Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Islam for non-Muslims
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Islam for non-Muslims
Message Icon Topic: Christian minorities in Muslim countries(Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 8 Next >>
Author Message
Andalus
 
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1187
bullet Posted: 23 October 2006 at 10:08pm
Originally posted by Fidel

Originally posted by muslim-mother

the majority of westerns i have met in other forums,  say that  islam is a violent religion as they only see in thier media the killings .

They donot see the real islam .. i have so many things to share with you muslims here ..



I think we have to be honest. Islam is a violent religion, that is, we do believe in the use of violence for certain purposes.

I believe in the use of violence to defned myself. So I am violent.

The US believes in waging war to secure assets that have value to the globalist corporate machine by way of the indusstrial military complex. The Us is violent.

According to CHristian theology, Jesus is Gd. Jesus was a part of the triune gdhead that justified mass genocide of babies and women as a means to cleanse the holy land of impure races to make way for those Jesus and family did love. So Jesus is violent.

The church murdered and persecuted countless peoples who did not agree with even the smallest nuances of their set theological beliefs.

The church is violent.

Israel has used thousands of Arab Jews in medical experiemnts, leading to the deaths and illnesses of thousands (this is an established fact).

Israel is violent.

Are you getting the picture now? Is it becoming clear that you are over simplifying a deeper concept.

 

 (I don't see anything wrong in the use of Jihad for self-defense for example).

Jihad simpyl means "struggle". It would be more accurate to say that you see nothing wrong with Muslims defending themselves.

 

 That doesn't mean all muslims use violence, but only some when necessary. Also, we never hear of religions such Buddhism in connection with violence, because they clearly reject all forms of violence.

Tell that to the Ch'an buddhists (They formed the shaolin temple). Tell that to the thousands of Samurai who were Zen buddhists (Japanese offshoot of CH'an buddhism).

You are still trying to over simplify a deeper concept.

 

Islam isn't a non-violent religion like for example the Amish or the Quakers, to suggest it is, is false. I think we have be honest and truthful, otherwise we make ourselves look like silly liars in the West.

who has been lying about it?

 

 

A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/
IP IP Logged
Fidel
 
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 21 September 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19
bullet Posted: 24 October 2006 at 11:04am

Andalus,

Your line of reasoning is bizarre. All I am interested in is genuine history, not the pseudo-history that says that despite the intimidating presence of Muslim armies in Christian countries people were free to remain non-Muslim.

Constantionople was once one of the most Christian cities in the world. In 1453, Constantinople fell to Muslim armies, who enslaved the Greek Christian population of the city, changed the name of the city, and turned all the churches into mosques. According to Wikipedia, "Although the Turks overthrew the Byzantines, Fatih Sultan Mehmed the Second (the Ottoman Sultan at the time) styled himself as the next Roman Emperor  ("Kayser-i-Rum") and let the Orthodox Patriarchate continue to conduct their own affairs, having stated that they did not want to join the Vatican. However, this did not stop him from ordering the conversion of the city's central cathedral, Hagia Sophia, into a mosque, and having a Muslim scholar decree from its pulpit that there is no god but Allah. Following the Turkish conquest all Christians not killed or sold into slavery were relegated to the status of Dhimmis."

Also, in relation to the general experience of populations placed under Muslim rule, "Most conversions were voluntary and happened for a number of different reasons. However, forced conversion did play a key role in some later periods of Islamic history, mostly in the 12th century under the Almohad dynasty of North Africa and al-Andalus as well as in Persia where Shi'a Islam is dominant." (Wikipedia)

"Bernard Lewis states:

'The claim to tolerance, now much heard from Muslim apologists and more especially from apologists for Islam, is also new and of alien origin. It is only very recently that some defenders of Islam have begun to assert that their socety in the past accorded equal status to non-Muslims. No such claim is made by spokesmen for resurgent Islam, and historically there is no doubt that they are right. Traditional Islamic societies neither accorded such equality nor pretended that they were so doing. Indeed, in the old order, this would have been regarded not as a merit but as a dereliction of duty. How could one accord the same treatment to those who follow the true faith and those who willfully reject it? This would be a theological as well as a logical absurdity.' " (Wikipedia)

We cannot undo past history however we stick our heads in the sand. We do have a problem with violence, the first step in tackling that is to face up to it, admit it and then root it out. I am not interested in semantics. 

Can those who have accused me of spreading lies, please retract that nonsensical accusation. I want to establish the truth.

I am so glad to have left Islam. I can now live with my head out of the sand. Let us now have a sensible debate, based on facts and not on shouts of "liar, liar, your pants is on fire!" and without disrespectful threats of censorship.

 

  



Edited by Fidel
IP IP Logged
Aisha Muslima
 
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 07 August 2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 45
bullet Posted: 24 October 2006 at 1:29pm

i dunno Fidel but i got a feeling that u was never a muslim like you said, And all this time you was a Christian.  Since you ask a question here for "help" but it wasnt true. You had ur own answer in ur brain and no matter what peoples here explain to ur questions you didnt even lestin to it. You keep trying to put Islam in lies! I got a feeling that you just here to try to bash Islam with lies just like some others non muslims (i said some because there are good non muslims). 

Peace.   

Aisha Muslima
IP IP Logged
Andalus
 
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1187
bullet Posted: 24 October 2006 at 10:22pm
Originally posted by Fidel

Andalus,

Your line of reasoning is bizarre. All I am interested in is genuine history, not the pseudo-history that says that despite the intimidating presence of Muslim armies in Christian countries people were free to remain non-Muslim.

You will have to provide examples where my line of reasoning was "bizaar". It might be more productive to directly state the problems in my reply, rather than skip it (or what appears to be a bait and switch on your part) and assert a problem and then deflect to a point where the concpet was already covered. This is why I ask you to refrain from just labeling something as "bizaar", or "wrong", in contrast to directly engaging the points given to you.

What pseudo history was given?

You dispute that other faiths were unable to exist in Muslim lands?

Do you disagree with my observation of your "ambiguous" focus on "by way of army" vs "by way of missionaries or traders"?

You must be more clear.

 

 

Constantionople was once one of the most Christian cities in the world. In 1453, Constantinople fell to Muslim armies, who enslaved the Greek Christian population of the city, changed the name of the city, and turned all the churches into mosques. According to Wikipedia, "Although the Turks overthrew the Byzantines, Fatih Sultan Mehmed the Second (the Ottoman Sultan at the time) styled himself as the next Roman Emperor  ("Kayser-i-Rum") and let the Orthodox Patriarchate continue to conduct their own affairs, having stated that they did not want to join the Vatican. However, this did not stop him from ordering the conversion of the city's central cathedral, Hagia Sophia, into a mosque, and having a Muslim scholar decree from its pulpit that there is no god but Allah. Following the Turkish conquest all Christians not killed or sold into slavery were relegated to the status of Dhimmis."

 

First, it does not make your case look very worthy of serious refelction or consideration when you deliberately "exaggerate".

You assert that all of the churches were converted to mosques, and your evidence is a quote which states that the Haja Sophia was converted into a mosque (a move more tasteful than the Christian act of truning mosques into stables). This is called generalizing from the particular. The Haja Sophia being converted does not imply that all churches were converted. The last I checked, Istanbul has many ancient churches, as does Turkey.

Second, the Byzantium Romans had tried to do the same to the Turks of Anatolia, and if they had the opportunity, they would have conquered them. So these two forces had always been at odds, and used marriage as a way to maintain a peaceful "tension".

Third, your quotes states that the Ottomans preserved and protected the Orthodox church. Given they had been under threat and pressure from the Roman Church, one may credit the Muslim Turks for protecting the line and place of the Eastern Church. This places your thesis in great doubt, and sheds light on your "exaggeration" of events.

Fourth, if all of the Christians were murdered and sold into slavery, then Istanbul would have been a ghost town, and would could hardly answer the question: If so many Christians were murdered, and put into slavery, then how did Istanbul become a thriving center of trade and commerce that surpassed Constantinople, as a pluralistic society made up of peoples of differing faiths in such a short time? 

If your thesis and exaggerations were correct, this would not have happened.

As an example: When the church took over Spain, they murdered and tortured and robbed Muslims and Jews of their properties. The Royalty filled their purses with stolen and looted material, actually molesting the economy left from the society where Muslms and Christians and Jews lived together.

A great many Jews moved to Istanbul, under the protection of the Ottomans, from your beloved, peace loving church. 

Spain never recovered completely under the hand of Church debauchery, and no other faith was allowed to exist but that of the Church. 

Interesting? Non-Muslims seeking protection under the Ottomans, who also protected the Greek Orthodoxy from Church debauchery. Your claims are hardly tenable, given facts, and not missionary exaggerations.

  Also, in relation to the general experience of populations placed under Muslim rule, "Most conversions were voluntary and happened for a number of different reasons. However, forced conversion did play a key role in some later periods of Islamic history, mostly in the 12th century under the Almohad dynasty of North Africa and al-Andalus as well as in Persia where Shi'a Islam is dominant." (Wikipedia)

 

Untenable. Since Islam was already well established by the 12th century, it would be juvenile to try and claim that a short lived fanatical regime (Almohad) in an isolated part of the world was the key for Islam to be spread. SOunds like the entry in wikpedia smells of missionary chicanery.

Furthermore, the Shia were also a lesser power in the grand scheme of things, and they were isolated to their part of the world.

Your claim is either based upon ignorance, or deception. I can hardly believe you were a Muslim making these huge blunders. Your view is nearly verbatim from the standard missionary handbook.

 

"Bernard Lewis states:

'The claim to tolerance, now much heard from Muslim apologists and more especially from apologists for Islam, is also new and of alien origin. It is only very recently that some defenders of Islam have begun to assert that their socety in the past accorded equal status to non-Muslims. No such claim is made by spokesmen for resurgent Islam, and historically there is no doubt that they are right. Traditional Islamic societies neither accorded such equality nor pretended that they were so doing. Indeed, in the old order, this would have been regarded not as a merit but as a dereliction of duty. How could one accord the same treatment to those who follow the true faith and those who willfully reject it? This would be a theological as well as a logical absurdity.' " (Wikipedia)

This would called "appealing to authority".

This is a fallacy under two conditions: 1) The authority is not an authority on the topic they are being used to prove, and 2), the topic is highly charged such that many experts can be found who state something contrary to what is being presented.

In other words, it is not hard to show Brenard Lewis is a propoganda machine of Zionisn, and a neo-con (this is factual) and that a great deal of his work, especially lately, is highly motivated by politics and helping to rally support for the Neocon dream.

And it is not hrad for me to show the works of other credible historians who say otherwise to what you quoted,

For now, I hope you will directly reply to what I have given you, and not deflect.

We cannot undo past history however we stick our heads in the sand. We do have a problem with violence, the first step in tackling that is to face up to it, admit it and then root it out. I am not interested in semantics. 

No, we cannot undo past history with sophistry and with the work of pro-Zionist historians. I agree with you. We muist look at what did take place, instead of trying to change it in order to rally suport for US forgien policy, and to make missionary work easier.

The first step is stepping up to the facts that did take place in order to critically look at the problems with pro western charged media and Orientalism. 

I know nothing of semantics. Please point out the use of sematics?

 

 

Can those who have accused me of spreading lies, please retract that nonsensical accusation. I want to establish the truth.

I would say that you are aither a liar, or very ignorant of Islam. You stated you were a Muslims.

As far as establishing truth....we have a saying. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. So far, your contribution to a serious discussion has seemed disingenuous. What else would you expect people to think?

 

I am so glad to have left Islam. I can now live with my head out of the sand. Let us now have a sensible debate, based on facts and not on shouts of "liar, liar, your pants is on fire!" and without disrespectful threats of censorship.

 

I think you are a liar. That's what your contributions tell me. If you were not making a claim of being Muslim, I would think you were just extremely ignorant. No longer can you be given the benefit of doubt.

Regardless, this is the second time I have given you substance. The first time you "handwaved" you way through it (not very impressive given your claims and bragging of being rational), and then made another charge. Lets see what kind of substance you will give at my second attempt to have a rational discussion.

Hope This Helps.

A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/
IP IP Logged
Hanan
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 27 July 2006
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1035
bullet Posted: 25 October 2006 at 6:26am

muslim-mother wrote: the majority of westerns i have met in other forums, say that islam is a violent religion ...

Sister, could it be possible that you made a simple error and actually meant to write: the majority of westerns i have met in other forums, say that Christianity is a violent religion ?

The reason Im asking is this: the Christian bible contains more factual tales of violence, cruelty and perversion than any Hollywood producer could ever make up. Throughout history, Christians have slaughtered countless Christians and non-Christians in the name of their religion - Christianity. Christians have committed genocides, and the Holocaust, with the endorsement of their Christian religious and political leaders. Christians place missionaries in many non-Christian regions of the world to convert, and if unsuccessful, to kill non-Christians. Christians have consistantly voted for, and elected, violent Christian leaders. In recent history, and presently, Christians sanction and even encourage genocide - as well as the killings of non-Christians by other non-Christians. Presently, Christians are engaged in the killing of hundreds of thousands of non-Christians in order to force Christian ideologies on them. It is fair to say that Christianity is a violent religion.

I therefore can hardly believe that you have been on other forums in which Islam has been described as being violent. If these sites actually exist then they must have been created by Christians who are by nature very skilled liars in addition to being very violent because Christianity is a violent religion. Their behavior is sanctioned by their religious and political leaders. A Christian can easily be identified, not by his/her skin color or manner of dress/head garb, but by his/her violent nature, hate-filled manner of speech and cruel actions.

Sister, I therefore conclude that you made an error in your original statement.

Peace, Hanan

IP IP Logged
Fidel
 
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 21 September 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19
bullet Posted: 25 October 2006 at 12:48pm
Yep, I am lying. I think I am in good company though, because you are all bending over backwards to present Islam's history in a false light for propaganda purposes. I see no difference. Lies are lies. Islam is demonic in origin. (This isn't a lie) 
IP IP Logged
Aisha Muslima
 
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 07 August 2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 45
bullet Posted: 25 October 2006 at 2:07pm
well Fidel i got news for you, Islam is not a violent religion and you ruinning ur christianny image! How? By being a...how can i said that more nicely.....discrimminate, liar, trouble maker, closing mind,,,i could add more thing but it not very nice words. Not all christiany peoples are like that unfortunnly peoples who act like you do, ruin them, you give them a bad image,a bad reputation. If you not interessted to know and learn more about the truth Islam, leave! We dont want trouble maker making up lies.
Aisha Muslima
IP IP Logged
ZEA J
 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 June 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 224
bullet Posted: 25 October 2006 at 2:20pm

Originally posted by Fidel

Yep, I am lying. I think I am in good company though, because you are all bending over backwards to present Islam's history in a false light for propaganda purposes. I see no difference. Lies are lies. Islam is demonic in origin. (This isn't a lie) 

From now on, NO one will ever believe a word you speak on this forum. You have lost the little respect you had. 

"You will never attain piety and righteousness,(and eventually paradise)until you
spend of that which you love."(Al-Imran:92)
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 8 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com