Are you that ignorant of history? To think Muslims just out of nowhere invaded parts of Europe before the Crusades?
That is precisely what they did.
It was absolutely not out of nowhere. Islam spread the least in Europe. And then many Muslim invasions were the same people who had a history of conquest, but now a new religion.
My point is you cannot blame the religion for the invasions into Europe, when most of these peoples had been invading far before Islam.
The Muslims spread the least in Europe because they were stopped. Charlemagne's grandpa stopped them at tours in southern France but they still controlled Iberia for centuries. The Hapsburg stopped them at the gates of Vienna twice in the 16th & 17th centuries but the occupied much of the Balkans for centuries after. The Ottomans were in gradual decline for well over a century and their empire collapsed by being on the losing side in WWI.
All true.
However you are attempting to educate someone with a learning disability, or is under the age of 12.
Are you that ignorant of history? To think Muslims just out of nowhere invaded parts of Europe before the Crusades?
That is precisely what they did.
It was absolutely not out of nowhere. Islam spread the least in Europe. And then many Muslim invasions were the same people who had a history of conquest, but now a new religion.
My point is you cannot blame the religion for the invasions into Europe, when most of these peoples had been invading far before Islam.
The Muslims spread the least in Europe because they were stopped. Charlemagne's grandpa (Charles Martel) stopped them at tours in southern France but they still controlled Iberia for centuries. The Hapsburg stopped them at the gates of Vienna twice in the 16th & 17th centuries but the occupied much of the Balkans for centuries after. The Ottomans were in gradual decline for well over a century and their empire collapsed by being on the losing side in WWI.
They spread the least in Europe because it was an impractical place to invade. The current Middle East and Africa were much easier. If they had had direct access to Europe, things would have gone differently.
None of this is relevant to the discussion. These were peoples in constant turmoil, constantly invading each other forever. Islam was used as a vehicle to unite them and spread an ideology, but I still maintain the religion itself is not one of conquest. Zealotry doesn't change facts.
The vast majority of Muslims today just want what everyone else wants. A huge percentage of Muslims self identify as religious extremists, but still are concentrated in 1 part of the world.
Are you that ignorant of history? To think Muslims just out of nowhere invaded parts of Europe before the Crusades?
That is precisely what they did.
It was absolutely not out of nowhere. Islam spread the least in Europe. And then many Muslim invasions were the same people who had a history of conquest, but now a new religion.
My point is you cannot blame the religion for the invasions into Europe, when most of these peoples had been invading far before Islam.
The Muslims spread the least in Europe because they were stopped. Charlemagne's grandpa (Charles Martel) stopped them at tours in southern France but they still controlled Iberia for centuries. The Hapsburg stopped them at the gates of Vienna twice in the 16th & 17th centuries but the occupied much of the Balkans for centuries after. The Ottomans were in gradual decline for well over a century and their empire collapsed by being on the losing side in WWI.
They spread the least in Europe because it was an impractical place to invade. The current Middle East and Africa were much easier. If they had had direct access to Europe, things would have gone differently.
None of this is relevant to the discussion. These were peoples in constant turmoil, constantly invading each other forever. Islam was used as a vehicle to unite them and spread an ideology, but I still maintain the religion itself is not one of conquest. Zealotry doesn't change facts.
The vast majority of Muslims today just want what everyone else wants. A huge percentage of Muslims self identify as religious extremists, but still are concentrated in 1 part of the world.
Whether you accept it or not, Islam is a religion of conquest. It's been a feature if their history literally since the beginning. Now, one could argue that in modern times most if the 1 billion Muslims on the planet are not warmongers. But how many of them support terrorists with their money & votes? Probably more than most realize. How many reflexively hate Jews & Israel while automatically supporting the Palestinians? Again, probably more than we realize. Like most aspects of human society, it is complicated.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Are you that ignorant of history? To think Muslims just out of nowhere invaded parts of Europe before the Crusades?
That is precisely what they did.
It was absolutely not out of nowhere. Islam spread the least in Europe. And then many Muslim invasions were the same people who had a history of conquest, but now a new religion.
My point is you cannot blame the religion for the invasions into Europe, when most of these peoples had been invading far before Islam.
The Muslims spread the least in Europe because they were stopped. Charlemagne's grandpa (Charles Martel) stopped them at tours in southern France but they still controlled Iberia for centuries. The Hapsburg stopped them at the gates of Vienna twice in the 16th & 17th centuries but the occupied much of the Balkans for centuries after. The Ottomans were in gradual decline for well over a century and their empire collapsed by being on the losing side in WWI.
They spread the least in Europe because it was an impractical place to invade. The current Middle East and Africa were much easier. If they had had direct access to Europe, things would have gone differently.
None of this is relevant to the discussion. These were peoples in constant turmoil, constantly invading each other forever. Islam was used as a vehicle to unite them and spread an ideology, but I still maintain the religion itself is not one of conquest. Zealotry doesn't change facts.
The vast majority of Muslims today just want what everyone else wants. A huge percentage of Muslims self identify as religious extremists, but still are concentrated in 1 part of the world.
1. Yes its possible Islam was not even invented yet when the Arabs began their expansion/invasions.
It might have been a later invention/creation used to justify the initial invasions/wars
Its and interesting topic....with scholars divided over the existence of Muhammad and the creation of the Qu'ran before the expansion.
2. Whatever the truth of Islam's obscure origins....it now has a distinctive war philosophy that other faiths just do not have.
[Islam divides the entire world into the Dar al-harb and the Dar al-l slam. Dar al-harb - the world of the sword, the infidel and perpetual war. Countries that are non- Muslim reside in the dar al-harb. Individuals from the dar al-harb are designated as harbi, "enemy person, person from the territory of war." Dar al-Islam - the Land of Islam and peace. Peace on earth does not come until the entire world has been made of Dar at-Islam. Islam is under permanent jihad obligation to reduce the dar alharb to non-existence.]
Are you that ignorant of history? To think Muslims just out of nowhere invaded parts of Europe before the Crusades?
That is precisely what they did.
It was absolutely not out of nowhere. Islam spread the least in Europe. And then many Muslim invasions were the same people who had a history of conquest, but now a new religion.
My point is you cannot blame the religion for the invasions into Europe, when most of these peoples had been invading far before Islam.
The Muslims spread the least in Europe because they were stopped. Charlemagne's grandpa (Charles Martel) stopped them at tours in southern France but they still controlled Iberia for centuries. The Hapsburg stopped them at the gates of Vienna twice in the 16th & 17th centuries but the occupied much of the Balkans for centuries after. The Ottomans were in gradual decline for well over a century and their empire collapsed by being on the losing side in WWI.
None of this is relevant to the discussion. These were peoples in constant turmoil, constantly invading each other forever. Islam was used as a vehicle to unite them and spread an ideology, but I still maintain the religion itself is not one of conquest. Zealotry doesn't change facts.
About the possible existence of Muhammed
[Liutsian I. Klimovich, in his lecture "Did Muhammad Exist?", argued the time gap between Muhammad's alleged lifetime and the first written sources was so huge that we cannot suppose that any of the information given in these sources is authentic; that nothing is known for sure about the historical Muhammad, and that it is even likely that he never existed. Quite consequently, Klimovich assumed that the Koran was not Muhammad's work but the product of a whole group of authors. Muhammad was created by later historians as a myth, designed to explain the emergence of the Islamic community out of the Hanif movement. The prophet was an invention to cover up early Islam's character as a social protest movement. ]
[In 2013, Karl-Heinz Ohlig (1938-), in his "From Muhammad Jesus to Prophet of the Arabs", argued that the term "Muhammad" was not an actual person, but rather an epitaph, meaning "praised one", "promised one", or "god's servant", and agues that the four mentions of the name Muhammad in the Quran, do not justify the existence of an actual extant person, but rather one or more series of Muslim preachers who were selling an new reformed "Muhammad Jesus" figure as role model for a new Jewish-Christian upgraded religion, or something to this effect]
Thanks. I've been studying history most of my life and taught it for 30+ years. It's part of me.
Been a passion of mine for over 50 years, and often travel to various historical areas just to see how the geography, topopgraphy and climate affected human interactions.
Wife gave up on such travels when I took her over a badly rutted dirt road for 40 miles to Adobe Walls, after a Texas Tech vs Baylor football game in Lubbock.
Islams origins are not all that secure. Anyone who has studied the early history of Islam could describe how it started and Muhammad's role. And the impact of his death on the development and expansion of the "religion of conquest".
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are very closely related religions that have all been used for immense good and evil. In a state like Iran, it is used to reinforce a political ideology, much like Christianity was used in Europe to crusade.
Blaming the religion itself is a stupid brain dead thing to do. Just look at all the peaceful Muslims in the world. Look who are terrorists and attempting jihad. It is mostly Iran and its proxies. And virtually all other Muslims hate them.
Tell us you don't know what you're talking about without saying you don't know what you're talking about…..
I'm sorry, you post such stupid things, unless you are willing to post content, I'm not really into trading insults. Come up with something that makes sense first.
I eat shawarma at least once a month, so you know my credentials before I begin. The crusades were a response to 400 years of Islamic invasions and oppression.
The crusades used religion for conquest. Everyone invaded each other back then. Don't pretend it was just Muslims. The crusades united many peoples under 1 religious banner.
Rational adults do not pretend like a reaction is the same as instigation.
Are you that ignorant of history? To think Muslims just out of nowhere invaded parts of Europe before the Crusades?
Anyways the point of the thread was whether Islam is a religion of conquest or not. I've made my point, that all 3 of the Abrahamic religions have used their text for mass conquest. Today, very few of each believes in conquest.
Your ignorance is profound. Google up "Battle of Tours" and then Google up "First Crusades"
Make your point if you have one, or stop posting. I tell people like you to pick up a book, all the time, so I get it. But go ahead and post your thoughts whiterock.
I did make my point. You apparently do not know where the Battle of Tours occurred +350 years before the First Crusade.
Muslims did invade Europe "out of nowhere" before the Crusades, by centuries, on behalf of their god, who does instruct them, subject/verb/object to spread that faith by all means to include the tip of the spear. The Christian God does not do that. And the Crusades were not remotely an effort to do so. They were an effort to retake "the holy land" a very small and specific piece of geography, the birthplace of the faith, not an effort to roll islam back whence it came. No crusader invaded North Africa, or Mesopotamia, et al.... In fact, many Crusades/crusaders had to fight their way thru Christendom to get to their intended targets. Some never made it to the intended target. Even the Byzantines, then the front-lines of the jihad did not always allow them passage thru their lands. And that is also an instructive point - note that the Crusades did not just seek to help the Byzantines push the Turks back whence they came as a way to recapture former parts of the Byzantine empire (which included the Holy Lands). Nope. The crusaders went on long, unsustainable expeditions to seize a few cities in the Holy Lands and.....stopped. Same question for the Spanish Reconquista. How many great European Christian kingdoms came to the aid of Iberia on behalf of the Holy Trinity? If Christianity was such a cult of war, why was it only the Spanish kings who felt a need to fight for their God?
Your take on history is mostly progressive revisionism which contorts the greatest and most repressive colonial empire in history into a victim of European genocide. It's a total caricature.
Are you that ignorant of history? To think Muslims just out of nowhere invaded parts of Europe before the Crusades?
That is precisely what they did.
It was absolutely not out of nowhere. Islam spread the least in Europe. And then many Muslim invasions were the same people who had a history of conquest, but now a new religion.
My point is you cannot blame the religion for the invasions into Europe, when most of these peoples had been invading far before Islam.
The Muslims spread the least in Europe because they were stopped. Charlemagne's grandpa (Charles Martel) stopped them at tours in southern France but they still controlled Iberia for centuries. The Hapsburg stopped them at the gates of Vienna twice in the 16th & 17th centuries but the occupied much of the Balkans for centuries after. The Ottomans were in gradual decline for well over a century and their empire collapsed by being on the losing side in WWI.
None of this is relevant to the discussion. These were peoples in constant turmoil, constantly invading each other forever. Islam was used as a vehicle to unite them and spread an ideology, but I still maintain the religion itself is not one of conquest. Zealotry doesn't change facts.
About the possible existence of Muhammed
[Liutsian I. Klimovich, in his lecture "Did Muhammad Exist?", argued the time gap between Muhammad's alleged lifetime and the first written sources was so huge that we cannot suppose that any of the information given in these sources is authentic; that nothing is known for sure about the historical Muhammad, and that it is even likely that he never existed. Quite consequently, Klimovich assumed that the Koran was not Muhammad's work but the product of a whole group of authors. Muhammad was created by later historians as a myth, designed to explain the emergence of the Islamic community out of the Hanif movement. The prophet was an invention to cover up early Islam's character as a social protest movement. ]
[In 2013, Karl-Heinz Ohlig (1938-), in his "From Muhammad Jesus to Prophet of the Arabs", argued that the term "Muhammad" was not an actual person, but rather an epitaph, meaning "praised one", "promised one", or "god's servant", and agues that the four mentions of the name Muhammad in the Quran, do not justify the existence of an actual extant person, but rather one or more series of Muslim preachers who were selling an new reformed "Muhammad Jesus" figure as role model for a new Jewish-Christian upgraded religion, or something to this effect]
note those are western takes on the subject. Ohlig's in particular does not stand close scrutiny. The first four "Rightly Guided" caliphs rode with Muhammad in battle. The legitimacy of the Sunnah rests solely upon their knowledge and understanding of him and his words. Remove a real Muhammad from the equation, and all of actual islamic history becomes untenable. How does the Sunni/Shia split exist if there were not a profound disagreement over whether or not Caliphs should be blood descendants of a real, in-the-flesh Muhammad? Look how many well documented real-life people would have to go along with the hoax of a real Muhammad? The first caliphs were people of substance, particularly Umar....a truly formidable man of profound talent and grand accomplishments.
Klimovich makes better points, chiefly in that his work effectively just expands on the obvious - Muhammad explicitly usurped the Judeo-Christian faith, claiming the entirety of the Torah and Bible as part of the islamic tradition. All Muhammad had to do was figuratively climb upon top of the two great faiths and make a claim that he was the "Seal of the Prophets" (the last of the great Judeo-Christian prophets), then write down his own musings to pass off as new/final revelations.
The "seal of the prophets" concept is central to differentiating islam from Christianity. It's why islam is often referred to as a "closed faith." With Muhammad, God had issued his final instructions to mankind. God would retreat into silence. His message was complete. There would be no more communication or interaction. God would expect man to comply with law and prepare for judgment. No grace, no forgiveness, not even an obligation by God to reward with afterlife those who had followed law to the letter. Indeed, that structure is central to understanding the martyrdom aspect of jihad. Sacrificing one's life in war against unbelievers is the only guaranteed pathway to paradise.
Pretty tidy work by Muhammad. Make grand claims, then close the door on any revisionism........
Are you that ignorant of history? To think Muslims just out of nowhere invaded parts of Europe before the Crusades?
That is precisely what they did.
It was absolutely not out of nowhere. Islam spread the least in Europe. And then many Muslim invasions were the same people who had a history of conquest, but now a new religion.
My point is you cannot blame the religion for the invasions into Europe, when most of these peoples had been invading far before Islam.
The Muslims spread the least in Europe because they were stopped. Charlemagne's grandpa (Charles Martel) stopped them at tours in southern France but they still controlled Iberia for centuries. The Hapsburg stopped them at the gates of Vienna twice in the 16th & 17th centuries but the occupied much of the Balkans for centuries after. The Ottomans were in gradual decline for well over a century and their empire collapsed by being on the losing side in WWI.
None of this is relevant to the discussion. These were peoples in constant turmoil, constantly invading each other forever. Islam was used as a vehicle to unite them and spread an ideology, but I still maintain the religion itself is not one of conquest. Zealotry doesn't change facts.
About the possible existence of Muhammed
[Liutsian I. Klimovich, in his lecture "Did Muhammad Exist?", argued the time gap between Muhammad's alleged lifetime and the first written sources was so huge that we cannot suppose that any of the information given in these sources is authentic; that nothing is known for sure about the historical Muhammad, and that it is even likely that he never existed. Quite consequently, Klimovich assumed that the Koran was not Muhammad's work but the product of a whole group of authors. Muhammad was created by later historians as a myth, designed to explain the emergence of the Islamic community out of the Hanif movement. The prophet was an invention to cover up early Islam's character as a social protest movement. ]
[In 2013, Karl-Heinz Ohlig (1938-), in his "From Muhammad Jesus to Prophet of the Arabs", argued that the term "Muhammad" was not an actual person, but rather an epitaph, meaning "praised one", "promised one", or "god's servant", and agues that the four mentions of the name Muhammad in the Quran, do not justify the existence of an actual extant person, but rather one or more series of Muslim preachers who were selling an new reformed "Muhammad Jesus" figure as role model for a new Jewish-Christian upgraded religion, or something to this effect]
note those are western takes on the subject. Ohlig's in particular does not stand close scrutiny. The first four "Rightly Guided" caliphs rode with Muhammad in battle. The legitimacy of the Sunnah rests solely upon their knowledge and understanding of him and his words. Remove a real Muhammad from the equation, and all of actual islamic history becomes untenable. How does the Sunni/Shia split exist if there were not a profound disagreement over whether or not Caliphs should be blood descendants of a real, in-the-flesh Muhammad?
Certainly its a debatable subject
I personally have no problem believing he existed as a real person...but also possible that he was more of a Arab war leader and uniter of Tribes than a religious prophet.
That might have been a later invention on the part of his followers.
[Experts (at least non-fundamentalists) do agree that:
The Quran can't be used non-circularly to challenge such a hypothesis. (Nor, conversely, can a recent manuscript find prove such a hypothesis, since even that was written on parchment dated to precisely when the Quran claims to have been written, not before, and its stylistic features strongly suggest the current ink was not even placed on that parchment until many decades later.)
The Hadith contains much that is fabricated (so in fact Muslims were inventing Muhammad tradition, in abundance). Discussion and bibliography on that point can be found in Robert M. Price, "The Abhorrent Void: The Rapid Attribution of Fictive Sayings and Stories to a Mythic Jesus," Sources of the Jesus Tradition (ed. R. Joseph Hoffmann).
No literature about Muhammad, that adds information not in the Quran, appears to have been written (or if written, none survives) until a century or more after his purported death, a situation in fact worse than for Jesus.
Mentions of Muhammad, and minor details about him, do exist within decades of his death, even from non-Muslim sources, but they all appear to be repeating what is said or implied in the Quran, or by Muslims using the Quran as a source. There are no eyewitness sources, nor any contemporary sources.
There is no archaeological corroboration (coins, inscriptions, or attesting manuscripts, of documents or literature, dating to within his life or very near it, other than the Quran). The earliest coins mentioning Muhammad start in 685 A.D., and the earliest inscriptions mentioning Mohammad start in 691 A.D. (dates that are fifty to sixty years after his purported death), but both reference him only in a creedal declaration (known as the Shahada), the existence of which is already entailed by any minimal non-historicity thesis. Similarly all subsequent inscriptions (e.g. on the Dome of the Rock, inscribed a year later; in fact, that just quotes the Shahada and the Quran).
Until recently the "best" attempt to argue Muhammad was a fiction was Robert Spencer's Did Muhammad Exist? (2012), but that is not a peer reviewed university publication, and from what I can tell, it is not very convincing to those qualified to assess it.]
Are you that ignorant of history? To think Muslims just out of nowhere invaded parts of Europe before the Crusades?
That is precisely what they did.
It was absolutely not out of nowhere. Islam spread the least in Europe. And then many Muslim invasions were the same people who had a history of conquest, but now a new religion.
My point is you cannot blame the religion for the invasions into Europe, when most of these peoples had been invading far before Islam.
The Muslims spread the least in Europe because they were stopped. Charlemagne's grandpa (Charles Martel) stopped them at tours in southern France but they still controlled Iberia for centuries. The Hapsburg stopped them at the gates of Vienna twice in the 16th & 17th centuries but the occupied much of the Balkans for centuries after. The Ottomans were in gradual decline for well over a century and their empire collapsed by being on the losing side in WWI.
None of this is relevant to the discussion. These were peoples in constant turmoil, constantly invading each other forever. Islam was used as a vehicle to unite them and spread an ideology, but I still maintain the religion itself is not one of conquest. Zealotry doesn't change facts.
About the possible existence of Muhammed
[Liutsian I. Klimovich, in his lecture "Did Muhammad Exist?", argued the time gap between Muhammad's alleged lifetime and the first written sources was so huge that we cannot suppose that any of the information given in these sources is authentic; that nothing is known for sure about the historical Muhammad, and that it is even likely that he never existed. Quite consequently, Klimovich assumed that the Koran was not Muhammad's work but the product of a whole group of authors. Muhammad was created by later historians as a myth, designed to explain the emergence of the Islamic community out of the Hanif movement. The prophet was an invention to cover up early Islam's character as a social protest movement. ]
[In 2013, Karl-Heinz Ohlig (1938-), in his "From Muhammad Jesus to Prophet of the Arabs", argued that the term "Muhammad" was not an actual person, but rather an epitaph, meaning "praised one", "promised one", or "god's servant", and agues that the four mentions of the name Muhammad in the Quran, do not justify the existence of an actual extant person, but rather one or more series of Muslim preachers who were selling an new reformed "Muhammad Jesus" figure as role model for a new Jewish-Christian upgraded religion, or something to this effect]
note those are western takes on the subject. Ohlig's in particular does not stand close scrutiny. The first four "Rightly Guided" caliphs rode with Muhammad in battle. The legitimacy of the Sunnah rests solely upon their knowledge and understanding of him and his words. Remove a real Muhammad from the equation, and all of actual islamic history becomes untenable. How does the Sunni/Shia split exist if there were not a profound disagreement over whether or not Caliphs should be blood descendants of a real, in-the-flesh Muhammad?
Certainly its a debatable subject
I personally have no problem believing he existed as a real person...but also possible that he was more of a Arab war leader and uniter of Tribes than a religious prophet.
That might have been a later invention on the part of his followers.
[Experts (at least non-fundamentalists) do agree that:
The Quran can't be used non-circularly to challenge such a hypothesis. (Nor, conversely, can a recent manuscript find prove such a hypothesis, since even that was written on parchment dated to precisely when the Quran claims to have been written, not before, and its stylistic features strongly suggest the current ink was not even placed on that parchment until many decades later.)
The Hadith contains much that is fabricated (so in fact Muslims were inventing Muhammad tradition, in abundance). Discussion and bibliography on that point can be found in Robert M. Price, "The Abhorrent Void: The Rapid Attribution of Fictive Sayings and Stories to a Mythic Jesus," Sources of the Jesus Tradition (ed. R. Joseph Hoffmann).
No literature about Muhammad, that adds information not in the Quran, appears to have been written (or if written, none survives) until a century or more after his purported death, a situation in fact worse than for Jesus.
Mentions of Muhammad, and minor details about him, do exist within decades of his death, even from non-Muslim sources, but they all appear to be repeating what is said or implied in the Quran, or by Muslims using the Quran as a source. There are no eyewitness sources, nor any contemporary sources.
There is no archaeological corroboration (coins, inscriptions, or attesting manuscripts, of documents or literature, dating to within his life or very near it, other than the Quran). The earliest coins mentioning Muhammad start in 685 A.D., and the earliest inscriptions mentioning Mohammad start in 691 A.D. (dates that are fifty to sixty years after his purported death), but both reference him only in a creedal declaration (known as the Shahada), the existence of which is already entailed by any minimal non-historicity thesis. Similarly all subsequent inscriptions (e.g. on the Dome of the Rock, inscribed a year later; in fact, that just quotes the Shahada and the Quran).
Until recently the "best" attempt to argue Muhammad was a fiction was Robert Spencer's Did Muhammad Exist? (2012), but that is not a peer reviewed university publication, and from what I can tell, it is not very convincing to those qualified to assess it.]
Re that part in bold, I'd argue he was both. Actually, I don't think I'd need to argue that. The history is pretty clear on that point. They invaded to spread islam at the point of a sword over and over. One very overlooked aspect of that - Arabians did not do all the fighting across North Africa, into Iberia and on up to Tours, or fling islam all the way to the furthest islands of Asia, up thru Central Europe and the Asian steppes. Indigenous peoples of those areas did it. To promote an idea = islam.
Indeed, one of the key points of my presentations on islam is that it was/is the first big idea....the first ideology to supersede Emperors, races and cultures. The Greeks....gone. The Mongols....gone. The Romans....gone. And on and on and on. But still, islam survives and grows and dreams of worldwide caliphate under religious law. The purpose of the state in islam is to promote islam. It is the starkest possible rebuke to the western notion of separation of church & state. The Koran and the Constitution are oil & water, fire & ice, matter & anti-matter. Each is purpose built to destroy the other.
The Koran is organized not chronically but by length of book - longest to shortest. When you rearrange it chronologically, what you see is that the "peaceful" suras are all the early ones, the "Makki" (written in Mecca). The suras about jihad and sharia are the later "Madani" (written in Medina). Wherever there is apparent conflict between suras, the principle of "subrogation" applies = the later ones take priority over the earlier ones. That is entirely sensible, logically, but in practice it means the fundamentalists always have more legitimacy than the moderates. And the historical context is not unimportant. In then polytheist Mecca, Muhammad was a near outcast with a very limited following. He had to be careful. When he moved to the more cosmopolitan Medina (at the invitation of the Jewish leaders of that community) his following grew and he had more "latitude" to start talking about law and propagation of faith by other means.
If you think islam is hostile to Judaism and Christianity, you should hear/see what it thinks about "polytheists." Muhammad never got over being rejected by his hometown.
Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are very closely related religions that have all been used for immense good and evil. In a state like Iran, it is used to reinforce a political ideology, much like Christianity was used in Europe to crusade.
Blaming the religion itself is a stupid brain dead thing to do. Just look at all the peaceful Muslims in the world. Look who are terrorists and attempting jihad. It is mostly Iran and its proxies. And virtually all other Muslims hate them.
Tell us you don't know what you're talking about without saying you don't know what you're talking about…..
I'm sorry, you post such stupid things, unless you are willing to post content, I'm not really into trading insults. Come up with something that makes sense first.
I eat shawarma at least once a month, so you know my credentials before I begin. The crusades were a response to 400 years of Islamic invasions and oppression.
The crusades used religion for conquest. Everyone invaded each other back then. Don't pretend it was just Muslims. The crusades united many peoples under 1 religious banner.
Rational adults do not pretend like a reaction is the same as instigation.
Are you that ignorant of history? To think Muslims just out of nowhere invaded parts of Europe before the Crusades?
Anyways the point of the thread was whether Islam is a religion of conquest or not. I've made my point, that all 3 of the Abrahamic religions have used their text for mass conquest. Today, very few of each believes in conquest.
Your ignorance is profound. Google up "Battle of Tours" and then Google up "First Crusades"
Make your point if you have one, or stop posting. I tell people like you to pick up a book, all the time, so I get it. But go ahead and post your thoughts whiterock.
I did make my point. You apparently do not know where the Battle of Tours occurred +350 years before the First Crusade.
Muslims did invade Europe "out of nowhere" before the Crusades, by centuries, on behalf of their god, who does instruct them, subject/verb/object to spread that faith by all means to include the tip of the spear. The Christian God does not do that. And the Crusades were not remotely an effort to do so. They were an effort to retake "the holy land" a very small and specific piece of geography, the birthplace of the faith, not an effort to roll islam back whence it came. No crusader invaded North Africa, or Mesopotamia, et al.... In fact, many Crusades/crusaders had to fight their way thru Christendom to get to their intended targets. Some never made it to the intended target. Even the Byzantines, then the front-lines of the jihad did not always allow them passage thru their lands. And that is also an instructive point - note that the Crusades did not just seek to help the Byzantines push the Turks back whence they came as a way to recapture former parts of the Byzantine empire (which included the Holy Lands). Nope. The crusaders went on long, unsustainable expeditions to seize a few cities in the Holy Lands and.....stopped. Same question for the Spanish Reconquista. How many great European Christian kingdoms came to the aid of Iberia on behalf of the Holy Trinity? If Christianity was such a cult of war, why was it only the Spanish kings who felt a need to fight for their God?
Your take on history is mostly progressive revisionism which contorts the greatest and most repressive colonial empire in history into a victim of European genocide. It's a total caricature.
You are so quick to see what you want to see. My take is that all 3 religions have been used for conquest. None are religions of conquest. That is not a progressive take. What you posted in your last paragraph is progressive, but not anything I said.
Islam is a religion of conquest. Mohammad created it that way. I don't know of any other religion that has the concept of jihad.
Have you ever heard of the Old Testament? God ordering the Israelites to genocide entire cities, down to the last baby, donkey, and dog?
Not to defend the radical jewish fundamentalists in Israel (who still use those verses for evil) or defend the verses in general....but
Those commands were at least place specific (aka the Holy Land)
Giving Jews carte blanche to kill rival tribes in their holy land...a rather small geographic area not much bigger than Vermont-New Hampshire
But at least they did not give general license to kill all infidels all over the world.
Islam upped the ante as it were by essentially calming that the whole world (not just the Holy Land) was the Dar-al Islam and that jihad could be fought anywhere until the whole planet was converted
Islam is a religion of conquest. Mohammad created it that way. I don't know of any other religion that has the concept of jihad.
Have you ever heard of the Old Testament? God ordering the Israelites to genocide entire cities, down to the last baby, donkey, and dog?
Not to defend the radical jewish fundamentalists in Israel (who still use those verses for evil) or defend the verses in general....but
Those commands were at least place specific (aka the Holyland)
Giving Jews carte blanche to kill rival tribes in their holy land...a rather small area not much bigger than Vermont-New Hampshire
But at least they did not give general license to kill all infidels all over the world.
Islam upped the ante as it where by essentially calming that he whole world (not just the Holy Land) was the Dar-al Islam and that jihad could be fought anywhere until the whole planet was converted
Islam is a religion of conquest. Mohammad created it that way. I don't know of any other religion that has the concept of jihad.
Have you ever heard of the Old Testament? God ordering the Israelites to genocide entire cities, down to the last baby, donkey, and dog?
Not to defend the radical jewish fundamentalists in Israel (who still use those verses for evil) or defend the verses in general....but
Those commands were at least place specific (aka the Holyland)
Giving Jews carte blanche to kill rival tribes in their holy land...a rather small area not much bigger than Vermont-New Hampshire
But at least they did not give general license to kill all infidels all over the world.
Islam upped the ante as it where by essentially calming that he whole world (not just the Holy Land) was the Dar-al Islam and that jihad could be fought anywhere until the whole planet was converted
Game, set and match.
indeed. WHEREVER islamic armies went, islam was imposed forcibly. Every. Time.
Same cannot be said for the West, who literally colonized the entire islamic world (except Turkey and Saudi Arabia) for centuries.
Islam is a religion of conquest. Mohammad created it that way. I don't know of any other religion that has the concept of jihad.
Have you ever heard of the Old Testament? God ordering the Israelites to genocide entire cities, down to the last baby, donkey, and dog?
Not to defend the radical jewish fundamentalists in Israel (who still use those verses for evil) or defend the verses in general....but
Those commands were at least place specific (aka the Holyland)
Giving Jews carte blanche to kill rival tribes in their holy land...a rather small area not much bigger than Vermont-New Hampshire
But at least they did not give general license to kill all infidels all over the world.
Islam upped the ante as it where by essentially calming that he whole world (not just the Holy Land) was the Dar-al Islam and that jihad could be fought anywhere until the whole planet was converted
Game, set and match.
indeed. WHEREVER islamic armies went, islam was imposed forcibly. Every. Time.
Same cannot be said for the West, who literally colonized the entire islamic world (except Turkey and Saudi Arabia) for centuries.
Don't recall the West colonizing the Muslims in the Philippines and Indonesia for centuries .
The colonization went on for centuries, starting before Columbus made his famous voyages. The Philippines was colonized by Spain in 1543 and taken over by the U.S. in 1898. That actually was almost 500 years.
The Portuguese took over what today is called Indonesia in 1512 with the Dutch taking over starting in 1602. For centuries it was called the Dutch East Indies.
There is a real reason most of the last 500 years was called the "Era of European Domination".
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Islam is a religion of conquest. Mohammad created it that way. I don't know of any other religion that has the concept of jihad.
Have you ever heard of the Old Testament? God ordering the Israelites to genocide entire cities, down to the last baby, donkey, and dog?
Not to defend the radical jewish fundamentalists in Israel (who still use those verses for evil) or defend the verses in general....but
Those commands were at least place specific (aka the Holy Land)
Giving Jews carte blanche to kill rival tribes in their holy land...a rather small geographic area not much bigger than Vermont-New Hampshire
But at least they did not give general license to kill all infidels all over the world.
Islam upped the ante as it were by essentially calming that the whole world (not just the Holy Land) was the Dar-al Islam and that jihad could be fought anywhere until the whole planet was converted
Yes, the texts are different, but people of all 3 religions have perpetrated extreme violence by people claiming God said to kill them all. And yet I would describe none of them as religions of conquest. Put on the armor of God doesn't have to mean go do actual battle with sinners.
Are you that ignorant of history? To think Muslims just out of nowhere invaded parts of Europe before the Crusades?
That is precisely what they did.
It was absolutely not out of nowhere. Islam spread the least in Europe. And then many Muslim invasions were the same people who had a history of conquest, but now a new religion.
My point is you cannot blame the religion for the invasions into Europe, when most of these peoples had been invading far before Islam.
The Muslims spread the least in Europe because they were stopped. Charlemagne's grandpa (Charles Martel) stopped them at tours in southern France but they still controlled Iberia for centuries. The Hapsburg stopped them at the gates of Vienna twice in the 16th & 17th centuries but the occupied much of the Balkans for centuries after. The Ottomans were in gradual decline for well over a century and their empire collapsed by being on the losing side in WWI.
They spread the least in Europe because it was an impractical place to invade. The current Middle East and Africa were much easier. If they had had direct access to Europe, things would have gone differently.
None of this is relevant to the discussion. These were peoples in constant turmoil, constantly invading each other forever. Islam was used as a vehicle to unite them and spread an ideology, but I still maintain the religion itself is not one of conquest. Zealotry doesn't change facts.
The vast majority of Muslims today just want what everyone else wants. A huge percentage of Muslims self identify as religious extremists, but still are concentrated in 1 part of the world.
1. Yes its possible Islam was not even invented yet when the Arabs began their expansion/invasions.
It might have been a later invention/creation used to justify the initial invasions/wars
Its and interesting topic....with scholars divided over the existence of Muhammad and the creation of the Qu'ran before the expansion.
2. Whatever the truth of Islam's obscure origins....it now has a distinctive war philosophy that other faiths just do not have.
[Islam divides the entire world into the Dar al-harb and the Dar al-l slam. Dar al-harb - the world of the sword, the infidel and perpetual war. Countries that are non- Muslim reside in the dar al-harb. Individuals from the dar al-harb are designated as harbi, "enemy person, person from the territory of war." Dar al-Islam - the Land of Islam and peace. Peace on earth does not come until the entire world has been made of Dar at-Islam. Islam is under permanent jihad obligation to reduce the dar alharb to non-existence.]
Are you that ignorant of history? To think Muslims just out of nowhere invaded parts of Europe before the Crusades?
That is precisely what they did.
It was absolutely not out of nowhere. Islam spread the least in Europe. And then many Muslim invasions were the same people who had a history of conquest, but now a new religion.
My point is you cannot blame the religion for the invasions into Europe, when most of these peoples had been invading far before Islam.
The Muslims spread the least in Europe because they were stopped. Charlemagne's grandpa (Charles Martel) stopped them at tours in southern France but they still controlled Iberia for centuries. The Hapsburg stopped them at the gates of Vienna twice in the 16th & 17th centuries but the occupied much of the Balkans for centuries after. The Ottomans were in gradual decline for well over a century and their empire collapsed by being on the losing side in WWI.
They spread the least in Europe because it was an impractical place to invade. The current Middle East and Africa were much easier. If they had had direct access to Europe, things would have gone differently.
None of this is relevant to the discussion. These were peoples in constant turmoil, constantly invading each other forever. Islam was used as a vehicle to unite them and spread an ideology, but I still maintain the religion itself is not one of conquest. Zealotry doesn't change facts.
The vast majority of Muslims today just want what everyone else wants. A huge percentage of Muslims self identify as religious extremists, but still are concentrated in 1 part of the world.
1. Yes its possible Islam was not even invented yet when the Arabs began their expansion/invasions.
It might have been a later invention/creation used to justify the initial invasions/wars
Its and interesting topic....with scholars divided over the existence of Muhammad and the creation of the Qu'ran before the expansion.
2. Whatever the truth of Islam's obscure origins....it now has a distinctive war philosophy that other faiths just do not have.
[Islam divides the entire world into the Dar al-harb and the Dar al-l slam. Dar al-harb - the world of the sword, the infidel and perpetual war. Countries that are non- Muslim reside in the dar al-harb. Individuals from the dar al-harb are designated as harbi, "enemy person, person from the territory of war." Dar al-Islam - the Land of Islam and peace. Peace on earth does not come until the entire world has been made of Dar at-Islam. Islam is under permanent jihad obligation to reduce the dar alharb to non-existence.]
Islam is a religion of conquest. Mohammad created it that way. I don't know of any other religion that has the concept of jihad.
Have you ever heard of the Old Testament? God ordering the Israelites to genocide entire cities, down to the last baby, donkey, and dog?
Not to defend the radical jewish fundamentalists in Israel (who still use those verses for evil) or defend the verses in general....but
Those commands were at least place specific (aka the Holyland)
Giving Jews carte blanche to kill rival tribes in their holy land...a rather small area not much bigger than Vermont-New Hampshire
But at least they did not give general license to kill all infidels all over the world.
Islam upped the ante as it where by essentially calming that he whole world (not just the Holy Land) was the Dar-al Islam and that jihad could be fought anywhere until the whole planet was converted
Game, set and match.
indeed. WHEREVER islamic armies went, islam was imposed forcibly. Every. Time.
Same cannot be said for the West, who literally colonized the entire islamic world (except Turkey and Saudi Arabia) for centuries.
Don't recall the West colonizing the Muslims in the Philippines and Indonesia for centuries .
they did. they just didn't try to convert the muslims to Christianity. None of the Euro-colonial powers did. Same cannot be said for the Caliphates. Everywhere they went, the infidel faced initial demands to convert or die followed by stultifying sharia purpose built to coerce conversion. Best example is perhaps the most important reference of all - the Pact of Umar. It is canon in islamic jurisprudence, the model for how non-muslims are to be treated. It was crafted following the islamic conquest of then overwhelmingly Christian Lebanon and Syria.
"In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us you requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. You made conditions on ourselves that:
We will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk.
Nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration,
Nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims.
We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night,
And we will open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby.
Those Muslims who come as guests will enjoy boarding and food for three days.
We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims.
We will not teach our children the Quran.
Publicize practices of shirk,
Invite anyone to Shirk
Or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so.
We will respect Muslims,
Move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them.
We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names,
Or ride on saddles,
Hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons.
We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic,
Or sell liquor.
We will have the front of our hair cut,
Wear our customary clothes wherever we are,
Wear belts around our waist,
Refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches
And demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets.
We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely,
Or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims,
Nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals,
Or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets.
We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead,
Or buy servants who were captured by Muslims.
We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.
We will not beat any Muslim.
These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimma (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion."
Are you that ignorant of history? To think Muslims just out of nowhere invaded parts of Europe before the Crusades?
That is precisely what they did.
It was absolutely not out of nowhere. Islam spread the least in Europe. And then many Muslim invasions were the same people who had a history of conquest, but now a new religion.
My point is you cannot blame the religion for the invasions into Europe, when most of these peoples had been invading far before Islam.
The Muslims spread the least in Europe because they were stopped. Charlemagne's grandpa (Charles Martel) stopped them at tours in southern France but they still controlled Iberia for centuries. The Hapsburg stopped them at the gates of Vienna twice in the 16th & 17th centuries but the occupied much of the Balkans for centuries after. The Ottomans were in gradual decline for well over a century and their empire collapsed by being on the losing side in WWI.
They spread the least in Europe because it was an impractical place to invade. The current Middle East and Africa were much easier. If they had had direct access to Europe, things would have gone differently.
None of this is relevant to the discussion. These were peoples in constant turmoil, constantly invading each other forever. Islam was used as a vehicle to unite them and spread an ideology, but I still maintain the religion itself is not one of conquest. Zealotry doesn't change facts.
The vast majority of Muslims today just want what everyone else wants. A huge percentage of Muslims self identify as religious extremists, but still are concentrated in 1 part of the world.
1. Yes its possible Islam was not even invented yet when the Arabs began their expansion/invasions.
It might have been a later invention/creation used to justify the initial invasions/wars
Its and interesting topic....with scholars divided over the existence of Muhammad and the creation of the Qu'ran before the expansion.
2. Whatever the truth of Islam's obscure origins....it now has a distinctive war philosophy that other faiths just do not have.
[Islam divides the entire world into the Dar al-harb and the Dar al-l slam. Dar al-harb - the world of the sword, the infidel and perpetual war. Countries that are non- Muslim reside in the dar al-harb. Individuals from the dar al-harb are designated as harbi, "enemy person, person from the territory of war." Dar al-Islam - the Land of Islam and peace. Peace on earth does not come until the entire world has been made of Dar at-Islam. Islam is under permanent jihad obligation to reduce the dar alharb to non-existence.]
I don't think history is the Jorge Scientific Corporation's area of expertise.
How about Brown University?
solid ref work there. The concept of realms is fundamental to islamic world view. Islam literally means "submission," as in a muslim is someone who has submitted to Allah....no longer at war with Allah. The world is divided into realms according to areas which are administered under Sharia - the Dar-al-islam....realm of peace. Those areas outside of sharia are divided into an array or realms:" Dar-al-Kafir.....realm of the denier, has heard the call to islam yet still deny it but not in conflict with muslims. Dar-al-Harb....realm of war, has heard the call of islam, and are fighting against muslims. Dar-al-Ahd"....realm of treaty, areas not at war with islamic powers because of a formal agreement. Dar-al-Hudna....realm of truce, areas in a period of respite in an otherwise intractable struggle. Dar-al-Sulh....realm of armistice, areas which have surrendered to islamic countries but still autonomous.
Underpinning it all is a worldview defined by relationships with Allah, whether or not an area is wholly or partly or not at all following sharia. The percentage of muslims in those areas is irrelevant. The whole worldview is focused on whether or not sharia is law of the land. not surprisingly, islam has a consistent track record of essentially extirpating other faiths in areas under sharia. THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ISLAM - to enforce sharia upon the world.
That is not how Christianity works, in theory or in practice.
Islam is a religion of conquest. Mohammad created it that way. I don't know of any other religion that has the concept of jihad.
Have you ever heard of the Old Testament? God ordering the Israelites to genocide entire cities, down to the last baby, donkey, and dog?
Not to defend the radical jewish fundamentalists in Israel (who still use those verses for evil) or defend the verses in general....but
Those commands were at least place specific (aka the Holyland)
Giving Jews carte blanche to kill rival tribes in their holy land...a rather small area not much bigger than Vermont-New Hampshire
But at least they did not give general license to kill all infidels all over the world.
Islam upped the ante as it where by essentially calming that he whole world (not just the Holy Land) was the Dar-al Islam and that jihad could be fought anywhere until the whole planet was converted
Game, set and match.
indeed. WHEREVER islamic armies went, islam was imposed forcibly. Every. Time.
Same cannot be said for the West, who literally colonized the entire islamic world (except Turkey and Saudi Arabia) for centuries.
Don't recall the West colonizing the Muslims in the Philippines and Indonesia for centuries .
they did. they just didn't try to convert the muslims to Christianity. None of the Euro-colonial powers did. Same cannot be said for the Caliphates. Everywhere they went, the infidel faced initial demands to convert or die followed by stultifying sharia purpose built to coerce conversion. Best example is perhaps the most important reference of all - the Pact of Umar. It is canon in islamic jurisprudence, the model for how non-muslims are to be treated. It was crafted following the islamic conquest of then overwhelmingly Christian Lebanon and Syria.
"In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us you requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. You made conditions on ourselves that:
We will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk.
Nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration,
Nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims.
We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night,
And we will open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby.
Those Muslims who come as guests will enjoy boarding and food for three days.
We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims.
We will not teach our children the Quran.
Publicize practices of shirk,
Invite anyone to Shirk
Or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so.
We will respect Muslims,
Move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them.
We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names,
Or ride on saddles,
Hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons.
We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic,
Or sell liquor.
We will have the front of our hair cut,
Wear our customary clothes wherever we are,
Wear belts around our waist,
Refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches
And demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets.
We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely,
Or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims,
Nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals,
Or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets.
We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead,
Or buy servants who were captured by Muslims.
We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.
We will not beat any Muslim.
These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimma (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion."
Excellent information
Well done
Unfortunately our woke masses can not, will not , draw the proper conclusions.
Are you that ignorant of history? To think Muslims just out of nowhere invaded parts of Europe before the Crusades?
That is precisely what they did.
It was absolutely not out of nowhere. Islam spread the least in Europe. And then many Muslim invasions were the same people who had a history of conquest, but now a new religion.
My point is you cannot blame the religion for the invasions into Europe, when most of these peoples had been invading far before Islam.
The Muslims spread the least in Europe because they were stopped. Charlemagne's grandpa (Charles Martel) stopped them at tours in southern France but they still controlled Iberia for centuries. The Hapsburg stopped them at the gates of Vienna twice in the 16th & 17th centuries but the occupied much of the Balkans for centuries after. The Ottomans were in gradual decline for well over a century and their empire collapsed by being on the losing side in WWI.
They spread the least in Europe because it was an impractical place to invade. The current Middle East and Africa were much easier. If they had had direct access to Europe, things would have gone differently.
None of this is relevant to the discussion. These were peoples in constant turmoil, constantly invading each other forever. Islam was used as a vehicle to unite them and spread an ideology, but I still maintain the religion itself is not one of conquest. Zealotry doesn't change facts.
The vast majority of Muslims today just want what everyone else wants. A huge percentage of Muslims self identify as religious extremists, but still are concentrated in 1 part of the world.
1. Yes its possible Islam was not even invented yet when the Arabs began their expansion/invasions.
It might have been a later invention/creation used to justify the initial invasions/wars
Its and interesting topic....with scholars divided over the existence of Muhammad and the creation of the Qu'ran before the expansion.
2. Whatever the truth of Islam's obscure origins....it now has a distinctive war philosophy that other faiths just do not have.
[Islam divides the entire world into the Dar al-harb and the Dar al-l slam. Dar al-harb - the world of the sword, the infidel and perpetual war. Countries that are non- Muslim reside in the dar al-harb. Individuals from the dar al-harb are designated as harbi, "enemy person, person from the territory of war." Dar al-Islam - the Land of Islam and peace. Peace on earth does not come until the entire world has been made of Dar at-Islam. Islam is under permanent jihad obligation to reduce the dar alharb to non-existence.]
I don't think history is the Jorge Scientific Corporation's area of expertise.
How about Brown University?
It's a bit better. Here's what they don't tell you, though:
Quote:
With the withdrawal of imperialist and mandate authorities from the Middle East and elsewhere, modern Muslim nations have for the most part provided themselves with practical, eclectic law codes that draw on ideas from both the Muslim tradition and the West. It is in the traditional practical areas of marriage, divorce, and inheritance that the influence of the sharah has been strongest. Some countries (e.g., Tunisia) have achieved notably progressive codes of personal status while still asserting a very creative interpretative link between the code and the tradition of fiqh. The greatest theoretician of the idea that the sharah could be a source for practical and effective codification was probably the Egyptian jurist Abd al-Razzq al-Sanhr, who played a part in drafting new civil codes for more than one Arab country. The magnitude of the achievement of modern Muslim states in creating and implementing their new legal structures is rarely appreciated outside legal circles, but it is an achievement of immense importance and complexity, and not one that is unduly at odds with the practical history of the sharah.
***
In reality, Muslim groups have lived outside of Muslim territory since the second century of Islam, and significant Muslim populations have lived in Western countries for several generations. The theoretical dichotomy between dr al-Islm and dr al-arb is now widely considered inapplicable. As Muslims can safely and openly practice and propagate Islam in most minority contexts, many contemporary jurists even consider the West to be part of dr al-Islm.
Islam is a religion of conquest. Mohammad created it that way. I don't know of any other religion that has the concept of jihad.
Have you ever heard of the Old Testament? God ordering the Israelites to genocide entire cities, down to the last baby, donkey, and dog?
Not to defend the radical jewish fundamentalists in Israel (who still use those verses for evil) or defend the verses in general....but
Those commands were at least place specific (aka the Holy Land)
Giving Jews carte blanche to kill rival tribes in their holy land...a rather small geographic area not much bigger than Vermont-New Hampshire
But at least they did not give general license to kill all infidels all over the world.
Islam upped the ante as it were by essentially calming that the whole world (not just the Holy Land) was the Dar-al Islam and that jihad could be fought anywhere until the whole planet was converted
Yes, the texts are different, but people of all 3 religions have perpetrated extreme violence by people claiming God said to kill them all. And yet I would describe none of them as religions of conquest. Put on the armor of God doesn't have to mean go do actual battle with sinners.
Interestingly, only one religion is still doing so today.
Are you that ignorant of history? To think Muslims just out of nowhere invaded parts of Europe before the Crusades?
That is precisely what they did.
It was absolutely not out of nowhere. Islam spread the least in Europe. And then many Muslim invasions were the same people who had a history of conquest, but now a new religion.
My point is you cannot blame the religion for the invasions into Europe, when most of these peoples had been invading far before Islam.
The Muslims spread the least in Europe because they were stopped. Charlemagne's grandpa (Charles Martel) stopped them at tours in southern France but they still controlled Iberia for centuries. The Hapsburg stopped them at the gates of Vienna twice in the 16th & 17th centuries but the occupied much of the Balkans for centuries after. The Ottomans were in gradual decline for well over a century and their empire collapsed by being on the losing side in WWI.
They spread the least in Europe because it was an impractical place to invade. The current Middle East and Africa were much easier. If they had had direct access to Europe, things would have gone differently.
None of this is relevant to the discussion. These were peoples in constant turmoil, constantly invading each other forever. Islam was used as a vehicle to unite them and spread an ideology, but I still maintain the religion itself is not one of conquest. Zealotry doesn't change facts.
The vast majority of Muslims today just want what everyone else wants. A huge percentage of Muslims self identify as religious extremists, but still are concentrated in 1 part of the world.
1. Yes its possible Islam was not even invented yet when the Arabs began their expansion/invasions.
It might have been a later invention/creation used to justify the initial invasions/wars
Its and interesting topic....with scholars divided over the existence of Muhammad and the creation of the Qu'ran before the expansion.
2. Whatever the truth of Islam's obscure origins....it now has a distinctive war philosophy that other faiths just do not have.
[Islam divides the entire world into the Dar al-harb and the Dar al-l slam. Dar al-harb - the world of the sword, the infidel and perpetual war. Countries that are non- Muslim reside in the dar al-harb. Individuals from the dar al-harb are designated as harbi, "enemy person, person from the territory of war." Dar al-Islam - the Land of Islam and peace. Peace on earth does not come until the entire world has been made of Dar at-Islam. Islam is under permanent jihad obligation to reduce the dar alharb to non-existence.]
I don't think history is the Jorge Scientific Corporation's area of expertise.
How about Brown University?
It's a bit better. Here's what they don't tell you, though:
Quote:
With the withdrawal of imperialist and mandate authorities from the Middle East and elsewhere, modern Muslim nations have for the most part provided themselves with practical, eclectic law codes that draw on ideas from both the Muslim tradition and the West. It is in the traditional practical areas of marriage, divorce, and inheritance that the influence of the sharah has been strongest. Some countries (e.g., Tunisia) have achieved notably progressive codes of personal status while still asserting a very creative interpretative link between the code and the tradition of fiqh. The greatest theoretician of the idea that the sharah could be a source for practical and effective codification was probably the Egyptian jurist Abd al-Razzq al-Sanhr, who played a part in drafting new civil codes for more than one Arab country. The magnitude of the achievement of modern Muslim states in creating and implementing their new legal structures is rarely appreciated outside legal circles, but it is an achievement of immense importance and complexity, and not one that is unduly at odds with the practical history of the sharah.
***
In reality, Muslim groups have lived outside of Muslim territory since the second century of Islam, and significant Muslim populations have lived in Western countries for several generations. The theoretical dichotomy between dr al-Islm and dr al-arb is now widely considered inapplicable. As Muslims can safely and openly practice and propagate Islam in most minority contexts, many contemporary jurists even consider the West to be part of dr al-Islm.
the cited material gets the context correct then botches the conclusion.
the rise of islamism was a direct counter-reaction to the colonial experience. The islamic world emerged from Colonialism during the Cold War. There was an awful lot of foreign aid available for nations to seek in exchange for loyalty to one side or the other. That tended to drive models of post-colonial governance in the islamic world in one of two directions: hereditary kingship (largely western aligned) and Arab socialism (mostly either non-aligned or defacto allied with USSR/PRC). BOTH models severely repressed the islamists, far moreso than the colonial powers did. The end of the Cold War era stopped the flow of foreign aid, which stripped those post-colonial structures of the power they needed to offset shortocmings in legitimacy. And there the islamists stood, uncorrupted by foreign interests. "simple, pure, clean...." The entire islamic world began looking to islamic heritage for inspiration on how to move away from codes & structures of civil governance and administration heavily influenced by centuries of colonialsm. The only variance was in matters of degree. Every islamic country moved more islamic.....islamist parties becoming plurality blocs in the electorate. Islamist leaders started popped up in legislative and executive leadership positions. And both laws and government structures tended to move toward islamic models.
That kind of dynamic is an old one = "returning to ones roots." After centuries of being politically, economically, and socially isolated, islamists were...."simple, clean, pure....." Uncontaminated by foreign interests. Looking to return the islamic world to greatness by returning to roots.
Returning to "first principles" is a very common yearning in at least parts of societies in turmoil. "Do not fear the simple, pure, clean islam of Muhammad." I heard that a thousand times........ Those folks thought they really had it all figured out. And now, after a couple decades of having to make water & sewer flow, reality is bringing them back to ground.
Islam is a religion of conquest. Mohammad created it that way. I don't know of any other religion that has the concept of jihad.
Have you ever heard of the Old Testament? God ordering the Israelites to genocide entire cities, down to the last baby, donkey, and dog?
Not to defend the radical jewish fundamentalists in Israel (who still use those verses for evil) or defend the verses in general....but
Those commands were at least place specific (aka the Holy Land)
Giving Jews carte blanche to kill rival tribes in their holy land...a rather small geographic area not much bigger than Vermont-New Hampshire
But at least they did not give general license to kill all infidels all over the world.
Islam upped the ante as it were by essentially calming that the whole world (not just the Holy Land) was the Dar-al Islam and that jihad could be fought anywhere until the whole planet was converted
Yes, the texts are different, but people of all 3 religions have perpetrated extreme violence by people claiming God said to kill them all. And yet I would describe none of them as religions of conquest. Put on the armor of God doesn't have to mean go do actual battle with sinners.
Interestingly, only one religion is still doing so today.
You don't need to go very far back. I am not talking though about the state of these 3 religions today. Yes, Islam is by far the most violent religion, today. A huge percentage of Muslims self identify as religious extremists. I am talking about the religions themselves, whether they depend upon conquest or not. The vast majority of followers of all 3 do not participate in any conquest today.
