Dubai Forums archive (old posts) - to navigate to the current version click Dubai Forums
Dubai Expat Help Dubai Chat Dubai Romance Dubai Auto CD, DVD, MP3, HDD players for sale in Dubai Dubai High Tech Dubai Guide Dubai Employment Classifieds Accommodation in Dubai Jobs in Dubai Available Professionals in Dubai Learn Arabic Philosophy Forum
Dubai Expat Forum - Philosophy and Religion Forums

Was Islam spread by the sword?


shafique It appears that my reading of history that Islam wasn't spread by the sword is at odds with other people's views. I cite the example of how Islam spread to Indonesia, China etc as an example. Indonesia is now the biggest Muslim country in the world. I also cite the fact that Islam in Arabia spread fastest when there was peace - between the treaty of Hudaibiyya and the peaceful conquest of Mecca, there was no fighting and yet the Muslim population went from only being able to muster a small armed force of irregulars to one that had a 10,000 strong army that could walk into Mecca peacefully. I also cite the fact that today Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West. I have to admit that this last claim from the media, and that Valkyrie has posted information to the contrary - so I'll also post information on this thread about the spread of Islam today (it may be that Islam isn't the fastest growing religion and that 'no-religion' is - we'll see). Cheers, Shafique
shafique The presence of Muslim armies and the expansion of the Muslim empire territorially should not be confused with the spread of the religion. The rights of other religions was safeguarded and recognised in law. They even had different responsibilities than Muslims and paid different taxes as a mark of this difference. Where there were strong local religions and people did not want to convert, the fact that these communities continued to exist is a testimony to Islam's tolerance. Copts are still in Egypt, Hindus are still in India, Jews are still in all the territories ruled by Muslims. Compare this with what happened when Ferdinand drove the Moors/Muslim rulers out of Spain and the forced conversions of Jews and Muslims that took place after this. The Judaic empire during and after Moses comprised of armies that conquered territories. Deuteronomy 18.18 predicts a prophet like Moses will be sent - and hence the fact Muhammad, pbuh, headed up armies is a fulfilment of this prophecy - at least it is to me. Cheers, Shafique shafique
I could not immediately find this list on - the information it had about the growth rates. The entry on the FAQ on 'what is the fastest growing religion' makes informative reading though:
#fastest
I recommend everyone interested in this question read the above short link - he makes some of the points I make below, better than I do!
People often ask us about growth rates. It may seem odd that a database which has collected tens of thousands of religion statistics does not store growth rates as well. But we don't. It's not unusual for us to come across studies and data sets which mention growth rates. But this type of data is only in the database if it is part of the text that accompanies the adherent statistics which are our main objective.
A quick set of searches shows that the US census does not ask about religion, and that estimates of numbers of Muslims in US range from 1m to 8m.
I'm also not sure what 'deist' means - does that include Christiantity which is conspicuous by it's absence. Also, a 77% annual growth rate cannot be sustained - mathematically within a short number of years the whole world will be 'Deist' :)
Also, I find it hard to believe that were more converts to Sikhism (a religion that does not evangelise) than to Islam. I suspect we are talking of a small number of Sikhs and an increase due to immigration.
What is clear though, is that the figures for growth of religions are muddied by birth rates and immigration.
For the purposes of this thread and other discussions, we need to get to the numbers of people converting to respective religions out of conviction (and not by force).
Here are three links which give different perspectives and show there aren't reliable stats (that I've found so far):
(From 2000, says there are 6m muslims in the USA and growing fast)
(from 2003, says number of muslims probably around 2m)
(from May 2007, giving global rates of growth of religions - including by birth - showing Islam the fastest. Interestingly, looking at the areas of growth, backs up the reports that say Islam is growing faster in Europe and USA)
Looks like more research is required.
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics
i never studied asian history... i cited north africa
egypt was nearly 100% christian till islam came in, with their armies, with the sword, shed blood, forced people to convert, pay jizya otherwise... leaving a good 3% of wealthy people that can afford to pay such money on a monthly basis. thankfully for me, my family was one of them - because i would have turned completely aethiest if i was born a muslim.
that was also the point where egyptians got inheritly dimmer in intellect... and it was the point where the downward spiral from being one of the world's brightest civilisations - to now a laughing stock..... leaving people like me no choice but to leave the country to get an education abroad, go to universities abroad, and go seeking another nationality that would respect my free mind, my free speech, my free will to be and do whatever i please... a society that i dont feel victimised being a christian in a predominantly muslim surrounding, where i get the 2nd best in everything.. i feel sorry for others that were never given that chance or choice in their life - to grow up to really make something out of themselves... instead they're still stuck with a passport and an identity card that clearly states their religion - so people can treat them accordingly..
why should any ID card state your religion? who's problem is it who you worship? oh thats right, religion and politics are one & the same - what a joke.
and could islam have direct corrolation with loss of brain cells and general cognition? there will never be concrete proof, but in all corners of the globe, there seems to be evidence to support this theory :shock: :shock: shafique
Ok - no problems. We'll take it for granted that Islam spread not by the sword in asia (as there weren't any armies that went there).

Egypt was nearly 100% Christian. Could you please give me a reference for this fact - I'm not sure I've read this before. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd like to verify this statement.
[Edit - yes you are right, northern Egypt was predominantly Christian. A good reference is Jill Kamil's book on the Coptic Church. This book is a reference in the next post.]
A simple question for you though - if a person converted to Islam, did they pay more or less to the authorities in taxes that muslims paid than the jizya?
Please don't avoid this question, as it puts into context what the Jizya was - a tax - and not a sum of money to avoid execution if you chose not to convert.
As I presume your family are Coptic Christians, I think you will appreciate the fact that people of that community continue to exist to this day as opposed in Egypt as a sign of Islam's tolerance - as opposed to the wholesale slaughter and forced conversions of Jews and Muslims in Spain (which took place long after Egypt became Muslim).
Whilst I appreciate that Coptic Christian reading of history is that Islam coming to Egypt was a disaster, I would balance the accounts you have learnt from your family with what serious historians have written about the spread of Islam to Egypt.

So now you are going to try and convince me that the accounts of Islamic learnings - the advances in the arts and sciences - the minds of Al Biruni etc did not happen.
The Islamic empire shone brightly for centuries - and this included Egypt.
I sense a lot of frustration about the plight of your countrymen today - I can fully understand. However, to blame Islam rather than Egyptians is convenient for a non-Muslim.
I wonder if in 100 years time there will disaffected Hindu American youths who blame the decline in America's powers with Evangelical Christian beliefs of George W Bush? :)

And this has what to do with the Quran?

And this is based on what scientific evidence? Or do you want us to believe you blindly? :)
Anyway, I see you have major issues with Islam - fair enough.
I offer you a chance to take each issue, point by point and make your case. I am just saying that Islam is logical, beautiful and above all the final religion of the God you believe in. I'm not asking you to believe me, but am asking for civility if you choose to challenge this.
I believe that Islam can withstand all the onslaughts of logic and comparisons with alternative religions/belief systems. As proved (so far) in the other thread, the holy scripture of Islam is without contradiction and peerless.
Given you posted you-tube links featuring an arabic speaking priest, and the revelation now that you are from Egyptian stock - you are better placed than I to understand the words of the Quran in the original form. Therefore you are best placed (as an Arabic speaking non-Muslim) to help find contradictions in the Quran and to challenge me when I cite the Quran in favour of the logicality of Islam.
However, if you cannot get beyond the emotional aversion to Islam and if discussing the Quran/Bible etc only elicits emotional personal attacks, then the discussion will generate more heat than light.
I try to stay out of personal attacks (but I am human and have been known to stoop to sarcasm) - but you, ebionics, have my committment to a civilised discussion here if you so wish.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique Concerning Muslim conquest of Egypt and the Christians in Egypt:
From Chalcedon to the Arab conquest of Egypt
Copts suffered under the rule of the Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire. The Melkite Patriarchs, appointed by the emperors as both spiritual leaders and civil governors, massacred the Egyptian population whom they considered heretics. Many Egyptians were tortured and martyred to accept the terms of Chalcedon, but Egyptians remained loyal to the faith of their fathers and to the Cyrillian view of Christology. One of the most renowned Egyptian saints of that period is Saint Samuel the Confessor.

So Egyptian Christians were persecuted by other Christians before Islam came.

The Arab-Muslim conquest of Egypt
The Muslim conquest of Egypt took place in AD 639. Despite the political upheaval, Egypt remained a mainly Christian land. However, the gradual conversions to Islam over the centuries changed Egypt from a Christian to a largely Muslim country by the end of the 12th century.[6]

So, Egypt was predominantly Christian - and remained so after the coming of Islam according to this. The reference is to a book by Jill Kamil who is a historian. This quotation seems to imply that there weren't mass forced conversions, and therefore that Islam in Egypt was not spread by the sword.

This process was sped along by persecutions during and following the reign of the Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah (reigned AD 996–1021) and the Crusades, and also by the acceptance of Arabic as a liturgical language by the Pope of Alexandria Gabriel ibn-Turaik.[7]
During Islamic rule, the Copts needed to pay a special tax called the jizya in order to be defended by Muslim armies, as non-Muslims were not allowed to serve in the army. This tax was abolished in 1855.
Note - jizya is a tax.
Anyway - the above is from Wikipedia's entry for Coptic Christianity and the above quotes do not seem to have been disputed on wiki.
I also read that the Bishop of Alexandria gave instructions to Coptic Christians not to offer resistance to the Arab armies when they marched into Egypt - I'll look up the references.
cheers,
Shafique ebonics yes because ill let someone called Jill and wikipedia tell me about the history of my country.. shafique, wiki is not a credible source, or a valid referance, any credible educational institution would fail you if you quote wikipedia as a referance. it makes sense that when prosecuted, the copts gave up their lives to uphold their faith - then give it up for another... makes all the sense in the world. now do you see what i mean by islam making people inheritly dimmer in the brain? shafique
That is why I gave you the reference to the book. I went out of my way to look for a source from the Coptic point of view and yet you dismiss it because of what you have been taught.
Fair enough.
The Copts were persecuted by 'orthodox' Christians for holding Monophysite doctrines - they enjoyed greater religious freedom under Islamic rule than when they were persecuted in pre-Islamic Egypt.
I'm sorry if this is contrary to your belief, but we should be able to come to a sensible conclusion if we consult with credible historical sources. I've named one and await a contrary view.
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics i would go dig up some books and detail what actually happened, but the UAE restricts intellectual material of the sort (surprise surprise) they also restrict all the websites that detail scripture by scripture from the qur'an all its contradictions (no surprise there either) do you have a proxy by-pass shafique, i can send you the links to look yourself. - unfortunatly i cannot be your guide through it, the higher powers are watching.. valkyrie Shafique, I wasn't referring to forced conversions so much as I was talking about the spread of Islamic law and emipire. That happened through military conquest.
If you want to discuss forced conversions, then I agree with you, they didn't happen in former Christian lands. But they did happen in other places, where people of other religions weren't immediately considered dhimmis.
This is what I posted on another thread awhile ago.
the following is from 'Why I am not a Muslim' by Ibn Warraq p235-236
Zoroastrians
According to the "Tarikh-i Bukhara," a history of Bukhara written in about A.D.. 944, Islam had to be enforced on the reluctant inhabitants of Bukhara. The Bukharans reverted to their original beliefs no less than four times: " The residents of Bukhara became Muslims . But they renounced [Islam} each time the Arabs turned back. Qutayba b. Muslim made them Muslim three times, [but] they renounced [Islam] again and became nonbelievers. The fourth time, qutayba waged war, seized the city, and established Islam after considerable strife. . . . They espoused Islam overtly but practiced idolatry in secret."
Many Zoroastrians were induced to convert by bribes, and later, out of economic necessity. Many of these "economic converts" were later executed for having adopted Islam to avoid paying the poll-tax and land tax. In Khurasan and Bukhara, the Muslims destroyed Zoroastrian fire temples and constructed mosques on these sites. The "Tarikh-i Bukhara" records that there was considerable outrage at these acts of sacrilege, and a concerted resistance to the spread of Islam. One scholar sums up the situation thus: "Indeed, coexistence between Muslims and Zoroastrians was rarely peaceful, cooperation was fleeting, and conflict remained the form of intercommunal contact from the initial Arab conquest of Transoxiana untile the late thirteenth century A.D." A similar situation existed in Khurasan: "The violent military conflicts between the forces of the Arab commander Abd Allah b. Amir and the local Iranian lords, combined later with the destruction of Zoroastrian religious institutions, produced lasting enmity between Muslims and Zoroastrian in Khurasan."
The early conquests of Zoroastrian Iran were punctuated with the usual massacres, as in Raiy. If the town put up brave resistance to the Muslims, then very few men were spared. For example, at Sarakh, only a hundred men were granted amnesty, and the women were taken into captivity; the children taken into captivity were brought up as Muslims. At Sus a similar situation emerged--about a hundred men were pardoned, the rest killed. At Manadhir, all the men were put to the sword, and the women and children enslaved. At the conquest of Istakhr, more than 40,000 Iranians were slaughtered. The Zoroastrians suffered sporadic persecution, when their fire temples and priests were destroyed, for example, at Kariyan, Kumm, and at Idhaj. In a deliberate act of provocation the caliph al-Mutawakkil had cut down a tree putatively planted by Zoroaster himself. Sometimes the fire temples were cnverted into mosques.
The fiscal oppression of the Zoroastrians led to a series of uprisings against the Muslims in the eight century. We might cite the revolts led by Bihafarid between 746 and 748 and the rising of Sinbadh in 755.
Forced conversions were also frequent, and the pressures for conversion often led to conflict and riots, as in Shiraz in 979. To escape persecution and the forced conversions many Zoroastrians emigrated to India, where, to this day, they form a much respected minority known as Parsis. Conditions for the Zoroastrians became worse from the seventeenth century onwards. In the eighteenth century, their numbers, to quote the [i]Encyclopaedia of Islam (2d ed.), "declined disastrously due to the combined effects of massacre, forced conversion and emigration." By the nineteenth century they were living in total insecurity and poverty and suffered increasing discrimination. Zoroastrian merchants were liable for extra taxes; houses were frequently looted; they had to wear distinctive clothing; and were forbidden to build new houses or repair old ones.

In India, the sheer number of "polytheists" meant that the rulers had to settle for having a large number of them as their subjects, unconverted, but it was matter of realism, not tolerance.

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
shafique
I am fortunate to not have a proxy at home - I live in one of the 'free zones'.
Give me the references and I'll gladly look them up and share the quotes here.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
I'm currently reading a number of books on this period - fascinating stuff.
There were different waves of territorial conquests - something that goes on into the twentieth and twenty first centuries. The initial Arab conquests did impose Arab rule, but then various rulers/empires ruled at different times.
This is distinct from the religion and conversions to Islam or not.
Take the Mongols for example, they defeated the 'Islamic' empire, but then took on Islam for their religion and now they are seen as part of the Islamic empire.

I do agree with you there were persecutions and forced conversions over the long period of history. Muslims oppressed other Muslims as well as non-Muslims.
However, these incidences were the exception rather than the rule. When the 'Islamic Empire' was at its height - the courts of the rulers had non-muslims in high positions, and scholars from the world came to the courts to learn and discuss.
The quote about Zoroastrians I agree with - and there was persecution of Bahais in Iran in the 20th century (although the persecution was because of their rebellious political views rather than religious).
My argument is that there are enough examples of tolerance of other religions from all periods of Islamic history to say that the instances of intolerance took place in-spite of Islam's teachings and not because of it.

In India, the sheer number of "polytheists" meant that the rulers had to settle for having a large number of them as their subjects, unconverted, but it was matter of realism, not tolerance.
You say tomato..
The fact we can agree upon though is that there wasn't a campaign of forced conversion. We'll disagree on the motives (I say it is because this is not what Islam taught - you say it was pragmatism).
In summary - yes, the Islamic empire won a lot of territory. However, this was not the cause of the spread of the religion - for we have another example in Asia which became Muslim not from territorial conquest but through the message of the religion.
I quoted above the example of Egypt - where after the conquest the Historian says the country remained largely Christian, but gradually over time more and more converted to Islam. This re-inforces the view that Islam (the religion) was not spread by the sword.
cheers,
Shafique valkyrie
Well, if you look at the list of rules that the jews and christians had to abide by (Pact of Umar), you'll see that many of them (especially those added on later during the crusades) are clearly intended to slowly convert them over time.
For example, a muslim woman was not allowed to marry a non-muslim man. However, a muslim man was allowed to marry a non-muslim woman, and she would be allowed to keep her religion, but all the kids had to be raised as muslims. You can do the math and figure out where that system was meant to lead.
Also, no new churches or synagogues were allowed to be built and no repairs were to be made without permission from the authorities. I'm sure you can easily figure out where that would have lead as well had it been strictly enforced in all areas.
So, make no mistake about it, extension of Islamic political rule, in the long run, meant extension of the Islamic religion. shafique Valkyrie I would also add that many converted for the same reasons that all the Indonesians, Mongols etc converted - they were attracted to the teachings of Islam. That the Muslim rulers made the conditions conducive to the preaching of Islam is not in doubt. Those who wished to remain Christians etc were given given this freedom - and the fact that Christians and Jews fled to Islamic states to escape persecution is testimony to this fact. Anyway, the main point I wanted to highlight was that Islam was not spread by forced conversion or primarily by territorial gains (eg in asia and China). I'm currently reading how certain 'heretical' Christian sects were persecuted by Byzantium and how they found refuge in Muslim Syria, where they continue to have a presence to this day. Cheers, Shafique reviewer Hello everyone, I've been a keen reader of this part of the forum (Im a northener as you can see) and an avid reader of historical, religious books. Can you please cite or list the name of book or references from where you have cited your replies. I would love to follow up the readings I have seen in here. Hope this doesn't come as burden to you guys. shafique
Currently I'm reading:
'A House of Many Mansions' - Kamal Salibi (covers history of Lebanon)
General history of Middle East/Islam:
Recommended:
Holy War - Karen Armstrong (covers crusades and modern day conflicts and shows how they are linked.
Also by Karen Armstrong - Islam - a short history.
(Karen Armstrong is a historian and also was a former Nun)
History of Middle East (from Christianity to today) - Bernard Lewis (his latest books are quite anti-Islamic - but reading his earlier work which covers history rather than opinion is good).
BL is a historian - and I recommend his other books as well (the Assassins is a fascinating look at one Islamic sect).
Other books by Karen Armstrong are interesting - History of God, Muhammad - a biography.
On the history of the Bible and early Christianity - I go back to the original work by Edward Gibbon in 'History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' (which also contain good coverage of the rise of Islam). However it is a long book and I aim to finish this before I die - but I'm not sure I will :)
For a more leisurely introduction to history of the region, I highly recommend William Dalrymple's 'From the Holy Mountain' - which is essentially a travel book of his visits to Monasteries in the region (and it was on his recommendation in this book that I'm reading the books on Lebanon at the moment). I have read all his books so far - except for the last one (the Last Mughal) - which awaits me after I finish Kamal Salibi's book and a couple by Robert Fisk (Pity the nation, and The Great War for Civilisation).
Anyway - these are the books I've read recently on the subject, there are countless web-sites and other 'standard' books on history which I've read in the past. Google and wikipedia are great at quickly giving you the range of views out there.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Shafique reviewer Thanks a lot Shaf for the tons of info; sure have a lot of reading for the coming summer, ...err..nice to see I'm not alone in peeking at the Assasins (sect). Me too fascinated by them as well as Ismails and Sufism. Im into history of Sub-continent and Central Asia as of now. Cheers.. shafique
For history of the sub-continent - I can't recommend William Dalrymple highly enough. His books on India are a pleasure to read and the history just becomes part of the tale.
Age of Kali is a collection of articles/essays on India. City of Djinns is a travel back in time in one place - Delhi (covers independence back to the origins of Delhi). White Mughals is about Hyderabad and India generally just before the British finally took over - but after Clive of India. And, as I said, I've yet to read 'the last mughal' which is his latest book.
Oh - and if you want to borrow any of the books listed - just let me know, happy to lend them out (providing I get them back, of course!)
Cheers,
Shafique reviewer
Agree on you about William Dalrymple, he's a must read....also I'm extending my search up north to Pakistan/Afghanistan to Central Asia...It's been fascinating reading this histories.
Appreciate your offer, but would love to buy them one by one, these are treasures to be read over and over again....
shafique
Totally agree. (I'm planning to re-read Holy Mountain and have re-read parts of White Mughals to refresh my memory on the sequence of events of some of wars etc).
Let me know what books you recommend on these areas - I'll add them to my list! :)
Cheers,
Shafique reviewer
I would certainly give you info on some good readings I have done...well don't want anymore to interpolate in this thread...will send the info on your pm. Cheers :) burton
Hi Shafique
Thanks for the recomendations. I have been meaning to read some Armstrong for a while. I really think that now, I will go out and purchase Holy Wars...
By the way, have you read her biography of The Prophet? Just wondering what your opinion was on it...
Lasty, Shafique - have you read/heard of a book called either(!) Islam and the West, or Islam in the West?? Sorry I can't remember the exact title or the author.
It is written by a female, western author. It sounds very much in the same vein as Armstrong but yes, essentially a critical look at the (historical) representation of Islam in the west - or rather the historical 'misrepresentation'...
I have never come across another book like it, simply because of the sheer abundance and different types of sources that it quotes. It is an eye-opener for anyone who thinks that this claim - of misrepresentation - is exaggerated. Actually, from what I understand it even caused quite a few 'problems' for some muslims themselves - precisely because of the nature of the sources contained within...\
Does it ring a bell? I lent it to a friend, he's lost it, and I'm trying to get another copy!! shafique burton, Yes, I have KA's biography of the Prophet, pbuh. I think it is an excellent book - well researched and balanced. I recommend it. No, I haven't read the other book 'Islam and the West'. I meant also to recommend Edward Said's book 'Orientalism' - it is a classic now and well worth reading for the background of the whole field of 'Orientalism' into which a lot of the old 'Western' sources of information fall into. The treatment of Islam by European writers is part of the thesis of this book - but it covers more than just this. Bernard Lewis falls into the 'Orientalism' genre, whilst Karen Armstrong is definitely a post-Orientalism scholar. Cheers, Shafique ebonics &feature=related footage of muslim attacks on coptic clerics, and the burning of a church... when have you ever heard of christians moving in on a mosque and setting it alight, bashing nuns and clerics in their way... yes - peaceful, completely peaceful. PS - before you raise the "look what george bush does" - realise the difference between organised war - and people getting bashed and churches burnt for the absolute f*** of it!! &feature=user Sunday, 20 January 2008 Former Muslim Mohammed Higazi is lucky that he was not present in an Egyptian courtroom on Tuesday. An Islamic fundamentalist lawyer made death threats against the Egyptian for converting to Christianity. To the dismay of Higazi's lawyer the judge made no objection. What made matters even worse, the judge went so far as to express his loathing off the accused because he had converted. There was no verdict but the judge vowed that he would never let Mr Higazy be registered as a Christian. He defended his decision by saying that Islam is the principal religion in Egypt. No mention was made of the freedom of religion established in the constitution which is a fundamental right of all citizens thats the truth of the world we live in shafique - islam seems to prosecute everyone else, and their freedoms - and then say they're a religion of peace.... the footage and the article speaks for itself. &feature=related in english.. watch for yourself. &feature=related also in english commentary on youtube Father Zakaria is an Egyptian Coptic priest who was kicked out of his country for converting Muslims to Christ. Today he has a ministry to the Muslim world through his satellite TV broadcast, 'Truth Talk.' the links are available through the video to talk to him. and finally thank you - sword, knife, stab, and blow up away. shafique
Did you hear of a little thing called the Bosnian war?

Ok - but you agree though that 'Christians' have killed far more Muslims than the other way round.

Thanks - if you condemn Islam for what some Muslims have done, do you similarly condemn Christianity for the persecution of the Jews in WWII?
What about the persecution of Blacks in South Africa - they used the Bible to justify Apartheid.
As always, I'm happy to argue the case for Islam - citing the Quran and other sources. You claim you don't follow a religion, but say you have read the Bible and support all that is in it. Yet when a basic question is asked about Christianity's intolerance of other religions you refuse to answer a question.
Many Coptic Christians converted of their own free will to Islam, many chose to stay Coptic. History shows that more Copts were killed by other Christians than were killed by Muslims - the other Christians objected to the theology of the Copts. Coptic historians bear this fact out - but I expect you'll say you know better and will not give me a reference.
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics im not going to repeat myself, dont confuse WAR - organised declared war with pure cave man mannar here you go gander at this &feature=related no war here mate, just barbarism.. this is murder for the sake of murder. hate for the sake of hate - he considers what he does getting him closer to heaven.. i dont follow any religion, but i strongly condemn the way muslims carry themselves, and treats the freedoms of any other religion - be it christian or anything else.. i wonder what muslims think of buddhists and athiests? look into that while you're at it. shafique Thanks ebonics. It's a shame you have so much hatred that you feel it necessary to condemn a whole religion and accuse it of being intolerant. I'm shocked that you argue it is ok to kill people over their religion if you are 'civilised' to declare a war against them first. At least you don't say this is part of your religion. My religion teaches me to condemn all injustices, regardless of who carries them out. I wish you peace. Cheers, Shafique ebonics if that is your religion, why do the people pictured above go un-announced to cause such carnage? how would you feel if you're praying at your mosque and someone comes in unanounced, kills your brother, father then storms out screaming death to muslims? (that would NEVER happen) i hope im making my point clear. do you want to discuss what happened with bush and iraq? lets rewind time, iraq first attacked kuwait why? because kuwait owed millions upon millions to iraq for protecting it from iran - after years of getting pelted.... iraq finally demolishes iran, kuwait refuses to pay up, sadam pelts kuwait - kuwait screams to america, america gets paid twice as many millions, they come and get the job done... but was it done? no it wasnt - and the taste for oil now is in america's mouth - so they go for round 2, making every excuse they can make to re-enter the region... besides the point that it was declared war, look at the original scenario that started all this? iran vs iraq - muslim against muslim - a pure scenario of greed... is it true that iran also has a hold of a few of the emirates smaller islands at the moment? just heard whispers about this - interested to see what the truth behind it is.. that would also explain america's hinting at smashing iran to bits, because guess who the UAE's best buddy is? george dubya ! ebonics lets just keep going
from IQRA'A - a saudi arabian hard left islamic channel
&feature=related
you dont like hitler shafique?

your sisters here seem to..
this imam tends to agree with me that islam makes you dimmer - damn i should invest time collecting data and conduct social experiements, i know i would get somewhere.
pay special attention to the part that says "IF YOU KILL - DO IT RIGHT" the Quran teaches you that if you are going to kill, you make sure you do it right....
the imam also asks why the zionists are miles ahead of muslims, well they used their brains, have freedom of expression, are not opressed by cave-man like rule of nations that confuse religon with politics making them one... you're free to do as you please in isreal, and that doesnt comprimise their love for their religion - something islamic countries seem to be terrified of doing...
let me ask you this shafique, if you dont know arabic, how do you understand fatwa's that come out in arabic, nearly every other day?
have you heard of the fatwa that said:
a woman, should not work with any man.... but there is a way around that he claimed, she could breast feed her co-worker - then its ok for her to work with him.. i swear to you on my mothers life, someone lost his brains and said that... it made every channel, every show, i think it caused him to step down by the very end... no one knows what he really meant, surely he couldnt have meant that - but he said it, and it was a fatwa..
similarly:
&feature=related
^^^
this guy is a bit of a joker, but the topic at hand is in fact serious.
and this is 100% accurate according to the verse that says something along the lines of "and whatever their right owns" - their right owns means a man is allowed to sleep with his slaves, or anyone that works for him (the man being the employer, in effect owning her according to islam), and this was validated by the imam in this video:
that i posted earlier, that was the topic of that conversation, she wanted to know what on earth or how on earth would the qur'an say a man can sleep with any woman he employs without marriage, how is that possible, and his reply was - we do not question our faith, or God's theories...
he accused father zakariya that he is a lunatic, and that he should go to hell for questioning the qur'an, she then said, to hell with father zakariya, I WANT TO KNOW, forget him, me, as a muslim, i want to know.... which then caused the cleric to get up and leave her show because it got a little bit too much for him.
and my god:
&feature=related
and i also swear to you, he translates as he reads, word for word....... this leaves me just speechless. SPEECHLESS - i cannot, not in a miilion years, fathom, how anyone can say this and be a man of "allah"

as i said i can go on and on, there are so many things in islam that leave you saying "ARE YOU DEADLY SERIOUS???!!" - and yes it can be quiet "deadly" for the people that bring these things out... ebonics i cant believe my luck i thought i would never find this, this guy is on the ball Hadeeth about breast feeding adults: it was also mentioned, that everytime muhammad was faced with a perdicament, he would magically go in, make a "sura" that would solve it... and his wife commented on it once, she goes its strange that you always seem to find the answer straight away... his reply was that allah shows him the way.. seems to me that he manually cut and pasted all his rules as he goes - how he pleases... telling women to breast feed men so they can come into his house? wow. shafique You may not realise it ebonics, but you are doing yourself a dis-service. Can you not see the irony in the fact you are happy to justify the invasion Muslim lands and killings of Muslims and yet bemoan the fact that Egypt was conquered by Muslims. I am still happy to engage in you, but will await a contribution that is relevant to this thread (that Islam was spread by the sword). The one example you gave of Egypt has been shown to be historically inaccurate - as Coptic Christians were still the majority after the Muslim conquest and gradually they converted to Islam over hundreds of years. Cheers, Shafique ebonics history is only a point of view my friend - any educated person would tell you so, you can get a million points of view when it comes to history - some people say genocide never happened like your qur'an - it is a point of view, is it fact or fiction - one will never know Jill, wikipedia, could say whatever they want to say, the copts kept their own history and know it - i can trace back my family and tell you exactly where it happened, if you want books that support my history, i can dig some up for you - but one step at a time, look at the links in the previous pages, quite amusing a man can sleep with his illegitamte daughter, because she really isnt his daughter according to al bukhary? muhammed ordering his wife to breast feed men before entering his house? perhaps more apt in the qur'an is fact of fiction thread, but it just so happen i paste them here - if you wish i could copy and paste them twice. no im not doing myself injustice my friend, you seem to have ignored my 2 previous posts to take back to something completely unfounded - quoted from wikipedia of all sources, from a book by someone called JILL - how on earth is she a credible egyptian historian, someone that is documenting things that happened over a 1000 years ago in a region that she would be as far disconnected from? ill site my own history books, unfortunatly - i was not allowed to bring any of my journals, or books with me that elude to any other religion other than islam, that included all my coptic history books when i came here from australia - they also intend to go through my record collection record by record, when it gets here to ensure none of them are of none-muslim nature... i look forward to a bunch of arabs listening to thousands of electronica records should be very amusing. if they decide to knock back my jewish psy trance records, i may just have to take that to court... :lol: :lol: ebonics the imam's guide to beating your wife shafique, i will continue till you reply to each of these videos, one by one. ebonics the jizya is a tax - says shafique this is straight out of sahih abu harirya &NR=1 explaining the jizya.. your religion not mine my friend.. please explain. again, i find it puzzling, that you're a none-arabic speaker, and you seem to think you understand it all - when its all in arabic... english translations would purposely not translate this, but translate what you want to hear.... how many sahih's have you read in english out of curiosity? why did you seem to skip over these? and how do you understand the fatwa's coming out of muslim countries in arabic? shafique I find it strange that freza stops posting after being presented with Biblical quotes, then ebonics appears on the scene. Hmmm Nah - couldn't be. :wink: shafique ebonics - tell us the truth, you really love Islam don't you? Cheers, Shafique ebonics dont worry about what i love and hate.. i love all humans equally - i never ask what religion are you, i live in a country where religion isnt a part of your ID - you meet everyone, and everyone is equal i just find it puzzling the stories i hear, if jesus told his "wife" to breast feed adults before entering his house - i would have been so out of christianity with 2000 miles with no return your prophet not mine my friend, this is why i said, we are born with brains to examine and question so lets examine and question, you still seem un-able to reply and no im not anyone that was here before - im fresh to the UAE, fresh as a daisy... ill make people wish i never came back with the knowledge i gathered over the years...... in the land of the free, and free speech... :twisted: explain to me shafique.... i already explained to you my stance on thinking that none christians can go to heaven, you owe me the same. ebonics
actually, of course i love it... you have no idea over the years how many laughs these things brought me, before i found these things on youtube, they were on TV channels, thats how i knew about them in the first place... and watching muslim clerics compltely un-able to explain or justify them, just flooring...
so yes shafique, i absolutely love islam, as entertaining as monty python. shafique See - I knew we'd see eye-to-eye in the end! 'What did the Romans ever do for us?' 'We are the Knights who say Ni!' .... always look on the bright side of life.... Cheers, Shafique ebonics shafique, as much as i seem that im attacking - im not.. but muslims all around the world are trying to find answers to these questions from clerics - they are questioning logic.. they dont necessarily convert yet - but they want to understand... surely you want to understand? no cleric, yet, has came up with answers to these things.... the only explaination that was posed so far was "times have changed" ok - granted, times have changed..... but if time is changing religion these days, i wonder what is happening in other religions? what kind of god, or prophet, would allow such talk period, regardless of what time this occured in?? the difference is, now its so easy to air these things out and ask these questions, 20 years ago, it wasnt... this is the time where people challenge what they were taught.... i challeneged MANY things christianity taught me - some make absolutely no sense.... i believe in evolution, i believe in not just the evolution of the physical, but i believe in the evolution of the brain with certain chemical agents present in the world we live in, entheogenics, things that make your mind open up new horizons - making you a new perosn with a clean slate everytime... please read or listen to terrance mckenna's talk about culture being the software of our brains, and how software could be erased, re-uploaded and edited... again food for thought, but from personal experience it made that much sense over everything i was ever taught in my life.. im still awaiting replies regarding the above. shafique
It feels like you are just attacking.
If you can just take the time and type out one question that relates to this thread, I will take the time to answer it. The shot-gun approach (lots of links to you tube showing contemporary acts by muslims) is not relevant to this thread, and implies that you are not interested in discussion.
Take one issue, and let us discuss.
Your track record is not good - you asked me repeatedly for 'scripture' which showed that Christianity teaches that other religions are from the devil/don't lead to salvation. When I posted the references, you attacked the writer (who was a Christian) even though the point of the quote was to give you the references you asked for.
And remember, you are the one that invited questions about Christianity - after stating that you read and understood the Bible and have no problem with Christianity.
Your latest posts shows whilst you have left the religion of your fore-fathers (Coptic Christianity) you have a burning hatred of Muslims.
That doesn't matter too much to me - I'm happy to discuss any issue you care to raise. All I ask is that try and make it relevant to the thread, or start a new thread.
As I said before, if you want support for the view that Muslims commit atrocities - I'll stand by you and give you references. If you say they use Islam/Quran to justify these atrocities, that too I will agree with you.
I just try to be fair and put all of these into context - I try not to condemn Christianity for the acts of the Crusaders or the IRA etc, for example.
So, the ball is in your court - pick one issue, write it out and I will answer. If you link to another you-tube video, I will take it you are not interested in a written debate and I will refer you to the numerous you-tube videos which extol Islam and the ones that critique the Bible (and I'll ask you to counter their arguments).
Fair?
Cheers,
Shafique burton Hi ebonics. I think you're a little one-sided with some of your ideas. The whole war vs terrorism debate...the idea that the west or other religions only declare war, while muslims seem only to implement terrorism (no you didn't say that but it is heavily implied)...it's the dross you read in any average American chat forum. Not having a go at the yanks - or the Brits - but the whole 'why can't they (whoever they are!) march onto a battlefield and fight 'man to man'....it's really daft, naive actually... First of all, you've got the whole terrorism vs war debate. Look, I DO believe there is a difference but the difference starts to fade if you're the people that are getting blown up by missiles and bombs. I mean, what kind of dialogue should the victims be having: "Oh you should consider yourself lucky. My brother was killed by a fanatic with a bomb belt, yours was shot in the head by a sniper"...c'mon... There is a famous quote by Sir Peter Ustinov: 'War is the terrorism of the rich, terrorism is the war of the poor.' I think there's a lot of truth in that. Whoever is doing the terrorism is usually the poor, desperate and downtrodden. No, that doesn't make them right. But asking them to organize an army and fight 'conventionally'...does it ever happen that way? Secondly, there is again the implication that muslims have not - or do not - suffer from acts of terrorism themselves. I think Shafique mentioned Bosnia. What about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? How many mosques got defiled then? How many Qurans got burned then? Women raped etc etc. What a great 'conventional' war! I actually have quite a few issues with both Islam and the way it is 'coping' in today's world. And no, I don't white-wash both past atrocities committed under Islam, or more recent ones. But I just can't stand the whole "West/Christians do war, Islam/Muslims do terrorism" rubbish... ebonics
i do believe i answered you shafique, and told you, personally i think anyone that lives a just life - regardless of jesus in his life or not, is going to go to heaven... thats my personal belief...
weather the bible teaches so or not - thats completely not my issue, ask a hard-line christian.
also read what i said in the other thread, that all muslim, christian, jews have shed blood in their own time, and i want nothing to do with all this - hence i live by the beliefs i have now..
i believe in science, evolution, maths, etc... i believe in cognition.
im dont linking youtubes, and i understand that you will not tackle any of them, because you wouldnt have any answers to them.. neither do people of al-azhar - they're things that make you think and use the cognition that i refer to above.
burton
the difference between war and terrorism
war is political
terrorism is secular cleansing
the difference between a bomb landing on a mosque between two organised countries in war is VERY different from a lunatic jew or christian going in, killing random people, yelling DEATH TO ALL MUSLIMS and leaving (or klilling himself) - the first one may carry a label (death to all *insert country here*)
muslims fought with muslims before too and shed each others blood..
i hope that is clear
and i will repeat - the above is not, my, or any christian or jew's (he actually sounds isreali to me even though he says he's christian) words..... this is straight out of scripture and sahih's that explain it..
what i or he did is shed light on it. ebonics
quiet the contrary... i just dont like how they kill my countrymen..
not all are like that, some of my dearest friends are muslims... but they also admit to the atrocities islam causes - they dont turn a blind eye. do you now see the difference? shafique ebonics - I don't understand arabic, so can't respond to the points made on you tube. The one link in dubbed English was on the justification of Trinity - and that was not convincing at all (but that relates to the Bible and not the Quran). Sorry, but unless you want to wait for me to learn Arabic (I am taking lessons), you have to present the issues here. Also, thanks for confirming that your belief about salvation is different from the Bible's - your view is closer to Islam's, in that all will be judged according to their actions/intentions. I too believe in evolution, mathematics and cognition - above all I believe in logic. See - even more we have in common! Cheers, shafique shafique
Which part of 'I agree muslims commit atrocities' in my post above did you not understand?
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics and which part of me saying that christians and jews do too - but not in a terrorist manner like islam does. and shafique i already commended your attitude, you're a very open minded person.. shafique, all the links above posted this morning, are all in english... i made sure they're all in english for you. im sorry if i can come across as aggressive - life taught me to be a carnivore with my words.. its survival of the fittest in this jungle we call life.. shafique Sorry to hear you believe only muslims mis-use their religion and commit acts of Terror. As an Egyptian (I presume) I am surprised you were unaware/forgot that the state of Israel was formed after terror attacks were made against the British - King David Hotel bombing is widely recognised as the first 'modern era' terror attack, as well as the tactics of the Irgun and Sten Gang (not sure of spellings) - which many say set the basis for terrorist groups since. Or do you think that these people weren't religiously minded? I personally think that Israel is committing acts of Terror today, and perhaps is the biggest terror organisation in the world. Anyway - can we get back to the question of this thread - was Islam spread by the sword? Territorial conquest did take place, but the religion itself was and continues to spread from people choosing to convert. Cheers, Shafique ebonics
if you chose to ignore everything i posted
this is the only one that relates to the jizya, and how muslims should treat none muslims where they go and open up new lands..
but please, do not just ignore and argue, watch all the videos i posted this morning (all in english)
then reply. it's the least you owe me after spending so much time digging up scriptures in english.. (this is costing me time and money at work - im gonna have to start billing you if you ignore hahahaha :lol: )
trust me you dont want to force me into opening a new thread with this stuff. ebonics
im assuming you also skipped over the video of the court case of the man that converted to islam, and then changed his mind and wanted to go back to christianity. and the western TV report regarding muslims wishing to convert to islam, and how muslims treat them. shafique jizya is a tax payable by non-Muslims. Muslims pay a different tax.
In return, non-Muslims have freedom of religion and are exempt from military duty.
References:I'll quote 3 Hadith (there are more):
* Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 13, Number 2955 mentions that Umar ibn al-Khattab levied jizya on non-Muslims in return for providing protection to them.
* Book 19, Number 2955 has Umar ibn al-Khattab stating that he provided protection for non-Muslims by levying jizya on them, and neither took one-fifth from it, nor took it as booty.
* Book 19, Number 3031 states that Muhammad captured Ukaydir, the Christian prince of Dumah, and spared his life and made peace with him on the condition that he paid jizya.
This summary makes reference to books listed after the text

Under Islamic law, jizya or jizyah is a per capita tax levied on the state's non-Muslim citizens. The tax was levied on able bodied men of military age,[1] (with some exemptions,[2][3] though these were discarded at various points in history[4]). From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' subjection, "just as for the inhabitants it was a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes."[5]
In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practise their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and taxes levied upon Muslim citizens. [6][7][8]
References:
[1] Kennedy, Hugh (2004). The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates. Longman, 68.
[2] Shahid Alam, Articulating Group Differences: A Variety of Autocentrisms, Journal of Science and Society, 2003
[3] Ali (1990), pg. 507
[4] "The provisions of ancient Islamic law which exempted the indigent, the invalids and the old, were no longer observed in the Geniza period and had been discarded by the Shāfi‘ī School of Law, which prevailed in Egypt, also in theory." Goiten, S.D. "Evidence on the Muslim Poll Tax from Non-Muslim Sources", Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 1963, Vol. 6, pp. 278-279.
[5] Cl. Cahen in Encyclopedia of Islam, Jizya article
[6] John Louis Esposito, Islam the Straight Path, Oxford University Press, Jan 15, 1998, p. 34.
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics
so he spared his life, hows that not opened by the sword? this also validates what i said, no jizya = death
also
you quoted books modern day, published books...
the video quotes Sura 9 verse 29... and the explaination thereof based on a muslim Sahih...
you're chosing published books over "sahih muslim abi huriyra"?
(excuse my spelling)
shafiq do you know what a sahih is? this relates back to you not speaking arabic, you also avoided that question.
did you do that reply after watching the video, or before? shafique Yes, I know what Sahih is. I also know that not all Hadith in the Sahih are authentic and many are contradictory. I also know that in terms of authenticity the test is : 1. is it in accordance with the Quran 2. is it in accordance with Sunnah (practice of the Prophet, pbuh) 3. is it consistent with other hadith. Jizya, was a tax imposed on non-Muslims and the hadith all relate to periods at the start of Islam. The later quotes are from historians and cover the period to modern times. Yes, there were instances where Jizya was mis-used - notably in the latter part of Mughal dynasty in India, but even then I don't think it was used to force conversions. You seem to miss the big point that Muslims paid a different tax - so converting would not exempt you from paying 'the man'. However, paying Jizya meant that you could hold the state responsible for your protection. I really don't see anything objectionable to paying a tax. If you are saying that the punishment for not paying a tax was a bit harsh (death), I would agree with you. However it was similarly harsh in Europe - not paying taxes or levies was similarly punished. Refusing to pay Jizya was treasonable as it indicated not recognising the authority of the government. However, I can't see the link between not paying the Jizya and converting to Islam. If you converted, you would have to pay Muslim taxes. If you can show me that Muslims paid less tax than the Jizya, then you may have a point. Please specify which period and territory you are referring to when you reply - so I can address your concern specifically. Cheers, Shafique ebonics
and this - exactly - is fundamentally whats wrong with islam, even though hadith and sahih are to be followed religiously, it could be very selective according to what you said.
so if you dont like a sahih or hadith i bring up, you can casually brush it off as un-authentic..... even though the source is a muslim website straight out of saudia arabia, what would be considered a fountain of information for muslims world wide.... no one would know islam better than the saudi's - thats a given.
thats a very weak and fickle way to go about faith.
can you shafique, before i take the time to discuss every sahih and hadith that i have mentioned, take the time and tell me which sahih's are considered bogus? and are generally un-accepted by muslims today?
i know one of the ones i quoted is from El-Bokhary - and he is a most definate corner stone of muslim faith.... so that excuse will most definatly not apply...
do tell me though, which are considered not credible. ebonics you still havent answered me, have you watched the video about jizya, or you are still answering me without watching? shafique ebonics - can you clarify what comments you want me to make on hadith that I consider un-authentic? Surely we should go by what the actual practice of jizya was and assess whether Islam was spread by the sword or not. Do you disagree? Quran is the word of God, Hadith are prone to error - Bukhari went out of his way to keep the contradictory hadith to make this point. He just gives the chain of transmission, but does not say that all are authentic - some people mis-remembered, some people mis-interpreted. That is why all Hadith are tertiary evidence after the Quran and Sunnah. As stated before - sure there are instances of Muslim oppression. And sure, they may have used hadith or their views on Islam to justify the oppression. This is no different to the forced conversions and killings in Spain done in the name of Christianity (actually it is less evil, in my mind - but hey, oppression is oppression). The premise of this thread though is to explore whether Islam - i.e. the religion- was spread by the sword. If someone 'believes' Islam was spread by the sword - then this is what they believe. I don't believe Islam was spread by the sword and am willing to quote historians to back up this belief. Am I being unreasonable to ask someone who challenges my belief to provide proof. If no proof is provided, I can only say 'your belief is different from mine'. Cheers, Shafique shafique
My post above answers clearly the misinformation in the video.
A non-Muslim that converts also has to pay a tax - so to convert because of Jizya makes no sense. Jizya is therefore not a tool to force conversion, but a tax.
This last fact has not been refuted by you or by the video. Why do +you+ ignore this?
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics
you yourself just said muhammad spared someone's life - ie not killed him, on the condition of paying him some gold coins?
so the sword would have been to his throat, with someone forcing him to pay up.
anyway, i will take excerpts from teh above video or summerize rather i wont type word for word - because you to have not watched it, since you havent commented on its contents.
PS - the word jizya in arabic, literally means penalty, so his description as penalty is 100% accurate..
"we are going to read the muslims explaination (Sura 9 verse 29) of ibn kathir - the prophet says that these jews and christians have to pay the penalty if they refuse to convert to islam - it is a punishment, thats why its called a jizya, it comes from the word Jaza'a - which means penalty or punishment, not as some muslims claim it means tax, that is a false argument"
"muslims say it was you paid if you didnt join the army"
"but islam was an occupation, they will not let the locals they just occupied join their army - so they force you to pay money, not because you wouldnt join the army, because you're a christian and you refuse to convert"
makes all the sense in the world i must say, if i was a commander of an army, i wouldnt let some people i just conquered come into my ranks - they'd be morons otherwise.
"and this is what the prophet is saying according to sahih muslim - he is saying, the prophet said do not ever say salam aleikom, do not start every saying shalom or hello to a christian or a jew, and if you see them in the street, force him to go into the most narrow, ugly, bad road - you have to himiliate him, and insult them, with no respect, because they refused to convert to islam"
"on top of that you must pay nearly 3 quarters your income to keep your faith and stay alive - if you stop paying you have 2 choices, to convert or die. this is from the book of ibn kathir, this is quoted from an official government website of saudia arabia"
*scrolls up*
"as you can see, this is from the website as it says (now in arabic) "al mamlaka el arabia el seeoodeya, wezaret el awkaf, kesm el da3aya wel ershad..... "
as i already mentioned, no one knows islam better than the saudi's... so this is no hoax, or made up information, this is straight out of their website translated word for word by the speaker. ebonics im going to attempt to search and find this website myself, so the link is readily presented for any arabic reader to read and verify himself. ebonics success...........
Sura 9 verse 29
[29] [color=red]Fight[/color] those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Sura 9 verse 30
[30] The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Al-Masih the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
who on earth is uzair btw?
and tafseer ibn katheer (as authenticated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da‘wah and Guidance)
&bm=&nSeg=0&l=arb&nSora=9&nAya=29&taf=KATHEER&tashkeel=0
i think now you have no excuse but to reply shafique, i did my homework.
i just read it in arabic, and it word for word, reflects whats above. shafique Thanks ebonics - but you have not presented any information on the taxes that Muslims had to pay.
I also think you will fail to produce a reference for jizya being set at 75% of income.
Anyway, I await the references.
[ps I have loads of links to videos that prove NASA didn't land on the moon, that the earth is flat etc ]
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
Yes, this is from the Quran. This is 100% in accordance with my previous post. What part of this verse do you think is not?

See my reply from yesterday to FD in 'Quran has no contradictions' thread - Uzair is also known as Ezra.
I don't see where this verse says people should be converted by force.

The Tafseer does not say people should be converted by force. Thank you for making my point.
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics
have you even bothered reading it?
the very first line of the tafseer, the very FIRST
"KATELOO"
meaning fight, battle
kateloo, derived from katl, meaning KILL
come on man, again you're insulting me here... ebonics
i dont care about the taxes muslims had to pay, its completely irrelevant to the jizya that none-converts had to pay.... i already established its not a tax - it is a PENELTY.
the word jizya means penelty, i already also derived its meaning from its original word JAZA'A.... so you're going around in circles. shafique ebonics - I cannot improve on my previous explanations and references. If you have another topic to discuss, please bring it on. cheers, Shafique ebonics mate, i got you literal words - out of the most credible of credible sources.... Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da‘wah and Guidance what better source do you want me to quote? no publication, no book, will compare to this - why are you avoiding my question? as far as im concerned, a none-arabic speaker's explaination against that doesnt stand for a grain of salt in a mile long river.. marvin gaye - can i get a witness would be good right now. shafique You evade the question I asked. Whilst you may think the Saudis are the foremost authority on Islam, that is not a view I (and many others) share. Why do you dismiss the Quran, hadith and historians and quote hypothetical and convoluted scenarios which seek to discredit Islam. What would your Christian parents say if I went round and said the Bible celebrates incest - because it talks about the Prophet Lot sleeping with his daughters? Would they be happy if I implied that Christians think it is ok to sleep with one's daughter? Kudos on quoting the great Marvin Gaye though. Cheers, Shafique ebonics if you quote me a credible source saying so - ill take it on board... and i dont understand what you mean by the saudi's not being the primary source of islam - thats the biggest oxymoron i ever encountered. this website, was made primaraly to promote islam to people - not to discredit it... i cannot fathom how you are trying to discredit this website as a true authentic valid source, yet you're quoting published books - simple points of view? if you want to discredit this website as a source, why dont you get in contact with them and tell them that they're writting teachings of rubbish? their reply would be highly amusing, as they are the people that first commissioned the qur'an in the first place.. shafique - think about what you're saying. shafique please look up the terms 'Wahabi' and 'Shia' and you will be enlightened. Cheers, Shafique ebonics so what shia'ites and wahabi's are not muslims? wahabis arent, but shia'tes most definatly are.. this is a suna website by the way. :) nice try though. shafique
There is no fooling you is there! You will forgive me for trying though, won't you?
Cheers,
Shafique rudeboy ok is ebonics a muslim?? the guy has so much knowledge about islam. what you think shaf? the guy sounds like a muslim. brother ebonics do you belong to the qaida group?? by the way i luv Hitler :D i luv the way hitler was able to hyptonize the general public. luv the way he would talk and hold speeches and i luv the way he was able to stir up trouble. I dont like what he did with the jews but its abit ironic init with wot the jews are doing to the muslims in leb and israel?? is abit ironic isnt it that Presidents of USA and polticians of UK are able to hyptonize the general ppl?? lol we all aint perfect. now tell the truth are you a jew or a muslim. i am assuming u r a jew. be honest. no i dont want to make fun of how ur x family member was cooked like a dish in the ww2. but i would luv to know where you coming from. y do you hate islam so much? what has islam done to u? y are u so scared of it? is it some disease thats going to kill you? ebonics
hahahhahaha - id rather be jew over muslim - thats saying something.
and i agree with you whole heartedly, hitler was one of the most charismatic and influential people to walk this planet, he had amazing charachter, so did winston churchill.
my knowledge of islam - well where i grew up they forced us to learn about islam, so i had no choice in that matter. rudeboy
lol ebonics i rather be a muslim over a jew any day ;) hmmm i guess that says something too :D.
Hitler was a top guy. i luv the guy and if u read the history of germany you will learn how he was able to take germany from being some third class country to a great empire which nearly took over the whole of the europe.
ebonics i dont know what religion u r and i dont know where THEY forced u to learn about islam. i would luv to know this.
but even i was forced to learn about Christianity and to read bible and to read hymns. I had no choice but i had to do this. because i was living in UK and i had to live by their rules and customs and i respected that because i got to know more about Christianity. just like u i know quite a bit about christianity. now is there anything u like about islam :D.
i know alot of bad things about christianity but do you see me cricitising?? i can but what will it get me?? the satisfaction to proove the world that hey my religion is better then the rest!!!!!



Dubai Forum | Paris Forum | Vegan Forum | Brisbane Forum | 3D Forum | Classified Jobs in Dubai | Listings of Jobs in London | London classified ads Portal
| © 2021 Dubai Forums | Privacy policy