That video makes things worse Rayaan. First lets ignore the fact that the video isn't about what Mohummad did (which is what we were discussing).
He basically says that:
"Islam means peace through submitting your will to Allah" - His words.
Lets ignore the fact that this is not what peace means. Because he doesn't even attempt to use any standard definition of peace in his argument (ruling out a distinction between what Islam means and what peace means) we are required to use it as he has, so for the rest of his augment Peace == Submission to Allah.
The rest is basically as follows
1. Not all people want "peace" (to submit to Allah)
2. Sometimes it is necessary to use war to bring "peace" (to make people submit to Allah)
3. Fanatical Muslims "forcing Islam at the point of the sword" is the biggest myth in history. (Asserted without support)
4. Muslims were driven out of Spain by Christians (inconsequential)
5. Muslims could have converted everyone by the sword if they wanted (Asserted without support)
6. Islam spread without violence in India (asserted without support - Highly debatable) and Malaysia (true as far as I know)
7. Muslims and Arabs have "testified" that Islam didn't spread by the sword (biased)
8. He quotes Surat Al-Baqarah 2:256 saying that nobody is compelled to chose Islam but the path will be laid open. No surprises why he didn't read the next verse as it makes it clear that this only applies to theists (those who believe) and not those atheists and their supporters, we are destined to burn in hellfire forever and are not 'graced' with "not being compelled" like other theists.
9. The next verse quoted is used to dodge this, saying that followers of Islam should reason with those who do not follow Islam. However (and correct me if i'm wrong Rayaan) the later verses take precedent over the earlier ones, so if at any point two statements are contradictory the latter one is necessarily correct. That means this verse is overruled for atheists by Surat Al-Bagarah 2:256
10. I got bored of checking his quotes, but he makes the argument that Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe (though not as fast as atheism, and it's from immigration and not conversion) and uses this to say that Islam never used the sword (non sequitur)
That video did not even come close to establishing that 1) Mohammed didn't start wars or 2) That Islam has never spread by the sword.
At least he knows Hitler was Christian...
Did you not watch that video before posting it Rayaan, or were you just hoping we wouldn't watch it?
He basically says that:
"Islam means peace through submitting your will to Allah" - His words.
Lets ignore the fact that this is not what peace means. Because he doesn't even attempt to use any standard definition of peace in his argument (ruling out a distinction between what Islam means and what peace means) we are required to use it as he has, so for the rest of his augment Peace == Submission to Allah.
The rest is basically as follows
1. Not all people want "peace" (to submit to Allah)
2. Sometimes it is necessary to use war to bring "peace" (to make people submit to Allah)
3. Fanatical Muslims "forcing Islam at the point of the sword" is the biggest myth in history. (Asserted without support)
4. Muslims were driven out of Spain by Christians (inconsequential)
5. Muslims could have converted everyone by the sword if they wanted (Asserted without support)
6. Islam spread without violence in India (asserted without support - Highly debatable) and Malaysia (true as far as I know)
7. Muslims and Arabs have "testified" that Islam didn't spread by the sword (biased)
8. He quotes Surat Al-Baqarah 2:256 saying that nobody is compelled to chose Islam but the path will be laid open. No surprises why he didn't read the next verse as it makes it clear that this only applies to theists (those who believe) and not those atheists and their supporters, we are destined to burn in hellfire forever and are not 'graced' with "not being compelled" like other theists.
9. The next verse quoted is used to dodge this, saying that followers of Islam should reason with those who do not follow Islam. However (and correct me if i'm wrong Rayaan) the later verses take precedent over the earlier ones, so if at any point two statements are contradictory the latter one is necessarily correct. That means this verse is overruled for atheists by Surat Al-Bagarah 2:256
10. I got bored of checking his quotes, but he makes the argument that Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe (though not as fast as atheism, and it's from immigration and not conversion) and uses this to say that Islam never used the sword (non sequitur)
That video did not even come close to establishing that 1) Mohammed didn't start wars or 2) That Islam has never spread by the sword.
At least he knows Hitler was Christian...
Did you not watch that video before posting it Rayaan, or were you just hoping we wouldn't watch it?
.
