wkllaw

Now you read carfully because no where did I generalize islam.

I basically said I didn't like some parts of its history and I also said I don't like some parts of christianity's history.

You can all say Islam wasn't spread by the sword and it is true, but there were moments of violence where it was spread by violence, I guess you could say they were the ones trying to achieve their worldly goals.

Now point out where I generalize muslims, I said they were normal people and I would like it better if they were more moderate people.

I like it when people are more moderate because they are usually more willing to compromise.

If anything you are the one generalizing with non muslims thinking like that.

__________________
Those who can't change become extinct.

snc128

radical minorities dont represent the total.
it is sth like blaming all US ppl cuz of their Gov.s' and a few soldiers' disgraces in Vietnam and Iraq.
again ,i dont blame u.cuz even a dark point on the sun is more noticeable than all the shining of great sun.we afraid of this situation.but it is not an obstacle to benefit from the sun.Sun is sun,no matter how many dark points exist on it.

i support neither side.however,the same misunderstandings occupy their minds as well,in my opinion.


i dont agree with this one.it depends on time and location.this is a little bit tangled subject.

we r just sharing ideas.u can change ur mind.i state my ideas,dont dictate them and u r free what to do.u have to arrive ur own determinations by urself,ur ideas must be specific to u.btw,in my opinion beauties and knowledge must be shared .they dont finish as long as we share them.actually,here in Turkiye, i ve never faced a stereotype as u had described.
Islam is not required to reform but a series of innovations r necessary in either Muslims' mind or in aggresive non muslims' mind.we r so near yet so far to each other.maybe we suffer from lack of communication.

.
. .
.

__________________
action speaks louder than words

snc128

it seems a little bit contradicting ,to be more accurate ur 1st message is incapable in terms of reflecting ur ideas fully.
it is not my fault.

chankya

Ah you're Turkish! Atatürk was a great man. I'd say Turkey and Iran are the only two decent countries in the whole lot. At least their people care more about their respective countries than about some radical Islamic agenda.

__________________
"Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides

Big K

Kansas,

even they called themselves as Islamic Armys these are infact "Arabic" conquests or campaigns, Islam have nothing to do with swords or forcing someone to convert him in Islam.

Forcing is a great sin in Islam.

so these are "Arabic" conquests, not Islamıc..

try to interprete correctly history, the only thing that you can lost is your prejudices

__________________
I'm not willing to remain silent even there will be no effect when i say.

veera8

big K,

why death senstence to a muslim apostle ????? i prefer calling it the greatest forcing !!!!!!!

__________________
Brahma satyaṃ jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparah

Big K

veera8 sorry.....what is a apostle?

anyway i agree with you...but this is not real Islam.....penalty of death must be a very very rare thing is even sharia applications.....wrong interpretations of sharia, manipulation of low level of educated people, political propagandas etc...

yes Islam is living its dark ages maybe...we have to see the truth...

unfortunately these things happens and people like you begin to hate Islam... but the real face is not like that....

snc128

i agree.they were arabic conquests but this cant be considered as an excuse for either other muslims or non muslims.
i invite everyone to put his hat in front of him and then to think again.whose history has not affected by some radical religionists,or by ppl who uses religion as worldly power,tool,equipment?(ps.this is not religion's fault but ppl who abuse religion.)

eg,
-conquest of Iber peninsula by Arabs till France
-conquest of half Europe till Vien by Ottomans
-crusader attacks(remember why pope had invited those musketeers:supposedly in order to inform those ppl who has never heard the name of Jesus.
illogical behaviour:Muslims dring those eras were aware of Jesus,even He is the 2nd most important prophet for muslims,those who dont respect and love Jesus cant be considered as a Muslim based on religious faith of Islam)
-remember musketeers of Rhodes
-remember temple musketeers
-remember today's majority of Gov.s of Israel
(ps.these conquests certainly include many more reasons other than religion as well.)


i mean,religion is one of the most used term in order to accomplish worldly objectives.but we cant accuse only one nation as the source of eternal sin.
Turk,English,American,Iranian,French,Arab,Spanish etc r the shareholders of those bad things.
it appears, those eras' ppl were unable to communicate and usually had wars unconsciously cuz of this situation and many more reasons as well.

Ray

Snc,

You put your hat anywhere you wish.

Having put your hat where you want, think about this. If continually in history one is exposed to radicals, then what should one think about the religion of that radical?

Forget the Crusade as an example. It was an equal battle where the Moslems also did not just give up their ghost! The fought and the name of the Kurd Salahuddin or Saladin is famous. This Kurd fought for Islam and saved Islam, in a manner of speaking.

Let's look to the present from then. There has been no radical Christian rampaging around the world against Islam. Moslems may claim Bush is on the warpath. Yes he is - against terrorists.

I am sure you will agree that even you will be against terrorists, who behead, kidnap or take ransom in the name of Allah. They are not true Moslem or so we are told. Are they true Moslem? If not, then Bush is right to go against them and it is unfortunate that most of these terrorist live in Moslem countries.

History shows that Islam has used religion more than anyone else to conquer lands and spread Islam! Christians have conquered land, but first they conquered and then the missionaries came. There was no connection as such between the two. They conquered for physical gains while the missionaries may have conquered for spiritual gains. Never did the missionaries behead, kidnap or threaten to take ransom to convert people, unlike Islam!

What is Jeziya?

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

snc128

historical facts r not an obstacle for us to establish brotherhood bridges btw ppl no matter which religion they believe.
i have explained it many times to u that those terrorists r not muslim ,moreover saying Allah is as easy as saying Buddha before beheading a person.so,why this effort to show muslims as if they r terrorists as well?
i will never reply ur these kind of messages(as long as i remember) that try to put innocent muslims on target as well as terrorists.

snc128

one more thing ,i wonder when u will do a favour and answer my question.

u pretend not to see Crusaders,temple musketeers,rhodes musketeers.

many morepoliticians can be shown which has almost the same bad ideas ,as terrorists, at west.
le pen,Tom Tancredo,Ariel sharon etc.

Big K

About Selahaddin Eyyubi,
hes real name is : melik nâsır ebû muzaffer yûsuf bin eyyûb bin şâdî

born in 1137 in Tekrit (Modern Iraq)
he's father Necmeddin Eyyub was the guardian of Tekrit(which was a Turkmen city) which was under rule of Seljuk(Turkish) Sultan Shah Mesud.
he's mother was the sister of Seljuk Atabek(a rank) Nûreddîn Mahmûd Zengî(a Seljuk Turk)

so Selahaddin is half Arab half Turk (but more Arab) not Kurd...

on the other hand,

Terrorism have no religion... i agree with you in this statement,

but,

i can not agree with you about "spreading Islam with sword"...

My Opinion of Islam

and you are now in contradiction with this George Bush, the Accidental Realist

these terrorists were there long ago, where was Mr. Bush then?

why supporting PKK against Turkey? isnt it a double standard? wheres the war on terror? ist it valid against PKK?

come on Sir, Terrorism have no religion, lets clean this world from terrorists together but without double standards, without lies etc...

snc128

i fully agree

Ray

Big K,

I agree a terrorist should have no religion. But when a terrorist identifies himself as a soldier of a religion, that religion unfortunately is tarnished unless those who hold that religion dear to them, themselves take action against the terrorists misusing the religion.

That situation is not evident.

On the contrary, many a cleric (mullah) exhorts their following to go and kill the Kufr (infidels) and bring back the Caliphate.

I have not understood the connection with Bush the Realist thread. I have in that thread said that Iraq is not about the usual issues trotted out, but an amalgam of all those issues, but most importantly, it was necessary to further US geostrategic interests.

As far as Islam being spread by the sword, the historical events indicate so. An example; what does 'Hindu Kush' mean?

What is Jeziya?

What does the Koran say about forgiving the infidel if the convert to Islam?

Therefore, would one be wrong to come to the conclusion that Islam was spread more by coercion than by exercises of benign enlightenment?

Even today, in Palestine, some reporters were set free since they converted to Islam!

There is also a thread in this forum where even now in Pakistan, some Christians have been told to convert to Islam or face death!

SNC,

By terrorists saying Buddha instead of Allah will not cut ice since the religion of the said terrorists is not Buddhism and in Buddhism there is no concept of jihad or kaffir!

Therefore, your example is misplaced and hopelessly humorous to put it politely!

chankya

It's a sad commentary on the religion, when practically every country practicing it as an official religion seems to be supporting/financing people who kill in the name of Islam.

So really this is a purely academic discussion. Whether they are killing because Islam tells them to or because they want to themselves, the fact is they are killing and they are killing in the name of Islam.