Oh, the Irony of it all

Nope, sorry dude. I'm still holding onto the claim that Muhammed and Osama can be compared is completely absurd. Muhammed was a prophet in the same way that Jesus and Moses was and he led the people to salvation in a similar as the prophets before him. Islam was NOT spread by the sword. The common myth that Muhammed tried to convert everyone in the lands he conquered is... a common myth. Haven't found any evidence to counter your argument of Islam's evolution from self-defence to 'pre-emptive' attacks, but haven't found any to agree with it either.

However, your argument that the Quran is more violent than the Bible has been heavily argued in this large blog

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/06/which-is-more-violent-bible-or-quran.html

which has some very interesting facts. Basically, it says that, though the Bible's 857 violent passages outnumber the Quran's 493, the Quran is a smaller book. So percentagewise, it 3 times the percentage of cruel verses as the bible. However, many of the violent phrases are repeated many times over, whilst the ones in the Bible are always different. Also, it is not explained to what violent an extent these passages are. So generally, you can't really tell which is the more violent book.

I pointed to one tiny passage of Jesus in the previous statement because it was the one I found most important. However, if you want a few more references, check out this page:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html


I am not trying to put down Christianity. I am not trying to say Islam is right in everything it says. The Bible has been rewritten so many times that nobody knows what the original word of Jesus may have been. The Quran's word hasn't changed since the day it was written - which has lead to extremely dangerous interpretations.

It's never going to happen, granted, but what we really need here is an air of tolerance. Everybody has different beliefs. Respect them.



An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Impressive debate occurring in here.

I am all for non-violence and respecting others beliefs; however, bending over backwards using tortured logic to equate Christianity of the 21st century via US/Bush, with the fascist portion of Islam of today is procrastination. Yes, Christianity had a bloody past centuries back, but today it is Islam that carries this burden. Islam needs reform and Americans are offering help. Sorry if this sounds pompous but it is something that must occur to stop the violence.

In the end, Islam will need to respect other's beliefs (i.e. Judaism) and become much more tolerant.

Sorry DJ-Shai-guy, but it isn't fair. In the long run, you, Mr. DJ-Shai-guy, can make a greater impact on Islam for the better, than I.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Islam needs to be renewed, not reformed. If there was the religion of 'new Islam', there'd be a whole new sect to disagree and have war with. Look at what happened with the reformation of Christianity - Catholics and Protestants are still arguing over which one of them are most right. Let's stop inventing new religions and start respecting the ones that we have.

And you're right in that Americans are offering to help. The whole world is offering to help in spite of what atrocities islamic fundamentalists have done in the world which is the beauty of humanity. But Christianity has quite a few fundamentalists too, especially Bush - have you noticed the amount of times he's hinted towards the War on Terror as a 'crusade'? He may deny it, but through his subtext, he surely sees this as a war on Islam. And if he sees it like that, all the muslims in the world are going to see it like that. Check out the media on the other side of the world and it's the West who are seen as the real killers, which, as you know, isn't true. As I said before, and I'll say it again - there are good people and bad people all over the world, no matter what their religion. However media propaganda can go a long way.

And to your final point, Islam does need to learn to become more tolerant, as does Christianity and Judaism. Just that last point shows that you don't tolerate Islam. It's a two way thing dude!

PS How can I make a greater impact on Islam? I don't get it.



An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Nope, sorry dude. I'm still holding onto the claim that Muhammed and Osama can be compared is completely absurd.

You can hold on to the claim all you like, but that doesn't make it true.

You go on to assert that Islam did not spread by the sword and compare Muhammad to Jesus. Those are two outrageously bogus claims that can only be made by someone who doesn't know the facts of history. Set aside for a moment that fact that I'm obviously not a big fan of Muhammad's and just look at it objectively: the only reason anyone claims Muhammad was a prophet "in the same way as Jesus" is because he said so. But was he? Look at his actions. Compare the messages. How many Jewish tribes did Jesus have beheaded? How many nine year olds did he marry? How many battles did he lead? Not to mention the difference of divinity; Jesus' followers claim he was divine, while Muslims may think Muhammad was "the perfect man," but he was still a man. There is no meaningful way to compare Jesus to Muhammad when their actions, purpose and natures were so fundamentally opposed.

Show me where Jesus ever said anything as ghoulish as Muhammad did after the battle of Wadi Bedr in 623, quoted by the Islamic biographer Ibn Ishaq: "The other chieftains were killed, their bodies tossed in a pit, whereupon Muhammad, in his joy, said: 'O people of the pit, have you found what God threatened is true? For I have found what my Lord promised me is true.'" Given Muhammad's notorious violence and bloodthirst, comparing him to bin Laden makes a lot more sense then comparing him to Jesus.

As for "Islam didn't spread by the sword," with all due respect, that's just foolish. Read a book. Better yet, read a Muslim book. Read Sirat Rasul Allah. "A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion." (Ibn Ishaq (Guillaume) p. 327)

Islam spread through the conquest first of local tribes, then the city of Mecca, then Egypt, etc. etc. Islam has never been only a faith. It has always been simultaneously political. If there is a predominantly Muslim country that didn't become so without being conquored first, I haven't heard of it. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Then you go through a numbers excercise to comapre the violence of the Bible with the violence of the Qur'an. Unfortunately, without context, this is a pointless excercise.

Briefly, there is a lot of disagreement among suras in the Qur'an -- peaceful versus warlike, etc. The Islam doctrine of naskh (abrogation) was developed to reconcile them. Naskh states that when two suras conflict, it's the more recent one that takes precedence, as it reflects Allah's latest thinking on a subject.

There are also conflicting passages in the Bible, and Christianity has a form of abrogation as well. There is no shortage of laws in the Old Testament that modern believers consider repressive, brutal and unthinkable to 21st century societies. Leviticus in particular contains many of these. But Jesus proclaimed himself the "fulfillment of the law" and thereby brought a new law – love your enemy, turn the other cheek, treat your neighbor as you would like to be treated. Thus the progression of Christian scripture is from harsh legalism to love, forgiveness and long suffering.

Islam, however, tracks the exact inverse course. The suras dealing with peace and tolerance uniformly date from the early days of the Islamic movement, with the revelations becoming more warlike and aggressive as Muhammad gathered strength and consolidated Muslim power. There is no such thing as the Golden Rule in Islam. There is no equivilent to "turn the other cheek."

You also assert that the Qur'an has not been changed over the centuries. I know Muslims believe that, and they would like us too, but it's simply impossible to buy that.

From wikipedia: The Qu'ranic revelations were originally memorised by Muhammad's companions as Muhammad spoke them, with some being written down by one or more companions on whatever was at hand, from stones to pieces of bark. Compilations of the Qu'ran began under the Caliph Umar, but it was Uthman who decided upon a definitive copy and destroyed all other versions. All Muslims use the same Qur'an with no differences among the sects. The Qu'ran has never changed in substance since.

Two problems with that -- first, who knows how many changes it went through before it was codified. Muhammad's child wife Aisha even tells a story of one of the prophets revelations which she'd written down being eaten by a goat. Second, there is no history of textual criticism in Islam -- even questioning the validity of a sura or the example of the prophet is punishable by death. Under those circumstances, I find it very hard to swallow that anyone can say with certainty that the Qur'an has never been altered -- maybe it has and maybe it hasn't, but saying it had been would get you killed. That's a very effective way to silence critique.

You end by saying: "Everybody has different beliefs. Respect them." To which I ask: why? Do you respect everyone's beliefs, even ones you think are wrong or dangerous? Do you respect fascism? Do you respect Kali worshippers?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Wow Cronen, that is what I said the first run through. Wow, to the complete lack of knowledge.

First, what Jewish tribes do you speak of that Muhammed had beheaded, I'd really like to know. Second, he married nine year olds? Haha, no, no he did not, please give me your source as to this. Because it seems the only one you have is wikipedia...
Now, Jesus and Muhammed are both believed in by Muslims. Jesus and Muhammed led two different lives as well. Jesus tried to reform Judaism, Muhammed had introduced an entirely new religion. Now, the wars Muhammed waged were not wars of conquest they were wars that were started upon him.

You quote:
"The other chieftains were killed, their bodies tossed in a pit, whereupon Muhammad, in his joy, said: 'O people of the pit, have you found what God threatened is true? For I have found what my Lord promised me is true.'"
First, not all historical figures, in fact very few, knew Muhammed, a biography was only written well after his death. This being said this quote could be a complete and utter falsehood, by the way what was your source for this?

Islam DIDN'T spread by the sword. Only the Arabian Empire did. Citizens of newley conquered territories were not forced to convert to Islam, though many did. And you quote:
"A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion." (Ibn Ishaq (Guillaume) p. 327)
The sources of Ibn Ishaq have fallen under heavy suspicion. Secondly, I didn't know the quote of a man means this is what Islam is about, that's just as bad as saying Osama bin Laden speaks for Islam.

The "conquest" of local tribes you are refering to were diplomatic agreements, as I said in another post, after the death of his wife, Muhammed would marry a woman from another tribe in order to have relations with the people, this is the way the people of that area lived at the time.

You state:
"If there is a predominantly Muslim country that didn't become so without being conquored first, I haven't heard of it. Perhaps you can enlighten me. "

Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world, and it isn't a country "conquested" by the Muslims. India has a population of 300 million muslims, this is a country that hasn't been "conquered" by the Muslims.

You state:
". Islam has never been only a faith. It has always been simultaneously political."
To say Islam is the only political faith is pretty foolish, even now the Church engages in political affairs. Secondly a leader of a mass of people, even the leader of a few must be wise in politics, Muhammed was political, yes, but not Islam, get that right.

You state:
"The suras dealing with peace and tolerance uniformly date from the early days of the Islamic movement, with the revelations becoming more warlike and aggressive as Muhammad gathered strength and consolidated Muslim power. There is no such thing as the Golden Rule in Islam. There is no equivilent to "turn the other cheek."
Where is your evidence for this? I've actually read the Qur'an, I don't recall any warlike and agressive revelations. Please, give me your quotes (please don't pull out one sentence among many and completley remove them from context)

You quote wikipedia as your source as to the creation of the Qur'an. Yet you forget the same thing was done with the Bible, when many different versions were destroyed for one.
Questioning the validity of the Qur'an is not proof of any inaccuracies. Produce some evidence. Where did you get the murdering of men and women that questioned the Qur'an, or is that a modern incident, if so, that would explain it. What you need to stop doing is throwing your own made up ideas into your arguments.

Respect means many things Cronen. When I respect someone's beliefs I allow them to have this belief without trying to murder them. However, if these people try to attack me or what have you, I will defend myself. Based on what you said, you would have facists killed? You seem to be just like the fanatics.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I've already addressed all your points in the other thread you started.

If you don't know Aisha's age and what the sources for it are, with all due respect, how long have you been studying Islam? The sources are in the other thread.

Likewise the warlike and aggressive suras. Read sura 9, among others. Again, there's more in the other thread. You say "I've actually read the Qur'an" as if to insinuate that I have not. But I have, some of it many many times.

The sources of Ibn Ishaq have fallen under heavy suspicion. Secondly, I didn't know the quote of a man means this is what Islam is about, that's just as bad as saying Osama bin Laden speaks for Islam.

I hope Ibn Ishaq is someday completely discarded. Unfortunately, you know just as well as I do that the sira is an integral component of the sunnah. Like it or not, we're stuck with Muhammad's biography. To your second point, I quoted one famous and widely accepted source. But there are dozens of mutawatir that support the portrait of Muhammad, as well as death to apostates, etc.

Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world, and it isn't a country "conquested" by the Muslims.

Indonesia has always been religiously syncretic and the Islam practiced there differs greatly from Orthodox Islam. The portion of shari'ah minded Muslims in Indonesia is very small but -- frighteningly -- growing fast. What's growing within the Muslims in Indonesia is terrifying. For example, jihadists decapitating a group of Christian schoolgirls as "Ramadan trophies." In an article in The Australian, November 09, 2006: "The girls' severed heads were dumped in plastic bags in their village in Indonesia's strife-torn Central Sulawesi province, along with a handwritten note threatening more such attacks ... The note read: ‘Wanted: 100 more Christian heads, teenaged or adult, male or female; blood shall be answered with blood, soul with soul, head with head.’" A Javanese trader named Hasanuddin conceived the idea after visiting with Islamic militants in the Philippines and deciding that taking the heads of Christians would qualify as 'an act of Muslim charity.'"

Even so, I'll take your point -- that's one example. India doesn't count because it's nowhere even close to a Muslim majority country, you should have known that. Got any other examples?

To say Islam is the only political faith is pretty foolish, even now the Church engages in political affairs.

Again, are you trying to be deceptive? I never said that Islam was the only political faith. I said that Islam has been a political movement as well as a religious movement from it inception, and that Christianity has not. That's just true. If you don't like it, take it up with reality. The difference is that Christianity, at its root, apart from how imperfect men practice it, and apart from what politicians have done in its name, is not concerened with earthly domination. Islam, while full of promises about heavenly paradise, is and has always been equally concerend with spreading Islam across the globe, going back to Muhammad himself.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

First, what Jewish tribes do you speak of that Muhammed had beheaded, I'd really like to know.

Banu Qurayza. Not only did he have so many of them beheaded that it took late into the night to finish the job, he did so after they had offered to surrender.

Again, according to Ibn Ishaq:

"Then they surrendered, and the apostle (Muhammad) confined them in Medina ... Then the apostle of Allah went out to the market of Medina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. They were brought out in groups, and among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy ibn Akhtab and Ka’b ibn Asad, their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka’b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don’t you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away never return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them ..."

"Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made many holes about the size of the finger tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God’s command is right. A book and a decree, and a massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off."

Militant Muslims have been taking heads ever since. Where do you think they got the idea? Qur’an 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." And Qur'an 47:4 "When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then bind the prisoners tightly."

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Damn, you're good. Back in a week.

For the record though, the argument of 'my religion's better than yours', or 'my religion's less violent than yours' could go on forever. What else do you think make these wars strive? If Christianity is so pure, how could the first settlers in America have justified using Christianity to kill Native Americans? The Crusades? Hitler? Timothy McVeigh? Bush?

The truth is, they distorted Christianity for their own means. Christianity is generally compared more to pacifist Buddhism than Islam and Judaism, yet still people kill in the name of it.

In the same vein, using the very same violent Quranic quotes you come up with, Islamic fundamentalists are doing the same thing all over the world.

Really sleepy now so will continue later. But quick question - is it possible to disagree with someone's beliefs yet respect them? Because if you disagree with Islam, that's fine - I disagree with a hell of a lot of it. But being intolerant of it is just plain sad.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

If Christianity is so pure, how could the first settlers in America have justified using Christianity to kill Native Americans? The Crusades? Hitler? Timothy McVeigh? Bush?

Again, you have to separate what fallible, political, squabbling human beings do in the name of religion from the tenets of the religion itself. That's why it's important to compare the examples of Jesus and Muhammad, not historical Christians and Muslims. Making that comparison shows clearly that in order for a Christian to be less violent, they have to be more like Christ. For a Muslim to be less violent, they have to be as little like Muhammad as possible.

is it possible to disagree with someone's beliefs yet respect them? Because if you disagree with Islam, that's fine - I disagree with a hell of a lot of it. But being intolerant of it is just plain sad.

Sure it's possible. I do it all the time. But what do you mean by "intolerant?" And "just plain sad?"

It really boils down to this: the difference between a Muslim we can live with and a Muslim we can’t live with is that one of them can ignore the violent, repressive, fascistic aspects of the Qur’an and the sunnah, and the other cannot ignore them. It really is as simple as that. The ones who can historically contextualize their faith and their prophet are no problem. The ones who can't must be stopped.

See you in a week.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I reject the notion that Bush desires to destroy Islam. That view is false and making that claim plays into the hands of enemies of peace. Despite overwhelming evidence showing Bin Laden and Al Qaida are behind a growing list of murderous acts, including 9-11, much of the Islamic world is divided on whether or not Bin Laden or Bush or the Jews are to blame for terror.

Perhaps contributors to this are lower literacy rates--mostly among women, the lack of free press and liberal education in the Islamic world. This is a major problem. Widespread denial needs to end before Islam can "renew". I am not in denial, those that are in denial need to change their views. I am sorry if this sounds crass, but it is not I that can lead this change, for I and Western societies are already leading peaceful and tolerant lives.

It is those that hold views that infidels need to be converted or killed that need to change. They are the broken ones. Those that make excuses for radical Islam, or blame Jews or blame Bush for provoking Islam, these people need to change their views. This isn't about meeting in the middle, where the West needs to give and change as much as Islam; the West has already been "renewed".

As I mentioned before, American's are offering help, I want Islam to thrive in a modern world, but I am asking Islam to first admit it has a serious problem. I am not denying the West and Christianity have its problems, but they are currently not equal to the problems of Islam. Sorry, but at this moment in time, Islam and those that deny its problems hold a much larger share of the burden to change that would lead to greater peace and security.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

First off I don't know much about the Koran.

I do know some things about the Bible.

The Bible says not to take any one scripture by itself, it must be taken all together and in the right context.

Secondly, there are many books in the Bible that are historic and describing historic events that were violent. The entire old testament is violent and points to the coming of Jesus, who, is the whole point and message of the Bible.

Find out what Jesus said and you will find out what Christians are to be like.
Also when they found the dead sea scrolls they found ancient scriptures were very close to the message that is read today.

Lastly, The Bible also says that you need to have the holy spirit in order to properly understand it, therefore a non believer, or skeptic will not be able to understand what the Bible says. Many of you might argue with that but as a person who believes in Jesus, I myself have only been revealed certain scriptures. Others I read and don't understand them.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

"The Bible says not to take any one scripture by itself, it must be taken all together and in the right context."


Here, here!

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Jews enjoyed their freedom best in the past in Islamic nations.
even nowaday, he they live in Arabic countries without problems. Muslims have a problem with Isreal the country, and not the jewish faith. if u rape someone's land, do u expect them to just let it go?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

i have never seen a more ignorant post. it shows how soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo little u know about islam. and if u don't know something, u better Not talk about it.
1- Mohammad never fought before Madina, psycho.
and most foolishly
2- the Suunah of the prophet is NOT in any way part of the Quran, it's his sayings, while the quran is the words of Allah.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Keep "pretending" you know what you're talking about.

I never said the Sunnah was "part of the Qur'an." Try reading what was said.

And I'm not sure where you think I said Muhammad fought before Medina. I categorized his conflicts with the local Arab tribes in Mecca as defensive, but I didn't say he fought -- how could he? He didn't have an army yet. That would have to wait until his numbers swelled significantly after the hijra to Medina. We all know that the use of violence in the name of Islam began in earnest in 624, with the Nakhla raid (although I prefer his 300 strong army, raised in 623, with which he fought the Meccans in the battle of Wadi Bedr).

But let's have a little excercise. Let's pretend that you're talking to someone who really is as "ignorant of Islam" as you say -- pretend for a moment that someone mixes up the dates and thinks Badr and Nakhla and Uhud and the Battle of the Trench and the mass beheading of the Banu Quarayza, and on and on and on, happened between 613 and 622, rather than 624 and 627.

What difference would it make? Such a person would have to do some more research to get the dates right, but the point is exactly the same.

Muhammad was a warlord who suppressed his enemies with brutality and violence, regardless of what years he did it in.

But you can't answer the actual content of the charges, so you stick to empty arguments about dates and putting words in the mouth of Islam's critics.

Typical.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Qoute:
1-The sunnah (way of the prophet) is comprised of some suras in the Qur'an.
2- That's not to say that some of the """"""battles"""" Muhammad was involved with weren't in self-defense -- many were, mostly in the early, pre-Medina period.
-------------
if u say something as foolish and u expect us to believe that u know anything abt Islam then u r mistaken.
The sunnah is what all we know about what mohammad did or said- so , again, don't lie to get out of it like u did last time.
the same applies for the second qoutation, what does battle mean? pre-madina isn't the same as before madina?
------------------------------------------------------
i think i made my point clear, u know nothing abt islam, u just collect materials from the internet u which may not even understand.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Clown.

The Sunnah is the ways and sayings of the prophet, and as the Qur'am contains some passages describing the ways and saying of the prophet, they are included in the Sunnah. So is the hadith and the Sira.

You should know this.

Stop trying to evade the point with stupid, fabricated ad hominem attacks. Answer the argument or move along.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

pretty boy:
The sunnah (way of the prophet) is comprised of some suras in the Qur'an.
is the same as:
The Sunnah is the ways and sayings of the prophet, and as the Qur'am contains some passages describing the ways and saying of the prophet, they are included in the Sunnah. So is the hadith and the Sira?
and what about fighting before madina, liar?
I'll leave it to other ppl to decide who's evasive, lying, and he talks about things he knows nothing about.
now i'll leave it to WESTERN scholars to defend Islam and Mohammad:

Napolean Bonaparte as Quoted in Christian Cherfils, ‘Bonaparte et Islam,’

"Moses has revealed the existence of God to his nation. Jesus Christ to the Roman world, Muhammad to the old continent...


"I hope the time is not far off when I shall be able to unite all the wise and educated men of all the countries and establish a uniform regime based on the principles of Qur'an which alone are true and which alone can lead men to happiness."




Thomas Carlyle in ‘Heroes, Hero Worship, and the Heroic in History,’ Lecture 2, Friday, 8th May 1840.


"As there is no danger of our becoming, any of us, Mahometans (i.e. Muslim), I mean to say all the good of him I justly can...
"When Pococke inquired of Grotius, where the proof was of that story of the pigeon, trained to pick peas from Mahomet's (Muhammad's) ear, and pass for an angel dictating to him? Grotius answered that there was no proof!...

"A poor, hard-toiling, ill-provided man; careless of what vulgar men toil for. Not a bad man, I should say; Something better in him than hunger of any sort, -- or these wild arab men, fighting and jostling three-and-twenty years at his hand, in close contact with him always, would not revered him so! They were wild men bursting ever and anon into quarrel, into all kinds of fierce sincerity; without right worth and manhood, no man could have commanded them. They called him prophet you say? Why he stood there face to face with them; bare, not enshrined in any mystry; visibly clouting his own cloak, cobbling his own shoes; fighting, counselling, ordering in the midst of them: they must have seen what kind of man he was, let him be called what you like! No emperor with his tiaras was obeyed as this man in a cloak of his own clouting. During three-and-twenty years of rough actual trial. I find something of a veritable Hero necessary for that, of itself...

"These Arabs, the man Mahomet, and that one century, - is it not as if a spark had fallen, one spark, on a world of what proves explosive powder, blazes heaven-high from Delhi to Granada! I said, the Great man was always as lightning out of Heaven; the rest of men waited for him like fuel, and then they too would flame..."

Marcel Clerget in 'La Turquie, Passe et Present,' Paris, 1938.


"Many proofs of high cultural level of the Ottoman Empire during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent are to be found in the development of science and law; in the flowering of literary works in Arabic, Persian and Turkish; in the contemporary monuments in Istanbul, Bursa, and Edirne; in the boom in luxury industries; in the sumptuous life of the court and high dignitaries, and last but not least in its religious tolerance. All the various influences - notably Turkish, Byzantine and Italian mingle together and help to make this the most brilliant epoch of the Ottomans."


to qoute only a few.


Sir George Bernard Shaw in 'The Genuine Islam,' Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.


"If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam."
"I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity."

"I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today."


http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/quote2.html

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Keep dodging those arguments with your appeals to authority and double speak.

The context of my original comments about Medina were clear enough, and I even clarified them further for you in a subsequent post. Your tactics here are all too typical of Islamic apologists and therefore need no further comment. Your methods themselves say all there is to say about the subject.

reply share

add reply

formatting help