Religeonz Are Gangz
- Thread starter KFatal
- Start date
LOL, how amusin'. Anyone who states that the Islamic expansion was barbaric has either not grasped the basic Islamic history or is deluding him/herself.
Let me end this post with a quote from Dr Lebon:
"The early Muslim conquests might have blurred their common sense and made them commit the sorts of oppression which conquerors usually commit, and thus ill-treat the subdued and compel them to embrace the Faith they wanted to spread all over the globe. Had they done so, all nations, which were still not under their control, might have turned against them, and they might have suffered what had befallen the Crusaders in their conquest of Syria lately. However, the early Caliphs, who enjoyed a rare ingenuity which was unavailable to the propagandists of new faiths, realized that laws and religion cannot be imposed by force. Hence they were remarkably kind in the way they treated the peoples of Syria, Egypt, Spain and every other country they subdued, leaving them to practise their laws and regulations and beliefs and imposing only a small Jizya in return for their protection and keeping peace among them. In truth, nations have never known merciful and tolerant conquerors like the Muslims."
And E.Gibbon (accordin' to many the greatest modern historian) who described the Islamic Expansion as:
one of the most memorable revolutions which has impressed a new and lasting character on the nations of the
globe."
Let me end this post with a quote from Dr Lebon:
"The early Muslim conquests might have blurred their common sense and made them commit the sorts of oppression which conquerors usually commit, and thus ill-treat the subdued and compel them to embrace the Faith they wanted to spread all over the globe. Had they done so, all nations, which were still not under their control, might have turned against them, and they might have suffered what had befallen the Crusaders in their conquest of Syria lately. However, the early Caliphs, who enjoyed a rare ingenuity which was unavailable to the propagandists of new faiths, realized that laws and religion cannot be imposed by force. Hence they were remarkably kind in the way they treated the peoples of Syria, Egypt, Spain and every other country they subdued, leaving them to practise their laws and regulations and beliefs and imposing only a small Jizya in return for their protection and keeping peace among them. In truth, nations have never known merciful and tolerant conquerors like the Muslims."
And E.Gibbon (accordin' to many the greatest modern historian) who described the Islamic Expansion as:
one of the most memorable revolutions which has impressed a new and lasting character on the nations of the
globe."
Barbaric???? interesting, i ve been looking at my post for 10 minutes, there's no mention of anything barbaric, or uncivilized.
it was a WAR, ppl died, i know the muslims did a lot of things to improve the civilizations they conquered, (i am a muslim after all)
but i don't think you are aware that one of the most used argument in favor of the israelo palestine conflict is the fact that according to islamic laws, any territory conquered under the conditions you so gracefully stated legitimately belongs to muslims no matter who occupies them afterward, so there's no hope for peace under these conditions unless Israel is ruled by muslims.
also, if you were to apply this law fully, many Spanish territories too have to be under islamic rules.
You also forget that for ppl living in muslim countries that don't agree with Islam are not as fairly treated today as they alledgedly were back then, like in Iran, KSA...
also, you only talk about the early muslim conquests, which were somehow excused because they concerned territories that had uncivilized practices such as rape, but what about the later, when islam expanded to spain and turqy??? it doesn t matter how they treated them, it was useless wars against "infidels"
You implied to be barbaric. The Islamic conquest was a conquest of liberation.
With people, I assume that you're implyin' 'innocenent' if I'm correct. Muslims never persecuted the inhabitants that they conquered. Infact, they were welcomed as liberators. But let's create a hypothetical scenario. Suppose, the Muslims didn't liberate the inhabitants of the oppressed nations and never set foot outside the Arabian Peninsula. This would indicate that the Catholic authorities would continue persecuting, floggin' , torturin', and executin' the Monophysite Christians. This would also meanthat the Greeks would continue persecutin' Egypt's peasants. This would also mean that the Catholic Christians in Spain would continue persecuting the Jews, etc. The current toleration that you seem to be enjoyin' now is borrowed from the Muslims who set out a example to treat everybody with equality.
And no you're not an Muslim. Since you claimed that religion is man-made and that the existence of God is based on a fairytale.
Again, another misconception. The main motive to conquer Spain was to liberate the persecuted inhabitants (i.e. the Jews). Musa ibn Nusayr send his lieutenant Tariq after a governer of Visigoth Spain pleaded him to liberate his people. Musa never attempted to commit a full-scale invasion but simply answered the call of the persecuted people.
I could care less about the current state of Muslim countries since they're mostly based on the distorted interpretation of the Sharia Law not to mention with cultural or ethnic baggage.
But the subject here is the expansion of Islam. Stick to the subject.
Again, you incorrectly assert that Muslims waged war against the "infidels". There is no such thing as "Holy War" in Islam. Jihad means struggle to remove oppression whether physical or internal. It's not exclusive to Non-Muslims who commit oppression but also Muslims.
Muslims liberated Spain 'cause of the oppressed inhabitants in Visighoth Spain.
Allah SWT said in the Qur'an:
Why should not you fight in the way of God for those men, women and children who have been oppressed because they are weak and who call 'Our Lord! Take us out of this place whose people are oppressors, and raise for us an ally, and send for us a helper'
This demonstrates that Muslims should liberate the oppressed and treat them with just. Hence why many historians admired the Muslim conquest.
Prof. Thomans Arnold wrote in 'Spread of Islam in the World':
"This misinterpretation of the Muslim wars of conquest has arisen from the assumption that wars waged for the extension of Muslim domination over the lands of the unbelievers implied that the aim in view was their conversion."
And what do you mean with "turqy".
Perhaps you can quote me one renowned historian that states that the Muslim conquest was based on massacres and coercion.
Peace
With people, I assume that you're implyin' 'innocenent' if I'm correct. Muslims never persecuted the inhabitants that they conquered. Infact, they were welcomed as liberators. But let's create a hypothetical scenario. Suppose, the Muslims didn't liberate the inhabitants of the oppressed nations and never set foot outside the Arabian Peninsula. This would indicate that the Catholic authorities would continue persecuting, floggin' , torturin', and executin' the Monophysite Christians. This would also meanthat the Greeks would continue persecutin' Egypt's peasants. This would also mean that the Catholic Christians in Spain would continue persecuting the Jews, etc. The current toleration that you seem to be enjoyin' now is borrowed from the Muslims who set out a example to treat everybody with equality.
And no you're not an Muslim. Since you claimed that religion is man-made and that the existence of God is based on a fairytale.
Again, another misconception. The main motive to conquer Spain was to liberate the persecuted inhabitants (i.e. the Jews). Musa ibn Nusayr send his lieutenant Tariq after a governer of Visigoth Spain pleaded him to liberate his people. Musa never attempted to commit a full-scale invasion but simply answered the call of the persecuted people.
I could care less about the current state of Muslim countries since they're mostly based on the distorted interpretation of the Sharia Law not to mention with cultural or ethnic baggage.
But the subject here is the expansion of Islam. Stick to the subject.
Again, you incorrectly assert that Muslims waged war against the "infidels". There is no such thing as "Holy War" in Islam. Jihad means struggle to remove oppression whether physical or internal. It's not exclusive to Non-Muslims who commit oppression but also Muslims.
Muslims liberated Spain 'cause of the oppressed inhabitants in Visighoth Spain.
Allah SWT said in the Qur'an:
Why should not you fight in the way of God for those men, women and children who have been oppressed because they are weak and who call 'Our Lord! Take us out of this place whose people are oppressors, and raise for us an ally, and send for us a helper'
This demonstrates that Muslims should liberate the oppressed and treat them with just. Hence why many historians admired the Muslim conquest.
Prof. Thomans Arnold wrote in 'Spread of Islam in the World':
"This misinterpretation of the Muslim wars of conquest has arisen from the assumption that wars waged for the extension of Muslim domination over the lands of the unbelievers implied that the aim in view was their conversion."
And what do you mean with "turqy".
Perhaps you can quote me one renowned historian that states that the Muslim conquest was based on massacres and coercion.
Peace
again i never said i agreed or didnt, but prove to me there is a god, i want substantial proof..
because basically, i will turn this into the evolution vs creationism argument for the sake of doing so....
you can go find MOUNTAINS of scientific evidence supporting evolution which completely undermines the story of creation (if your catholic or christian)..so what now, are we being lied to?
i want to stress im not saying i agree or disagree, im not going to state my beliefs on a board, its not that important but im saying that you cant say your right cause you cant prove it.
There is no evidence in the evoloutounist theory. How can scientist predict what happened millions of years ago. Its complete bullshit. I think its impossible for such random events to lead to the creation of a human being. Scietist who study DNA even say that it is impossible that we were created through this. This is because the DNA is so complicated and coded that it could never have been created through evolution. I can't prove that god exsists but you can't prove the evolutionist theory.
Aight...
i admit, you can kick my ass in islamic history since i lots my interest in it a long time ago.
I also noticed some confusion as you refered to someone else's quotes as mine... no problems
first of all, i think it's too pretentious to pretend that the liberty i enjoy today is all due to islam.
I also find it hard to believe that prosecutions by catholics would have been still cariied on wasn't it for the muslim expansions.
however, i believe that the islamic mentality, though very efficient back then, is out of date.
As opposed to Christianity, which was very uneffective, but very relevant today, islam was something of a solution to all the shit that was going on, but is still carried on today the same way. You missed the point going out of your way to show that islamic wars were good, however, if we stick to the thread title, I'm sure every gang fully convinced that his actions are justified.
I wasn't criticizing islam, i would do that in a different thread, i m just saying, that i don't care if there are distorted interpretation of the law, after all, who are you to be able to interpret the Quran??? who is qualified after all to interpret the words of God???
also, i don't have to assume that the ppl who died are innocent, i don't believe anyone is entitled to judge whether one is innocent or not
massacres and cohersion??? WTF
but let's look at it from a practical level,
today, where does the islamic world stand compared to the rest???
nothing but excuses, and no solutions
also, you sound like these old fashioned arab teachers who are still in denial saying arabs and muslims invented everything: science, philosophy, spirituality, religion.
i believe that the world would be a better place if there were no religions
one more thing, what about the fact that any conquered territory should be rightfully owned by Muslims...
woah woah easy there darwin, why is it that people who know so little about this theory believe it to be a theory supported by science, when in fact, scientific findings do not support the theory of evolution whatsoever? more recent findings from the last two decades in particular openly contradict the basic assumptions of this theory. many branches of science, such as paleontology, biochemistry, population genetics, comparative anatomy and biophysics, indicate that natural processes and 'coincidental' effects cannot explain life, as the theory of evolution proposes. since darwin there has been hardly any findings or discoveries which support his theory.
KAMIKAZI said:
I believe in God, I just wanna know who created him, who created his creator, and so on
When U think about it our existence is impossible
When U think about it our existence is impossible
The only way for you to understand that God has no creator is by common sense. A God higher than God would mean that the smaller God worships the higher God.
no evidence?
take a look at carbon dating, take a look at fossil records, that literally show species evolving over millinos of years, ur scientist fact there is utter bullshit man, this is my field of work, my field of study, im involved in a lot of science and what your stating was never taught to me through out all my studies, dna is genetic coding man, it wasnt evolved, ALL creatures have their own genetic code, it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution lol. evolution is a species evolvoing over time to survive and be able to adapt and reproduce given their situation and enviroment, dna has nothign to do with it.
dont speak if ur uneducated please.
there are mountains of evidence that clearly prove evolution, darwins simple study on finches is enough to show that, not to mention all the other examples i wont even get into.
examples are all over, that i cant even mention them all, go read up on it.,
but ur dna statement is bullshit and doesnt apply here dna is not EVOLVED, dna is genetic makeup, and each creature has its own, so if you have a species, say, finch, as in darwins case, and all the finches in an area have a soft beak, yet some of them are born with a genetic defect or particular gene that gives them a certain shaped beak that allows them to crack through hard seeds, and thats all the food type in the area they live, those are the only type of finch that will be able to feed. therefore when they reproduce, they will start a lineage of finch types that now have that beak type, and the others with a soft beak will starve and die off, hence, they evolved. its the slow evolution of a new species thats able to survive, thats what evolution means, thats how it works, its small changes over milions of years, it isnt the evolution of DNA..DNA doesnt evolve, moron. dont try to come in here with your baseless point if you dont know what your talking about.
heres my question for all you bible thumpers.
1. the bible puts the earth at roughly 6,000 years old, funny thing is the earth has been PROVEN to be milliions of years old through half life and carbon dating, fossil records, etc , why is this?
2. the bible never mentions dinosaurs anywhere in it, why?
3. your telling me "God" created a parasite that is responsible for river blindness, that results in an individual gettin a parasite in his foot, goes into his eye, reproduces, in his eyeball, he then dies and goes blind...i find that hard to believe dont you, i find it hard to believe "God" created a creature whose sole purpose was to kill others..
4. fossils of animals that are precursors to birds, that couldnt fly, but have the same wing bone formation as todays modern birds, they clearly evolved over time and the oens who could fly survived, whil the others died off.
5. amphioxus is the precursor to all moder vertebrae, go look it up.
6. darwins study on finches says it all, again, go look it up.
i can go on for days, bottom line is evolution is being proved mroe and more every day, here go look up these:
the oldest homonoids:
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
these are some of the more primitive line of humans that evolved over time, the ones who were smarter and more adept survived, others died off, and the genetic makeup of the ones who had the propensity to live was passed on. i hate to say it, evolution is pretty much fact.
that dna evolution thing you mentioned is so stupid i laughed at it,
again go read before you open your mouth.
i belive in God, and evolution and such doesnt disprove the bible, it simply shows things are like they are told, ultimately i belive God made the earth and organisms on it, but they evolved into what they are today on their own.
but u can NOT sit there and say that there is one god bla bla cause you have no proof...until u can proove, that one god exists, u cant say your right religion is based on faith, but dont come in here saying evolution is bullshit, cause that shows me your just an idiot and blind to obvious facts, and live in denial.
pz
let me quote a few people who are jus a little bit more intelligent than you.
“Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it.”—*H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
"'The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
Now whos the fukin stupid Moron :thumb:
“Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it.”—*H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
"'The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
Now whos the fukin stupid Moron :thumb:
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.