Islam is Hopeless - Part III

Response: To the contrary, it is a proven fact that the majority of muslims live in Southeast Asia, North Africa, and Indonesia, yet no muslim army ever went there. This is proof of islam spreading peacefully, not by the sword. Yet your own evidence states that practically all non-muslim empires were imperialists, thus proving my point that muslims fought in wars in defense of the imperialism of non-muslims. Thanks for the assistance.

 

During the latter periods of the middle ages there were various instances of political and religious repression that lasted a few hundred years. I'll find some scholarly material to quote and I'll post it later.

 

But that is today. You cant talk of religious demographics of centuries past by looking at them today. As for the regions you mentioned, the Muslims did invade North Africa. You are correct about Indonesia and Southeast Asia however - they became Islam through peaceful conversion brought via Hindus trading with Muslims and some political events in which some leaders became Islam for various reasons.

Yes but Muslim empires were themselves as repressive as their western counterparts when they wanted to be.

No, Muslim empires fought in aggressive and defensive wars. The Turkish invasion of Eastern Europe, for example, had nothing defensive about it.

 

How do you think the Ottoman Empire was formed? Tell me also how you think it acquired land in the Baltic regions.

See above. This is only half the story.

 

What do you mean "to the contrary"? That was my point too.

I didn't say anything about any majority or the like.

My point was that all religions/similar, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Atheism and so on and so on have had imperialistic parts, thus suggesting that imperialism is not coupled to religion, but appears pretty much anywhere where humans are in charge.

Then again, as far as I know, all religions have had non-violent spread as well, again suggesting that the choice isn't based on religion but on simple human morals/fallibility/similar.

 

Yeah, the Ottomans were the only Muslims where forced conversion has been officially endorsed, and it was Seljuk Turks that had been making a mess of the ME situation just prior to the Crusades.

As always, this is not an argument against Turks in general either. From what I gather (and this is my own speculation to a large extent, so don't take my word for it) the Arab part of the Muslim world was based on uniting tribes under one common banner so to remove the problem of tribes not getting along (nation-building under certain leaders was common and happened quickly, but tended to die with the leader in question, whereas Mohammed united the tribes under Islam, which did not die with Mohammed), but Turks generally merged their new Islam with their old tribal tradition, leaving theological inconsistencies and tribal problems.

 

Response: There may have been. One may even say that there have been islamic rulers and governmenments that were not the best of governments and may have had unjust rulers. I would not disagree to an extent. Yet when it comes to imperialism or spreading islam by the sword, it is a proven fact that no such things is the case, when one decides to open their mind and analyze the the clear evidence so. I'll look forward to your scholarly material when you post it later.

 

Response: To the contrary, the present is a result of the past. Thus you can't reconcile such a big difference and contradiction in th logic of muslims were fixed on imperialism and that this is the way of islam, yet have the majority of muslims living in areas where no muslim army ever went. It is utter inconsistency. The logic would be that muslims just up and decided to change their view of imperialism all of a sudden. Yet such a claim is supported by no scholarly facts or logic. Therefore, the claim that islam was spread by the sword and muslims were fixed on imperialism is debunked. And when we look at the rule of muslims centuries ago, we still find that the muslims ruled Spain for 800 years and India for 1000 years and never expanded it. So this is evidence from centuries ago that there was no spread of islam by the sword or imperialism.

Response: Yet the fact that most muslims live where no muslim army ever went and never expanded their empire from their long rule over Spain and India proves the opposite of repressive, thus debunking your claim again.

Response: Another claim debunked by the fact that christain Europe were imperialists, while th muslim rule of Spain and India and their desire to only rule that area proves that muslims were not agressors, but fought in defense of christian and non-muslim imperialism.

 

Response: The Ottoman Empire was a continuation of the Abbasid empire and ruled by the Turks. They captured the Baltic Regions by defeating the European armies and their advancements of imperialism.

 

Response: Then it is to the contrary, because the desire of imperialism was not the case for islam or muslims. Muslims reacted in defense to the imperialism of Christian authority and non-muslims.

 

Of course you do not care about how the conflict started being that it does not fit into your anti-Islamic/pro-Christian worldview of events. It is clear to anyone who has studied history that Islam was not spread by the sword, unlike Christianity. The battles and skirmishes at the onset of Islam, from Adam to Muhammad through today has always been those who rule through wickedness against those who adhere to what the messengers and prophets of Islam brought to them. As usual, those of righteous conduct, i.e. monotheism, giving thanks to Allah who is the originator and creator of the heavens and the earth, remaining chaste, abstaning from perverse behaviors, etc are always confronted by those who obtain their rule and livelihood through such things. Power huingry men who deem themselves as rulers of the entire Earth will always oppose those who are fashion our lives after what the Originator and Creator of the Heavens and the Earth has established. Jayy, you nor your people are Alif Ilalah. Your entire existence has been opposing Allah, our way, our messengers and prophets being that such people and paths are in opposition to your unjustified rule. As for "Christian" lands, there are no such places that have ever existed being that the Earth belongs to Allah. The very fact that you would state such a thing goes to prove that your ways of living are in direct opposition to The Creator and Originator of the Heavens and the Earth and all in between. Your psychology is the very thing that is repulsive to us.

 

The info I'm finding indicates that the motivation for the Muslim expansion is unknown, since letters and records from the time seems to have a more matter-of-factly style than we have today. For instance, even wikipedia acknowledges that the Muslim sources of the invasion of Spain was compiled in hindsight and was coloured by the notions the authors had of what was proper.

What do you think the motivation was?

 

Response: The motivation of muslim expansion was simply to spread the religion of islam. It is a religious teaching that muslims are to spread the message of islam, or islam is the true and righteous path. However, this was not done by force, but through preaching. People would rapidly embrace islam because of the moral message and true sense of compassion, brotherhood and sisterhood that was displayed by muslims. This increase in muslim population helped to establish islamic governments.

However, the surrounding authorities and rulers saw that their political agenda would soon come to an end if islam was not stopped, and soon islam will be the number one empire. This is what made the Byzantine empire , the Persians, and other surrounding tribes attack the muslims, yet the early muslims were very much victorious, gaining more and more land in the process. The muslims never used forced, but was rather forced to fight in defense. This is evident by the spread of islam in East Africa, as no muslim army ever went there.

 

Ignoratio elenchi, this is a irrelevant conclusion.

It does prove your dishonesty. You asserted that the Islamic occupation of Spain didn't extend beyond the Pyrenees, and you attested this as a prime example of the peaceful and non imperialist temperament of Islam.

Both are proven false.

This shift of attention to a moral necessity for Islamic imperialistic tendencies is also false, false in a historic manner and false in a ethical one.

The battle of Mu'tah within the Byzantine Empire was motivated by the Muslim urge to unify the Arabs with the Islamic state. It was the first clash between the civilized Christians and the nomadic Muslims, the later being the aggressor. Therefore your historical argument is false.

It also serves as prove for Islamic/Arab Imperialism at the dawn of Islam.

Source is Fred Donner in his book The early Islamic conquests. Donner is a scholar of Islam and Professor of Near Eastern History. His book was reviewed by The International Journal of Middle East Studies and to be categorized as a magisterial and major contribution to the understanding of early Islamic history.

If you find yourself to have a beef with these facts, findings and conclusions, please direct your BS debunking mantra to f-donner@uchicago.edu.

To be clear, I do not expect ethics nor morals from someone that submits to a doctrine in which the idol, prime and perfect example sexually abuses a child and declares it the wish and a demand from God. It absolutely proves your faith to be false, corrupted and a very unmoral conviction. A higher corruption of the divine is hardly imaginable for the mind.

Contradictio in terminis. And false, and where is your source? I provided mine already.

Please...

Let me teach you about heroism and true spiritual transcendence. Godfrey of Bouillon the leader of the first heroic Crusade sold and abandoned most of his property and land to risk his life in defense, aid and the cause of Christendom. When he liberated Jerusalem, he declined the crown in the city that Christ died.

That is a prime example of Christian devotion, it is a act that proves Christianity and her morality to be far superior and in fact divine, in high contrast with your prophet who shared a bed with a child. This contrast can never be overemphasized as a prime example of the duality and contrast.

 

For the most part "defence" meant invasion. Indonesia may be an exception, but for the most part, any country today that is rules by Islam was invaded. Even in the historical facts of the invasion of Spain, there's no way that Spain was invading anybody. Spain was never converted, true, but that's more due to the furvor of the local catholics than the lack of trying by the muslims.

North Africa didn't declare war on Islam, Islam declared war on North Africa. The Copts of Egypt invaded no one. In all of those cases, as well as the case of Iran, Islam invaded and forcibly converted most of the non-muslim population while making sure that Christians could not fix their churches, preach their religion in public, and were forced to pay taxes for the privilege of being oppressed.

 

Actually, most of North Africa and all of Sub-Saharan Africa was also converted without armies. I find it unbelievable that all the invasions can be counted as defence, though.

 

Response: Another failed rebuttal. For if asked of what proof you have that the muslims were the agressors during Muhammad's lifetime, your answer would be "because a book says so", which is clearly deluded logic, thus proving nothing. Saying so is not proof that it is so. Debunked as usual.

Muhammad(saw) and the muslims were not the agressors, proven by the fact that it is humanly impossible to single handedly inspire enough followers to conquer a nation or army with force. This common sense logic is easily proven, for anyone who tries to attempt to inspire just 10 people with force to follow them in conquest of others will fail and fail miserably, thus debunking the claim that Muhammad or his followers at the time used force to to spread islam because Muhammad clearly had more than 10 followers. Debunked as usual. You disagee? Then try inspiring just 10 followers to follow you with force, and when those 10 people whip you, you'll learn first hand from an eyewitness account that your argument of agression fails.

The muslims fought in defense of the agression of the Byzantine empire, but was aided in conquering the army with the help of Allah.

 

Response: To the contrary, the argument of forced invasion fails, because it is a proven fact that one person can not force hundreds of people to follow them, proven by the fact that if you yourself attempted to force just 10 people to do so, those 10 people would whip you and you would fail. Thus we see evidence from a hands-on eyewitness account that the argument of agression fails. Therefore, Muhammad and his followers were peaceful and they followed Muhammad because they themselves believed in peace. The muslims fought in defense of the attacks by christian and non-muslism authorities. Debunked as usual.

 

Straw man argument.

And yes it is. Its called providing data in support of an argument, and it causes to shift the burden of proof to you.

Where is your proof for all the nonsense you proclaim? All you do is make miserable attempts for a philosophical redefining of what is and what isn't proof.

Its called conformity in groups.

False. For Allah demanded Mohammed to sleep with a child, therefore Allah can't be God, therefore Allah is not divine and could not have helped the Islamic army, for he does not exist on the grounds of the laws of morality.

And historically false :

The battle of Mu'tah within the Byzantine Empire was motivated by the Muslim urge to unify the Arabs with the Islamic state. It was the first clash between the civilized Christians and the nomadic Muslims, the later being the aggressor. Therefore your historical argument is false.

It also serves as prove for Islamic/Arab Imperialism at the dawn of Islam.

Source is Fred Donner in his book The early Islamic conquests. Donner is a scholar of Islam and Professor of Near Eastern History. His book was reviewed by The International Journal of Middle East Studies and to be categorized as a magisterial and major contribution to the understanding of early Islamic history.

If you find yourself to have a beef with these facts, findings and conclusions, please direct your BS debunking mantra to f-donner@uchicago.edu.

Irrelevant. And nonsense. Its called conformity in groups and crowd psychology. There are and have been numerous examples and experiments on this subject.

 

Response: Weak rebuttal supports to the contrary

Response: Providing data is not proof without proving logic that the provided data is true. And as your weak logic demonstrates of "it's true because a book says so", supports the fact that your argument is weak. Debunked as usual.

Response: Yet your inability to prove so proves to the contrary. Debunked as usual.

Response: Yet the argument of agression is debunked, for the provided challenge provides a hands-on eyewitness account that inspiring just 10 people by yourself with force to conquer others with force is impossible, for anyone who does so will fail. Thus the argument that Muhammad used forced is debunked from a hands-on eyewitness account as evidence, while your foolish logic of "it's true because a book says so" fails. Debunked as usual.

Response: Yet the provided chalenge provides a hands-on eyewitness acount as evidence that your argument of agression is utterly bogus, while your ducking and dodging to answer the challenge supports so. One man can't force control over 10 people without getting whipped, thus debunking your idiotic claim that Muhammad did so to hundreds of people.Debunked as usual.

Thus you've done nothing but further help to demonstrate that islam was spread in defense of the agression of christian and non-muslim authorities. Thanks for the assistance.

 

Since Donner is a scholar of Islam and Professor of Near Eastern History and since you are neither and because you have not displayed one single source, my argument is a valid one.

Fallacy.

Social Psychology is for all I know even part of the curriculum in American High schools. You have the Stanford prison experiment and the Milgram experiment. Both on obedience and authority.

Anyway lets assume the following;

Hitler is in the same -according to the likes of you- divine category as is Mohammed.

This is proven by the fact that it is humanly impossible to single handedly inspire enough followers to conquer a nation or army with force. This common sense logic is easily proven, for anyone who tries to attempt to inspire just 10people with force to follow them in conquest of others will fail and fail miserably, thus debunking the claim that Hitler or his followers at the time used force to to spread National Socialism because Hitler clearly had more than 10 followers, he had 60 at the start and 8.5 million in 1945. Debunked as usual.

False as proven above.

False as proven above.

It is very simple, you have not provided one single piece of prove that the Byzantine Empire by means of war attacked Mohammed.

It is also very simple that there is not a divine guidance within Islam. For Allah demanded Mohammed to sleep with a child, therefore Allah can't be God, therefore Allah is not divine and could not have helped the Islamic army, for Allah does not exist on the grounds of the laws of morality.

Consequentially Mohammed got his followers on the principles of Social Psychology and not on divine grounds, because as proven above, Allah does not exist. And since Allah does not exist for he demands nonmoral acts the only possibility to explain the rise of Mohammed is Social Psychology.

 

Response: To the contrary, common sense trumps scholarship, thus the fact that it's impossible for one person inspire 10 people by force to conquer by force, as proven by your failed attempt to do so, proves from hands-on eyewitness account that the claim that Muhammad and his followers used forced is a fallacy, and so is the alleged scholarship. Hands-on eyewitness accounts debunks scholarship from hearsay. Debunked as usual.

Response: Only in the eyes of the delusional. Thanks for confirming.

Response: To the contrary, if asked of what proof that Hitler single handedly inspired enough followers to conquer a nation or army with force, your answer is the same idiotic answer, "because a book says so", which is faulty logic, thus proving nothing. Furthermore, the challenge itself proves that Hitler has never done so, because it provides a hands-on eyewitness account that such an act is impossible, for anyone who takes the chalenge will fail. A hands-on eyewitness account debunks your foolish logic of "because a book says so". Debunked as usual.

Response: Yet your weak rebuttal proves otherwise.

Response: To the contrary, the qur'an is the proven true word of Allah, as the qur'an challenge provides a hands on-eyewitness account that inspiring enough followers to conquer a nation, or just the street you live on, by using human-made speech/literature that goes against what the people want is humanly impossible, because anyone who takes the challenge will fail and not come close to answering it. And since it is clearly humanly impossible to use human-made speech/literature to achieve the act, then that means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation was not the invention of any human/s, but from one who has greater power and authority than humans, and that is Allah. Debunked as usual.

Thus you've done nothing but help to further demonstrate that islam was not spread by force, but in defense of the imperialism of christian and non-muslim authorities. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

Umm, not just a book, but the entire field of history. I suppose that I'm correct that you didn't even bother to e-mail the professor who wrote the book in question? Of course, that would mean that you were interested in truth. You're just interested in pretend rebuttals that demonstrate your ignorance of science, history, and your own religion.

I can convince you that the moon is made of cheese, because if my 4-year-old debate opponent cannot refute that argument, in your eyes I won? This is Islamic Logic?

If I have a gun, I could probably get a lot of people to believe what I say, particularly if I'm the ONLY one with guns. It worked in Nazi Germany, Communist Russia and China, North Korea.

And in North Korea, dispite that fact that the North Korean government starved and tortured its own people for 50 years, this is their reaction to Kim Jong Ils death

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSWN6Qj98Iw"]North Koreans weeping hysterically over the death of Kim Jong-il - YouTube[/ame]

You keep saying that Christians and others were attacking you, but I can't find a recorded example in their histories. You weren't attacked by the Byzantines until you started harrassing Christians in Jerusalem. That's the only reason that the Crusades happened. You can't constantly Jihad and then claim self defense just because Christians get tired of getting killed by muslims.

 

False, Hitler did so.

Your logic is the farthest from what one can consider to be common sense.

As proven by me. And since Allah does not exist :

For Allah demanded Mohammed to sleep with a child, therefore Allah can't be God, therefore Allah is not divine and could not have helped the Islamic army and Muhammed, for Allah does not exist on the grounds of the laws of morality.

Consequentially Mohammed got his followers on the principles of Social Psychology and not on divine grounds, because as proven above, Allah does not exist. And since Allah does not exist for he demands unmoral acts the only possibility to explain the rise of Mohammed is Social Psychology.

Fallacy. Since everybody can read that my argument never consisted of "because a book said so". If you claim otherwise then you are a liar. A not uncommon position for a Muslim confronted with European superiority.

Fallacy. Since everybody can read that my argument never consisted of "because a book said so". If you claim otherwise then you are a liar.

There is photographic, video and audio forms of evidence. Evidence that doesn't exist in the case of Muhammed. If you would prolong this nonsense of yours and start to assert that the Second World war never took place, then you are on your own with your absurdity. For you must realize, yes even the likes of you must realize that your absurd argumentation when directed to yourself would leave you screaming like a bullying toddler exposed for his total bull(*)(*)(*)(*)ting.

I can play your retarded nonsense game. Demonstration of this reality : You claim Muhammed inspired in a divine way more then 10 people. What is your prove. Since you assert this without prove, it is debunked. Thank you for this demonstration.

If you claim this because historians claim so, then this is debunked on the grounds of the non existence of Allah, as proven by my, and thus is there a triumph of common sense and morality over scholarship. The only option is that Muhammed gained power through Social Psychology. The other option is divine, which is debunked over and over.

You are proven false yet again, as demonstrated over the length of this debate.

Your only argument is an illogical philosophical idea, which is proven false in my response before this one. This on the ground of the non existence of Allah.

The absurdness, corruption and above all emptiness of your argumentation is astonishing.

Still all very simple, you have not provided one single piece of prove that the Byzantine Empire by means of war attacked Mohammed. Your only illogical philosophical idea is clearly false by all means, and really has not much to do with anything to begin with, but the fight would become too easy otherwise for me, no fun in that.

 

Response: Another deluded rebuttal. The foolish claim that the field of history is proof is debunked when the field of science demonstrates otherwise. If something can be verified from an eyewitness account and history says differently, then that is proof that the history is fallacious and any person accepting it is brainwashed. Thus you've done nothing but expose that you've been programmed to believe something not by logic, but because "a bok says so". Debunked as usual.

Response: To the contrary, your logic is that in order to know if a basketball can bounce or not, it is better to use hearsay of history and scholars to tell you so, rather than to take the basketball......AND BOUNCE IT YOURSELF. This the the deluded logic of yourself and non-muslims like you, which any reasonable person can see the flawed logic. Debunked as usual.

Response: Once again, we see the same weak rebuttal, that only continues to fail. For your own records tell you that the Christians started the Crusades, led by Pope Urban II. Furthermore, we can prove scientifically that one person can not inspire just 10 people by force to follow them into conquering others by force, for anybody who tries to do so will fail miserably, thus the logic of Muhammad using the same strategy on hundereds of people fails. So we can see from a hands-on eyewitness account again that the muslims did not use force, but defense of the imperialism of christians. Debunked as usual.