Muhammad for Beginners

[Mehmed II]

I've finally got my hands on this book I've been mentioning to you guys for ages. I'll translate it for you, RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW!

Hz.Muhammed for Beginners:

Muhammad Aleyhisselam (may the greetings of God be upon him) is one of the most influential people in history. That is because he's not an ordinary person; he is a prophet: the final prophet of Allah.

Muhammad did not begin a totally new religion. He spread the same message the other prophets (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus etc.) of Allah spread.

This eternal message Muhammad brought does not carry his name. This message is called Islam (peace and submission to god). The term Islam also refers to the natural tendency of the human being, a god centered world view, a 1400 year old civilization and a universal world culture.

It's not right to call the followers of Muhammad as ''Mohammedan''. This is a derogatory term which was first used by the crusaders. The followers of the message Muhammad has brought are referred as ''Musluman'' (Muslim)

The life of Muhammad:

Hz. Muhammad, was born in Mecca at 570. His father Abdullah was already dead before his birth. He was handed to a nanny ( I actually couldn't find the right word for that in english, in turkish it's something like ''Milkmother'&#39 named Halime, who took care of him throughout his childhood. When he was 6, his mom and two years after that, his grandfather, died. He was now under the protection of his uncle Ebu Talib. Ebu Talib was a poor man. Thus, Muhammad started working at an early age and wasn't able to learn to read or write.

Mecca was city founded in the middle of a desert. It's most important land mark was Kabe, the temple prophet Abraham built in the name of the one and only god. Mecca, which was mostly populated by put worshippers, was governed by the 10 strong tribes of Arabia. The strongest one among those tribes was the Kureys and Muhammad was a member of this tribe.

The mostly generous yet poor people who lived at Mecca loved poetry and war and showed strong loyalty to their gods. The city didn't possess any natural resources, but it was an important trading settlement. Foreign traders would occasionally visit Mecca and barter; Muhammad and his uncle Ebu Talib traveled to Syria and Palestine numerous times.

* A Hadith (A quote of Muhammad): The followers of Nationalism are not one of us. The people who fight and die for nationalism are not one of us. Nationalism means encouraging people to fight for unjustifiable reasons*

The oath:

One day, a merchant from Yemen, gets robbed by a group of Meccan thugs. No one helps the desperate merchant and eventually he comes up with an emotional poem and reads it loud in front of everybody. Zubeyr, one of the uncles of Muhammad, upon listening to the merchant, regrets the event and forms a vigilante group that comes to the aid of every person who shares the same fate, regardless of ethnicity or nation. Muhammad, a devout member of this group, will later say these:
Even if I'm given a whole herd of camels, I will not betray my mission; even now, if a person reminds me of my oath and summons me for support, I would gladly go


The Wisdom of Muhammad:

Muhammad, throughout his early life, always helped the Meccans to solve the problems among themselves. One time, Kabe got completely destroyed by a fire and almost every inhabitant of the city joined to participate in the rebuilding of the temple. However, when it came to putting the holy black stone back to it's place, an argument occurred among the tribal leaders. All four of the big tribal leaders wanted to be given the honor of accomplishing this holy duty. Finally, they chose Muhammad as the arbiter of the case. The solution he found saved the day; he grabbed a piece of fabric, put the stone in the middle, and asked the four leaders to grab the fabric from each side and put the stone whereever it needs to be placed. His wisdom, honesty and modesty earned him the title Al Amin (the trusted one).

The Marriage:

One day, when Muhammad was 25, his uncle approached him and said: "As we all know, I am a poor man. We barely manage to earn our lives. In couple of days, there is a caravan that will travel to Syria. Khalid's daughter Khadija, is looking for abled men that would give her a hand in managing it. If you go to her and tell that you will help her, I'm sure she will accept it.''
''So be it.'' replied Muhammad.
Muhammad's kindness, honesty and his devotion to his work earned him Khadija's appeciation. She was so affected by Muhammad that she proposed to him. Muhammad accepted Khadija's marriage proposal and married a woman who was 15 years older than him.

*Another hadith: To come up with a just solution to a problem between two people is good; to help a man who's trying to mount his animal or loading it is good; saying nice words is good; showing a happy face to your brothers is good; having sex with your partners is good*

To be continued...

[Dr Zoidberg]

Great idea mate! There are some people on this forum who want to know more and there are some who need to know more. I am one of the former...

[smack]

I am really looking forward to this. Thanks Mehmed II.

[Xiaodun]

Thanks Mehemed, my knowledge on the lives of religous people is quite limited to Buddhist monks. Please keep up the good work

[Nihil]

He was handed to a nanny ( I actually couldn't find the right word for that in english, in turkish it's something like ''Milkmother'&#39

That would be a wet-nurse, I believe.

I'm very intrigued by this too, bring on the next chapter I say.

I hope this doesn't sound facetious, but the one thing I do know about Muhammad is - he had really big feet. That's if his footprint in the Topkapi Palace is anything to go by. Enormous. And a darn big sword as well. Must have been a big guy.

Nationalism means encouraging people to fight for unjustifiable reasons

I'm with Muhammad on this one.

To come up with a just solution to a problem between two people is good; to help a man who's trying to mount his animal or loading it is good; saying nice words is good; showing a happy face to your brothers is good; having sex with your partners is good

Sounds like my kind of guy.

[Lord Rahl]

I've always wanted to know more about how Islam got started and about Muhammad. Thanks Mehmed II! What does the "Hz." stand for?

[Aristophanes]

ummmm...Islam does not signify 'peace' in any language, but it sure does mean 'submission.' Maybe:
1)
'Dar es Salaam'='peaceful world' or 'peace in the world'
and
'Dar es Islam'='world of Islam' or 'world in submission'[to God]
2)
There can be no 'Dar es Salaam' without 'Dar es Islam'

3)

'Dar es Islam';
If 'Dar es Islam' then 'Dar es Salaam';
So, 'Dar es Salaam'

Is that how it works?

PS are you going to whitewash the fact that Islam was predominantly spread by warfare, Jihad, and the sword,[just in case there was any ambiguity] or the fact that the Crusades were a [legitimate] response to 400 years of ruthless Arab, Seljuk, Egyptian, and Moorish exapnsionism?
It's clear that Islam didn't spread that quickly thanks to some altruistic missionary work.

[KingOfTheIsles]

PS are you going to whitewash the fact that Islam was predominantly spread by warfare, Jihad, and the sword,[just in case there was any ambiguity] or the fact that the Crusades were a [legitimate] response to 400 years of ruthless Arab, Seljuk, Egyptian, and Moorish exapnsionism?
It's clear that Islam didn't spread that quickly thanks to some altruistic missionary work.

Major religions don't become major with the dove of peace. Part of the vitality of Islam is the militaristic element, as it was in Christianity. Let's not get into any debates about the crusades, though. You know that [legitimate] is highly subjective, and equating the spread of the religion with the spread of ambitious Muslim rulers is dubious, at best. No doubt Mehmed will reply to your assertions, but there have been several large topics on the crusades in Fingerprints, and it wouldn't be on-topic. By all means, challenge any actual claims made, but pre-emptive strikes aren't always necessarily a good idea.

[Portuguese Rebel]

By all means, challenge any actual claims made, but pre-emptive strikes aren't always necessarily a god idea.

:rofl

Just what i was thinking.

Anyway the teachings of Muhammad are intriguing as it seems that the ones claiming to be his most faithfull servants do not listen to him.

[Aristophanes]

Originally posted by Portuguese Rebel@May 11 2005, 02:30 PM

By all means, challenge any actual claims made, but pre-emptive strikes aren't always necessarily a god idea.

:rofl

Just what i was thinking.

Anyway the teachings of Muhammad are intriguing as it seems that the ones claiming to be his most faithfull servants do not listen to him.

Whatever gave you the idea that: 'the ones claiming to be his most faithfull servants do not listen to him'?[sic]

Facts King, stubborn facts: the initial spread of christianity was not due to violence, but the appeal that religion had to slaves and the disenfranchised-it would be hundreds of years before any organized attempts were made to unite Christianity and violence, generally as a defensive measure against pagan barbarians who would have nothing to do with a religion which taught something diametrically opposed to their violent lifestyles.

[KingOfTheIsles]

Facts King, stubborn facts: the initial spread of christianity was not due to violence, but the appeal that religion had to slaves and the disenfranchised-it would be hundreds of years before any organized attempts were made to unite Christianity and violence, generally as a defensive measure against pagan barbarians who would have nothing to do with a religion which taught something diametrically opposed to their violent lifestyles.

So, the Teutonic Order's expansion into the Baltic area was a defensive measure? Presumably, the Spanish Jews in 1492 posed a grave threat to Christendom. The Byzantines in 1204 were pagan barbarians? I think maybe there are irregularities in your theory. One-off examples, you may say, but they still exist. There is no inherent religion attached to an area of land, and Christians had no more right to Iberia or Jerusalem than Muslims. I certainly don't go in for the line that the cusades were "wrong", as you cannot judge the morality of medieval states based on our modern version. Equally though, it was not a righteous thing and making blanket statements where there are clear cases of Christian violence not used against violent pagans does not stand up to constant scrutiny.

[wilpuri]

Koti,

the initial spread of christianity was not due to violence

Christianity's initial spread wasn't during the medieval period.

[Aristophanes]

Originally posted by KingOfTheIsles@May 11 2005, 03:47 PM

So, the Teutonic Order's expansion into the Baltic area was a defensive measure? Presumably, the Spanish Jews in 1492 posed a grave threat to Christendom. The Byzantines in 1204 were pagan barbarians? I think maybe there are irregularities in your theory. One-off examples, you may say, but they still exist. There is no inherent religion attached to an area of land, and Christians had no more right to Iberia or Jerusalem than Muslims. I certainly don't go in for the line that the cusades were "wrong", as you cannot judge the morality of medieval states based on our modern version. Equally though, it was not a righteous thing and making blanket statements where there are clear cases of Christian violence not used against violent pagans does not stand up to constant scrutiny.

This is where you re-read my post and smack yourself real hard...

Facts King, stubborn facts: the initial spread of christianity was not due to violence, but the appeal that religion had to slaves and the disenfranchised-it would be hundreds of years before any organized attempts were made to unite Christianity and violence, generally as a defensive measure against pagan barbarians who would have nothing to do with a religion which taught something diametrically opposed to their violent lifestyles.

Now what do I say there, remind me? 'It would be hundreds of years before attempts were made to unite Christianity and violence'-and so it would be, Christianity had been around for 330 years before the Roman Emperor Constantine removed onus from Christianity[thus sparing Christians the persecution they had become so accustomed to], and eventually made it the official religion of the Roman empire; however, no wars were fought to promulgate it at that time.
The Christians of Europe, during the period of about 400-800[so shortly after the fall of the Roman Empire], fought a predominantly defensive battle against invading Pagan Norsemen and tribes from the Steppe; that does not mean that the fighting was necessarily done under the banner of Christianity, but it certainly means it was done in self-defense.[all contributing to my point]

I make no mention of Catholicism's [deeply]troubled years because they don't figure into my point. Islam was a religion of conquest already in Mohammed's lifetime, it would be hundreds upon hundreds of years before the religion founded by Christ would be used[in a widespread manner: I am sure there are exceptions that prove my rule] to the same purpose. The Crusades against the Arabs/Seljuks and the wars fought in Spain were meant to be defensive: in the East, the Byzantine Emperor had appealed for support in Rome, and that coupled with the very real abuses against Christians, pilgrims or inhabitants alike, in the Midde East inflamed opinion against Islam. In the West, the Muslim Arabs/Moors, having conquered the formerly Christian North Africa and Egypt, moved on through Spain conquering and pillaging all the way into France.

The point, which should be obvious, is that Christianity was not used to justify territorial expansion for many generations after the death of Christ: whatever battles the Christians did fight[under the banner of Christ] were generally defensive as they attempted to stave off encroaching Moors, Turks, Steppe Peoples, and Danes.

[you are very much misinformed about the conflict in Spain if you do not realize that Spain was predominantly Christian before the Moors attacked]

So, let's see:

The Iberian peninsula was conquered in 710-716 C.E. by Arab tribes originating from northern, central and southern Arabia. Massive Berber and Arab immigration, and the colonization of the Iberian peninsula, followed the conquest. Most churches were converted into mosques. Although the conquest had been planned and conducted jointly with a faction of Iberian Christian dissidents, including a bishop, it proceeded as a classical jihad with massive pillages, enslavements, deportations and killings. Toledo, which had first submitted to the Arabs in 711 or 712, revolted in 713. The town was punished by pillage and all the notables had their throats cut. In 730, the Cerdagne (in Septimania, near Barcelona) was ravaged and a bishop burned alive. In the regions under stable Islamic control, subjugated non-Muslim dhimmis -Jews and Christians- like elsewhere in other Islamic lands – were prohibited from building new churches or synagogues, or restoring the old ones. Segregated in special quarters, they had to wear discriminatory clothing. Subjected to heavy taxes, the Christian peasantry formed a servile class exploited by the dominant Arab ruling elites; many abandoned their land and fled to the towns. Harsh reprisals with mutilations and crucifixions would sanction the Mozarab (Christian dhimmis) calls for help from the Christian kings. Moreover, if one dhimmi harmed a Muslim, the whole community would lose its status of protection, leaving it open to pillage, enslavement and arbitrary killing. [21]

By the end of the eighth century, the rulers of North Africa and of Andalusia had introduced rigorous Maliki jurisprudence as the predominant school of Muslim law. Thus, as Evariste Lévi-Provençal, observed, three quarters of a century ago: [22]
The Muslim Andalusian state thus appears from its earliest origins as the defender and champion of a jealous orthodoxy, more and more ossified in a blind respect for a rigid doctrine, suspecting and condemning in advance the least effort of rational speculation.

Charles Emmanuel Dufourcq provides these illustrations of the resulting religious and legal discriminations dhimmis suffered, and the accompanying incentives for them to convert to Islam: [23]

A learned Moslem jurist of Hispanic Christian descent who lived around the year 1000, Ahmed ibn Said ibn Hazm (father of the famous mid-eleventh-century author Ibn Hazm) gives glimpses, in several of his juridical consultations, of how the freedom of the “infidels” was constantly at risk. Non-payment of the head-tax by a dhimmi made him liable to all the Islamic penalties for debtors who did not repay their creditors; the offender could be sold into slavery or even put to death. In addition, non-payment of the head-tax by one or several dhimmis – especially if it was fraudulent – allowed the Moslem authority, at its discretion, to put an end to the autonomy of the community to which the guilty party or parties belonged. Thus, from one day to the next, all the Christians in a city could lose their status as a protected people through the fault of just one of them. Everything could be called into question, including their personal liberty…Furthermore, non-payment of the legal tribute was not the only reason for abrogating the status of the “People of the Book”; another was “public outrage against the Islamic faith”, for example, leaving exposed, for Moslems to see, a cross or wine or even pigs.

…by converting [to Islam], one would no longer have to be confined to a given district, or be the victim of discriminatory measures or suffer humiliations…Furthermore, the entire Islamic law tended to favor conversions. When an "infidel" became a Moslem, he immediately benefited from a complete amnesty for all of his earlier crimes, even if he had been sentenced to the death penalty, even if it was for having insulted the Prophet or blasphemed against the Word of God: his conversion acquitted him of all his faults, of all his previous sins. A legal opinion given by a mufti from al-Andalus in the ninth century is very instructive: a Christian dhimmi kidnapped and violated a Moslem woman; when he was arrested and condemned to death, he immediately converted to Islam; he was automatically pardoned, while being constrained to marry the woman and to provide for her a dowry in keeping with her status. The mufti who was consulted about the affair, perhaps by a brother of the woman, found that the court decision was perfectly legal, but specified that if that convert did not become a Moslem in good faith and secretly remained a Christian, he should be flogged, slaughtered and crucified…

Al-Andalus represented the land of jihad par excellence. Every year (or multiple times within a year as “seasonal” razzias [ghazwa]) raiding expeditions were sent to ravage the Christian Spanish kingdoms to the north, the Basque regions, or France and the Rhone valley, bringing back booty and slaves. Andalusian corsairs attacked and invaded along the Sicilian and Italian coasts, even as far as the Aegean Islands, looting and burning as they went. Many thousands of non-Muslim captives were deported to slavery in Andalusia, where the caliph kept a militia of tens of thousand of Christian slaves, brought from all parts of Christian Europe (the Saqaliba), and a harem filled with captured Christian women. Bat Ye’or summarizes these events as follows: [24]

Breaking out of Arabia and from the conquered regions- Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine-these successive waves of immigrants settled in Spain and terrorized southern France. Reaching as far as Avignon, they plundered the Rhone valley by repeated razzias. In 793 C.E., the suburbs of Narbonne were burned down and its outskirts raided. Calls to jihad attracted the fanaticized hordes in the ribats (monastery-fortresses) spanning the Islamo-Spainish frontiers. Towns were pillaged and rural areas devastated. In 981, Zamora and the surrounding countryside in the kingdom of Leon suffered destruction and the deportation of four thousand prisoners. Four years later, Barcelona was destroyed by fire and nearly all its inhabitants massacred or taken prisoner; several years after its conquest in 987, Coimbra remained desolate; Leon was demolished and its countryside ruined. In 997, Santaigo de Compostela was pillaged and razed to the ground. Three years later, Castille was put to fire and sword by Muslim troops and the population, captured in the course of these campaigns, enslaved and deported. The invasions by the Almoravides and the Almohades (eleventh to thirteenth centuries), Berber dynasties from the Maghreb, reactivated the jihad.

Society was sharply divided along ethnic and religious lines, with the Arab tribes at the top of the hierarchy, followed by the Berbers who were never recognized as equals, despite their Islamization; lower in the scale came the mullawadun converts and, at the very bottom, the dhimmi Christians and Jews. The Andalusian Maliki jurist Ibn Abdun (d. 1134) offered these telling legal opinions regarding Jews and Christians in Seville around 1100 C.E.: [25]

No…Jew or Christian may be allowed to wear the dress of an aristocrat, nor of a jurist, nor of a wealthy individual; on the contrary they must be detested and avoided. It is forbidden to [greet] them with the [expression], “Peace be upon you’. In effect, ‘Satan has gained possession of them, and caused them to forget God’s warning. They are the confederates of Satan’s party; Satan’s confederates will surely be the losers!” (Qur’an 58:19 [modern Dawood translation]). A distinctive sign must be imposed upon them in order that they may be recognized and this will be for them a form of disgrace.

Ibn Abdun also forbade the selling of scientific books to dhimmis under the pretext that they translated them and attributed them to their co-religionists and bishops. (In fact, plagiarism is difficult to prove since whole Jewish and Christian libraries were looted and destroyed). Another prominent Andalusian jurist, Ibn Hazm of Cordoba (d. 1064), wrote that Allah has established the infidels’ ownership of their property merely to provide booty for Muslims. [26]

In Granada, the Jewish viziers Samuel Ibn Naghrela, and his son Joseph, who protected the Jewish community, were both assassinated between 1056 to 1066, followed by the annihilation of the Jewish population by the local Muslims. It is estimated that up to five thousand Jews perished in the pogrom by Muslims that accompanied the 1066 assassination. This figure equals or exceeds the number of Jews reportedly killed by the Crusaders during their pillage of the Rhineland, some thirty years later, at the outset of the First Crusade. The Granada pogrom was likely to have been incited, in part, by the bitter anti-Jewish ode of Abu Ishaq a well known Muslim jurist and poet of the times, who wrote: [27]

Bring them down to their place and Return them to the most abject station. They used to roam around us in tatters Covered with contempt, humiliation, and scorn. They used to rummage amongst the dungheaps for a bit of a filthy rag To serve as a shroud for a man to be buried in...Do not consider that killing them is treachery. Nay, it would be treachery to leave them scoffing.” [The translator then summarizes: ‘The Jews have broken their covenant (i.e., overstepped their station, with reference to the Covenant of Umar) and compunction would be out of place.]

The discriminatory policies of the Berber Muslim Almoravids, who arrived in Spain in 1086, and subsequently those of the even more fanaticized and violent Almohad Berber Muslims (who arrived in Spain in 1146-1147) caused a rapid attrition of the pre-Islamic Iberian Christian (Mozarab) communities, nearly extinguishing them. The Almoravid attitude towards the Mozarabs is well reflected by three successive expulsions of the latter to Morocco: in 1106, 1126, and 1138. The oppressed Mozarabs sent emissaries to the king of Aragon, Alphonso 1st le Batailleur (1104-1134), asking him to come to their rescue and deliver them from the Almoravids. Following the raid that the King of Aragon launched in Andalusia in 1125-1126 in responding to the pleas of Grenada’s Mozarabs, the latter were deported en masse to Morocco in the Fall of 1126. [28] Dozy summarizes the events leading up, and surrounding the mass deportations, as
follows: [29]

…the Fakihs and the [Muslim] populace fostered against them [the Mozarabs] [an] envenomed hatred. In most towns they formed but a small community, but in the province of Granada they were still numerous, and near the capital they possessed a beautiful church, which had been built about 600 C.E. by Gudila, a [Visi]Gothic noble. This church was an offense to the Fakihs…they issued a fetwa decreeing its demolition. Yusuf [b. Tashifin, the Almoravid ruler] having given his approval, the sacred edifice was leveled with the ground (1099 C.E.). Other churches seem to have met with a similar fate, and the Fakihs treated the Mozarabs so oppressively that the latter at length appealed to Alfonso the Battler, King of Aragon, to deliver them from their intolerable burdens. Alfonso acceded to their request. In September, 1125, he set out with four thousand knights and their men -at-arms…Alfonso, did not however, achieve the results he aimed at…the ultimate object of the expedition had been the capture of Granada, and this was not effected. Upon the withdrawal of the Aragonese army, the Moslems cruelly avenged themselves on the Mozarabs. Ten thousand of the Christians were already out of their reach, for knowing the fate in store for them they had obtained permission from Alfonso to settle in his territories, but many who remained were deprived of their property, maltreated in endless ways, thrown into prision, or put to death. The majority, however, were transported to Africa, and endured terrible sufferings, ultimately settling in the vicinity of Saleh and Mequinez (1126 C.E.). This deportation was carried out by virtue of a decree which the Kady Ibn Rushd- grandfathter of the famous Averroes- had procured…Eleven years later a second expulsion took place, and very few were left in Andalusia.

The Almohads (1130-1232) wreaked enormous destruction on both the Jewish and Christian populations in Spain and North Africa. This devastation- massacre, captivity, and forced conversion- was described by the Jewish chronicler Abraham Ibn Daud, and the poet Abraham Ibn Ezra. Suspicious of the sincerity of the Jewish converts to Islam, Muslim “inquisitors” (i.e., antedating their Christian Spanish counterparts by three centuries) removed the children from such families, placing them in the care of Muslim educators. [30] Maimonides, the renowned philosopher and physician, experienced the Almohad persecutions, and had to flee Cordoba with his entire family in 1148, temporarily residing in Fez — disguised as a Muslim — before finding asylum in Fatimid Egypt. Indeed, although Maimonides is frequently referred to as a paragon of Jewish achievement facilitated by the enlightened rule of Andalusia, his own words debunk this utopian view of the Islamic treatment of Jews: [31]

..the Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us...Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they…

[KingOfTheIsles]

Yes, yes, I was aware that your post was partly referring to the initial spread of Christianity, and I concede that there are few examples of Chritian violence in the early years (maybe Charlemagne's forceful conversion of the Saxons? Although that's probably considered too late as well). I was just pointing out that there are examples of Christian agression against other religions when not fought defensively. Thing is, you consider that early Christianity was entwined with the Roman Empire, initially spread through the Roman way of accepting other culture's gods. No doubt some saw it as a threat, yet others readily adapted to it. Perhaps then, if Christianity had infiltrated a younger, more vibrant and expansionist empire, things might have been different but it became the religion of the Roman Empire, which by this time had severely decaying borders and could only act defensively. I understand your point (that Christianity only became a tool of conquest, or a shield for it, when the howling barbarians became Christian, no?) but equally one could say it was as much a characteristic of the first Christian empire as a characteristic of the religion. And I do actually consider the spread of Christianity into the Baltic part of Christianity's initial spread in some ways, albeit very late indeed as it had not been in that area before.

[you are very much misinformed about the conflict in Spain if you do not realize that Spain was predominantly Christian before the Moors attacked]

I'm not sure where I said this, but I am well aware that the religion of Iberia was Christianity (and Christian Arianism the case of Visigothic rulers). And before that, the religion was Paganism. As I said, areas don't have pre-set religions and I don't think there were that many cases of forced conversion under the Muslims in Iberia, certainly the Muslims of the Fatimid dynasty in Egypt treated non-co-religionists better (more tolerant) than many Christian states at the time. Where did you get that article from? Its neutrality seems very suspect in places, I must say.

As I made the point in my original post, Mehmed has not "white-washed" anything yet, so maybe it would be better to wait to see whta he writes before pre-emptively criticising?

[Mehmed II]

As I made the point in my original post, Mehmed has not "white-washed" anything yet, so maybe it would be better to wait to see whta he writes before pre-emptively criticising?

Thanks for writing that King, I needed it. Unfortunately, I'll continue tomorrow. See ya then...(don't have that book with me)

To answer couple of points:

2)
There can be no 'Dar es Salaam' without 'Dar es Islam'

Islam is a word that came out of the arabic word ''Salam'' in the first place.

The point, which should be obvious, is that Christianity was not used to justify territorial expansion for many generations after the death of Christ:

That is true because the christianity wasn't a state religion until Constantine's time. As soon as the christianity became a dominant state religion it came to spread just like Islam did.

it would be hundreds upon hundreds of years before the religion founded by Christ would be used[

I'm sure there are much more early examples than I have but let me give you mine anyway. For example, King Alaric was an Aryan christian and didn't hesitate to sack Rome in 410 didn't he? No, actually... There is another example. Radagais, who united some gothic tribes and invaded south to sack Italy and eventually got stopped by Rome's Hunnic Allies (Uldiz) was also an Aryan christian.

The Crusades against the Arabs/Seljuks and the wars fought in Spain were meant to be defensive

Depends on how you see it. First of all, in order not to mix things more, let us divide the Arabs and the Seljuks for a second. If the crusades were defensive, it would've been completely concentrated on the Seljuks. Because it was the Seljuks that invaded the Byzantines and the Seljuks that damaged the Holy Sepulchure. There wasn't absolutely any reason whatsoever to invade Jerusalem, nor Damascus nor Antioch. In fact, weakened Fatimid's would love to see the Seljuk dominance fade away. But oh well, it was a defense against the muslims..who cares if it's a Fatimid or a Seljuk who attacked the Byzantines right? A muslim is a muslim.

Whatever gave you the idea that: 'the ones claiming to be his most faithfull servants do not listen to him'?

Not only they didn't listen to him. They also didn't listen to the holy book.

..the Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us...Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they…

No one denies the intolerant acts of Umayyad's. Umayyad's are the ones that pretty much messed up the whole thing. Muaviya became the first king of Islam (the caliph's before that were chosen) and he turned the caliph system into a primageniture. His son's name (Yezid) is still used as a badword in many muslims today. So the Umayyad's, who achieved the majority of the muslim expansion, aren't really praised for their tolerance. They were intolerant, which is why their whole empire crumbled after a single military defeat. (Poitiers) However, that source completely ignores the acts of tolerance the muslims of Spain...

[Portuguese Rebel]

So this educational thread has turned into a slugfeast between Christianity and Islam... I really wished it handn't come to this.

[Mehmed II]

So this educational thread has turned into a slugfeast between Christianity and Islam... I really wished it handn't come to this

What to do...what to do...

[Aristophanes]

Originally posted by Portuguese Rebel@May 12 2005, 11:39 AM
So this educational thread has turned into a slugfeast between Christianity and Islam... I really wished it handn't come to this.

I wasn't aware there was much difference between 'education' and a 'slugfest' anyways. I'd hate for this to turn into a Muslims vs Christians' thing, but I thought it might be 'eudcational' to draw comparisons between the two. That Islam was originally so closely tied with territorial expansion and violence and continues to have such a militant and extremist composition may be an important observation to those who aren't voluntarily blind.

[Nihil]

Originally posted by Mehmed II@May 12 2005, 10:44 AM

What to do...what to do...

Just continue with your thread. Plenty of people have expressed an interest, so by all means, proceed.

[Portuguese Rebel]

That Islam was originally so closely tied with territorial expansion and violence and continues to have such a militant and extremist composition may be an important observation to those who aren't voluntarily blind.

Others suffer from a sort of selective blindness. Christianity's history does not lose to islam in barbaric actions and overall discusting atitudes towards those who are not of the same faith. I'm trying that this thread remains an educative source for the teachings of Islam so that everyone that is not a muslim can better understand what islam really is (not the demonized version you usually hear about). In that big quote of yours you mentioned things done by muslims to christians in Iberia. If you want to start a thread on that i'll be happy to demonstrate that the treatment given to non christians by iberian christians were in no way better. But lets keep this ONE thread a place for the understanding of Islam. The way you jumped all over it with a "Islam is evil" atitude just goes some way in demonstrating that you are not interested in learning something you may not know

Whatever gave you the idea that: 'the ones claiming to be his most faithfull servants do not listen to him'?[sic]

Read the qur'an and the sunnah. Try to get the major ideas around those. If muhammad was alive i cannot see him aproving of people blowing up themselves and executing innocent unarmed people. In fact most of his teaching relate to one dude you seem so fond of... a certain jewish rabie. And about your playing around with words as in Islam=submission, somehow i think you missed that the submission is before god (not a threat to non muslims as i see in some scaremongering internet sites) and you as a christian should not be surprised by that idea.