18 gay muslims to be stoned to death!!%%?????!!!!

Strange it reads very differently to me

So you are saying that what the messenger was not required to do, the people were? The people are more evangelical than the prophet?

Interesting. And what is says is the right way is distinct from the wrong way; and the one who follows Islam follows the right way. To add your own interpretations (ie all others follow the wrong way) is complete nonsense.

Ah you're getting there; now lets see if you can figure out who were the occupiers and who were the occupied over the period 600 to 1500.

We've been over the ayaateen discussion before.

Besides have you ever noticed an anomaly about Sura 9? Something that makes it stand out from every other sura in the Quran?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So your complaint is that the verses are not rigid enough and some Shia Muslims have a temporary form of marriage.

Weird.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All right: break it down. Why do you interpret it as you do?

Exactly. The sura is saying that there is no "compulsion" in religion because islam is the "right way". And how can one be compulsed to take the "right way"? Clearly only those who are obstinate or insane would refuse to take the right way. Curiously, the word "obstinate" does indeed come up in islamic theology as related to apostacy or disbelief, while apostates in islamic countries are sometimes treated for "insanity". A coincidence?

Oh! Oh! I know this one!

Muslims were the occupiers of the Middle East and North Africa, and non-muslims - Jews, Christians, animists, Manichaens and Zoroastrians - were the occupied. What do I win?

Second last to be "revealed"?

I would suggest: it's application. As in: to non-muslims. The contrast between self-regulation and regulating others to yourself. What did you mean, specifically? If you're arguing for its removal and complete disavowal, I am 100% in support.

Actually I was pointing out that the "horny" meme is indeed satisfied in at least one form of islam, so that the "demand" is being satisfied at one level. Too bad there's not as much "demand" for respect of the women involved in these relationships. What did ol' Yassir mean when he mentioned "unmarriageable women" as a problem in Palestine, anyway?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where does it say because?

Nope. Try again.

Nope, its actually a very significant difference. Look closer.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Whats the name of the Sura again?

I'd like to see any other religious culture where divorce is acceptable and remarriage so easy.

mutaa marriage is practised by Shias. Palestinians like 93% of the Muslims are Sunni.

besides, marriage is the least of the problems for Palestinians.

 

Couple of the on-line translations I've seen. Not in Pickthall. It would be kind of strange anyway to have a sudden unrelated interjection in the middle of the ayah. "There is no compulsion in religion. Teamsters are unionized! And Allah knows all things." Sort of a break in the stride, wouldn't you say?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No, no, that was it, dead on. What do I win? That's exactly the right period. Well, I mean you could extend it to 2007, I guess. Is that what you mean?

Oh! More beheadings. I gotcha.

"The Sword". Right, right: the beheadings thing again. What's the significance of your point though? Accio point!

Or prostitution so legally simple. Temporary marriage. Wow.

So why'd he bring it up? Seems kind of a strange deficiency to harp on, this "least of problems".

 

There are several other verses in the same vein:

Also

I said an anomaly.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

at-Tauba means the Sword? Could you indicate a dictionary saying so?

Tauba Tauba.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

One might say the same of any marriage; legalised sex. :shrug:

maybe it was a memri lapse on his part.

 

I forget: was Sura 1 revealed before or after Sura 1? What's "abrogation" mean?

So the occupier-occupied thing is par for the course? Which anomaly?

Nope! Working on memory. But what's your point?

Uh, nooo; marriage is supposed to be about love, or children, I had thought. I think the latter was your position a while ago.

How strange they seem to have made so little of it - nothing at all, I think. I wonder why he would have brought it up.

http://www.info-turk.be/212.E.htm

 

It means the previous revelations have been abrogated, as in, I have written a new will, all previous wills are now abrogated. Pretty clear, I would think, I have yet to meet a Muslim who skips part of the Quran as invalid.

Lazy bum; look it up.

And ignorance.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html

You mean the sex is optional?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Unmarriageable women in Palestine are probably the norm; I doubt the incessant missile attacks add to their looks.

Terrible these Turks, also throw young women in prison for wearing hijab.

 

Yah - you know, the one is kind of required for the other. I dunno if anyone's mentioned it to you, you also being in biology n' all.

Outties!

 

I must tell that to the lesbian couple I know.

 

Yes that's exactly my point - Christians coerced people into becoming Christian and Muslims coerced people into becoming Muslim while Ghanghis Khan appeared to not give too many craps about Religious beleif.

 

I thought you and Sam debated this in the last thread? Well, I see Sam's arguments can be quite direct and thus persuasive when true.

 

OK Kadark, I think I have covered everything now.

I actually didn't say that but I think it was easy to misinterpret because a few other people did as well.. What I meant was the difference was Christians and Mongolians didn't coerce their subjects into becoming Muslim.

it was a sarcastic comment anyway.
Sam has this view that Persians happily converted from their millennial old religions, spontaneously started venerating an Arab as a Prophet and worshiping toward Arabia and speaking Arabic and reading Arabic all just for the fun of it. Oh and when the Arabs conquored persia they didn't kill a single person, the Persians, who had been at war for thousands of years, just suddenly rolled over. Not a single woman was raped - God knows armies never rape and pillage, just ask Iraqis and Vietnamese about the Americans or the Chinese about the Japanese. Yes, just like the Arabs, when the Mongolian tribes invaded the ME they didn't harm a fly.

Sounds stupid doesn't it?

Oh some on. Where the Native Americans not "forced" to become Christian? It's just pure coincidence that Persia, Syria, Egypt, etc.. were all militarily defeated by Muslims and the people became Muslim while China and Europe were not and are not. Just one big fat coincidence :bugeye: Come on Kadark. This is why I always ask what's unique and novel and particular enlightening in the Qur'an. Of course the answer is ... well, I don't like the question! We both know it's just the same old same old as far as people in the ME are concerned. So the question you should think about is why did people convert to a new Arab religion and venerate an Arab if there is nothing novel in the message? Also note that the Arabs had conquered many lands even before there was an agreed upon Qur'an. You can ask yourself those questions because it's really nothing that can be seriously debated - just thought about.

Anyway, tax is one form of Muslim coercion especially when one can barely feed their family. Maybe you don't know it but back then farmers would scrounge through the dirt just to find each and every grain. Each grain. Now think to yourself of a political system based on Religion. A farmer who might get a little less tax and a little more opportunity if he converts to Muslim is a farmer who is going to convert. Multiply this by 1500 years and add to it occasional outright humiliation and force.

To say it was anything other than coercion would be like saying the Catholic Kings did not coerce Muslims in Spain into becoming Catholic. No No, those Muslims that stayed just decided they loved Jesus as the Son of God and all of a sudden realized Mohammad was a false Prophet. It's a coincidence it just so happened right at the same time they were being expelled from the country. No, those Muslims who choose to stay did so because they loved the Pope now. When the Catholic henchmen came around to each house to personally watch each and every suspected Muslim sit down to dinner and eat pork, (that's true) which by law they had to have in the house at ALL times, those people ate pork because they God Damn liked the smell of crackling.

This is really IMHO the sort of argument you are trying to make.

How close? Very close or not so close? Would you say 10% close 90% - where abouts do you guess? How close was it to reaching the utopian Islamic State?

Which in general is better for a State - where the majority of people are Muslim:
(A) A secular State with separation of Religion from Politic.
(B) An Islamic State run on Islamic tradition and Law.

A or B?

I had a Muslim student, educated with a Math major, who specifically told me a few things he believed. How many to you also believe?
(a) Arabic is Gods language and the best language that can ever be spoken.
(b) Only the Qur’an can be fully understood in Arabic.
(c) To be the best possible Muslim you must speak Arabic.
(d) Arabic is better than English.
(f) Mohammad never committed a Sin.
(g) The Bible is corrupted and the Qur’an is perfect.
(h) An Islamic State is the best form of government.
(i) No other poem can be as beautifully written as the smallest part of the Qur’an
(j) The Qur’an was handed from god to Mohammad and not one mark has been altered since that time.
(k) Only Islam is the true belief, all other beliefs are inferior and inherently wrong.
(l) Islam was never spread by force.
(m) During the life of Mohammad there was peace and utopian in Islamic lands.
(n) peace and utopia would have continued had Ali, the rightful heir, been the Caliph.
(o) Mohammad is the last true Prophet.
(p) Jesus was a Prophet not the son of God.
(q) Mohammad killed people but only because it was right and as God instructed him to do.
(r) There are 4 times the number of women in the world as men and those statistics you are showing me are the government trying to trick me - just look at the city you can see there are more women which is why thew Qur'an says men should have 4 wives.
(s) there is one God and for proof just look at the son. See the beauty in the world, that's proof.
(t) The Jews Bible says they can lie to non-Jews and they do.
(u) Pallastein has always been settled by Muslims not Jews.

and other stuff... actually he's a nice kid, I helped him get into a graduate program for pharmacy.

I wonder how many you'd agree with?

No Kadark, there is no fallacy, that why the Qur’an puts all the goods in the afterlife! Duh! That’s the whole bloody point – sacrifice now, do what I tell you to do, think what I tell you to think and if you do all this, give me your blood now, then I promise you’ll get it all 1000000x over AFTER your dead.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I know, sounds stupid doesn’t it? But believe it or not most people believe this sort of line of bull.

So no, there is no fallacy you are not thinking unbiasedly. You have a belief and are looking to find something to back it up. That’s the absolute worse manner of going about trying to find truth. See, if you were thinking clearly you’d have instantly seen we were speaking of the afterlife and hence there is no fallacy.

Here, let me ask you those questions I asked Sam. We’ll both answer:

Is it possible that Mohammad was the Last Prophet and brought the true faith from the One God?
Michael's answer: Yes it is possible.
Kadark’s answer:

Is it possible that Mohammad was not the Last Prophet and brought death and destruction to an innocent people?
Michael's answer: Yes it is possible.
Kadark’s answer:

(ps: answer these questions may Damn your soul to Hell for all of eternity OoooOoooooooooooOooooo where you will party and have a good time

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Michael

 

The Persian empire and its citizens were under constant fear from Byzantium; Byzantium itself was constantly in fear from Persia, and the barbarians to the north. The Persians, especially, lived a life of constant fear and warfare. When the Rashidun Caliphate came into being, by mainly Abu Bakr and Umar Ibn-Al Khattab, the Persians on the border joined forces with the Muslim empire. The Persians, despite their strength, put very little resistance, and many joined to fight along side the Muslims - not against them. The life of fear and oppression from their previous Empire were the reasons why many Persians adopted Islam, and if not that, at least the Arabs who would be new rulers.

It is not a coincidence at all. Many became Muslims because they truly wanted to. There was no organized, single, definitive religion amongst the people conquered by Arabs; just various interpretations of polytheism, for the most part. They adapted to the Arabs and found truth or comfort in the religion of Islam. There is no historical evidence of Muslim conquest forcing conversion. Pick up a history book like I have, and you'll discover what I am trying to tell you. The Muslims never forcefully converted the people of the land they conquered. Islam was spread by peaceful preaching but the Muslim imperialists expanded their territories through sword.

Instead of claiming every one of the arguments I use as a sarcastic "coincidence", perhaps you would be so kind as to post some evidence to support your ludicrous view on history. The fact is, the caliphate never forcefully converted people of different religions to Islam.

The conquests followed a set pattern: defeat the army of the rival empire; then besiege their towns and cities threatening full force. Usually they would surrender and a peace treaty would be signed asking them for allegiance and tribute. The momentum of conquest and a need to appease soldiers with further riches meant the army soon moved on. Traditional structures were often left in place: in Persia, local princes still ruled, while in Palestine and Syria many towns switched their allegiance from one occupying power to another - often on better terms.

The Muslims usually followed the advice of the Koran and were merciful to the People of the Book (the definition of which was extended to include Persian Zoroastrians). There were no forced conversions; religious buildings such as temples and churches were mostly left untouched - in Damascus a mosque shared a space with the church in which John the Baptist was buried.

So what you're getting at is, nobody converts to Islam because the Qur'an is not "enlightening". Okay buddy, tell that to the millions of converts throughout history. Chances are you see converts to Islam every day, but just don't realize it. So much for that piece of trash argument, Michael.

There is no utopia on Earth, so quit using the word like I believe it has or can exist. Second, I say "closest", not "close". They were powerful, intelligent, and good followers of Islam.

Your lack of knowledge in history is very evident, as you are bringing up completely irrelevant issues to this historical debate.

1) I have no way of knowing this Muslim said such things, or even if this Muslim exists.

2) I am not going to waste my time saying which of the points above I agree/disagree with, because he is entitled to his own opinion and is not a member of this discussion.

Avoid the sinful pleasures of Earth and be rewarded eternal bliss in heaven. What is so shocking about this very common statement?

And you consider yourself unbaised? Is that some kind of a joke?

You, or anyone else for that matter, can believe either of the statements. I personally believe the former, which is quite obvious, considering my faith.

 

Lets see what comes out of the Horses mouth:

After the battle [of Walaja] Khalid ibn Walid, got his exhausted men together as he realized that the battle had imposed a terrible strain upon his troops despite the sound victory over the Sassanians. [11] The battle of Walaja had been the longest [12] and fiercest of battles which the Muslims had so far fought in Iraq; and Khalid ibn al-Walid sought to ensure the high Muslim morale.
He addressed the men. He started by praising Allah and calling his blessings upon Muhammad. Then he continued:

Do you not see the wealth of the land of the Persians? Do you not remember the poverty of the land of the Arabs? Do you not see how the crops in this land cover the earth? If the holy war were not enjoined by Allah, we should still come and conquer this rich land and exchange the hunger of our deserts for the abundant eating which is now ours


Gee Kadark it sure looks like typical conquest and looting to me ... ... but but but ... that can't be.. right? because I was told Persians and Egyptians just couldn't wait to give up their religion and begin to worship an Arab God and Arab Prophet and speak Arabic.

This here was just a big fluke:

Battle of the Bridge
When the battle began the Muslim cavalry advanced but were confronted with the war elephants of the Persian army, leading to confusion and disarray. The Persians then advanced, killing Abu Ubaid and then the next in line of the Muslim commanders, and advancing the violence of their assault. As the retreating Muslim forces assembled under the command of Muthanna on the other side of the Euphrates, only 3,000 regrouped out of the total 9,000. Some 2,000 fell fighting, another 2,000 drowned, and some 2,000 fled to Medina and elsewhere.

 

Islamic conquest of Persia

Occupation

Under Umar and his immediate successors, the Arab conquerors attempted to maintain their political and cultural cohesion despite the attractions of the civilizations they had conquered. The Arabs were to settle in the garrison towns rather than on scattered estates. They were not to marry non-Arabs, or learn their language, or read their literature. The new non-Muslim subjects, or dhimmi, were to pay a special tax, the jizya or poll tax, which was calculated per individual at varying rates for men, women and children as determined by Muslim rules but paid collectively by the whole community. In addition, the so-called protected People-of-the-Book were subject to various restrictions of occupation, worship, and dress[10]

Mass conversions were neither desired nor allowed, at least in the first few centuries of Arab rule[11][12]. Later such restrictions disappeared.

Muhammad, the Islamic prophet, had made it clear that the "People of the Book", Jews and Christians, were to be tolerated so long as they submitted to Muslim rule. It was at first unclear as to whether or not the Sassanid state religion, Zoroastrianism, was entitled to the same tolerance and some Arab commanders destroyed Zoroastrian shrines and prohibited Zoroastrian worship while others were more accepting.

Before the conquest, the Persians had been mainly Zoroastrian; there were also large and thriving Christian and Jewish communities, along with smaller numbers of Buddhists and other groups. However, there was a slow but steady movement of the population toward Islam. The nobility and city-dwellers were the first to convert, most likely to preserve the economic and social status and advantages; Islam spread more slowly among the peasantry and the dihqans, or landed gentry. By the late 10th century, the majority of Persians had become Muslim, at least nominally. Most Persian Muslims were Sunni Muslims. Though Iran is known today as a stronghold of the Shi'a Muslim faith, it did not become so until much later around the 15th century. The Iranian Muslims projected many of their own Persian moral and ethical values that predates Islam into the religion, while recognizing Islam as their religion and the prophet's son in law, Ali as an enduring symbol of justice.

According to Bernard Lewis:

"[Arab Muslims conquests] have been variously seen in Iran: by some as a blessing, the advent of the true faith, the end of the age of ignorance and heathenism; by others as a humiliating national defeat, the conquest and subjugation of the country by foreign invaders. Both perceptions are of course valid, depending on one's angle of vision… Iran was indeed Islamized, but it was not Arabized. Persians remained Persians. And after an interval of silence, Iran reemerged as a separate, different and distinctive element within Islam, eventually adding a new element even to Islam itself. Culturally, politically, and most remarkable of all even religiously, the Iranian contribution to this new Islamic civilization is of immense importance. The work of Iranians can be seen in every field of cultural endeavor, including Arabic poetry, to which poets of Iranian origin composing their poems in Arabic made a very significant contribution. In a sense, Iranian Islam is a second advent of Islam itself, a new Islam sometimes referred to as Islam-i Ajam. It was this Persian Islam, rather than the original Arab Islam, that was brought to new areas and new peoples: to the Turks, first in Central Asia and then in the Middle East in the country which came to be called Turkey, and of course to India. The Ottoman Turks brought a form of Iranian civilization to the walls of Vienna…"[4]

According to Tarikh-i Bukhara "The residents of Bukhara became Muslims. But they renounced [Islam] each time the Arabs turned back. Qutayba b. Muslim made them Muslim three times, [but] they renounced [Islam] again and became nonbelievers. The fourth time, Qutayba waged war, seized the city, and established Islam after considerable strife….They espoused Islam overtly but practiced idolatry in secret."

During the reign of the Ummayad dynasty, the Arab conquerors imposed Arabic as the primary language of the subject peoples throughout their empire, displacing their indigenous languages. However, Middle Persian proved to be much more enduring. Most of the structure and vocabulary survived, evolving into the modern Persian language. However, Persian did incorporate a certain amount of Arabic vocabulary, specially as pertains to religion, as well as switching from the Pahlavi Aramaic alphabet to a modified version of the Arabic alphabet.[13]

 

Islamization in Iran

Here's the start:

Anti-Persian policies

After the Islamic conquest of the Persian Empire, during the reign of the Ummayad dynasty, the Arab conquerors imposed Arabic as the primary language of the subject peoples throughout their empire. Hajjāj ibn Yusuf, who was not happy with the prevalence of the Persian language in the divan, ordered the official language of the conquered lands to be replaced by Arabic, sometimes by force.[2] In Biruni's From The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries for example it is written:

وقتی قتبیه بن مسلم سردار حجاج، بار دوم بخوارزم رفت و آن را باز گشود هرکس را که خط خوارزمی می نوشت و از تاریخ و علوم و اخبار گذشته آگاهی داشت از دم تیغ بی دریغ درگذاشت و موبدان و هیربدان قوم را یکسر هلاک نمود و کتابهاشان همه بسوزانید و تباه کرد تا آنکه رفته رفته مردم امی ماندند و از خط و کتابت بی بهره گشتند و اخبار آنها اکثر فراموش شد و از میان رفت

"When Qutaibah bin Muslim under the command of Al-Hajjaj bin Yousef was sent to Khwarazmia with a military expedition and conquered it for the second time, he swiftly killed whomwever wrote the Khwarazmian native language that knew of the Khwarazmian heritage, history, and culture. He then killed all their Zoroastrian priests and burned and wasted their books, until gradually the illiterate only remained, who knew nothing of writing, and hence their history was mostly forgotten." [3]

Iran's celebrated author Sa'di also reports:

"It is written that Al-Hajjaj bin Yousef once entered a city. There was an elder cleric whose prayers were widely believed to bring blessings. He asked the cleric to recite a prayer for him. The cleric prayed: Oh Allah, take his life away! Hajjaj startled burst out: Old man, what kind of prayer is this that you recite for me?! The old man replied: It is for your own good and the benefit of the people."[4]

It is difficult to imagine the Arabs especially Ummayad dynasty not implementing anti-Persian policies in light of such events, writes Zarrinkoub in his famous Two centuries of silence, where he exclusively writes of this topic [5]. Reports of Persian speakers being tortured are also given in Abū al-Faraj al-Isfahāni's al-Aghānī. [6]

However after the reign of the Umayyads, Iran and its society in particular experienced reigning dynasties who legitimize Persian languages and customs.

There are a number of historians who see the rule of the Umayyads as setting up the "dhimmah" to increase taxes from the dhimmis to benefit the Arab Muslim community financially and by discouraging conversion.[7] Islam was initially associated with the ethnic identity of the Arab and required formal association with an Arab tribe and the adoption of the client status of mawali.[7] Governors lodged complaints with the caliph when he enacted laws that made conversion easier, depriving the provinces of revenues.

 

The simple truth is the Persians were militarily conquered for their land and plundered for their wealth. That's it. Mohammadism spread not because of some sort of novel enlighten approach, which is exactly how Buddhism was spread to China Korea and Japan, but in order to retain wealth and for those who wanted to succeed in the new reality under their new Arab masters - the conquered must convert to the rulers disposition. Arabs had a religous disposition and so people converted religions. This isn't always the case, the Mongolians didn't force Muslims to convert to Shamanism. But I am sure if they had, then you would be a Shaman telling me how virtuous Ganghis Khan was the Last Prophet. You don't see it but that's the way it is.


Anyway, that aside, this thread is about Islam and homosexuals. You said that there never was a real historical period of Islamic utopia. But you also said that one Caliph came close - perhaps as close as one could come? What was the period (from when to when) and what was so remarkable about this period in Islamic history?

Michael

 

If the Arabs were not to marry non-Arabs, stayed away from them, did not read their literature and merely imposed taxes on them while governing from Mecca, and lived a much simpler lifestyle as compared to the Persians, how exactly did this coerce the Persians to convert to Islam? Are you saying the Persians converted to Islam (see the timeline btw) to save money?

 

Yup. Economic slavery is still slavery, Sam. Some people on this forum have decried the thing - in certain cases, anyway. Let's imagine your nation has been humbled and taken over by an outside aggressor, and that punitive second-class citizen status has been thrust upon you. Statistically speaking, with time, will not some of you convert to the religion of the invader?

I can't think of any examples of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_india
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India