to this discussion, so that these matters can be put to rest once and for all.

Reza[/quote]

I am convinced that there are many Muslims who believe that Islam is a religion of peace. As far as I can tell, Islam is a religion of Peace, if you are a Muslim.

The Qur'an was not even officially compiled until 100 years after the death of Mohammad. The hadiths are many and differ in authority.

I have to say that after taking a class of Islamic History, Reza's claims have some credibility. It is true that alot of the Qur'anic sayings are historical. On top of that, the Qur'an really must be read in Arabic to get the authentic meaning and context. It is foreseeable that many can misunderstand the historical/social significance of Islam to the Qur'an.

Islam itself is a ver complex religion and one often wonders, with the Sunni-Shi'a division and the various schools and Sufi mysticism, what exactly does one mean by Islam. What does one criticize when one criticised Islam?

A final reflection is this: Muslims do not view God as loving. This makes the views of God of Islam and Christianity irreconcilible.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]A final reflection is this: Muslims do not view God as loving. This makes the views of God of Islam and Christianity irreconcilible.[/quote]

One of the Ninety-Names of Allah is al-Wadood - 'the All-Loving'. He is frequently described as being loving in the Qur'an.

However, it is not possible to understand fully the love of God until you know the face of Christ. That God loved us enough to become one of us is the fundamental message of the Incarnation, and this is something that Muslims will never grasp until they accept that Jesus was more than a prophet.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1285946' date='Jun 1 2007, 01:08 PM']However, it is not possible to understand fully the love of God until you know the face of Christ. That God loved us enough to become one of us is the fundamental message of the Incarnation, and this is something that Muslims will never grasp until they accept that Jesus was more than a prophet.[/quote]

Definately agreed! I believe that we shouldn't chastise Islam/Muslims with false claims but stick to the hardline facts, and that is one of them.

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1285719' date='Jun 1 2007, 02:04 AM']The context wasn't in the form of grouping all Christians together, but specifically those that the Muslims were fighting in that specific battle, "Tabouk".

Why does "fighting" always have to involve violence? Couldn't fighting possibly mean with the tongue also? Technically you're fighting Islam right now, with your typing but does that mean violence? Jesus Christ himself demonstrated fighting without violence in Matt 10:24.

This particular verse was written after the Peace Treaty of Hudaibiyah, and after 1/3rd of the Arabian Peninsula was under Islamic Suriah Law and the Muslims were at war with the Quraish [and had conquered them too]. After conquering Mecca, among other events, the Byzintines attacked a place known as Zat-u-Talah, killing over 40 people. The Christian gov of Busra was responsible for putting to death several Muslim leaders of those particular areas. Keep in mind that these people were individuals that claimed Christianity [I'm not saying weather they were or not]. Prior to this verse being written, the Caesar of those particular Christian groups, had said to the Muslims: "You will have to choose one of the two things. Either give up your Islam and win your liberty and your former rank, or remain a Muslim and face death."

Therefore it's important to realize that this particular scripture was written specifically to those Christians, not Christians universally. The Tax on Christians had everything to do with that particular battle, and not nessessarily on every Christian together.

Reza[/quote]
Well, "fighting" has certainly meant physical violence to Mohammed and the original adherents of Islam!
The entire history of Islam in its first centuries is one of constant warfare and violent conquest. Prior to the battle against Heraclius' Byzantines, Mohammed had already conquered much of the Arabian penisula and Palestine by force of arms, which is why Heraclius saw them as a threat to Christianity in the Middle East. And after this battle, the Muslims would continue to spread their empire by violent force, conquering most of North Africa, and northward through Christian Spain, and into France, less than a century later.

And the tax on Christians, and the restrictions on their public activity was hardly confined to that particular battle, but was universally practiced in territories conquered by the Muslims. And conversion from Islam to Christianity was punishable by death.

Your peaceful "interpretations" were hardly those followed by the original Muslims.
I know you want to keep history out of this debate, but I believe the actions of Mohammed and his immediate followers are crucial to understanding the true nature of the Islamic religion.
This is for the same reason that reading that studying the acts of the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers is important for understanding the true nature of Christianity (unless you follow the teachings of Budgianity, which rejects history).

You have done absolutely nothing to prove that the Muslim repression of Christianity was confined to one particular battle. In fact, history proves otherwise.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1286985' date='Jun 2 2007, 08:46 PM']Well, "fighting" has certainly meant physical violence to Mohammed and the original adherents of Islam!
The entire history of Islam in its first centuries is one of constant warfare and violent conquest. Prior to the battle against Heraclius' Byzantines, Mohammed had already conquered much of the Arabian penisula and Palestine by force of arms, which is why Heraclius saw them as a threat to Christianity in the Middle East. And after this battle, the Muslims would continue to spread their empire by violent force, conquering most of North Africa, and northward through Christian Spain, and into France, less than a century later.[/quote]

This isn't true, not even remotely but in regards to the Qur'anic verses, it's even less supported. This verse was written at the time, when the Arabian Peninsula was only 1/3rd Muslim and Byzintines were attacking. Now keep in mind that this wasn't byzintine land, the byzintines traveled to fight the Muslims. I'm not sure that you read everything that I'd written, because notice my quote of the Ceasar saying that if the Muslims didn't cease being Muslim, he would kill them.

Reza

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287092' date='Jun 3 2007, 12:17 AM']This isn't true, not even remotely but in regards to the Qur'anic verses, it's even less supported. This verse was written at the time, when the Arabian Peninsula was only 1/3rd Muslim and Byzintines were attacking. Now keep in mind that this wasn't byzintine land, the byzintines traveled to fight the Muslims. I'm not sure that you read everything that I'd written, because notice my quote of the Ceasar saying that if the Muslims didn't cease being Muslim, he would kill them.

Reza[/quote]
What isn't true?
Read your history.

You've done absolutely nothing here to prove that Islam was a originally a "religion of peace" - it's early history proves the opposite. Simple denial is not refutation.
(And my point is not to defend the Byzantine emperor here - I'm not much of a fan of the Byzantines either.)

However, The facts are that Muslim violence against and oppression of Christians is hardly confined to this one particular battle against the Byzantines, but were a more-or-less universal policy of Muslim conquest.
The facts are that under Mohammed's rule, Christians in territories conquered by Muslims were not allowed to practice their faith outside the walls of their churches, and converting from Islam to Christianity was punishable by death.
Christianity was largely wiped out in Arabia after Mohammad's conquests.

And the oppresive tax on Christians was practiced throughout the territories conquered by the Muslims - it was hardly confined to the Byzantines conquered in that one battle.

Here's the first part of a [url="http://www.howardbloom.net/militant_islam_timeline.htm#_edn76"]timeline of Islam[/url] earlier quoted by Knight-of-Christ which gives a good short synopsis.
[quote]3rd-6th centuries The eastern Roman Empire and the Persian Sassanians, the superpowers of their time, wear each other down in continuous conflict for the domination of Syria, Egypt, and Asia Minor. They dismiss the desert fleas of the Arab Peninsula as insignificant barbarians.

624 Jihad allowed.[i]Mohammed leads or commands 65 military campaigns in ten years.[ii]

624 Mohammed leads and commands the Battle of Badr[iii] against the Meccans. Allah tells Mohammed, ""It behoveth not a prophet that he should have captives until he hath greatly slaughtered in the land."[iv]”[v] Some sources say that 22 prisoners are beheaded “by the hand of Ali”.[vi]

625 Mohammed leads and commands the Battle of Uhud[vii]

626 Mohammed command the “action against Banu Nazair”[viii]

627 Mohammed leads and commands the battle of the Trench[ix]

C. 627 Mohammed declares that Jews are “are a people without understanding…transformed into apes and swine…racing each other in sin and rancor…. Evil indeed are their works.”[x] This is the point, according to modern Islamic extremists, at which a worldwide war between Jews and Moslems began.

627 The arch angel Gabriel, speaking on behalf of Allah orders Mohammed to command an attack against the Jewish Banu Quraiza. After the Banu Quraiza surrendered, all the men were beheaded, the women and children taken as slaves, and the property distributed as booty.[xi], [xii], [xiii]

629 Mohammed leads and commands the Battle of Khaibar[xiv]

629 Mohammed sends out his “invitations” to the kings[xv]

629 Mohammed commands a troop of 3,000 to attack Mootah[xvi], the first attack of Islam against an Arab-Christian outpost of the Byzantine Empire[xvii]--and the first excused by the deliberate instigation of Mohammed’s “invitations”

630 Mohammed leads the Conquest of Mecca[xviii]

630 The Battle of Hunayn—the last battle Mohammed led personally. Though the battle was an embarrassment for the Moslems, Mohammed stayed on the field after most others had fled and continued to rally his fleeing troops to return to the field of battle.[xix], [xx],[xxi]

631 Expedition to Tabuk[xxii]

632 Mohammed, on his deathbed, orders Usama to head north and attack the Syrian province of the Byzantine Empire[xxiii]

632 Mohammed’s death

632-661 The reign of four men, four caliphs, whose example must be followed by true Moslems—Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali, the “companions of the prophet”, the founding fathers of Islam. All were warriors and conquerors

633-640 Muslim Arabs conquered Syria[xxiv]

634 Battle of the Bridge—beginning of conquest of Iraq[xxv]

637 Battle of Al-Qadisiyyah—Arabs defeat Sasanian Persians and sack their capital Ctesiphon, the home base of Nestorian Christianity—conquest of most of Iraq[xxvi]

637 Conquest of Christian and Jewish Jerusalem[xxvii]

642 The battle of Navahand[xxviii]—Islam completes its conquest of Persia/Iran and Iraq[xxix] and eases its conquest of India and Egypt, and Afghanistan

639-642 The Arab conquest of Egypt, only some 20 years after the rise of Islam[xxx]

640 Islam begins to penetrate Sudan.

642 Afghanistan—“The Muslim conquest of Afghanistan began in the 7th cent.”[xxxi] With the defeat of the Sassanid Persians at the Battle of Navahand.

642-705 The conquest of North Africa—the Maghreb (Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria)[xxxii]

c. 650-c. 950 Arabs and Persians establish trading posts in Somalia.

674 Islam establishes colony in Sumatra

705 The Jewish Western Sudanese Queen Dahia-Al Kahina,[xxxiii] dies after fighting against the Arab incursion in North Africa, driving the Arab army northward into Tripolitania. Other wives of African kings committed suicide to avoid falling into the hands of the Berbers and Arabs who showed no mercy to the people who would not be converted to Islam.

711-712 Moslem traders and invaders bring Islam to India and Pakistan at Sind.[xxxiv], [xxxv], [xxxvi]

711-713 Conquest of Spain and short-term occupation of southwestern France[xxxvii] in 711, a Muslim Berber army under Tarik ibn Ziyad[xxxviii] crossed the Strait of Gibraltar into Spain, Roderick, the last Visigothic king, was defeated, and his kingdom collapsed.[xxxix]

718 Moslem invasion of Aquitaine[xl] and Provence.[xli]

732-733 Charles Martel defeats Saracens at battle of Tours, France[xlii][/quote]
And it would be quite a stretch (to put it mildly) to claim that all this military conquest was purely defensive in nature. After all, the Christians in France posed no threat to the Muslims.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1287346' date='Jun 3 2007, 03:08 PM']What isn't true?
Read your history.[/quote] I have read my history and I'd come to a different conclusion.

[quote]You've done absolutely nothing here to prove that Islam was a originally a "religion of peace" - it's early history proves the opposite. Simple denial is not refutation.
(And my point is not to defend the Byzantine emperor here - I'm not much of a fan of the Byzantines either.)[/quote]This thread isn't about it's history, but you've also done nothing to prove that it's history is just that of blood shed either. Quoting anti-Islamic sources isn't nessessarily credible.

[quote]However, The facts are that Muslim violence against and oppression of Christians is hardly confined to this one particular battle against the Byzantines, but were a more-or-less universal policy of Muslim conquest.[/quote] No not nessessarily, Muslims did invade some lands through violence and others through peace and others were in the neutral zone because the nations didn't fight back. The Islamic Conquest didn't take place, until after the death of Muhammed. At that time, there were great divisions amongst the Muslims and they even had several battles amongst each other. Where do you think the Sunni and Shiite titles come from?

[quote]The facts are that under Mohammed's rule, Christians in territories conquered by Muslims were not allowed to practice their faith outside the walls of their churches, and converting from Islam to Christianity was punishable by death.[/quote]This is highly debated. We find that most of the persecution comes from individual Islamic groups after the death of Muhammed.

[quote]Christianity was largely wiped out in Arabia after Mohammad's conquests.[/quote] I wouldn't use the term "wiped out", it was more suppressed and contained. "Wiped out" involves annihilating the people, that wasn't exactly the case. Muhammed's uncle for example was a Christian Bishop, his first wife Kadijah came from a Christian family, they didn't annihilate their own families.

[quote]And it would be quite a stretch (to put it mildly) to claim that all this military conquest was purely defensive in nature. After all, the Christians in France posed no threat to the Muslims.[/quote]

I don't believe that all of their conquests were purely in defense but you have to recongize that some of them were.

Just to get back on topic, even if Muslim history is as violent as you suggest [which is highly debatable], the Quran doesn't nessessarily endorse that, just as the Bible didn't endorse the crusades.

Reza

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287455' date='Jun 3 2007, 07:19 PM']This thread isn't about it's history, but you've also done nothing to prove that it's history is just that of blood shed either. Quoting anti-Islamic sources isn't nessessarily credible.[/quote]

History has a place within this debate. Being the quran and those who have interpreted/wrote it belong to history.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287455' date='Jun 3 2007, 07:19 PM']No not nessessarily, Muslims did invade some lands through violence and others through peace and others were in the neutral zone because the nations didn't fight back. The Islamic Conquest didn't take place, until after the death of Muhammed. At that time, there were great divisions amongst the Muslims and they even had several battles amongst each other. Where do you think the Sunni and Shiite titles come from?

This is highly debated. We find that most of the persecution comes from individual Islamic groups after the death of Muhammed.[/quote]

Islam spreads and has spread through violence or the threat of violence. One being persecution by blood, the other of liberty. Nations and/or cities were given the choice convert, submit or die. The nations who did not choose death were forced to do so, that would not be neutrality. Rather it was persecution of liberty.

Muhammad spread his faith with his sword while alive. His followers followed suite and as their numbers increased so did their conquest.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287455' date='Jun 3 2007, 07:19 PM']I wouldn't use the term "wiped out", it was more suppressed and contained. "Wiped out" involves annihilating the people, that wasn't exactly the case. Muhammed's uncle for example was a Christian Bishop, his first wife Kadijah came from a Christian family, they didn't annihilate their own families.
I don't believe that all of their conquests were purely in defense but you have to recongize that some of them were.[/quote]

The term "wiped out" may not apply to Christians as individuals but it does apply to Christianity. Christians remained if they submitted to second class citizenship, or converted which they would cease to be Christian.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287455' date='Jun 3 2007, 07:19 PM']Just to get back on topic, even if Muslim history is as violent as you suggest [which is highly debatable], the Quran doesn't nessessarily endorse that, just as the Bible didn't endorse the crusades.

Reza[/quote]

It would seem the faithful of Islam since its beginning spread their faith through violence and/or the threat of violence, and have interpreted the quran accordingly.

While Christians in history may have be violent the same can not be said of our founder. Christ was true peace, He did not spread His truth by the sword, rather laid down His life for His friends. Which has been how most of His followers spread the True Faith, laying down their lives for Christ.

Edited June 4, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1287560' date='Jun 3 2007, 08:09 PM']History has a place within this debate. Being the quran and those who have interpreted/wrote it belong to history.[/quote] It doesn't have a place in this debate because we're discussing what is actually written in the Quran, the rest of the history that you're insisting on quoting and assuming is accurate [which is highly debatable] is subject to change, revision, interpretation, etc. Muslims, like Protestants, put emphisis on a sola scriptures perspective, so what is written in the Quran is what they care about. If you can't find scriptures in the Qur'an that prove that the only devout Muslims are the violent ones, then it must not be true.

[quote]Islam spreads and has spread through violence or the threat of violence. One being persecution by blood, the other of liberty. Nations and/or cities were given the choice convert, submit or die. The nations who did not choose death were forced to do so, that would not be neutrality. Rather it was persecution of liberty.[/quote]That's not true, Islam came into Syria, Iraq, etc. and didn't kill off the Syriac Orthodox that refused to convert, it didn't do that in Egypt, it didn't do that in Iran, it didn't do that in a variety of nations that are currently known as "Muslim Countries".

[quote]Muhammad spread his faith with his sword while alive. His followers followed suite and as their numbers increased so did their conquest.[/quote] That's not true, infact it's highly false and can be disprove very easily. Right after his death, there was a battle between Shiites and Sunnis, not everyone follows suit as you're suggesting and Muhammed being "violent" is also highly questionable, as numerous Christian leaders had threatened his life, if he didn't cease to be Muslim.

[quote]The term "wiped out" may not apply to Christians as individuals but it does apply to Christianity. Christians remained if they submitted to second class citizenship, or converted which they would cease to be Christian. [/quote]It still doesn't apply, Christians in Egypt aren't allow to evangelize as the West does, but it still hasn't been annihilated or "wiped out".

[quote]While Christians in history may have be violent the same can not be said of our founder. Christ was true peace, He did not spread His truth by the sword, rather laid down His life for His friends. Which has been how most of His followers spread the True Faith, laying down their lives for Christ.[/quote] This is my point, we should judge the religion by what was written, not the actions of a few. Jesus Christ was God, Muhammed never claimed to be God but a prophet.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287749' date='Jun 3 2007, 10:46 PM']It doesn't have a place in this debate because we're discussing what is actually written in the Quran, the rest of the history that you're insisting on quoting and assuming is accurate [which is highly debatable] is subject to change, revision, interpretation, etc. Muslims, like Protestants, put emphisis on a sola scriptures perspective, so what is written in the Quran is what they care about. If you can't find scriptures in the Qur'an that prove that the only devout Muslims are the violent ones, then it must not be true.[/quote]

The quran is a false book it is not holy (did not come from God), it was written by men and is interpreted by men, so one could be "devout' and not be violent, however historically the quran has been used to spread Islam by force and the sword.

You have used history in your responses to explain what you believe is a verse's true meaning, but no one else is allowed to use history?

In a sola scriptures perspective like that of the protestants the text is taken literally. There has already been verses offered by Socrates. Which for the most part you have left unanswered, and the responses which have been given are mostly opinionated. No real evidence that verses say something different that what they seem to say. Which again under a sola scriptures perspective, is what is meant.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287749' date='Jun 3 2007, 10:46 PM']That's not true, Islam came into Syria, Iraq, etc. and didn't kill off the Syriac Orthodox that refused to convert, it didn't do that in Egypt, it didn't do that in Iran, it didn't do that in a variety of nations that are currently known as "Muslim Countries".[/quote]

It is true but not in every individual case, but still many cases. Ether way, those that did not convert were forced into second class citizenship. Which is persecution of liberty.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287749' date='Jun 3 2007, 10:46 PM']That's not true, infact it's highly false and can be disprove very easily. Right after his death, there was a battle between Shiites and Sunnis, not everyone follows suit as you're suggesting and Muhammed being "violent" is also highly questionable, as numerous Christian leaders had threatened his life, if he didn't cease to be Muslim.[/quote]

The battle between the two was over who would lead them next. The group that wanted Abu Bakr as-Siddiq as leader became Sunnis. The group that wanted Ali ibn Abi Talib as leader became Shiites. But both believed they were still in line with Mohammed. And both continued to spread Islam by the sword.

---

[url="http://howardbloom.net/militant_islam_timeline.htm"]source[/url]

note: the footnotes site Islamic sources

[quote]624 Jihad allowed.[i]Mohammed leads or commands 65 military campaigns in ten years.[ii]

624 Mohammed leads and commands the Battle of Badr[iii] against the Meccans. Allah tells Mohammed, ""It behoveth not a prophet that he should have captives until he hath greatly slaughtered in the land."[iv]”[v] Some sources say that 22 prisoners are beheaded “by the hand of Ali”.[vi]

625 Mohammed leads and commands the Battle of Uhud[vii]

626 Mohammed command the “action against Banu Nazair”[viii]

627 Mohammed leads and commands the battle of the Trench[ix]

C. 627 Mohammed declares that Jews are “are a people without understanding…transformed into apes and swine…racing each other in sin and rancor…. Evil indeed are their works.”[x] This is the point, according to modern Islamic extremists, at which a worldwide war between Jews and Moslems began.

627 The arch angel Gabriel, speaking on behalf of Allah orders Mohammed to command an attack against the Jewish Banu Quraiza. After the Banu Quraiza surrendered, all the men were beheaded, the women and children taken as slaves, and the property distributed as booty.[xi], [xii], [xiii]

629 Mohammed leads and commands the Battle of Khaibar[xiv]

629 Mohammed sends out his “invitations” to the kings[xv]

629 Mohammed commands a troop of 3,000 to attack Mootah[xvi], the first attack of Islam against an Arab-Christian outpost of the Byzantine Empire[xvii]--and the first excused by the deliberate instigation of Mohammed’s “invitations”

630 Mohammed leads the Conquest of Mecca[xviii]

630 The Battle of Hunayn—the last battle Mohammed led personally. Though the battle was an embarrassment for the Moslems, Mohammed stayed on the field after most others had fled and continued to rally his fleeing troops to return to the field of battle.[xix], [xx],[xxi]

631 Expedition to Tabuk[xxii]

632 Mohammed, on his deathbed, orders Usama to head north and attack the Syrian province of the Byzantine Empire[xxiii]

632 Mohammed’s death[/quote]

---

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287749' date='Jun 3 2007, 10:46 PM']It still doesn't apply, Christians in Egypt aren't allow to evangelize as the West does, but it still hasn't been annihilated or "wiped out".[/quote]

It was never said Christianity was completely wiped out, or even annihilated but largely wiped out. Which is true, which is why Christianity is in so small numbers in that part of the world. So it applies. End of story.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287749' date='Jun 3 2007, 10:46 PM']This is my point, we should judge the religion by what was written, not the actions of a few. Jesus Christ was God, Muhammed never claimed to be God but a prophet.[/quote]

Muhammad was never prophet or God. He was either insane or a lier. He did not see Christ as Lord and place Christ on the same level as himself, just prophet. The quran is not inspired, it did not come from God. It's authors were either insane or liars. The parts which have been taken from The Old Testament Canon have been perverted. The "truth" within the quran pages does not come for God, but from men. Elements of truth yes, but the Truth no. And it is men who interpret that "truth", and it is both men of the past and present whom interpret that "truth" to spread their faith by the sword.

Edited June 4, 2007 by KnightofChrist