[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Jesus' "death" was the entire point of Him being here.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

OK, mhmmm. Yup.

I hope that wasn't sarcastic, as we've only got to bring in the concept of "original sin" to prove what I said.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

btw, did Jesus (pbuh) ever say that he was the last prophet/messenger and that his message was the last message from God?

No, He didn't.
(that doesn't mean I believe that mohammed was a messenger of God any more than I believe David Icke is a messenger of God)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Thanks for proving my point.

Ummm... It's not your point - it's Christianity's point.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I hope that wasn't sarcastic, as we've only got to bring in the concept of "original sin" to prove what I said.

Our our omnipotent God wasn't able to just forgive the sin?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Our our omnipotent God wasn't able to just forgive the sin?

That would make Him a liar, wouldn't it? (i.e. Garden of Eden don't eat the apple stuff)
...which would probably lead to the Universe imploding in on itself.
...which wouldn't be a good thing.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

In the same way as Christianity is a copy of Judaism.

Christianity is the fulfillment of Jewish prophecies.

Islam is a contorting of Christian teachings and an addendum that was not prophecied.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Or to believe in Jesus (pbuh) and follow his teachings. But then, I know Christians are more stuck on Jesus' (pbuh) death than life.

Actually, I'm stuck on His fulfilling of prophecy and His ressurrection. His death was simply a means to and end.

[segovius]

Philosophically there is a problem with the 'Jesus death being his mission' meme:

The whole point of the sacrifice is that it should actually be a sacrifice. Ie, someone should give something up, pay someone else's debt.

The only person who could do this was God's (alleged) son.

Only this defeats the idea of sacrifice - God's son (who is illogically God as well) should be the last person to make an effective sacrifice - in fact, being God renders it invalid.

Put it this way: if you had to die to save the world but you had the power to rise again three days later would you do it? yes of course. And would it be a sacrifice? No.

Anyone would do it. Anyone at all - even the biggest sinner that ever lived. Because a) it is no sacrifice and you lose nothing and b) no-one wants to go to hell and if all it takes is three earth days asleep in a tomb out of a literal eternity of pre-existing ontological existence.....well.....it is clearly nonsense and merely a co-opting of the Judaic Abrahamic motif.

Anyway, it didn't work. we're all still going to hell apparently (especially us radical jihadis intent on restoring the Caliphate by the sword) and God doesn't make mistakes like that.

[Hawkeye_a]

von Wrangell:

Ive had about enough with your bashing of Christianity. If you want to live by a religion that forces you to submit, go right ahead. Im just grateful that the teachins i follow give me a choice.

If you want to nitpick and criticize my holy text, answer me this...

do you communicate using the dialect of Arabic that was used to write the Quaran ? oh your from ice land and you dont ?....how about Indonecians ? no? Well seeing as how the writings in the Quaran are the most 'pure' and unabridged and least translated and 'perfect'...why is it open to such interpretation that taking of civilan lives is actually acceptable ? Ahhh....so there are some actual tangable negative results to following Islam ? Maybe you aught to be more concerned with whats going on in your own religious community and teachings than constantly criticizing jews and christians. it might actually lead to improvement for everyone.....or does Islam assume to be perfect and everyone else not ?

Oh and another thing...have you read the original Bible ? in Ancient aramiac(or whatever) or even Latin ? seeing as how theres so much lost in translation...you cant possibly base your opinion on such flawed english translations can you ? So you really wouldnt be in a position to judge/criticize, would u ?

In our 'western' and 'evil' communities, we dont hesitate to crticize what we see as wrongdoings...like the invasion of Iraq, etc...you saw demonstrations all over the US , Europe, Australia, etc. Yet when the twin towers fell or embassies were bombed, where were the people in the muslim world ? i dont see them pressurizing their governments to toughen their intelligence agencies to curb terrorist. i only remember seeing burning of American and Israeli flags. Let me guess...seeing that on the news stations was part of some massive conspiracy against the muslic world, right ? And since we actually seperate religion from state...at least, more than any muslim nation on this planet, you cant blame our mistakes on religious fundamentilism anymore.

So before you start finding contradictions in our translated texts...i suggest you deal with the ones in your own, seeing as how its costing us quite a few human(civilian) lives today at the hand of the teachings directly from those texts....as oposed to the hanes crime of contradicting mistranslated psalms and poetryfrom ours (sarcasm).

Cheers

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

The never-wrong koran screwed up a bit there, didn't it? Probably because the Christians that mohammed had contact with showed images of the Virgin Mary. We have to remember that he was supposed to be illiterate, so had to copy what he saw and heard, not what he read.

The never-wrong Quran is indeed never wrong but the humans of jewish and christian nature living in Arabia at the time of the prophet Muhammad and that allied with polytheistic Mecca were wrong in their practice of idolizing their prophets Jesus and his mother and Uzair, and the verses dealing with that idolizing by some jews and christians in Arabia were rebuking that practice which Jesus and Uzair themselves would have done had they lived/been there at that time.

Another verse in the Quran also criticized the wrong doctrine that said Jesus Christ was God, the son of Mary, which most arabic christians held to be true and that even nowadays most christians hold to be true, too.

You have brought up the idea that the devil might have created the Quran and inspired prophet Muhammad to deceive humanity, so that they lose their salvation that is only possible for those that acknowledge that Jesus is God, and yet you seem to be blind to the idea that prophet Muhammad was sent to warn christianity of a deviation that the devil inspired that led to the notion of deifying Jesus, ie. Jesus being God, and to the notion of the salvation-idea (ie. faith in Jesus being God is the only qualifier for reaching paradise, righteous works are just bonus and not necessary...).

Taliesin

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

You have brought up the idea that the devil might have created the Quran and inspired prophet Muhammad to deceive humanity, so that they lose their salvation that is only possible for those that acknowledge that Jesus is God, and yet you seem to be blind to the idea that prophet Muhammad was sent to warn christianity of a deviation that the devil inspired that led to the notion of deifying Jesus

Yes. If we took any notice of mohammed, we'd have to start taking notice of Joseph Smith, David Koresh and Charles Taze Russell, wouldn't we?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Railroader

John 14:6

Eventhough I have enough reason to think that John's gospel is mostly interpretation with a special doctrine in mind, some verses that Jesus is supposed to have said in John's gospel are absolutely compatible to Islam, and espescially verse 14:6 is why I fear that most christians that believe in salvation might lose just that.

In verse 14:6 of John's gospel Jesus is quoted as saying : "Noone comes to the Father", ie. God, "except through me", ie. Jesus, ie. believing Jesus, doing good like him and humbling oneself before God like him.

Nowadays though a lot of christians think that Jesus is God, which would turn that special verse to something like: "Noone comes to Me, excepth through Me", which would make it quite self-refferential and obvious.

So, that special verse makes only sense if there is a difference between God and Jesus, and that's what muslims believe, muslims believe in God; and Jesus to be his prophet, messenger, wonder/sign and teacher.

Considering the fact that son of God can be translated from arachmeic/hebreic as servant of God, another verse from said gospel that says "who denies the son/servant denies also the Father/the Lord/God" is characterizing those christians that deify Jesus as being God, because that way they deny both the son/servant and the Father/Lord/God.

Taliesin

[segovius]

The Bible addresses people as 'Sons of God' on numerous occasions and even calls individuals 'Gods' in places so really the 'son of God' argument is moot and not to be taken literally.

In any event, the academic, historical and scholastic evidence that the Bible has been tampered with and adjusted is overwhelming. Primarily this 'tampering' has been focussed on projecting the figure of Jesus as God (and His son) whereas this was by no means a standard belief amongst the early Christian community.

Not at first that is - as the emerging church persecuted and killed those who held the belief that Jesus was not divine obviously the current view became the norm. In areas where the persecution didn't reach such as Syria and the eastern Monophysite Church there is still a belief that Jesus was not divine and not the son of God in any but a figurative sense.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yes. If we took any notice of mohammed, we'd have to start taking notice of Joseph Smith, David Koresh and Charles Taze Russell, wouldn't we?

Off course, that's the duty of every christian and jew, but not the one of muslims, because muslims believe prophet Muhammad to be the last one. As a christian you have to take notice of people claiming to be prophets and you have to judge it according to the old testament, if any prophet says something that doesn't happen, he is a false prophet, and according to Jesus' idea to judge the prophet according to his fruit, ie. no good tree can produce a bad fruit and no bad tree can produce a good fruit.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by mojo2

...

Professor Moshe Sharon teaches Islamic History at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. This article appeared on the Betar UK website (http://www.betar.co.il) December 24, 2003.

I like it when zionists are professing about Islam, that way one get a highly objective, if not aggressive look on Islam that a muslim might never have the opportunity to enjoy.

Now, seriously, that a professor of a real university would get taken away to write such a diatribe with every passage full of errors is beyond me, really.

What is really eye-opening is how he portrays islamic history and the relation towards jews. He claims that Islam set out to rule the world and to subdue every other religion and their followers and cites as an example a legal system from centuries ago, that discriminated jews. Nonetheless he is so anti-Islam-oriented as to ignore that jews under christianity lived in a much more dangerous situation, as being often described by christians from that time as followers of the devil and murderer of Jesus. The situation was so hard for jews under christian rule that they had to call for help from the muslims, who freed them up from prosecution and allowed them to return to Jerusalem.
But let's digest the horrendous mistakes one by one:

1. He says: "Jihad means war against those people who don't want to accept the Islamic superior rule. "

Wrong. Jihad means to struggle for God's cause, it includes preaching, charity, and a lot of other non-violent aspects, and when attacked it means self-defense, or when called for help by oppressed and prosecuted believers in God, it means helping them through liberating, of which jews were more than once in their history benifitting.
The historic context was the war polytheistic Mecca started and in which some jewish and christian tribes, who practiced the same polytheism with their own prophets as idols, took part in on the side of polytheistic Mecca.

2. He says: "The Koran sees the world as divided into two - one part which has come under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic rule in the future."

Wrong. The Quran has no such division, it has only a division between believers (muslims, jews and christians) and unbelievers (polytheists and those jews and christians that took part in polytheism). The concept of the Dars was developed centuries after prophet Muhammad's death and mirrored only the historic reality of those times, where muslims and Islam were regarded as followers of the devil by the christians and were as such with no minority-rights under christian rule.

3. He says: "This civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be perpetually Islamic."

Wrong again, it's not Islam nor the Quran that developed such an idea, but the Kharijite-sect, which was called a heresy by middle-age-Islam. The Quran clearly states that people who are oppressed religiously should leave the area because the world God created is big enough for everyone. Only if the people that are oppressed can't escape their oppressors it is the duty for the free muslims to liberate them.

4. He says: "Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only be between Moslem and Moslem."

Again wrong, the Quran clearly allows only warfare in a defensive nature and only as long as the other is fighting and calls the muslims to make peace when the opponent seeks peace...

5. He says: "Christians will not exist, because according to many Islamic traditions, the Moslems who are in hell will have to be replaced by somebody and they'll be replaced by the Christians."

What a huge nonsense, according to the Quran noone will come to hell until after judgment day and ressurrection, and according to the Quran the one who comes to hell will stay therein forever, no replacement or anything in that direction.

Verdict: An israeli professor citing Osama Bin Ladin and other fringe islamic sects as proof for Islam's evilness and antisemitism, albeit ignoring completely that jews were prosecuted and genocided by christians numerous times in history and helped out and even liberated through the same Jihad he criticizes.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

How many times do we have to go through this? It's logically impossible for them to be the same god.

One says the only way to Him is through Jesus (the Son of God).
The other says the way to him is through good deeds and keeping the law (i.e. isn't through Jesus (not the Son of God)).

It's either/or. Can't be both.

Actually it goes deeper than that, like always. Every real prophet claimed that the only way to God is through following the said prophet, because a prophet is sent to the people to call them back from the deviation or even unbelief they have followed and practiced.

Besides since the Quran acknowledges Jesus to be the anointed one, the messenger of God, the teacher, the one strenghtened with the holy spirit, created from scratch by God like Adam was created and sent by Him as a sign/wonder, teacher as a sinless messenger and prophet, and since the Quran incorporates his whole message, ie. charity, repentance, asking of forgivance from God, praying to God like Jesus did by kneeling down and putting the face on the ground, doing good and loving God and loving the next one...
true muslims are already followers of Jesus, as well as Moses, as well as prophet Muhammad, as well as Noah, Abraham..., of which all led jihad against the devil and submitted themselves to the will of God.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Artful Dodger

Don't forget that Islam was primarily spread with the sword...all religions succumb to this at one point in their history, but Islam has made a practice of it by defining this term as central to Islam. This aspect of Islam is nothing but manipulation, as followers are instructed that it is ok to kill in the name of Allah.... kinda like the 72 virgin promise. Stupid.

No, it wasn't. Islam spread through trade-routes and mercantilism and merchants, through mouth-to-ear-teachment, ie. through non-violent Jihad. Christians and jews then called the muslims, after they heard of the teachment through the merchants, for help to liberate them from the prosecution they were subject to under catholic-christian/roman-empire-rule, which they did. After liberation christians and jews were allowed to have autonom communities and to follow their religions like they saw fit, but had to pay a yearly tax.

Jihad as in its violent aspect was only allowed for self-defense or for liberation and killing was only allowed on the battlefield.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Randman

Also, all three religions take myths from more ancient religions such as those in Sumer and Babylonia and make them their own. Even the Greek demi-god Dionysus has similar traits with Jesus.

While it's true that Judaism and christianity were at times influenced by popular myths of pagans and sometimes overtook concepts, it can't be generalised as ultimately every religion on earth has had ato one time or the other its origin in a teachment of a prophet sent by God. Over the time and because of the oral nature and its problems most religions and messages of these God-sent prophets degenerated into polytheism and pagan mythology, yes including the egyptian, roman and greek-religions.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Can a Muslim be true friends with non-Muslims?

Very good question! The Quran cites in those verses that are from the time of the war between polytheistic Mecca and after some if not all of the jewish and christian tribes allied with polytheistic Mecca and fought on their side, that the followers of prophet Muhammad should not befriend/allie with christians and jews nor polytheists because of the war and the alliances between them, but allows to befriend those from the jews and christians that are not allied with the polytheists and that don't mock/harass the followers of prophet Muhammad because of their religion.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Even though the Quran mixes up the whole Mother of Jesus/Sister of Aaron thing?

No, it doesn't mix anything at all: Marium and Mary are written the same in arabic, they have the same root and meaning and are interchangeable. I would even go as far and say that in the arachmeic and hebreic language there is no difference either, but that christianity changed those names of the New Testament into greek ones, just like the name Peter or John is hardly to be found in the hebreic or arachmaeic languages.

"Oh, sister of Aaron!" is an idiom characterising the chastity of Mary because of the famous chastity of Aaron's sister.

Taliesin

[Dakar]

Not to ruin your streak, but 6 posts in a row, congratulations.

Edit: Make that 7. Impressive.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by mojo2

But it is good that Islam has a policy regarding the proper conduct towards slaves.

Yes, just like Judaism had, and it is good that it had, the Quran even went beyond the good treatment of slaves and called it a good deed to buy slaves into freedom and a duty to free any slave that wanted to be free and any slave that believed in God...

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Not to ruin your streak, but 6 posts in a row, congratulations.

Edit: Make that 7. Impressive.

Well, what should I say, I had three pages to weave through and that was the result.

Taliesin

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

No, it wasn't. Islam spread through trade-routes and mercantilism and merchants, through mouth-to-ear-teachment, ie. through non-violent Jihad.

• 610 - Mohammed, in a cave on Mt. Hira, hears the angel Gabriel tell him that Allah is the only true God
• 613 - Muhammad's first public preaching of Islam at Mt. Hira. Gets few converts
• 615 - Muslims persecuted by the Quraish
• 619 - Marries Sau'da and Aisha
• 620 - Institution of five daily prayers
• 622 - Muhammad immigrates from Mecca to Medina, which was then called Yathrib, gets more converts
• 623 - Battle of Waddan
• 623 - Battle of Safwan
• 623 - Battle of Dul-'Ashir
• 624 - Muhammad and converts begin raids on caravans to fund the movement
• 624 - Zakat becomes mandatory
• 624 - Battle of Badr
• 624 - Battle of Bani Salim
• 624 - Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr and Zakat-ul-Fitr
• 624 - Battle of Bani Qainuqa'
• 624 - Battle of Sawiq
• 624 - Battle of Ghatfan
• 624 - Battle of Bahran
• 625 - Battle of Uhud
• 625 - Battle of Humra-ul-Asad
• 625 - Battle of Banu Nudair
• 625 - Battle of Dhatur-Riqa
• 626 - Battle of Badru-Ukhra
• 626 - Battle of Dumatul-Jandal
• 626 - Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah
• 627 - Battle of the Trench
• 627 - Battle of Ahzab
• 627 - Battle of Bani Quraiza
• 627 - Battle of Bani Lahyan
• 627 - Battle of Ghaiba
• 627 - Battle of Khaibar
• 628 - Muhammad signs treaty with Quraish
• 630 - Muhammad conquers Mecca
• 630 - Battle of Hunsin
• 630 - Battle of Tabuk
• 632 - Muhammad dies
• 632 - Abu-Bakr, Muhammad's father-in-law, along with Umar, begin a military move to enforce Islam in Arabia
• 633 - Battle at Oman
• 633 - Battle at Hadramaut
• 633 - Battle of Kazima
• 633 - Battle of Walaja
• 633 - Battle of Ulleis
• 633 - Battle of Anbar
• 634 - Battle of Basra
• 634 - Battle of Damascus
• 634 - Battle of Ajnadin
• 634 - Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat Umar Farooq becomes the Caliph
• 634 - Battle of Namaraq
• 634 - Battle of Saqatia
• 635 - Battle of Bridge
• 635 - Battle of Buwaib
• 635 - Conquest of Damascus
• 635 - Battle of Fahl
• 636 - Battle of Yermuk
• 636 - Battle of Qadsiyia
• 636 - Conquest of Madain
• 637 - Battle of Jalula
• 638 - Battle of Yarmouk
• 638 - The Muslims defeat the Romans and enter Jerusalem
• 638 - Conquest of Jazirah
• 639 - Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt
• 641 - Battle of Nihawand
• 642 - Battle of Rayy in Persia
• 643 - Conquest of Azarbaijan
• 644 - Conquest of Fars
• 644 - Conquest of Kharan
• 644 - Umar is murdered. Othman becomes the Caliph
• 647 - Conquest of the island of Cypress
• 644 - Uman dies and is succeeded by Caliph Uthman
• 648 - Campaign against the Byzantines
• 651 - Naval battle against the Byzantines
• 654 - Islam spreads into North Africa
• 656 - Uthman is murdered. Ali become Caliph
• 658 - Battle of Nahrawan
• 659 - Conquest of Egypt
• 661 - Ali is murdered
• 662 - Egypt falls to Islam rule
• 666 - Sicily is attacked by Muslims
• 677 - Siege of Constantinople
• 687 - Battle of Kufa
• 691 - Battle of Deir ul Jaliq
• 700 - Sufism takes root as a sect of Islam
• 700 - Military campaigns in North Africa
• 702 - Battle of Deir ul Jamira
• 711 - Muslims invade Gibraltar
• 711 - Conquest of Spain
• 713 - Conquest of Multan
• 716 - Invasion of Constantinople
• 732 - Battle of Tours in France
• 740 - Battle of the Nobles
• 741 - Battle of Bagdoura in North Africa
• 744 - Battle of Ain al Jurr
• 746 - Battle of Rupar Thutha
• 748 - Battle of Rayy
• 749 - Battle of lsfahan
• 749 - Battle of Nihawand
• 750 - Battle of Zab
• 772 - Battle of Janbi in North Africa
• 777 - Battle of Saragossa in Spain

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

• 610 - Mohammed, in a cave on Mt. Hira, hears the angel Gabriel tell him that Allah is the only true God
• 613 - Muhammad's first public preaching of Islam at Mt. Hira. Gets few converts
• 615 - Muslims persecuted by the Quraish
• 619 - Marries Sau'da and Aisha
• 620 - Institution of five daily prayers
• 622 - Muhammad immigrates from Mecca to Medina, which was then called Yathrib, gets more converts
• 623 - Battle of Waddan
• 623 - Battle of Safwan
• 623 - Battle of Dul-'Ashir
• 624 - Muhammad and converts begin raids on caravans to fund the movement
• 624 - Zakat becomes mandatory
• 624 - Battle of Badr
• 624 - Battle of Bani Salim
• 624 - Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr and Zakat-ul-Fitr
• 624 - Battle of Bani Qainuqa'
• 624 - Battle of Sawiq
• 624 - Battle of Ghatfan
• 624 - Battle of Bahran
• 625 - Battle of Uhud
• 625 - Battle of Humra-ul-Asad
• 625 - Battle of Banu Nudair
• 625 - Battle of Dhatur-Riqa
• 626 - Battle of Badru-Ukhra
• 626 - Battle of Dumatul-Jandal
• 626 - Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah
• 627 - Battle of the Trench
• 627 - Battle of Ahzab
• 627 - Battle of Bani Quraiza
• 627 - Battle of Bani Lahyan
• 627 - Battle of Ghaiba
• 627 - Battle of Khaibar
• 628 - Muhammad signs treaty with Quraish
• 630 - Muhammad conquers Mecca
• 630 - Battle of Hunsin
• 630 - Battle of Tabuk
• 632 - Muhammad dies
• 632 - Abu-Bakr, Muhammad's father-in-law, along with Umar, begin a military move to enforce Islam in Arabia
• 633 - Battle at Oman
• 633 - Battle at Hadramaut
• 633 - Battle of Kazima
• 633 - Battle of Walaja
• 633 - Battle of Ulleis
• 633 - Battle of Anbar
• 634 - Battle of Basra
• 634 - Battle of Damascus
• 634 - Battle of Ajnadin
• 634 - Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat Umar Farooq becomes the Caliph
• 634 - Battle of Namaraq
• 634 - Battle of Saqatia
• 635 - Battle of Bridge
• 635 - Battle of Buwaib
• 635 - Conquest of Damascus
• 635 - Battle of Fahl
• 636 - Battle of Yermuk
• 636 - Battle of Qadsiyia
• 636 - Conquest of Madain
• 637 - Battle of Jalula
• 638 - Battle of Yarmouk
• 638 - The Muslims defeat the Romans and enter Jerusalem
• 638 - Conquest of Jazirah
• 639 - Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt
• 641 - Battle of Nihawand
• 642 - Battle of Rayy in Persia
• 643 - Conquest of Azarbaijan
• 644 - Conquest of Fars
• 644 - Conquest of Kharan
• 644 - Umar is murdered. Othman becomes the Caliph
• 647 - Conquest of the island of Cypress
• 644 - Uman dies and is succeeded by Caliph Uthman
• 648 - Campaign against the Byzantines
• 651 - Naval battle against the Byzantines
• 654 - Islam spreads into North Africa
• 656 - Uthman is murdered. Ali become Caliph
• 658 - Battle of Nahrawan
• 659 - Conquest of Egypt
• 661 - Ali is murdered
• 662 - Egypt falls to Islam rule
• 666 - Sicily is attacked by Muslims
• 677 - Siege of Constantinople
• 687 - Battle of Kufa
• 691 - Battle of Deir ul Jaliq
• 700 - Sufism takes root as a sect of Islam
• 700 - Military campaigns in North Africa
• 702 - Battle of Deir ul Jamira
• 711 - Muslims invade Gibraltar
• 711 - Conquest of Spain
• 713 - Conquest of Multan
• 716 - Invasion of Constantinople
• 732 - Battle of Tours in France
• 740 - Battle of the Nobles
• 741 - Battle of Bagdoura in North Africa
• 744 - Battle of Ain al Jurr
• 746 - Battle of Rupar Thutha
• 748 - Battle of Rayy
• 749 - Battle of lsfahan
• 749 - Battle of Nihawand
• 750 - Battle of Zab
• 772 - Battle of Janbi in North Africa
• 777 - Battle of Saragossa in Spain

What's your point? That battles occur in a defensive war, that Islam was often attacked and had to defend themselves, that people that called for help because of the prosecution they suffered under were liberated through merciful muslims and Jihad? I know that already.

If I would do a list like this for christianity or even just for the US alone...

Taliesin

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

What's your point? That battles occur in a defensive war, that Islam was often attacked and had to defend themselves, that people that called for help because of the prosecution they suffered under were liberated through merciful muslims and Jihad?

Yes, of course. It's entirely possible to invade and conquer a foreign territory (Gibraltar, Spain, France) during a "defensive" war.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yes, of course. It's entirely possible to invade and conquer a foreign territory (Gibraltar, Spain, France) during a "defensive" war.

Yes, it is, if believers in God in these countries called for help by the muslims to free them from religious prosecution, and religious prosecution was abundant at those times the roman empire and the catholic church were united. The catholic church and the roman empire not only prosecuted jews but also christians that followed teachments that were not in the way of the catholic church.

Spain is espescially interesting as it (I think it had to do with problems concerning the following of the spanish throne, that one of the candidates) invited a shia-sect that fled from the middle-east and set up in Northern Africa to set up in Spain (in order to bring that candidate to power and to protect him from his rivals).

Not to say that muslims didn't start a war once and again throughout the long history for secular riches, espescially during parts of the ottoman-empire-time, but it goes against scripture and prophet Muhammad's example. Besides God punished the ottoman empire with the invasion and occupation through the moguls, although 50 years later the moguls became eventually muslims.

Taliesin

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yes, of course. It's entirely possible to invade and conquer a foreign territory (Gibraltar, Spain, France) during a "defensive" war.

And the Crusades was a big accident?

Also the Moors in charge of Spain did a better job than the Spanish. The Moors knew architecture for one thing. They were a better ruling class. Spain would be a lot different today if the Moors had never ruled. You can't act like the Moors were putting Spain into the Dark Ages or something.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by goMac

And the Crusades was a big accident?

Also the Moors in charge of Spain did a better job than the Spanish. The Moors knew architecture for one thing. They were a better ruling class. Spain would be a lot different today if the Moors had never ruled. You can't act like the Moors were putting Spain into the Dark Ages or something.

Crusades. wasnt that when Chrisendom held back the turks trying to invade(military) Europe ? for some reason i see fall of constantenople(now istanbul) as evidence that they were merely trying to invade other territories.

As far as Moors in Spain....if they were so much better, why did they suddleny leave ? ...the people hav spoken eh ? Personally, from my observations, there are more instances today where muslims are fighting for territory than non-muslims. kinda reminicent of history imo. And it's got nothing to do with a 'better' religion,etc. just a more militant and self righteous one.

I am not claiming one better than the other here. in my mind all religions are equally good( or bad). I just cant stand it when some try to criticize my faith and holy texts when theirs is equally flawed, both in content, translation , interpretation and implementation.

But if i had to choose, from a place that has the Bible as it's holy text or a place that uses the Quaran. I'd opt for the one that uses the Bible, cause it's probably more tolerant than the one that uses the Quaran....despite what they both might preach (the reality is a lot different from the idealogy....although greatly influenced by it).

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Crusades. wasnt that when Chrisendom held back the turks trying to invade(military) Europe ? for some reason i see fall of constantenople(now istanbul) as evidence that they were merely trying to invade other territories.

I think the point of the Crusades was to force arabs out of Jerusalem.

You look at Spain when it was taken back from the moors. What do you see? Spanish Inquisition. Spain was more peaceful under the moors than under the Spanairds.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

As far as Moors in Spain....if they were so much better, why did they suddleny leave ?

Learn some history. They had three options. Convert to Christianity, leave al-Andalus or die.

Start studying history.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Learn some history. They had three options. Convert to Christianity, leave al-Andalus or die.

Start studying history.

Ahhh....what century was this in ? im not making excusing Christianity's shortcoming in the past. IMO, the way christianity spread to the natives of the new world is deplorable. But thats just it...its in the past, christianity has evolved past that.

Like i said, im not making excuses, just as you shouldnt be making excuses for Islams shortcomings IN THE PRESENT.

Also, just so we're on the same page.....like ive mentioned before. In my opinion(personally) no religion is perfect. But if someone comes out and starts criticizing my beleifs, etc. I will do the same to theirs, just to make them realize that their choice isnt any more 'better' than the rest of humanitie's.

Christianity has a lot of shortcomings, as does every religion and institution. If tangible evidence is needs.... look at chrisendom today and look at the muslim world. what has Islam enabled the people of the muslim world acheive ? and contribute to humanity ?..... yes i know language, numbers, paper, soap, etc...all originated in the ME region, but that was all before Islam. Christianity and jewdaism....well....look at the free world.

There are some irrefutable facts that need to be made here:
-Many muslim from every corner of the muslim world are moving to the free world. you too live in a 'western' nation. That in my opinion is a Kudos to the western ideals of tolerance, equality, etc,etc.
-The fact that religion and politics are so interwined in the muslim world, leads to people associating political failures and inadequacies to religion. a perfectly logical association. if the religion is pure and perfect, why arent those that practice it ?

I would never bring this topic up with my Muslim friends, purely out of respect for their choices and the shared understanding that we do havem that neither one is perfect or is expected to be perfecto rin any way better or worse than the other.

So how about, we in the west....protest against people like Bush and co. ? and Muslims in the ME protest against terrorists and groups such as Hammas and Al Quadea, etc ? Maybe the problem isnt onesided eh ?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by goMac

I think the point of the Crusades was to force arabs out of Jerusalem.

You look at Spain when it was taken back from the moors. What do you see? Spanish Inquisition. Spain was more peaceful under the moors than under the Spanairds.

That too. lets not forget Vlad the Impaler and the order of the dragon (Historical figure who dracula was based off of). Turks were invading Europe as well, and the Crusades were pretty much holding them back. And as far as jerusalem.... i reckon ppl have been fighting over that piece of land throughout recorded history.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

if the religion is pure and perfect, why arent those that practice it ?

Because human beings aren't perfect.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Turks were invading Europe as well, and the Crusades were pretty much holding them back.

What did the Turks/Muslims have to do with the 4th Crusade, the Albigensian Crusade or the Northern Crusades.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Because human beings aren't perfect.

Neither is religion (which beleive it or not is man made). get used to it.

Ugh..why do i keep coming back here to argue with fanatics.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

That too. lets not forget Vlad the Impaler and the order of the dragon (Historical figure who dracula was based off of). Turks were invading Europe as well, and the Crusades were pretty much holding them back. And as far as jerusalem.... i reckon ppl have been fighting over that piece of land throughout recorded history.

Huh? The whole point of the Crusades was to take Jerusalem. Do some research. The Pope said "Everyone, go take over Jerusalem" and everybody gathered up and tried to do so. I don't know where you learned history but that was the point of the crusades.

Basically the Moors took Spain pretty much into their golden ages. The Muslim states were far past the Christian states in the Dark Ages. While Europe was trying master getting along, Muslims in Africa and the Middle East where doing advanced Mathematics and Architecture.

In fact, the Muslims safeguarded the biggest repository of information in the world, The Library of Alexandria. This library held letters from Jesus and missing books from the bible, among with many pieces of early Christian history. Many think the secrets of the Holy Grail and the Arc of the Covenant where in this library. The Muslims maintained open access to whoever wanted to see these documents. Sadly, the wonderful Christians burned the Library to the ground during the Crusades because they had a little too much to drink. This was a Muslim run library holding Christian secrets. Muslims barbaric? Look's like the Muslim's cared more about Christian documents then the Christians themselves did.

(Wait? Didn't you say this was a defensive war?)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by goMac

Huh? The whole point of the Crusades was to take Jerusalem back.

Fixed.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Fixed.

If anybody does not own Jerusalem it's the Christians. Sorry to burst your bubble. I believe proper answers would either be Jews or Arabs insince about the only thing Jesus did in Jerusalem was get hung on a cross.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by goMac

If anybody does not own Jerusalem it's the Christians.

Which is why the crusades were about getting it back for the Jews.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by goMac

If anybody does not own Jerusalem it's the Christians. Sorry to burst your bubble. I believe proper answers would either be Jews or Arabs insince about the only thing Jesus did in Jerusalem was get hung on a cross.

Umm...the founder of Christianity was born, grew up and died in that general area(Nazareth, Jerusalem, Bethlahem, Galille,etc). Jesus and the deciples were Jewish as well. Christians have as much claim over Jerusalem as Muslims do over Mecca and Medina. But claims from Christians and Muslims are trumped quite easily by the Jews, who i think have full right to that patch of land. but thats just my opinion.

And as far as your claim to Christians being responsible for burning down the library of Alexandria(which i think was probably the most unfortunate events in history....having visited Alexandria myself and doing the tours n all) could you provide a link to that information ? im not calling u a liar, id just like to read up on it from a credible sourse. Also, whats your opinion on Muslims demolishing ancient budhists monuments in Afghanistan ? or destroying art in churches in Constantenople ? any significance at all ? or is that our fault as well ?

Also, im not denying the crusades had to do with getting jerusalem(back), but it also had to do with turks moving into the balkans and south eastern Europe(where surprise surprise....the same conflict continues today). like i said characters such as Vlad the impaler are based on that conflict.

Has this "argument" broken down into who has right over what land ? it's funny cause the people who support the chechen rebels and kashmiri rebels for independence, etc,etc, dont seem to support the jewish desire for an independent state. i wonder why. obsession with land.... which is supposidely theirs even though they wernt even around when Jewdaism and Christianity and Hinduism was.

Also, i wonder which civilization safe guards the repository for learning and research these days ? And which one is enjoying a "golden age" now ? And which one preaches tolerance of cultures and equality between genders and cultures and races..... hmmm. worth thinking about imo.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Which is why the crusades were about getting it back for the Jews.

Not quite. Ever heard this quote?

"...the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..."

The crusaders killed most of the inhabitants and didn't really care if they were Muslims, Jews or Eastern Christians.

Jerusalem was taken for the European Christians. It's as simple as that.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

But claims from Christians and Muslims are trumped quite easily by the Jews, who i think have full right to that patch of land. but thats just my opinion.

My opinion is that we humans have no right at all to any patch of land, it's all God's, who created it and He gives it to whom He wants, and takes it away from whom He wants...

Territory means nothing, what counts is the faith in heart, the deeds we do, the repentance we show and the judgment day and hereafter/afterlife/beyond...

Taliesin

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Umm...the founder of Christianity was born, grew up and died in that general area(Nazareth, Jerusalem, Bethlahem, Galille,etc). Jesus and the deciples were Jewish as well. Christians have as much claim over Jerusalem as Muslims do over Mecca and Medina. But claims from Christians and Muslims are trumped quite easily by the Jews, who i think have full right to that patch of land. but thats just my opinion.

And as far as your claim to Christians being responsible for burning down the library of Alexandria(which i think was probably the most unfortunate events in history....having visited Alexandria myself and doing the tours n all) could you provide a link to that information ? im not calling u a liar, id just like to read up on it from a credible sourse. Also, whats your opinion on Muslims demolishing ancient budhists monuments in Afghanistan ? or destroying art in churches in Constantenople ? any significance at all ? or is that our fault as well ?

The Wikipedia does not mention the Crusades, only Christian mobs, which is funny, I was sure I had heard it was destroyed during the Crusades. They're placing it's destruction around 400 AD, much earlier than the Crusades. Either way, it was burned to the ground by Christian fanatics.

More research, it looks like it was part of the Roman Crusades:

"Enter Christianity, the crusades and the dark ages. Sometime between about 40 AD and 400 AD the Great Library was burned to the ground. The culprits are recorded in faded historical records as either Julius Caesar during the Alexandrian War, or Theophilus, a Christian Roman leader who was named Patriarch of Alexandria from 385 to 412 AD. Edward Gibbons in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, states that Theophilus converted the Temple of Serapis into a Christian Church and destroyed many of the documents in the nearby library. The building was estimated to hold about 10 percent of the books from the Library of Alexandria. His reign was succeeded by a nephew, Cyril, who may have finished the destruction."

The Muslims managed the only two great Libraries in the world at this point, one was the Great Library of Alexandria, and the other ones were the great Libraries and Universities of Timbuktu, which at that time was one of the richest cities in the world.

As for Jerusalem being a holy Christian site, I disagree. Jesus hardly ever was in Jerusalem. It is not a Christian holy city. In fact, about the only other major thing he did in the city was go into the temple and make a mess of the vendors. I don't think he held the city in high regard at all. I would venture Bethlehem is a more holy city to Christians than Jerusalem. There is one relatively minor Christian site there. That's about it.

I'm not saying Muslims are perfect. I'm saying to assume Muslims are worse than Christians is a very one sided thing and a mistake. Historically, Muslims have been the very advanced civilizations while the Christians were more barbaric. Today, that's not as much the case. But you're assuming all Muslims teach violence.

Here is an example. Bhudda specifically taught that god didn't exist. At that time, Bhudda was creating a splinter religion from Hinduism, however, Bhudda rejected the caste system and the idea of any divine powers, and he also refused to state whether or not reincarnation was real. However, within 100 years of Bhudda's death some of his followers had integrated gods back into the religion, causing a major split. Today you have the Bhuddists in China and Japan who believe in gods, and those in India who do not. The ones who believe in gods still call themselves Bhuddist, even though they are in direct conflict with Bhudda's teaching. In fact, they even twist Bhudda's teachings to justify their religion. I'm not saying it's a bad religion, I'm simply saying, religions can be adjusted from their original meanings and turned on themselves by some groups. Just because some Islamic groups have taken the Quaran and twisted it for their own meaning, that doesn't mean Islam is a lesser religion, it just means some people have taken it and turned it into something it wasn't originally. You want real Islam? Look at the teachings of Muhammed. They are very tolerant, very understanding of other religions, very peaceful. The offshoot of Bhuddism I was talking about, the one that believes in gods? They have never closed their Holy Scriptures. They continue adding new scripture for their own viewpoint on Bhuddism. In the same way, extremist Muslims continue to add new parts to their Holy Scripture, twisting it more.

You want to knock on a religion? Look at what the founder taught, then get back to me.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

My opinion is that we humans have no right at all to any patch of land, it's all God's, who created it and He gives it to whom He wants, and takes it away from whom He wants...

Territory means nothing, what counts is the faith in heart, the deeds we do, the repentance we show and the judgment day and hereafter/afterlife/beyond...

Taliesin

Exactly. Why is the land so damn important? Jesus was probably the best teacher of this. The land doesn't actually matter. According to Jesus, the temple inside us (or our own belief in god) is far more important than any patch of land.

If Jesus were here I think he'd all give us a big slap on the wrist for fighting so non-sensically over some land that when it comes down to it, really doesn't hold much that's special. No patch of land is worth loss of human life.

[von Wrangell]

goMac:

If the temple was destroyed in 400 it's impossible for it to have been guarded by Muslims. Islam came about later.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

goMac:

If the temple was destroyed in 400 it's impossible for it to have been guarded by Muslims. Islam came about later.

Ah. My bad. It would have been guarded by the near immediate ancestors of the Muslims. The Great Libraries and Universities of Timbuktu were definitely run by Muslims, well into the time that Europe was in the dark ages.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

That too. lets not forget Vlad the Impaler and the order of the dragon (Historical figure who dracula was based off of).

Oh, yes, such a great example for christianity!

Taliesin

[goMac]

Oh GREAT. Now I'm finding research that says that the Library WAS possibly run by Muslims and destroyed in the 700's.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Learn some history. They had three options. Convert to Christianity, leave al-Andalus or die.

Start studying history.

If that is true (I will trust you to be accurate about this issue) then I trust you will be the first to recognize the unfortunate set of options we faced after 9/11.

Convert to Islam in the face of the obvious onslaught of radical Islam.

Invade Iraq and protect the oil from his vow to drive up the crude prices to bring America to ruin.

Or die.