How did Islam destroy the classical world?

[abaris]

True, but what of all that Muslim military activity in Europe, and the undisputed enslavement of a million Europeans?

I guess, you're speaking about the Osman empire, cause otherwise I wouldn't know of any expansive muslim power after the early Middle Ages when they conquered the Iberian Peninsula. Read up on the Kalifats there and the administration of the Osman empire before we take this any further. Especially on the role christians as well as jews played there. They weren't slaves and could rise to the highest administrative ranks. They only were taxed for excercising their religion, not prevented from doing so.

Ghenghis Khan told people straight up he was there to kill them and take their stuff.

Obviously your knowledge of the Mongolian empire and it's administration is confined to children's books and common prejudices. Just as with the medieval muslim world.

[paulpablo]

The Nazis and Ghenghis Khan were a little better then Islam because at least they didn't lie to their vicitim's face and say they were peaceful. Ghenghis Khan told people straight up he was there to kill them and take their stuff. Islam does the same but lies about being a religion of peace. Also Islam is heavily involved in lots of those things you mentioned.

Lie? Our holy book says so explicitly and directly:

(Sura 8 Verse 61 )   And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.

Another verse:

( Sura 2 Verse 256 )   There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

A third:

(Sura 2 Verse 190 )   Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.

I don't know why you're delusional, but as you can see our own holy book is ordering us to fight only as self defense. 
But what I find hilarious -in a bad way-, is people who demand Muslims to be peaceful even when they are being invaded and butchered. 

So, now you know those EXPLICIT verses from the Quran. 
And it's so boring to debate people, who claim they are blind and cannot read.

The verses are obvious. This is what Islam said. Claiming to be blind, or crying because of the actions of "HUMANS" is truly non of my business..

Explicit verses in the quran don't exist.  There's abrogation in the quran and it's up to human decision to decide which verses abrogate other verses.

There's also interpretation.  Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, who are those who fight you?  The American soldier with the gun?  All Americans who's taxes go to paying for Israeli weapons?  The shia/sunni Muslims, whichever one is on the opposite side to you?

I'm not arguing about Islam being violent, I'm just saying if the verses of the quran aren't explicit.  If it was there wouldn't be so much information included in brackets after verses.

[paulpablo]

True, but what of all that Muslim military activity in Europe, and the undisputed enslavement of a million Europeans?

I guess, you're speaking about the Osman empire, cause otherwise I wouldn't know of any expansive muslim power after the early Middle Ages when they conquered the Iberian Peninsula. Read up on the Kalifats there and the administration of the Osman empire before we take this any further. Especially on the role christians as well as jews played there. They weren't slaves and could rise to the highest administrative ranks. They only were taxed for excercising their religion, not prevented from doing so.

Ghenghis Khan told people straight up he was there to kill them and take their stuff.

Obviously your knowledge of the Mongolian empire and it's administration is confined to children's books and common prejudices. Just as with the medieval muslim world.

Is your argument that the Mongolian empire didn't kill people and take their stuff?

[abaris]

Is your argument that the Mongolian empire didn't kill people and take their stuff?

No, my argument, as always, is to not be simplistic. Everyone conquered their weaker neighbours at that time, which, by the way, covers a span of about a 1000 years between the rise of Islam, the Mongolian expansion and the peak of the Osmanic empire. The only distinctive element between certain empires are their administration, their social structure and their willingness to embrace science. And that's where the Islamic realms as well as the Mongolians beat the Western realms by a lightyear. At least up to the 16th century.

[paulpablo]

Is your argument that the Mongolian empire didn't kill people and take their stuff?

No, my argument, as always, is to not be simplistic. Everyone conquered their weaker neighbours at that time, which, by the way, covers a span of about a 1000 years between the rise of Islam, the Mongolian expansion and the peak of the Osmanic empire. The only distinctive element between certain empires are their administration, their social structure and their willingness to embrace science. And that's where the Islamic realms as well as the Mongolians beat the Western realms by a lightyear. At least up to the 16th century.

But the section you took a copy and paste from was nothing to do with Mongolians not embracing science, it was to do with Mongolians killing people taking their stuff and telling people they were going to do it.  Science wasn't mentioned in there.

What Captain Awesome was saying is that they didn't lie and say they were peaceful.  From what I've heard in the history podcasts I've heard I'd disagree with that.  Sometimes Genghis Khan would tell them he was there to punish them like a flail of God, other times he would give fake promises of safety and use diplomatic tricks and dishonesty.

I don't know if there's much difference between the Mongols, The Nazis, or Islam when it comes to violence or embracing science.

[abaris]

I don't know if there's much difference between the Mongols, The Nazis, or Islam when it comes to violence or embracing science.

Yah, that's why I said to be against simplicity. Turns easily into stupidity. Can be quite easily remedied by reading. But hey, that, as opposed to prejudice, takes some effort, so I understand.

To even draw that comparison is something special.

[WinterHold]

Explicit verses in the quran don't exist.  There's abrogation in the quran and it's up to human decision to decide which verses abrogate other verses.

There's also interpretation.  Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, who are those who fight you?  The American soldier with the gun?  All Americans who's taxes go to paying for Israeli weapons?  The shia/sunni Muslims, whichever one is on the opposite side to you?

I'm not arguing about Islam being violent, I'm just saying if the verses of the quran aren't explicit.  If it was there wouldn't be so much information included in brackets after verses.

They do exist; Paulablo, the explicit verses I mean. 
They are so obvious and straight forward, either with Arabic or even when translated to any language. 

But it's humans, who play gymnastics with the verses to take them out of context & out of meaning, so a verse that says "if they incline to peace, then you too must incline to it" turns into "Muslims are terrorists and must behead all non Muslims".

Pure gymnastics, paul, played by powers that all of us know, either to achieve rightist goals, or zionist agendas, or simply ride on the backs of ignorance to achieve political goals.

The book is obvious. But logical gymnastics are just like that: they make the obvious and clear, mysterious and unclear.

Like accusing the Quran of calling to the stoning homosexuals, while in reality, it's a biblical sentence, that Christians and Jews believe in. Gymnastics, nothing more.

[Regina]

You're just selecting good lines though. I actually began to read the Quran myself once, I didn't even make it past Surah 2 before I saw the first mention of non-believers and "for them is great punishment". Nothing explicit about what believers should do to them, but if at just Surah 2 we're already seeing stuff like that, you know you've got a divisive as fuck (and paranoid) religion.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

e? Our holy book says so explicitly and directly:

(Sura 8 Verse 61 )   And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.

Another verse:

( Sura 2 Verse 256 )   There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

A third:

(Sura 2 Verse 190 )   Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.

I don't know why you're delusional, but as you can see our own holy book is ordering us to fight only as self defense. 
But what I find hilarious -in a bad way-, is people who demand Muslims to be peaceful even when they are being invaded and butchered. 

So, now you know those EXPLICIT verses from the Quran. 
And it's so boring to debate people, who claim they are blind and cannot read.

The verses are obvious. This is what Islam said. Claiming to be blind, or crying because of the actions of "HUMANS" is truly non of my business..

So, if only France had just laid down their weapons and accepted your Islam, then there would have been no violence? Don't you wonder how, under such terms, Mud Ham Mad was able to go and find himself a battle to fight so frequently, which he passionately loved doing?

Islam truly has an interesting definition of "peace"!

Also, we can do the big red letter trick too! Hey, look, mine are bigger!

[paulpablo]

Explicit verses in the quran don't exist.  There's abrogation in the quran and it's up to human decision to decide which verses abrogate other verses.

There's also interpretation.  Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, who are those who fight you?  The American soldier with the gun?  All Americans who's taxes go to paying for Israeli weapons?  The shia/sunni Muslims, whichever one is on the opposite side to you?

I'm not arguing about Islam being violent, I'm just saying if the verses of the quran aren't explicit.  If it was there wouldn't be so much information included in brackets after verses.

They do exist; Paulablo, the explicit verses I mean. 
They are so obvious and straight forward, either with Arabic or even when translated to any language. 

But it's humans, who play gymnastics with the verses to take them out of context & out of meaning, so a verse that says "if they incline to peace, then you too must incline to it" turns into "Muslims are terrorists and must behead all non Muslims".

Pure gymnastics, paul, played by powers that all of us know, either to achieve rightist goals, or zionist agendas, or simply ride on the backs of ignorance to achieve political goals.

The book is obvious. But logical gymnastics are just like that: they make the obvious and clear, mysterious and unclear.

Like accusing the Quran of calling to the stoning homosexuals, while in reality, it's a biblical sentence, that Christians and Jews believe in. Gymnastics, nothing more.

I agree people play gymnastics with the words in the quran to make it look bad, but they also do it to make the quran look good, they do it to make the quran look miraculous and to also avoid any contradictions or anything that could be wrong in the quran.

The quran is full of verses about punishments for indecency, mischief, war, attacking those who attack you.  It is vague language whether you accept it is or not.  It's full of idiomatic expressions.