World Islamifacation

[Rayaan]

---

Rayaan.....( and glad to see you are back to Rayaan...the spider thing was creepy) the xtians use exactly the same line of "reasoning" for their boy.

Oh, there must have been a jesus/mohammad otherwise who would have given us the fucking word? But will you also concede that there was a real Zeus? Osiris?? Jupiter??? Shiva???? Marduk????? etc., etc. or is this going to be more special pleading? You believe in one god but man has invented thousands upon thousands of them? Did they all have a historical person behind them? I'm sorry to have to tell you this but the odds are that your angry desert god is just one more human invention among thousands and thousands of others.

Let's see...jesus comes complete with a whole made up family and circle of friends and "disciples" and "apostles" and miracles and wonders and historians of the time paid absolutely no attention to him at all. In fact, the gap is so fucking glaring that when xtians found themselves on Emperor Constantine's "friends list" they tried to go back and write a few references to their boy into the historical record. They weren't very good at it and scholars have detected the forgeries.

Independent scholars....i.e., those who aren't terribly worried about having a fatwa placed on their head by some fanatic...date the koran to about 100 years after mohammad's supposed death. Coincidentally, roughly the same amount of time it took xtianity to get cracking after the supposed death of its founder. The similarities are intriguing.

I imagine there were thousands of people named "mohammad" so I really don't have a problem with your point #3. It is not mohammad who cleaned up camel shit on the Mecca to Medina route that we are concerned with, after all. You want a specific "mohammad" just like the xtians want a specific "jesus" because that too was a pretty common name.

Again, pointing to your religious texts and shouting "THERE HE IS" at the top of your lungs is not very convincing. A single reference from a Byzantine writer about how mohammad's armies were ripping up commerce would be more impressive than all the phony shit that you and the xtians come up with.

And you don't have that.

#4. Yes. That's what I just said.

---

I'll agree to disagree on this, Min, because the existence of Muhammad is a historical fact according to my knowledge.

There are many biographies about him written by historians with great accuracy along with specific dates and events which occurred during his lifetime, such as where he was born, how he died, who were his wife and children, what battles he fought, etc; He had family members and companions who knew him and all of this is recorded in history with a consistent and an unbroken chain of narrations; We also know the exact location of his tomb, which is in this mosque (known as the Mosque of the Prophet); And there are volumes of hadith collections which are essentially sayings of Muhammad on Islam and various other topics.

If all of this was fabricated, then the existence of Muhammad would have been a controversial issue among scholars and historians. But, it is not controversial at all. The truth is that there is a wealth of knowledge about Muhammad's life and his achievements. His life is well documented and his existence is hardly even debated, unlike the existence of the historical Jesus, given the fact that he lived many centuries after the death of Jesus. Therefore, it's not a reasonable thing to compare his existence to that of Jesus and come to the same conclusion (i.e. that Muhammad was a fictional character) - and I believe that Jesus was real also - although many things about his life may be vague and uncertain amongst scholars.

Yes the BBC programmes were very well done. It surprised me how forceful the presenter was in proclaimming Islam to be peaceful, telling us what the Kuran said and then interviewing some ordinary Muslims who believed totally differently. Mohammed was a military leader yet the strong emphasis was on his major peaceful victory when he took over Mecca peacefully. Not surprising with his vast majority of force.

I didn't see the BBC documentary, that's why I can't comment on it, but I'll read some reviews when I have more time. I'm not sure what to make of it until I see it myself. However, I prefer to learn from biographies and academic books about Muhammad and Islam more so than watching a documentary on BBC (such as the ones below):

The Life of Muhammad (by Ibn Ishaq)
Vision of Islam (by Sachiko Murata and William Chittick)
Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet (Karen Armstrong)
Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources (by Martin Lings)

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" (Sura at Tawba 9:5).

I posted a reply to this verse in a different thread. I'll quote it again:

If you read from the beginning of the same chapter (Surah At-Tauba), from the first verse to the fifth verse, you will know that there is a historical background to the verse that you quoted. It is speaking about an event that happened at a specific time and a specific place. Therefore, it is not a command which is to be applied for all times and all places.

In the first verse (Chapter 9), it says that there is a treaty between the Muslims and the Mushriks (or polytheists) of Mecca who used to persecute the Muslims. However, the precondition for the Muslims to engage in a war against them is only if they break the treaty. This is the reason why the verse was revealed to Muhammad - i.e. because it enabled the Muslims to defend themselves against the constant persecution from the hostile, pagan tribes of Mecca - which is, IF they attack first. So, the important thing is to look at the verses which comes before the specific verse that you quoted.

If you still think that the interpretation is wrong, then feel free to say so, and explain to me why you think it is not right, and then give your own interpretation.

A classical interpretation by Ismail Ibn Kathir (A.D. 1301–1373 - a Muslim muhaddith, Faqih, historian, and commentator): Do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.

That is in relation to the political and historical context of the verse, and secondly, they have do have a choice as long as they (the pagans) do not rebel against Muhammad and his followers.

Mohammed says: all will submit to Allah. Jesus says: you have a choice.

1. Muhammad said submit to Allah but not that you *must* submit, and ultimately, the Quran says: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (Surah 2:256).

There were many Christians and Jews who lived peacefully in an Islamic state. They were not forced to convert to Islam. Muhammad granted them autonomy as long as they sign a pact of non-aggression and pay taxes - and in return - they get their autonomy and a guarantee for safety and security for their lives, money, and honor. (For more info on this topic, see The Jews of Islam, by Bernard Lewis).

Also, here's an excellent article: Preserving the Freedom for Faith (by Abdullah bin Hamid Ali)

2. Maybe Jesus did say that, and that could be true, but if you don't mind, I would like to know what is your interpretation of this: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me" (Luke 19:27). So two things: (a) What does it mean and (b) was Jesus giving them a choice or not and why? I want to know this because it's possible that I'm not understanding it correctly.

---

Some Muslims, whether they are correct or not, interpret the Koran differently than others. Take Rayaan for example. He sees a great deal of peaceful suggestions in the Koran precisely where extremists see excuses for violence. Some of us may think his interpretations are wrong, but that is neither he nor there. Either way, he is lending a peaceful voice to a religion that is thought of as violent. He is polite to Americans and Christians here. One day, he will have children and teach them to be the same way and so on.

The ones which are interpreted as violent are not peaceful, but at least, they do not endorse violence except for a few special cases. Most of them have a historical context to them.

Islam's fundamental principles are more or less universally agreed upon. However, there are indeed difference of opinion on several matters which are not essentially a part of the core of Islam. These opinions are interpretations of different people. Strictly speaking, even these differences are unjustified and the the majority would argue that the correct interpretation is the one which we have received from the first generation of Muslims and scholars. There are Muslims who do form their own opinion on certain issues and that would be called their own interpretation. In my opinion, though, the most sound and logical interpretations of the Quran that I have studied over the years gave me an assurance that the Quran is not a book of violence.

For example, here are some of the interpretations which I agree with: Commonly Misquoted Verses and Narrations

As for building of a mosque on Ground Zero, I agree with what you and Tiberius have said on this issue. Both of you brought up good points.

But actually, I'm not against it nor too much in support of this plan. I don't really care, because building one more mosque near Ground Zero is not going to make that much of a difference, and secondly, I think that there are many other places in Manhattan for building a mosque, isn't there? A mosque can even be the size of an average house. It doesn't have to be huge and extravagant.