Islam

[Bootsiuv]

Another mystery associated with this thread is why people keep responding to obvious joke posts by a guy who calls himself "Rev. Jebediah Cletus", has an avatar taken from a "Country Church" album cover and posts with deliberate spelling mistakes and clear "rabid conservative fundamentalist lunatic" cliches.

It's a joke people.

I didn't think it was a joke. I took him for one of those "I'm right, you're wrong" sort of christians, who are almost unbearable to try and have a logical conversation with.

Whatever.

[Cleisthenes]

Mohammed preached killing other people while he was alive, more than can be said of Jesus Christ who truly lived in non-violence. Mohammed tried to forcefully convert the Banu Qaynuqa tribe to Islam after the battle of Badr, threatening to kill them for not becoming Muslims but eventually deciding to simply banish them from Yathrib and seize their property, even despite revealing a verse much earlier that there should be no compulsion in religion. He was a hypocrite who broke his own verses when it suited him.

Now, the worst that can be said about Christianity is the Crusades, which if you look at the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and the utter massacre of the Christians at Ani by the Turkish Muslims, were somewhat justified--not that the modern media will ever present such an argument that doesn't kiss Islamic ass. Regardless, the Crusades happened about 1050 years after the death of Jesus, whereas Mohammed held a bloody sword in his own lifetime and broke many of his earlier beliefs when he began the Islamic conquests of Arabia. In a short fifty years after his death, his companions would spread his conquests to Syria, Egypt, the Maghreb, and Mesopotamia.

The distance of time between the original message of Christ and the crusades excuses the corruption of Christianity; but what shall we say of a religion that was born in violence?

Some of the most knowledgeable Islamic scholars are extremists. There are varieties of Muslims who believe in more peaceful and tolerant attitudes, but those are usually not grounded in the later verses that Mohammed used to conquer Arabia, and that Abu-Bakr and Umar used to spread the conquests even further. Sure, you can water down the rhetoric of the Verses of the Sword and pretend that they do not override the earlier verses that are more tolerant, but those who are more knowledgeable know that the later verses such as

8:12: “When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”

Qur’an 59:2 “It was Allah who drove the Jewish people from their homes and into exile. They refused to believe and imagined that their strongholds would protect them against Allah. But Allah came at them from where they did not suspect, and filled their hearts with terror. Their homes were destroyed. So learn a lesson, O men who have eyes. This is My warning: they shall taste the torment of Fire.”

superceed the earlier verses that Mohammed revealed whilst he preached peacefully in the Meccan marketplaces.

[MasterAdnin]

Mohammed preached killing other people while he was alive, more than can be said of Jesus Christ who truly lived in non-violence. Mohammed tried to forcefully convert the Banu Qaynuqa tribe to Islam after the battle of Badr, threatening to kill them for not becoming Muslims but eventually deciding to simply banish them from Yathrib and seize their property, even despite revealing a verse much earlier that there should be no compulsion in religion. He was a hypocrite who broke his own verses when it suited him.

You should really read history instead of blindly posting and trying to tell others what you THINK happened. If you knew about early Islamic history you would know that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) told the Jews, Banu Qaynuqa tribe, that so long as they did not attack the Muslims, they would remain unharmed, live their lifestyles however they wished, and the Muslims would protect them. Banu Qaynuqa showed their true colors when they broke the treaty the Muslims had with them and ATTACKED THE MUSLIMS FIRST. The Prophet (pbuh) knew that this would not be the last of their treachery and knew that if Islam was to survive they would have to leave, which they did.

Now, the worst that can be said about Christianity is the Crusades, which if you look at the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and the utter massacre of the Christians at Ani by the Turkish Muslims, were somewhat justified--not that the modern media will ever present such an argument that doesn't kiss Islamic ass. Regardless, the Crusades happened about 1050 years after the death of Jesus, whereas Mohammed held a bloody sword in his own lifetime and broke many of his earlier beliefs when he began the Islamic conquests of Arabia. In a short fifty years after his death, his companions would spread his conquests to Syria, Egypt, the Maghreb, and Mesopotamia.

Please tell me what battles the Prophet (pbuh) was involved in and why.

Badr was because in order for the citizens of Medina to live they had to get supplies. They got these supplies by raiding caravans true, but only out of necessity. The battle was started because the Prophet (pbuh) was going to raid a caravan that had crucial supplies in it that Medina NEEDED. The Meccans gathered a force of around what, 1000 to the Muslim 300 and the Muslims won a decisive victory. As we can see, this was only out of necessity.

Uhud was fought because the COMPANIONS OF THE PROPHET (PBUH) WANTED TO FIGHT, NOT HIM. The Prophet (pbuh), in fact, told his men patience would grant them victory, and look what happened. Due to the companions stupidity the Prophet (pbuh) was injured and the battle was lost. This was not the battle which the Prophet (pbuh) wished to fight, but he knew that had he not gone along with the fight, the Muslims would have been divided and easy kills for the Meccans.

Also, the only city the Prophet (pbuh) ever actually took was Mecca, and that too, no one was killed as the Meccans peacefully surrendered. You name the battle and I'll show you it was forced upon the Prophet (pbuh).

Some of the most knowledgeable Islamic scholars are extremists. There are varieties of Muslims who believe in more peaceful and tolerant attitudes, but those are usually not grounded in the later verses that Mohammed used to conquer Arabia, and that Abu-Bakr and Umar used to spread the conquests even further. Sure, you can water down the rhetoric of the Verses of the Sword and pretend that they do not override the earlier verses that are more tolerant, but those who are more knowledgeable know that the later verses such as

Again, the Prophet (pbuh) only took Mecca, nothing else, and Mecca was taken without bloodshed. Please read your history, and as for Umar, Abu Bark, and Uthman, I am a Shiite and we Shiites regard them as hypocrites, so I'll let my Sunni brothers discuss them, I will not defend hypocrites.

8:12: “When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”

Oh please. A simple google search will show that this is merely a story :

Some non-Muslims either through ignorance or Islam-bashing continue taking the verses of the Holy Quran out of context and its history to justify their false propaganda. In order to gain a proper understanding of many verses in the Holy Quran, it is important to understand and know the historic context of the revelations. So many revelations in the Holy Quran came down to provide guidance to Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) and the fellow Muslims based on what they were confronting at that time. The verse 8:12 is one such verse which is misinterpreted. The verse and its brief explanation follows:

008.012 Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you:
give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers:
smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."


This verse and the verses before and after were revealed about the Battle of Badr, which occurred in Arabia in the early seventh century. A battle in which the pagans of Makkah traveled more than 200 miles to Madinah with an army of about 1000 to destroy Muslims. Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) and fellow Muslims had suffered severe persecutions and torture for 13 years in the city of Makkah. And now that they had fled Makkah and found a sanctuary in the city of Madinah, they were once again threatened. Muslim Army was only about 300 strong. God Almighty gave the order to Muslims to fight to defend their lives and faith. The enemy came to them with the intent to kill Muslims. It was a war to defend themselves and their Faith. It was a war imposed upon Muslims.

Link: http://www.islam101.com/terror/verse8_12.htm

Qur’an 59:2 “It was Allah who drove the Jewish people from their homes and into exile. They refused to believe and imagined that their strongholds would protect them against Allah. But Allah came at them from where they did not suspect, and filled their hearts with terror. Their homes were destroyed. So learn a lesson, O men who have eyes. This is My warning: they shall taste the torment of Fire.”

Oh please, review your sources.

059.002
YUSUFALI: It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering (of the forces). Little did ye think that they would get out: And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But the (Wrath of) Allah came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their dwellings by their own hands and the hands of the Believers, take warning, then, O ye with eyes (to see)!

Link: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/059.qmt.html

Clearly we see that Allah took out the UNBELIEVERS from the homes of the People of the Book, and no where does it say they are Jewish.

Please, review your sources and post honestly, not with words full of deception.

Salaam bros and may Allah spread the truth,
Adnan

[Beowulf47]

Now, the worst that can be said about Christianity is the Crusades

OK, Hadrian made a good point when he said this thread is not about Christianity, but I can't resist this. The worse thing that can be said for christianity is the Genocide of native people's the world over, often in the name of manifest destiny, a political principle derivative from Calvinist thought.

Christians invented a slave trade that was astronomically larger then any other to date (12 million as a conservative estimate, 50 million as a more far fetched one), which yes includes those evil, evil, muslims.

And you think Christianity was spread peaceably? Think again.

Early christians were a terrorist group, I quote from the PBS site:

At least one scholar believes Nero was on the mark. Professor Gerhard Baudy of the University of Konstanz in Germany has spent 15 years studying ancient apocalyptic prophecies. He has learned that in the poor districts of Rome, Christians were circulating vengeful texts predicting that a raging inferno would reduce the city to ashes. "In all of these oracles, the destruction of Rome by fire is prophesied," Baudy explains. "That is the constant theme: Rome must burn. This was the long-desired objective of all the people who felt subjugated by Rome."

Moreover, the Book of Revelation, written a mere 30 years later, seems to equate evil with Rome. The Whore of Babylon, the source of this evil according to Revelations, is described as having seven heads. "The seven heads are seven mountains," Revelations says. Rome, of course, is famously known as the city of seven hills. What's more, an ancient Egyptian prophecy that would have been well known in the Christian quarters of Rome foretold the fall of the great evil city on the day that the dog star, Sirius, rises. In 64 A.D., Sirius rose on July 19, the very day the great fire of Rome began. Baudy believes that, bearing this prophetic date in mind, some of the Christians, maltreated and embittered, may have started the fire -- or perhaps lit additional fires, adding fuel to the larger conflagration -- in hopes of realizing their prophecies.

OK, so thats a bit of a controversial claim, I know, but consider a more excepted, like Charlemagne, who conquered much of Europe. He once murdered 4,500 saxons for being pagan. Say what you will about Mohammed he never did anything like that.

Cleisthenes, any religion can be bad if misused. If you ever have taken the time to READ the Qur'an you would know that most of your accusations are untrue. Hell, if you took the time to read this thread you would know that is not true.

[kev-o]

Most of these events happened long after Jesus' death. What most of us is refering to is the moments during Jesus and Muhammad's lives. Compare the spread of the two of them wile they were alive and see who was more violent

[Bootsiuv]

Out of curiosity, what does (pbuh) mean?

[Beowulf47]

Clearly you [Kev-o] are a nationalist, so you know that war is justified, at least sometimes. Right? Would it not be better then to give rules for war (such as those that Mohammed gave) so it may be fought properly?

If you believe in war in any capacity then a warrior prophet is altogether appropriate, is it not?

Edit PBUH- peace be upon him

[Rush Limbaugh]

You should really read history instead of blindly posting and trying to tell others what you THINK happened. If you knew about early Islamic history you would know that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) told the Jews, Banu Qaynuqa tribe, that so long as they did not attack the Muslims, they would remain unharmed, live their lifestyles however they wished, and the Muslims would protect them. Banu Qaynuqa showed their true colors when they broke the treaty the Muslims had with them and ATTACKED THE MUSLIMS FIRST. The Prophet (pbuh) knew that this would not be the last of their treachery and knew that if Islam was to survive they would have to leave, which they did.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black?

Banu Qaynuqa

Main article: Banu Qaynuqa

The Banu Qaynuqa were a Jewish tribe of pre-Islamic Arabia. They were among the first Jews that settled at Medina, and the most powerful of all the Jewish tribes of the peninsula before Islam. They formed a gild of goldsmiths. They had also a marketplace, known under the name "Market of the Banu Qaynuqa," which was the general marketplace of the city before Muhammad laid out the great marketplace. Besides this they possessed two strong castles in the north of Medina. After Muhammad had come to Medina, he endeavored to win all the Jews over to Islam and more so after the victory at Badr. However they were not willing to accept his message or growing influence and took it negatively so they helped incite civil unrest around Medina. Eventually it became out of hand and Muhammad gathered a number of Muslims against them and they retired to their fortresses, but after a siege which lasted fifteen days, they surrendered on condition of sparing their families and animals. This being the first problem to have occurred in relations with another tribe, he simply had them exiled and their goods and land confiscated. Subsequently they settled in Adra'at and Qadi al-Qura in the north.

Heres the attack you speak of

There is a report which says that one of the Banu Qaynuqa tied the hem of the garment of a Muslim woman who was in their market-place, in such a way that when she stood up, she was uncovered and she screamed. One of the Muslims came and killed the Jew who had done it. Then the Jews attacked the Muslim and killed him. The Muslim�s family called on the rest of the Muslims to help them against the Jews. The Muslims became angry, and bad feelings arose between them and the Banu Qaynuqa

Of course the fact that this tribe was made up mostly of rich goldsmiths had nothing at all to do with it.

Please tell me what battles the Prophet (pbuh) was involved in and why.

One for any reason is one to many.

[Bootsiuv]

I thought it might be something like that....thanks Beowulf.

[hellheaven1987]

Instead of saying Islam was spread by the sword in the Middle East I think it would be more correct to say that Islam was introduced by the sword through the expansion of Muslim Arab kingdoms in the Middle East just like Christianity was introduced by the rifle in parts of Africa and in the Far Eastern Asia through the expansion of Colonial Empires.

I agree, even Ottoman did not run around and force people to convert.

[hellheaven1987]

Tell that to the templars or the Hospitalliers that Saladin defeated. They had to chose between Islam and death. Most chose death.

That is different thing from my view. The job of Templars and Hospitallers was to protect Holy Land, which many of their member viewed it as "to kill the Pagans". Don't think it was impossible, the action of Hospitallers during 15th to 17th Century clearly explained their role was to destroy others.

And I think unless Saladin still gave them choice; if I was Saladin I just pushed them into execution room.

[killerchinchilla]

The Prophet (pbuh) knew that this would not be the last of their treachery and knew that if Islam was to survive they would have to leave, which they did.

In modern society that would be considered ethnic cleansing, as I'm assuming they didn't say "whoops, sorry for that whole killing thing, don't want to cause you anymore bother so we'll be off now." I'm guessing the 'Prophet' removed them forcible.

[Sadreddine]

Give me a point or issue about Islam, Muhammad, or likewise, and I will do my best to explain, correct, or expound on it. Is that acceptable?

Teacher, was Muhammad (s) really a child molester warlord in a bloodlust conquering rage all the time? Cause someone told me he participated in battles trying to impose his views by the sword and even raped an innocent 9 year-old little girlie against her will!

*Sits down and looks up to the teacher with shinning eyes*

[basics]

AbrahamShalom,

It is not me who says that but that which is written in the Book, the Torah or the Bible, a name for whichever you believe but nonetheless the very same Scriptures and deemed Holy by each faction concerned. Now each faction can by number or individual obey or disobey, there is no luck involved.

Let's assume that the deity concerned is one and the same, then one thing is for sure that He cannot deny Himself by contradiction or lies therefore the problem does not lie with Him rather the number or individual that cannot accept and do as He not only asks but demands.

Therefore it follows that whosoever claims His name and acts in His name yet steps outside the things decreed by Him are not worthy of being named to act for Him at all. It doesn't matter what additions you bring to God's word for if in any way they deny the original then in context they have no value.

To all who are under sin, and all are except where sin has been eradicated, they remain so especially if remaining in the Law and in God's eyes have no rights. On this we cannot differenciate between the physical and the Spiritual, those who continue to disobey God will be punished.

That is what God decreed in Genesis, what the Law of Moses reinforced and what we believe was the appearance of God on earth having come to separate by blood and verified in the Book of the Revelation confirms as to be the wrath of God on all who sin.

There is no mention whatsoever of luck never mind other religions bringing in other methods either in the Torah and the totality of the Bible that can or will overcome what God has decreed inside these Books considered by all factions to be Holy.

[Blau&Gruen]

@basics
'Luck' can mean 'blessed'.

[Cleisthenes]

The battle was started because the Prophet (pbuh) was going to raid a caravan that had crucial supplies in it that Medina NEEDED.

What can I really say to this except...

Please tell me what battles the Prophet (pbuh) was involved in and why.

I am glad to see that you have gone from saying that I needed to learn history to asking me for more information on the battles during the Muslim conquest of Arabia. Admitting your ignorance is always a good start. Now you can learn about the conquests that Mohammed did by the sword in his own lifetime!

Kaybar. The sacking of Khaybar is one. Why was Khaybar sacked? Well, the main reason was that it was wealthy and Mohammed really NEEDED its wealth--so that makes it okay in your opinion!

Mutah. Mutah was another battle, in which the Muslims tried to conquer the Christian Arabs living in northern Arabia under Byzantine protection. They failed badly that time.

Taif. The battles surrounding the attempted conquest of Taif was yet another. The Muslims failed at their siege, but managed to scare the defenders enough that they soon sent envoys after the failed seige and all converted to Islam. If you rough them up first, they do what you want!

Tabouk. Finally, Tabouk was a massive raid that supposedly was a response to a rumored invasion force by the Byzantines, but no Byzantine source even mentions it. It did succeed in crushing and converting the local Christian Arab tribes in that region, though, switching them from allies of the Byzantines to Muslims.

Many other smaller 'battles' in the conquest of Arabia consisted of just sending his men to intimidate settlements that had smaller armies, which would usually convert to Islam without fighting. For example, when Mohammed sent armies under Khalid ibn Walid to Najran to the Banu Al-Harith tribe, he commanded Khalid to spend three days warning the Al-Harith that they would be attacked if they did not convert, but if they converted then they would be safe. They could not match the Muslims in numbers of warriors, so they did convert.

Yes. A forced conversion. Mohammed himself forced conversions to Islam, regardless of his early Meccan verses that no one could be compelled.

OK, Hadrian made a good point when he said this thread is not about Christianity, but I can't resist this. The worse thing that can be said for christianity is the Genocide of native people's the world over, often in the name of manifest destiny, a political principle derivative from Calvinist thought.

Erm. Yeah. Those Catholics in Portugal and Spain were big fans of Calvinist thought, I am quite sure. As for genocide, the worst massacre of the natives was simply disease. We cannot blame the Muslims for spreading the black death to medieval Europe and killing a third of its population, so neither can we blame the Europeans for sending diseases to the New World that pretty much devastated the locals. Other than disease, the Europeans were just doing what the Incas and Aztecs had before them: conquer new lands and enslave the people there. The ruthless building of empires is an old story in human history, as old as Akkad and Sargon the Great. Te Christian God had little to do with the real reason why Europeans began their Colonization. Any religious talk of coming to save their souls is a flimsy excuse for Colonization, compared to the real reason that Cortes gave to the Aztecs: "My people are afflicted with a disease of the heart which can only be cured by gold."

Nowhere does Jesus himself exhort his followers to "kill people who are on rich lands" ... but Mohammed himself most certainly did raid Meccan caravans for a living, and did chase the gold-smiths of the Banu Qaynuqa out of Yathrib in order to seize their wealth, and did sack the wealthy trading hub of Khaybar. Hadiths and Koranic verses alike detail how to divide plunder (Mohammed gets to choose a fifth of it all before the rest is divided up) and how to treat female captives (you cannot pull out early while raping a female captive according to Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137).

I really like how the religious guy writing pbuh after every mention of Mohammed even admits that Mohammed raided caravans... "but he (pbuh)NEEDED to do that!" What a laugh. Yeah, there was no way of earning a living honestly like all the other tribes in Yathrib who did well for themselves. Yeah, right. If that is the case, then I really NEED to rob banks! That makes it okay! Screw this concept of working for a living--my man Mohammed (pbuh) shows me how it is done.

Christians invented a slave trade that was astronomically larger then any other to date (12 million as a conservative estimate, 50 million as a more far fetched one), which yes includes those evil, evil, muslims.

12 million is the most accepted estimate for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, not at all conservative, just not inflated for sensationalism.

The trans-Saharan slave trade is something that you should look at. Some estimates say that 50% more black slaves were traded across the Sahara by Muslims than were traded trans-Atlantic by the Europeans. Add to that total the extensive white slave trade in the Balkans by the Turks and by Corsairs raiding the coastlines of the Mediterrean. Slavery of Europeans by raiding Muslims was happening long before Europeans even discovered the Americas. At the Battle of Lepanto alone, 10000 Christian slaves were liberated from the oar decks of the captured Turkish galleys. Cervantes, of Don Quixote fame, fought in that battle and would be enslaved himself by Muslim raiders later on before being ransomed in time to write his great book.

"Astronomically" as an adjective usually means something at least 10 times greater--an order of magnitude greater--and usually several orders higher. Even if you had been right that the trans-Atlantic slave trade was higher, then you still must know, as an educated man, that the Muslims were far more competitive in the slave trade than the more uneducated often assume simply because they are never told these things by mainstream media.

And you think Christianity was spread peaceably? Think again.

It was spread peacefully for the first few centuries of its existence. Given that Islam was spread by the sword in the very midst of its creator's lifetime, that is saying something.

Early christians were a terrorist group, I quote from the PBS site:

Christians have always been fond of telling apocalypse stories, and they have been waiting millennia now for the day of judgement, but that hardly makes them terrorists. Nor did their prophet tell them to go out and make the apocalypse happen unduly. Instead, they just wait.

OK, so thats a bit of a controversial claim, I know, but consider a more excepted, like Charlemagne, who conquered much of Europe. He once murdered 4,500 saxons for being pagan. Say what you will about Mohammed he never did anything like that.

Charlemagne lived 750 years after Jesus Christ. He has nothing to do with the real message of Jesus. Mohammed was the founder of Islam, so his actions have everything to do with his real message. That should be simple to understand. The actions of every Christian and every Muslim are not part of their religion's tenets--but what Christ and Mohammed did certainly are!

Cleisthenes, any religion can be bad if misused. If you ever have taken the time to READ the Qur'an you would know that most of your accusations are untrue. Hell, if you took the time to read this thread you would know that is not true.

When one religion is misused by its own creator, I daresay it is different than another religion being misused centuries after the creator's death.

Actually, no one has said the accusations are untrue. They've simply tried to shade them a bit more favorably. MasterAdnin has said that the Banu Qaynuqah attacked Mohammed first, which Rush has shown is not true, and I believe he is quoting from Ibn Ishaq, an early Muslim historian. Ibn Ishaq also says that Mohammed first offered the Qaynuqa a chance to save themselves by forced conversion before declaring war on them.

Mohammed to the Banu Qaynuqa before beseiging them: "O Jews, beware lest God bring on you the like of the retribution which he brought on Quraysh. Accept Islam, for you know that I am a prophet sent by God. You will find this in your scriptures and in God's covenant with you."

No one argues that the Banu Qaynuqah were not evicted from Yathrib by force. MasterAdnin admits that Mohammed raided caravans but insists that Muslims really NEEDED the stolen goods. I guess honest hard work is too good for the faithful!

I've read the Koran, although much of it is boring and overly detailed prescriptions on how to cleanse and so forth. I also read enough of this thread to realize that the arguments against Islam have been weakly presented heretofore. The key in realizing what true Islam is: the actions of the prophet. Once you understand the man that Mohammed was, you will never say the terrorists are distorting Islam. It's the westernized liberal Muslims who dwell on the early Meccan verses and ignore the later Verses of the Sword that are distorting real Islam.

Here are a few things that Mohammed did:

• Raided caravans
• Tortured people to make them reveal their treasure (Kinana of Khaybar)
• Raped women the very day that he killed their husbands (Rayhana and also the wife of Kinana)
• Killed thirty unarmed emissaries coming to discuss peace. (Khaybar)
• Ordered women killed for mocking him with songs (Furtana, Sara)
• Killed prisoners of war. (Banu Qurayza)
• First revealed a verse not to compel religion, then compelled Islam upon various peoples. (Abu Safyan, Banu Al-Harith, Banu al-Thaqif)
• Had sex with a nine year-old girl. (Aisha)

Here are a few things Jesus did:

• Preached peace.
• Forgave his killers.

[Cleisthenes]

Instead of saying Islam was spread by the sword in the Middle East I think it would be more correct to say that Islam was introduced by the sword through the expansion of Muslim Arab kingdoms in the Middle East just like Christianity was introduced by the rifle in parts of Africa and in the Far Eastern Asia through the expansion of Colonial Empires.

You ought to know better than to compose such a flimsy comparison.

The Arab 'Kingdoms' doing the conquering were led by the Prophet Mohammed himself at first and then by his close friends who comprised the Companions. When Mohammed died, Abu Bakr and Umar took up his position at the head of the faithful in the capacity of Caliphs, the direct successors of the Prophet. Sunni tradition views these early Caliphs as the Al-Rashidun, or the rightly-guided ones. They are viewed to be almost as holy and infallible as the Prophet himself--and yet they conquered much of the world by the sword and then imposed various heavy restrictions and humiliations on non-believers in conquered lands in order to convert them. (Pact of Umar)

If Jesus Christ himself had killed many people and carved out an earthly kingdom for himself in his own lifetime, exhorting his followers to kill for him, and then Saint Peter had followed up on the work of his best friend by killing yet more people and carving out an even bigger kingdom immediately after his death, then you'd have a proper comparison to Islam's nature. But that did not happen. Thus your comparison fails miserably.

[basics]

Beowulf47,

The seven heads of Revelation are not what the author maintains. It has wrongly been held by many that this does infer Rome but nothing can be further from the truth. Seven in Biblical terms mean perfect and heads mean rulers so spiritually the whole means the perfect whore or antagonists of God.

The Babylonian whore was Semiramis yet not her personally but what she stood for and although Rome in her own religious institutions worshipped in a similar nature even with the addition of Christian practise the meaning is still of all that stands against God and His people. This is seen as culminating in the one-world system that the Lord will find on earth at His return.

Revelation is full of picturesque yet spiritually given terms but everything in the vision was of a heavenly or Spiritual nature and must not be taken as literal or forced where forcing doesn't apply. But you are quite right that certain considering themselves Christian behaved in a very unChristian fashion.

It is not impossible that some of those did set Rome alight although that I cannot confirm but I do know that Gibbon recorded many to aggravate the authorities with the intent of becoming martyrs. But then it will not be the first time that Revelation is used for the craziest of schemes.

[Sadreddine]

It's the westernized liberal Muslims who dwell on the early Meccan verses and ignore the later Verses of the Sword that are distorting real Islam.

No, it's both terrorists and Islam bashers alike who distort real Islam by paying attention to some verses and not to others, quoting them out of context and severely lacking of both honesty and education on the subject.

There is a verse in the Qur'an that reffutes those who pay attention to some verses and disregard others, which I unfortunately can't remember or find right now. When looking into a verse, you must take into consideration context, in an historic, temporal, sociologic point of view, along with context of that particular verse in the Qur'an, joining it together with others related to those as to issue a veredict about its significance. Forgetting this is a dangerous approach, God inspires us:

"You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them." (Qur'an 17:36)

And:

"Why do they not study the Quran carefully? Do they have locks on their minds?" (Qur'an 47:24)

Now, Prophet Muhammad (s) and Prophet Jesus (s) had very different contexts in which they received the Inspiration. I've debated this point dozens of times and I'm tired of it, but anyway, as a basic reminder: Jesus exercised his prophetic "carrier" 2 years, Muhammad 23 (IIRC). Jesus was a preacher that was executed (apparently, it seems) before really doing nothing; Muhammad was the founder of a new nation, a ruler and a lawgiver. A founder of a nation must fight to defend his territories, sign treaties with neighbouring factions, repel invaders and making all things neccessary to protect his people (without blind aggression, that is, which is obviously contemplated in the Qur'an).

Their lifes and deeds are unavoidabily marked by their social, ethnic, demographic and religious context. Comparing both of them in such simple terms as you propose is both dishonest and hipocritical in your part, I reckon.

Now, one could say a christian: put the other cheek and let me slaughter you and your daughter. It is in your religion, right? Oh wait. That's just hipocrisy, when the specific becomes general for convenience as to support the superiority of an ideology over the other. I understand, I'm tellin' noone.

At least we muslims have the balls to admit that we slaughter you if you try to slaughter us first, which is a purely natural approach to the issue as you defend your properties and family as well. Tell me, are american christian soldiers in Iraq putting the other cheek? So much for your "forgiving your enemies" convenient hipocrisy.

Sorry if my tone somewhat offended you. I've certainly felt a bit offended by your mockings but that's no excuse.

And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant." (Qur'an 28:55)

So, peace be to you.

[Rush Limbaugh]

No, it's both terrorists and Islam bashers alike who distort real Islam by paying attention to some verses and not to others, quoting them out of context and severely lacking of both honesty and education on the subject.

So then only your interpretation is correct? What is real Islam? Is it Sunni or Shia or some other sect? It seems to me that OBL acts more like Mohamed than most Muslims I know.

There is a verse in the Qur'an that reffutes those who pay attention to some verses and disregard others, which I unfortunately can't remember or find right now

It must be an important and well taught one then

A founder of a nation must fight to defend his territories, sign treaties with neighbouring factions, repel invaders and making all things neccessary to protect his people (without blind aggression, that is, which is obviously contemplated in the Qur'an).

He founded this nation however on his religion. Are you that blind? He claimed god told him to take over.

Their lifes and deeds are unavoidabily marked by their social, ethnic, demographic and religious context. Comparing both of them in such simple terms as you propose is both dishonest and hipocritical in your part, I reckon.

You are the dishonest one here. You cant just excuse Mohameds actions because he was a warrior. Great way to found a religion of peace. This is insanity.

Now, one could say a christian: put the other cheek and let me slaughter you and your daughter. It is in your religion, right? Oh wait. That's just hipocrisy, when the specific becomes general for convenience as to support the superiority of an ideology over the other. I understand, I'm tellin' noone.

How so. Its only hypocracy if you dont do it.

At least we muslims have the balls to admit that we slaughter you if you try to slaughter us first,

Or if you dont believe as we do.

Pretty neat how you avoided most of Cleisthenes points just by claiming Mohamed was just setting up a nation. Now when the Jews return to Israel and do the same who are the first ones crying foul Only Islam is allowed nation building according to Muslims it seems. And once conquered by the Muslim sword always Muslim.