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

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1287855' date='Jun 4 2007, 12:17 AM']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.[/quote] According to you, not according to most scholars.

[quote]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?[/quote]I did use history, but in relation to the Quran, the history debate that you're attempting to turn this into isn't based upon the Quran but the sources that you consider credible.

[quote]In a sola scriptures perspective like that of the protestants the text is taken literally.[/quote] Not nessessarily, Sola Scriptures doesn't say that all scriptures must be taken literally, which is why most Protestants take a significant amount of the scriptures to be figurative [such as the Eucharist].

[quote]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. [/quote]No, I went through several of them, and gave the proper interpretation, not my opinion.

[code]No real evidence that verses say something different that what they seem to say.[/code] No, I provided the interpretation that most Qur'anic Scholars take, that was factually accurate.

[code]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.[/code] This is a flip flop position of yours, first you say that either they were forced to convert or they were executed, now you're saying the opposite, after I'd proved you wrong, I believe the truth has spoken for itself [no offense].

[code]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.[/code] No they did not both still continue to spread Islam by the sword, the Shiites fled to Persia to take refuge.

[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]

What do you mean it was never said? It was said over and over again, would you like me to quote you and Socrates?

[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. [/quote]I never suggested that he was a prophet or that he placed Christ as Lord, rather I wrote from the Muslims perspective [which was very clear], since you had made a statement that was contrary to what they believe...

[quote]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.[/quote] I never said that it was, again you're going on a tangent.

[quote]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.[/quote] This is your interpretation and even more so propaganda. Most Muslims do not interpret it to say the spreading of Islam by the sword. Even most Islamic Scholars don't, so you're kinda on your own here.

[RezaMikhaeil]

As I'd mentioned your interpretation of Islamic History isn't the hardline view, not even amongst American Historians and scholars. Here's a great article that will prove this: [url="http://www.cqpress.com/context/articles/epr_islam.html"]http://www.cqpress.com/context/articles/epr_islam.html[/url]

Spread of Islam

[quote]From the end of the effective power of the caliphs in the tenth century to the beginning of the sixteenth, the size of the Muslim world almost doubled. The vehicles for expansion were not conquering armies so much as traveling merchants and itinerant teachers.[/quote]

It was written by Professor John Voll of Georgetown University

[cmotherofpirl]

Just like the Bible, the Koran can be made to say anything you want it to say to justify whatever position you CHOOSE to espouse.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1287883' date='Jun 4 2007, 06:33 AM']Just like the Bible, the Koran can be made to say anything you want it to say to justify whatever position you CHOOSE to espouse.[/quote]

Very true... this is what seperates the pre-schism church from the rest, in my opinion. In Buddism, it's about interpreting what "the budda" said, Islam it's about interpreting the Quran and Hadeeths properly, protestantism the Bible... but there is nothing to suggest if someone is interpreting everything properly.

Even in Buddism we find people that take the words of Buddah extremely to justify a killing agenda [such as that which Christians have faced].

Reza

[jeffpugh]

A self proclaimed Buddhist once said, "If you see Buddha on the road, quickly kill him"

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1287883' date='Jun 4 2007, 07:33 AM']Just like the Bible, the Koran can be made to say anything you want it to say to justify whatever position you CHOOSE to espouse.[/quote]


The difference would be the Bible has a real true meaning since it was written by men guided by God, where as the Quran does not has a true meaning, being written by men alone.

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287455' date='Jun 3 2007, 07:19 PM']I have read my history and I'd come to a different conclusion.[/quote]
Which is?

[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]I have books telling in detail the history of the Muslim conquests. The timeline quoted is only some brief highlights. There were more battles not mentioned. I just don't have time to hand-copy lengthy quotes from books.
Are you going to say that none of the Muslim bloodshed and violent conquest listed took place?
It is all historically well-established. Of course, Muslims will argue that it was all justified, but that's another debate.

[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]
Most of Arabia was conquered, as was Christian/Jewish Jerusalem, under the rule of Mohammed himself.
Not all of this was through physical violence, though the threat of violence was ever-present. In 630, Mohammed made an ultimatum to the Arabic tribes and cities to either accept Islam or face war to the death.
After the Muslims had established themselves as an unbeatable fighting force, most chose Islam over death, and accepted peacably.

[quote]This is highly debated. We find that most of the persecution comes from individual Islamic groups after the death of Muhammed.[/quote]It was Mohammed's policy that Christians not be allowed to practice their faith in public outside their churches, and that they pay a tax of tribute. This practice was carried on throughout the Muslim world, not just by isolated groups. And conversion from Islam to Christianity was punishable by death as apostacy, insuring that the Faith did not spread in the Muslim world.

[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.
I don't believe that all of their conquests were purely in defense but you have to recongize that some of them were.[/quote]
I didn't say that all Christians were killed, but that the religion was wiped out. Many converted to Islam rather than face oppression. And, as I've mentioned, this "containing" of Christianity involved the threat of death to "apostates" from Islam to Christianity.

[quote]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]
I have quoted violent words from the Qu'ran, and given historical events to show that they were indeed taken seriously.

(And the Crusades were called in response to Muslim violent conquest in the Holy Land, but that's another debate. To cast the Crusades as violent Christians vs. peaceful Muslims is a lie.)

Repeated denial and politically-correct revisionism is not going to change the facts of history.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1288370' date='Jun 4 2007, 07:06 PM']Which is?[/quote] See my post that came directly after this one that you quoted.

[quote]I have books telling in detail the history of the Muslim conquests. The timeline quoted is only some brief highlights. There were more battles not mentioned. I just don't have time to hand-copy lengthy quotes from books.[/quote]There are also thousands of books written by Muslim Scholars and other historians that say the opposite. I'd once heard that history is just that, His-Story. Now I wouldn't lower all history to that but some of it definately is...

[quote]Are you going to say that none of the Muslim bloodshed and violent conquest listed took place?[/quote] No, but I'm going to say that some of it didnt, or it didn't happen as you're saying.

[quote]Most of Arabia was conquered, as was Christian/Jewish Jerusalem, under the rule of Mohammed himself.[/quote]This is highly debated.

[quote]Not all of this was through physical violence, though the threat of violence was ever-present. In 630, Mohammed made an ultimatum to the Arabic tribes and cities to either accept Islam or face war to the death.[/quote] This isn't true, as his uncles tribe went on being Christians.

[quote]It was Mohammed's policy that Christians not be allowed to practice their faith in public outside their churches, and that they pay a tax of tribute. This practice was carried on throughout the Muslim world, not just by isolated groups. And conversion from Islam to Christianity was punishable by death as apostacy, insuring that the Faith did not spread in the Muslim world.[/quote]This isn't true, infact the Qur'an doesn't say in any of the verses regardiing Apostacy that an individual should be put to death, that theory is solely based upon the Hadeeths. There are many Islamic scholars including S. A. Rahman that testify that the Hadeeths that are often quoted in response to the punishment of Apostacy being death are wrongly recorded or interpreted.

[quote]I didn't say that all Christians were killed, but that the religion was wiped out. Many converted to Islam rather than face oppression. And, as I've mentioned, this "containing" of Christianity involved the threat of death to "apostates" from Islam to Christianity.[/quote] Again very false, Christianity continued to thrive for centuries longer in Saudi Arabia and still does in places like Egypt.

[quote]I have quoted violent words from the Qu'ran, and given historical events to show that they were indeed taken seriously.[/quote]No you havn't, you quoted english verses from the Quran that were wrongly interpreted and applied, I gave you the proper context to several of the major ones, that prove otherwise and is the hardline view of Muslim scholars worldwide.

[quote](And the Crusades were called in response to Muslim violent conquest in the Holy Land, but that's another debate. To cast the Crusades as violent Christians vs. peaceful Muslims is a lie.)[/quote] It's not a lie as the the Crusades murdered Christians that weren't Roman Catholic also, not just Muslims. It was Muslim and Non-Roman Catholic VS Roman Catholic.

[quote]Repeated denial and politically-correct revisionism is not going to change the facts of history.[/quote] As I'd previously quoted, professors even at Georgetown university even disagree with you.

Reza

[cmotherofpirl]

Facts don't change just because muslims don't like them. Islam is a violent religion, born and nurtured by violent men.
Doesn't seem to have changed much in the last 1000 years.

[benedict_x]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1288453' date='Jun 4 2007, 10:23 PM']Facts don't change just because muslims don't like them. Islam is a violent religion, born and nurtured by violent men.
Doesn't seem to have changed much in the last 1000 years.[/quote]

Here! Here!

This is what I said in my essay as well and though I was penalized heavily for it I'll stick by it.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='benedict_x' post='1288572' date='Jun 5 2007, 05:45 AM']Here! Here!

This is what I said in my essay as well and though I was penalized heavily for it I'll stick by it.[/quote]

Another factor that could be added is that Islam has facts in the Quran as much of it is plagerized from the Bible and the Early Christian Tradition.

[KnightofChrist]

But those truths are altered and perverted from their true meaning, ceasing to be true, and at best only remain elements of truth.

Edited June 5, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1288595' date='Jun 5 2007, 08:27 AM']Another factor that could be added is that Islam has facts in the Quran as much of it is plagerized from the Bible and the Early Christian Tradition.[/quote]

And here is the heart of the matter: Islam is a false religion, Muslims worship a false god. Because Islam is essentially a warping or twisting of the Truth, its effects are similarly warped and twisted. That is NOT to say that all Muslims are bad - they're people, most of whom I'm sure are just trying to get by, just like the rest of us - but they're deceived with unfortunate consequences, for themselves and those around them.

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1288375' date='Jun 4 2007, 08:32 PM']See my post that came directly after this one that you quoted.

There are also thousands of books written by Muslim Scholars and other historians that say the opposite. I'd once heard that history is just that, His-Story. Now I wouldn't lower all history to that but some of it definately is...

No, but I'm going to say that some of it didnt, or it didn't happen as you're saying.

This is highly debated.[/quote]
Still more denial, yet no proof. This is well-established history. Simply saying it ain't so isn't going to cut it.

[quote] This isn't true, as his uncles tribe went on being Christians.[/quote]How nice of Mohammed to make an exception for his family.

[quote]This isn't true, infact the Qur'an doesn't say in any of the verses regardiing Apostacy that an individual should be put to death, that theory is solely based upon the Hadeeths. There are many Islamic scholars including S. A. Rahman that testify that the Hadeeths that are often quoted in response to the punishment of Apostacy being death are wrongly recorded or interpreted.[/quote]
That was the practice at the time. The fact that some "moderate" Muslim scholars would decide centuries later that they had previously been "misinterpreted" is hardly convincing. Why'd it take the Muslims so long to get it right?

[quote]Again very false, Christianity continued to thrive for centuries longer in Saudi Arabia and still does in places like Egypt.[/quote]More like barely held on, then eventually withered. Even you admitted earlier that practice of the Christian Faith was strictly "contained" (i.e. restricted) in Muslim territory.

[quote]No you havn't, you quoted english verses from the Quran that were wrongly interpreted and applied, I gave you the proper context to several of the major ones, that prove otherwise and is the hardline view of Muslim scholars worldwide.[/quote]You told which battle one of the verses quoted was written after. You put in in "historical context" and I have done the same, showing that this practice was hardly confined to the aftermath of one battle. You have not refuted anything.

[quote] It's not a lie as the the Crusades murdered Christians that weren't Roman Catholic also, not just Muslims. It was Muslim and Non-Roman Catholic VS Roman Catholic.[/quote]The sack of Constantinople was not called for by the Crusades, and in fact was solidly condemned by the Pope.
The great Muslim Conquests of the 7th-8th Centuries were fully supported and by the leaders of Islam - the Caliphs.
But again, that is off-topic.

[quote] As I'd previously quoted, professors even at Georgetown university even disagree with you.[/quote]
College professors have said all kinds of nonsense in the cause of political correctness. Simply giving a vague quote from a college professor proves nothing.

Edited June 6, 2007 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1288631' date='Jun 5 2007, 09:32 AM']And here is the heart of the matter: Islam is a false religion, Muslims worship a false god. Because Islam is essentially a warping or twisting of the Truth, its effects are similarly warped and twisted. That is NOT to say that all Muslims are bad - they're people, most of whom I'm sure are just trying to get by, just like the rest of us - but they're deceived with unfortunate consequences, for themselves and those around them.[/quote]
The bottom line.