Did Islam spread by the sword?

[Michael]

Wrong. Strike one



likely, shikely, dikely.... all your opinions not said by science.

Strike two



Nope.. Strike Three! You're out.

Peace be unto you

Science is the application of the Scientific Method which is based on observable repeated gathering of good evidence - for which the Gods/Goddesses/Xenus etc....there is none.


I'm fairly certain we don't disagree on this.

When the Scientific Method is applied to the existence of Gods, it says the existence of Gods is highly unlikely as there is no repeated good evidence of them existing. Never had been any, probably never will be any.

 

[Michael]

Everyone has a right to their opinions, but me, I set store by evidence.

Please provide contemporary "evidence" of the existence of Mohammad.

There is none.

 

[786]

Science is the application of the Scientific Method which is based on observable repeated gathering of good evidence - for which the Gods/Goddesses/Xenus etc....there is none.

I'm fairly certain we don't disagree on this.

Sure. Applause?

When the Scientific Method is applied to the existence of Gods, it says the existence of Gods is highly unlikely as there is no repeated good evidence of them existing. Never had been any, probably never will be any.

Science can not test a untestable hypothesis, meaning science can not make a conclusion about such a hypothesis. That is- Science can't say anything about such a hypothesis to be true or untrue.

Peace be unto you

 

[S.A.M.]

Please provide contemporary "evidence" of the existence of Mohammad.

There is none.

Don't need to, anymore than I need to provide contemporary evidence for Caesar. The fact that Mohammed was mentioned by name, along with his teachings by people other than Muslims in places far from his place of origin is sufficiently objective evidence of his historicity. Just think of the challenges of trying to locate today contemporary evidence in the West of any significant happening in Saudi Arabia. As Crone says, "There is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it notwithstanding."

 

[Michael]

Sure. Applause?



Science can not test a untestable hypothesis, meaning science can not make a conclusion about such a hypothesis. That is- Science can't say anything about such a hypothesis to be true or untrue.

Peace be unto you

Oh, I see, you're stuck thinking about YOUR God/s. There are LOTS of Gods and Goddesses. Like the ones that lived on Mount Olympus. Greeks hypothesis that if they went up there they'd see "Gods and Goddesses" and guess what - they didn't!

 

[786]

Oh, I see, you're stuck thinking about YOUR God/s. There are LOTS of Gods and Goddesses. Like the ones that lived on Mount Olympus. Greeks hypothesis that if they went up there they'd see "Gods and Goddesses" and guess what - they didn't!

The question was can science say anything about 'god' (doesn't matter which one, or all of them) and the answer is no- so instead of going around in circle just admit you were wrong.

I see you're stuck with your thinking. I wasn't thinking about 'my God' when I was answering your silliness. The argument is applicable to all of them- hence I was saying Science doesn't say shit about 'god or goddesses' (hint hint: I don't believe in goddesses!!!!! So I couldn't possibly have been thinking about 'my God' when I was making the argument!!!!! Get it!)

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

Like I said, it's a waste of time discussing this. And, until you stop believing in magic and fairytales you will not be able to accept the real history. The fact is Gods and Goddesses don't exist. Prophets don't either and the Qur'an was written much later as Political and Religious Propaganda - a foundation myth. No different than all of the other religious of the world.

Everyone has a right to their opinions, but me, I set store by evidence..

Please provide contemporary "evidence" of the existence of Mohammad.

Don't need to,...."

Like I said, it's a waste of time discussing this.


:shrug:

Lets put it this way SAM. I'm interested in approaching "Islamic" history from the POV that Gods, their Magicians and their books of spells are pretend, while some others here prefer to done the Harry Potter cap and hood and run around on a broom stick pretending magic is real :shrug:

So, until some new archeology is presented we'll just put the whole discussion on hold agreeing that we both agree the sword was not how you Islam (my Syrian/Persian Christianity) initially spread but that later on, yes, people who happened to be Muslims did conquered non-Muslims, colonize them and over time the colonized people, much like Native Americans, accepted their conquerors new religion (be they Mongols, Arabs, Persians or whatever).


That seems reasonable.

 

[S.A.M.]

but that later on, yes, people who happened to be Muslims did conquered non-Muslims, colonize them and over time the colonized people, much like Native Americans, accepted their conquerors new religion (be they Mongols, Arabs, Persians or whatever).

Okay as long as you explain how 800 years of Muslim rule did not make India a Muslim country and why 80% of Muslims in the world come from places not colonised by any of the above. Also why Mongols and Turks adopted Islam after invading and colonising Muslims and abandoned their own faith

And here is a new one: Why are South Americans adopting Islam? Why are blacks in South Africa adopting Islam?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0110/p13s1-woaf.html

 

[Michael]

The question was can science say anything about 'god' (doesn't matter which one, or all of them) and the answer is no- so instead of going around in circle just admit you were wrong.

I see you're stuck with your thinking. I wasn't thinking about 'my God' when I was answering your silliness. The argument is applicable to all of them- hence I was saying Science doesn't say shit about 'god or goddesses' (hint hint: I don't believe in goddesses!!!!! So I couldn't possibly have been thinking about 'my God' when I was making the argument!!!!! Get it!)

Peace be unto you

So then, we agree that there's the exact same amount of "Scientific" evidence for Allah as there is for Xenu? Or the FSM or PIU for that mater. Which is to say there is NONE.

Is that correct 786?

Good, we agree

 

[countezero]

Excellent example. Note that Muslim countries, unlike the native Americans are not populated by replaced populations. There is no "gradual colonisation" because except for the Middle East which equals 20% of all Muslims, there was no Arab colonisation of the lands. And yet Islam was already present outside the Middle East.

Except that this thread is not about America or Indians and the answer to your question is yes. Forced conversion did happen, populations were persecuted and political systems were put in place that systematically Islam-ified conquered domains.

How does this historian explain the large Christian and Jewish minorities across the Middle East?

Um, Christianity and Judaism are older than Islam. The Christians and the Jews were in the Middle East first, Sam.

What you need to wonder is why places like Egypt are not more Christian than they are. The answer is Islam.

On the contrary, I have read that on the balance the Jews were treated somewhat better in Muslim countries than in Christian countries. The Ottomans granted them true second-class citizenship, with the right to own property and legal protection; I have seen this called the high watermark in the history of the Diaspora until the United States.

The Ottomans did treat the Jews better than their contemporary Christians. They also treated Eastern Orthodox Christians better. But the social pressures put in place to convert and the Janissary corp, which was comprised of non-Muslim children stolen from their parents, kind of puts a damper on this rosy picture you paint. And then of course, the Ottomans converted Churches to mosques and prevented new churches from being built. That kind of has an affect...

 

[Michael]

Okay as long as you explain how 800 years of Muslim rule did not make India a Muslim country and why 80% of Muslims in the world come from places not colonised by any of the above. Also why Mongols and Turks adopted Islam after invading and colonising Muslims and abandoned their own faith

And here is a new one: Why are South Americans adopting Islam? Why are blacks in South Africa adopting Islam?

SAM, please.

"Turks" may have found Islam to their militaristic benefit. India isn't 100% Christian either, but that certainly doesn't preclude the Historical accuracy of their colonization by the British. Not all South Americans are Catholic - so what? Many Muslims are adopting Scientology - what does THAT have to do with the British in the Americas?


You're all over the place.



Is there ANY scientific evidence for the existence of Allah? Seeing as you like to "follow the evidence".

Can it be "proven" that Iraq didn't have WMD? Where's the "evidence" they don't exist.


(I see you skipped the question regarding evidence for the existence of Allah ... per usual, which is what you do SAM, pick and choose when to apply sound logic. Until you can move past your belief in Gods and Goddesses you're not going to find the answers to your OP - it really is THAT simple).

 

[S.A.M.]

"Turks" may have found Islam to their militaristic benefit.

So they invaded and colonised Muslims and embraced Islam, as did the Mongols. And they are not "Turks" they are Turks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks

So who are these "later colonisers" who colonised non-Muslims and then had them embrace Islam? The only people left to be colonised after the Turkic Mongols embraced Islam was the Indians and they had Muslim conversions during the lifetime of the Prophet and even after 1400 years, are still 80% non-Muslim

So who exactly are you referring to?

 

[786]

So then, we agree that there's the exact same amount of "Scientific" evidence for Allah as there is for Xenu? Or the FSM or PIU for that mater. Which is to say there is NONE.

Is that correct 786?

Good, we agree

I think we discussed this a long time ago, it seems bullshit doesn't leave your head or it return very easily.
For these subjects 'scientific evidence' can not even be discussed, because they are not subjected to 'science'.

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

So they invaded and colonised Muslims and embraced Islam, as did the Mongols. And they are not "Turks" they are Turks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks

So who are these "later colonisers" who colonised non-Muslims and then had them embrace Islam? The only people left to be colonised after the Turkic Mongols embraced Islam was the Indians and they had Muslim conversions during the lifetime of the Prophet and even after 1400 years, are still 80% non-Muslim

So who exactly are you referring to?

I'm not sure of your point SAM?

Do people "convert" at the point of a sword? Hardly likely. You can't point your sword at someone and say: Believe in Xenu! It doesn't work that way. Some people genuinely think about the philosophy and convert. Most people are illiterate and believe what they are told to believe - usually as per their leaders beliefs, which are usually political in nature. I'm sure some Indian's felt coerced to convert and at other times some probably happily converted :shrug:

 

[Michael]

I think we discussed this a long time ago, it seems bullshit doesn't leave your head or it return very easily.
For these subjects 'scientific evidence' can not even be discussed, because they are not subjected to 'science'.

Peace be unto you

No, I just like hearing you admit there's as much evidence for the existence of Allah as there is for the Space Alien Xenu. It sort of makes a mockery of your belief to think it's the scientific equivalent of Scientology.

It's amusing

 

[keith1]

Was there a point behind this post?

yes. A woman's need for a great father figure, for her children. No sword needed, in that situation.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm not sure of your point SAM?

You said:

but that later on, yes, people who happened to be Muslims did conquered non-Muslims, colonize them and over time the colonized people, much like Native Americans, accepted their conquerors new religion (be they Mongols, Arabs, Persians or whatever).

Explain how Malaysia is Muslim, how Indonesia is Muslim - there were no Arab colonisers. Explain Chinese and Russian Muslims, South African and Latino Muslims. Explain American Muslims of European origin.

Which "later conquerors" were involved in the religious conversions of the 80% of Muslims outside the Middle East?

 

[PsychoTropicPuppy]

This is truly an interesting thread, with interesting posts. While I can't really contribute, I'm quite enjoying the read. Thanks guys.

 

[786]

No, I just like hearing you admit there's as much evidence for the existence of Allah as there is for the Space Alien Xenu. It sort of makes a mockery of your belief to think it's the scientific equivalent of Scientology.

It's amusing

Okay for the sake of argument I'll agree... because you're driving it off-topic again.

Now, at least we can agree that it is bullshit to assume the truth that they are lying and use circular logic and then pass it on as truth. Because you failed to defend such an argument.

Peace be unto you

 

[GeoffP]

Explain how Malaysia is Muslim, how Indonesia is Muslim - there were no Arab colonisers. Explain Chinese and Russian Muslims, South African and Latino Muslims. Explain American Muslims of European origin.

Which "later conquerors" were involved in the religious conversions of the 80% of Muslims outside the Middle East?

Actually, that's not a correct breakdown of the numbers, as I would think you should know. Iran, Pakistan, India and the Maldives are considered "South Asia", for starters. You also ignore Saharan Africa. Is Turkey considered part of the Middle East? That was also conquest. Also in the Balkans. Russia. Sub-saharan Africa. Don't be deceptive. As for converts: and? This proves Islam never spread by the sword? Come on. Enough, already.