Take the Islam IQ Test

[Brimshack]

"It is still being said in this thread that christianity was spread (infidels being converted) by force, by military warfare, yet I have asked for examples on this repeatedly but none of you have been able to fulfill my request. "

Okay, here's some particulars:

Try reading the Requiremiento for starters. It's a wonderful little document the Spanish used to read when they first encountered an Indian village. It essentially said that God put the Pope in charge of mankind, and the Pope gave America to the King of Spain, and so now the King of Spain has sent his envoys to you (the natives) to bring you God's word. So, now the Spanmish are in charge, and you must do as they say or they will sack your village and it will be your fault for rebelling against God.

To this we could also add the forceable kidnapping of Indians throughout California and Latin America to work in the Missions and be baptized.

And, oh yes, the whipping of Pueblo Indians for worshipping in the kivas, but wait, that didn't end there. In the 1920s Pueblo elders were put in jail for training children for ceremonies in the kivas. This was part of a policy intended to drive out traditional native religions and replace them with Christianity.

Of course we could add to this the systematic kidnapping of Native American children up through the 1970s to keep them away from their families and teach them, among other things Christianity. This was done by the U.S. government of course, plenty of frorce there.

Of course we could add the wars between different Christians over which version of their religion was correct: the attempted extermination of Anabaptists comes to mind; the execution of Quakers by Puritans for entering their colonies. The destruction of French Hugenots.

Shall we mention the fact that slavery was justified in the 19th century by claiming the institution brought heathen savages to Christianity. Hmm, that's usung force of arms to convert.

Or how about King Leopold of Belgium. His campaign to end slavery in the Congo and bring the natives to Christ resulted in the deaths of about 10 million people in the region. But of course Christianity was merely a cover for his moves there. I imagine you won't want to count it if Christianity is mixed with secular interests. Of course, the fact that Christianity always is mixed with secular interests in the political sphere would seem to make that a dubious distinction, but one can always retreat to abstract idealism.

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

Try the Crusades. The Inquisition. The Exploration (and Exploitation) of the Americas. The Indian Wars. The late Roman Empire.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Homie
by Sauron

You keep saying this without giving any examples.

Pay attention.  I already gave examples:  Europe - where native pagans were given the choice to convert or die.  The same thing happened in Latin America and even North America. 

BTW, the Crusades was in response to Islam taking the holy lands (Israel and Jerusalem especially) and denying christians to pilgrim to Jerusalem.

Wrong.  In the first place, no one was denied pilgrimage.

In the second place, you have the cause of the crusades hopelessly incorrect.  From Britannica:

Europe in the 11th century was feeling the effects of a population growth that had begun toward the end of the 10th century and would continue well into the 13th century. Younger sons of the nobility, unless they married advantageously or entered the religious life, were more than ever disposed to adventure, organized or otherwise. At the same time, an economic revival was in full swing well before the First Crusade. Forest lands were being cleared, frontiers pushed forward, and markets organized, and the Muslim predominance in the Mediterranean was being challenged by Italian shipping. Nobles, bourgeois, and peasants were all seeking new outlets.

Especially significant for the Crusade was a general overhauling of the ecclesiastical structure, which enabled the popes to assume a more active role in society. In 1095, for example, Urban II, though still meeting resistance from the German Emperor, who opposed papal reform policies, was in a strong enough position to convoke two important ecclesiastical councils.

Thus it was that in the closing years of the 11th century western Europe was abounding in energy and full of confidence. What is more, as is evident in such achievements as the Norman Conquest of England, Europeans possessed the capacity to launch a major military undertaking. Why this energy was channelled into a holy war against Muslims in a distant land is uncertain, though the answer in part involves a new challenge from Eastern Islam presented by the incursions of the Seljuq Turks. The Seljuqs, originally one of several Turkish tribes on the northeastern borders of the Muslim world, had embraced Islam and by the 11th century were moving south and west into Iran and beyond. In large part, however, the answer also lies in the nature of popular religious life and feeling in the West. The two developments are not unconnected.

Also the rapid growth of Islam and its power was probably an underlying reason as well.

Some truth in that - the Europeans feared Islam, so they wanted to eradicate its military and economic power.

The Crusades did not take political control over the lands they went through to get to Jerusalem.

Wrong.  The crusaders set up vassal states all over the Levant - in Beirut, Tyre, and Sidon, for example.   Moreover, they set up states in the lands of Europe that they passed through. Educate yourself:  look up the term "Latin states" and/or "crusader states" on the web.

Actually, I'll do it for you - since you probably won't bother:

http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm

Notice how the map shows Frankish kingdoms in Europe and Anatolia, as well as in the city-states of the Levant. 

It was not a mission to force convertion on heathens but to free the holy lands (and an underlying reason was probably to stop Islam expansion)

Wrong, as I've shown above.

Muhammed himself was violent, his successors were violent and just look at today.

More errors.

Did or did not the Jews stop taking land when they had Israel?

Circular argument.  They defined Israel as  "all the land that we take".  That means that whatever they took was part of Israel, so they couldn't possibly take land that was from another country.

If you're asking whether or not they took land that belonged to other people, then the answer is 'yes'.

You have this notion that the Quaran does not allow or incourage to force heathens to convert or better yet kill them, when clearly it does.

No, it doesn't. 

Gee.  That was easy. 

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Homie
From the Quaran, Surat At-Taubah 9:5:
"Kill the Mushrikun (polytheists, Christians and non-Muslims), wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But, if they repent and perform As-salat (public prayer with Muslims) and give Zakat (Islamic alms), then leave their way free. Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful"
Note:The words in parenthesis are comments and not in the Quran.

This is an excellent example of several fundamentalist deceptions: 

1.  This verse is out of context.  The historical situation here wsa that the small following of Muslims was under attack, and was defending itself.  As I've stated many times, the principle of using deadly force in self-defense is a christian principle as well - or else, there are a lot of fundamentalists who need to speak out against the war on Iraq.

2.  This verse was limited in scope.  It was not intended as a perpetual permission to kill; it was for a particular time and event (i.e., the ensuing battle that Muhammad and his followers had with the mushrikiin).  In the same fashion that

3. In Islam, no verse can be understood by itself, in stand-alone form.  It must be 'rightly divided'.  There is more than just the Koran, you know. There is also the sunnah, the hadith, and common sense.  The exercise that christians call "rightly dividing the word" is called tafsiir in islam, or exegesis.

http://www.thetruereligion.org/tafseer.htm

4.  Islamic scholars disagree with your simplistic interpretation of this verse.  Islam has another principle called ijma'a, which is similar to the Catholic concept called (I think) revealed wisdom; Allah reveals his intent through the majority opinion of believers.  If the majority of islamic believers, clerics, scholars, etc. are of the same opinion about some issue, that indicates that Allah is moving in them, and guiding them all towards the actual truth of the matter. 

http://www.thetruereligion.org/terror.htm

5.  Finally, some suras to leave you with:

"There is no compulsion in religion. The right path has indeed become distinct from the wrong. So whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All Hearing, All Knowing"
(Surah Al-Baqarah 2:256)

"For had it not been that Allah checks one set of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is mentioned much, would surely have been pulled down. Indeed Allah will help those who help His (cause). Truly Allah is All strong, All mighty"
(Surah Al-Hajj 22:40)


"And what is the matter with you that you do not fight in the cause of Allah and for those weak, ill treated and oppressed among men, women and children whose only cry is; 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors and raise for us from you one who will protect and raise for us from you one who will help"
(Surah An-Nisa 4:75)


"...If anyone killed a person not in retaliation for murder or to spread mischief in the land, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind. And (likewise) if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole of mankind"
(Surah Al-Maaida 5:32)



 

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Homie
seebs, I said:
"Islam was spread by the sword and is supported in the Quran to be spread by the sword."

then Sauron said in response to that:
"You are wrong about the Koran."

I posted the passage from the Quran to show Sauron's errors.

Which backfired on you. 

And my other post dismisses his others claims that christianity was spread like Islam was. I don't think he is a liar, just uninformed.

Oh, yeah.  It's ME who is uninformed around here.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Homie
It is still being said in this thread that christianity was spread (infidels being converted) by force, by military warfare, yet I have asked for examples on this repeatedly but none of you have been able to fulfill my request.

Would you, seebs, sauron, Starscream, anybody! give me an example.

I just have to note that this is incredibly ironic. You're from Norway, and you're apparently unaware of your own country's history.  Norway was forcibly christianized.

From Britannica:

Olaf Trygvason:

Already a Christian, Olaf was confirmed at Andover (in modern Hampshire) in 994, with Ethelred, with whom he had been reconciled, as his godfather. Learning of the growing revolt against the Norwegian king Haakon the Great, Olaf returned to Norway and was accepted as king on Haakon's death in 995. He forcefully imposed Christianity on the areas under his control, the coast and the western islands, but had little influence in the interior. By commissioning missionaries and baptizing visiting dignitaries, Olaf was able to introduce Christianity to the Shetland, Faroe, and Orkney islands and to Iceland and Greenland. (Christianity was adopted by the Icelandic parliament [Althing] about 1000). Despite his religious zeal, however, he failed to establish lasting religious (or administrative) institutions in Norway.

After Trygvason, his successor Haraldsson finished the job:

from Norway, history of

Christianization
The Viking chiefs established relations with Christian monarchies and the church, especially in Normandy and England. Thus Olaf I Tryggvason, a descendant of Harald Fairhair, led a Viking expedition to England in 991. He was baptized and returned to Norway in 995, claiming to be king and recognized as such along the coast, where Christianity was already known. These areas were Christianized by Olaf, by peaceful means if possible and by force if necessary; he also sent missionaries to Iceland, where the new religion was adopted by the parliament (Althingi) in 1000. In the same year Olaf was killed in the Battle of Svolder. Fifteen years later, another descendant of Harald Fairhair, Olaf II Haraldsson, who had returned from England, was acknowledged as king throughout Norway, including the inland areas. Olaf worked to increase royal power and to complete the Christianization of the country. In so doing, he alienated the former chieftains, who called on Canute of Denmark, now ruler of England, for help. Olaf was killed in battle with the Danes and peasant leaders at Stiklestad in 1030.

 




 

 

[Outspoken]

"Hmm. Wonder why Louis wont' answer that point.... "

Because 1. you're in for a "win" I'm here to learn, thus this "talk" is become argueing not discussing and I won't let myself be dragged into it 2. Its clear to me no matter what I say on this issue you'll come back to me with "you're wrong I'm right" thus no point in discussion anymore, you're always right remember? Later.

 

[Homie]

Wrong. In the first place, no one was denied pilgrimage.

No, they were denied pilgramage. Not by every muslim ruler of the area, but one ruler decided to deny the christians pilgramage, and the crusades started.

In the second place, you have the cause of the crusades hopelessly incorrect. From Britannica:

Just because some guy from Britannica decides to analyze history differently does not mean that his version gives the best image of how and why they occurred. And what does he say that makes you think that the Crusades goal was to forcibly convert people.

These vassal states you mentioned, weren't that just setting up bases, defense structures? Not like taking control of a country and keeping it even today, as the Arabs have.
Btw, the link you provided had some interesting info:
Outremer, "across the sea," means the states created and maintained by Crusaders and their descendants in the Middle East between 1098, during the First Crusade, and 1489, when Cyrpus passed to Venice. These states fall into two groups: (1) those recovered from Islâm, which was the purpose of the Crusades, and (2) those obtained at the expense of Romania, which had originally appealed for help against the Turks, but which was a tempting target both for its wealth and for its heterodoxy after the Schism of the Churches in 1054.

So the link you provided backs up my claim.

Wrong, as I've shown above.

No, you still haven't showed that the Crusades was about forcing pagans to convert.

by Homie
Muhammed himself was violent, his successors were violent and just look at today.

Sauron responds

More errors.

Ok, you are in denial.

by Homie
I posted the passage from the Quran to show Sauron's errors.

Sauron responds

Which backfired on you.

No, it didn't, your attempt to dismiss the suras I posted as allowing and being encouraging to kill infidels failed considerably. It doesn't at all seem to mean kill in self-defence, and if it did, it would mean that you could only kill infidels in self-defence, that doesn't make sense.

I admit that christianity has been spread by force some times during history, the catholics in latin-America and yes, Norway to some extent was christianized by force, I should have thought of those but we were discussing origins of religion and I thought of the early expansion of christianity versus the early exapansion of Islam.

Sauron, why do you divide your reply into many posts?

 

[Bruno]

"The Qur'an warns against asking questions about Islam because if the answers are revealed, you will lose your faith in Islam."

That is priceless!!!

 

 

[Outspoken]

"in 994,"

Not the start of christianity. it was in its 900th year.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"Hmm. Wonder why Louis wont' answer that point.... "

Because 1. you're in for a "win" I'm here to learn, thus this "talk" is become argueing not discussing and I won't let myself be dragged into it

Well, at least we have an admission that Outspoken = LouisBooth.

You claimed:

1. the Koran, taken in context tells people its okay to kill in certain instances in this current day and age, the bible does not. fundimental difference

2.  Ignoring for the moment that you are wrong about what the Koran says, your position indicates that you believe that (in contrast to the Koran) the bible does *not* condone killing people "in certain instances in this day and age."

3.  That means that there is no biblical justification for defensive military actions, or for capital punishment.  According to YOUR position, that is. 

4.  All I did was ask you to address the implications of your position.  Instead, you decided to pretend that the "discussion was getting nowhere" and bow out.

The reason you won't address the point is not because you are "here to learn"; if you were truly here to educate yourself, you would spend some time actually DOING that. 

The reason you're skipping out on answering this is because after posting your position, you realized that you had accidentally condemned your own religion.  And you're unwilling to admit your mistake here.

2. Its clear to me no matter what I say on this issue you'll come back to me with "you're wrong I'm right" thus no point in discussion anymore, you're always right remember? Later.

As we've just seen, it is you who has the problem admitting failure.  Your solution is just to exit the discussion, and leave your statements hanging.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Homie
No, they were denied pilgramage. Not by every muslim ruler of the area, but one ruler decided to deny the christians pilgramage, and the crusades started.

Incorrect.  I've just given you the reason why the crusades started. 

Just because some guy from Britannica decides to analyze history differently does not mean that his version gives the best image of how and why they occurred.

This isn't a difference of analysis.  This is simply you being wrong, and a respected historical source easily confirming that point.

Folks, what we have here is just another person whose homespun version of history doesn't stand up when examined in light of actual historical research. 

And what does he say that makes you think that the Crusades goal was to forcibly convert people.

I did not say that the crusades involved forcible conversion (although I'm sure they did, at some point and level).  The examples of forced conversion I gave did not list the crusades.

These vassal states you mentioned, weren't that just setting up bases, defense structures?

No.  They set up kingdoms - in contrast to your claims that nothing of the kind ever happened.

Not like taking control of a country and keeping it even today, as the Arabs have.

Wrong.  The crusaders took control of countries and kept them for as long as they were militarily able to do so.

Btw, the link you provided had some interesting info:
Outremer, "across the sea," means the states created and maintained by Crusaders and their descendants in the Middle East between 1098, during the First Crusade, and 1489, when Cyrpus passed to Venice. These states fall into two groups: (1) those recovered from Islâm, which was the purpose of the Crusades, and (2) those obtained at the expense of Romania, which had originally appealed for help against the Turks, but which was a tempting target both for its wealth and for its heterodoxy after the Schism of the Churches in 1054.

So the link you provided backs up my claim.

Not at all. The purpose of the crusades may have been to take back lands from Islam in the name of christianity, but you claimed that:

1. the crusades started as a result of being denied pilgrimage;

2.  the crusades were in response to Islam taking the holy lands;

3.  the crusaders did not take political control over the lands they went through to get to Jerusalem.

#1 is false, as I (and Britannica) have demonstrated;

#2 was a rationalization, since Islam had held the holy lands for over 400 years before the first crusade ever got started; and it wasn't until these young sons of the nobility needed a "cause" to work for, that Islam's possession of these lands was ever a problem;

#3 is also blantatly wrong, as I have demonstrated.

So the quotation I provided doesn't really help you after all. 

No, you still haven't showed that the Crusades was about forcing pagans to convert.

Strawman.  I never claimed that the crusades were designed for that purpose. 

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Homie

Sauron responds

Ok, you are in denial.

No, just vastly better informed than you are.

Sauron responds

No, it didn't, your attempt to dismiss the suras I posted as allowing and being encouraging to kill infidels failed considerably.

No, it did not.   Your 'analysis' was weak, and did not even begin to discuss the areas that I mentioned.  Until you can do that, then all you're doing is pulling suras out of context without any clue as to their meaning.

It doesn't at all seem to mean kill in self-defence, and if it did, it would mean that you could only kill infidels in self-defence, that doesn't make sense.

It does mean self-defense.  The reason it makes sense requires a knowledge of the history of early Islam (when that sura was written).  As I said earlier: the early Islamic community was under attack at that time.

But of course, you're unaware of the historical context - as you are unaware of many other things. 

I admit that christianity has been spread by force some times during history, the catholics in latin-America and yes, Norway to some extent was christianized by force, I should have thought of those

Translation:  you had an example of forced christianization in your own country, STARING YOU IN THE FACE, and you didn't even know it. 

Given that fact, why should anyone trust your opinions about what the Koran does (or does not) permit? 

It's my belief that you were actually unaware of the history of christianity in Latin America, Norway, etc. until other posters in this thread (such as Brimshack) had to forcibly bring it to your attention. 

but we were discussing origins of religion and I thought of the early expansion of christianity versus the early exapansion of Islam.

We were not limiting the discussion the early years.  LouisBooth tried that excuse as well, and it did not work.  We were discussing the entire expansion of the religion.  Here is LouisBooth's comment that opened the discussion up in that fashion:

"<I>In spite of the Qur'anic statement against forcing religion on others, Muslim leaders have sometimes threatened to kill unbelievers if they did not accept Islam.Although Islam spread to some parts of the world like Indonesia mainly by means of "beautiful preaching," much of its expansion elsewhere was due to offensive war, first by Muhammad to unify Arabia, then by his followers in conquering Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Persia, parts of India, North Africa, Spain, Turkey and the Balkans." </I>

<I>"Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam (Markus Wiener, 1996). </I>

So no:&nbsp; we were not merely discussing the beginnings of each religion.&nbsp;

Sauron, why do you divide your reply into many posts?

Because there are so many errors in your comments, that it's necessary to deal with them in discrete chunks.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"in 994,"

Not the start of christianity. it was in its 900th year.

But as we've seen, we were discussing the entire history of the religion, not just the beginning.

And we have *you* to thank for introducing the comment that opened up the discussion in that way, Louis.&nbsp; Here is your comment again:

"In spite of the Qur'anic statement against forcing religion on others, Muslim leaders have sometimes threatened to kill unbelievers if they did not accept Islam.Although Islam spread to some parts of the world like Indonesia mainly by means of "beautiful preaching," much of its expansion elsewhere was due to offensive war, first by Muhammad to unify Arabia, then by his followers in conquering Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Persia, parts of India, North Africa, Spain, Turkey and the Balkans."

"Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam (Markus Wiener, 1996).

 

[Homie]

I should have taken Outspokens advice about you Sauron. I could reply to your posts but this could go on forever. I will leave this discussion and you can look at it as some victory if you like, whatever suits your needs.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Homie
I should have taken Outspokens advice about you Sauron. I could reply to your posts but this could go on forever. I will leave this discussion and you can look at it as some victory if you like, whatever suits your needs.

The best advice is for you to spend a few hours educating yourself on these topics before posting on this bulletin board system - or any other bulletin board system.&nbsp; In addition, you might want to learn something that LouisBooth/Outspoken hasn't learned:&nbsp; when you're wrong, it's best to just say so. You will gain more respect by admitting your error, than by trying to hide it.

Once you've done these things, the discussion can be fruitful again. But right now, this is just a one-way exercise with me teaching you things you don't know.&nbsp;&nbsp;Which isn't a discussion, so much as it is a classroom.

 

[Outspoken]

"first by Muhammad to unify Arabia"

Actually this was the reason I used this quote Sauron, if you read the context, something you rarely do. Yet another one of your "enduring" attributes

/me switches on the ignore button now.

Just wanted to let you know I'll not be responding to anymore of your posts here. As per my reasons mentioned before.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"first by Muhammad to unify Arabia"

Actually this was the reason I used this quote Sauron, if you read the context, something you rarely do. Yet another one of your "enduring" attributes

Actually, the context of the quote proves my point:&nbsp; that both religions spread through (a) military force as well as by (b) peaceful persuasion:

"In spite of the Qur'anic statement against forcing religion on others, Muslim leaders have sometimes threatened to kill unbelievers if they did not accept Islam.Although Islam spread to some parts of the world like Indonesia mainly by means of "beautiful preaching," much of its expansion elsewhere was due to offensive war, first by Muhammad to unify Arabia, then by his followers in conquering Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Persia, parts of India, North Africa, Spain, Turkey and the Balkans."

"Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam (Markus Wiener, 1996).

My response to this was that it mirrored christianity.&nbsp; You objected loudly.

So the reason that I reposted the quote was to refute your claim earlier that my examples of christian forced conversions with Europe, Latin America, etc. were out of order.&nbsp; You claimed we were only comparing the founders of each religion, and the initial few years of each religion's beginning.&nbsp;

Yet the historical window provided by the Peters quote above covers several centuries of the development of Islam.&nbsp; So bringing up forced military conversions by christianity - I was entirely justified in doing so.

me switches on the ignore button now.

Just wanted to let you know I'll not be responding to anymore of your posts here. As per my reasons mentioned before.

Of course you won't, LouisBooth.&nbsp; What is this - about the 3rd time that you've declared that you won't respond, yet you reply anyhow?

You respond just long enough to get your point or little comment&nbsp;in, and then declare that you aren't responding.&nbsp;

 

[Outspoken]

*sigh*

 

[No gods]

Regarding what I have read a few times now, how many people on these boards have more than one user name? Isn't that a deceptive practice? Is there a reason I would want to have another user name?