Bismillah hirrahman nirrahim
In the name of God, the most merciful, the most kind
But honestly, I've looked far into Islam.thotoz
No you haven’t, not that far. It seems you've looked at exclusively Christian sources so far.
If muslims tell me that "they will not believe it because dumb sources are used to exploit Islam". Well..Robert Spencer used the most credible Sources used by Muslim scholars! ...(look at those books, they are used by Muslim scholars, they are not bull)
thotoz
He cites BOOKS and COMPILATIONS that are considered to have MANY [but not exclusively] authentic entries and facts. Every single entry or statement is not necessarily authentic in these sources. He uses many that are proven to be false or unreliable. You have to look into them individually as respectable, responsible scholars do [both Muslim and non-Muslim.] Also, it’s not just the sources he uses that are unreliable but he himself that is unreliable. He clearly has his own agenda and anyone can spin the truth and use it to deceive people.
You read my post on deception.
So... this is Deciet 101?Lessons:
1. Make up a lie. - easiest lesson.
2. Don't make up a lie. Find a lie that already exists that is from a source that looks more credible than you obvioulsy are and present it as the truth.
3. Tell the truth, but only the partial truth.
4. Using these three methods you can make up an infinite amount of false information. When one of your points is refuted make up another. This way, you can force the other person to have to write the equivalent of a book in order to answer all your points. Siddiqui
Spencer uses the second and third rules when citing ‘credible’ sources.
Muhammed personally beheaded 600-900 people...thotoz
I've now covered this completely in the post in this thread. You now should see this statement is outrageous.
had several wives (though some Muslims defend this when I say it) thotoz
First of all, it should be noted that it was the culture of the Arabs to keep several wives and ten was a very normal number. I say this because some people act as if Muhammad [peace be upon him] invented this practice or something.I have covered the accusations that Muhammad was in any way a lustful man. Each marriage had an excellent reason behind it. For example many were done to form political reasons. All of his wives except for Aisha were either divorced or widowed and in that society women often needed the protection of a man to survive. If he was after lust then why was one of his wives a poor widowed woman of 65 years of age when he married her? I’m not expanding on each individual marriage; you can look into that yourself.
Also, to reiterate what I’ve said previously. Muhammad [peace be upon him] waited until he was 25 to marry his first Wife, Khadija [may God be pleased with her], who was a 40 year old widow… Furthermore, prior to those 25 years Muhammad had remained completely chaste [no courting, premarital sex, nothing] despite the fact the lewd and practically semi-nudist Arab culture at the time would easily allow for several other options. He remained completely monogamous and loyal [no ceating or anything of course] to Khadija until her death. A few years after the death of Khadija he finally married Aisha, his second wife, when he was 52 years old - hardly an age where desire is at peak.
and only had 1 defensive raid, the rest of his raids were offensive. thotoz
I have covered this. The fighting was to defend against imminent genocide. The non-Muslim Meccans had no intention of sparing the women and children and this was no secret. Muhammad [peace be upon him] only fought when there was a real threat that the Meccans were about to be wipe them out. This is why fighting stopped after the "Battle of the Ditch." The Muslims gained respect for defeating such a huge army that the non-Muslim Meccans had sent. The non-Muslims had realized that the Muslims are not people you can just bully around or kill off and therefore were reluctant to send more armies. As for the Muslims, since there was now no longer a risk of genocide they put down their weapons and there was peace for four years.
After these years the Muslims attempted to go on a pilgrimage but were denied entry into Mecca by the non-Muslims. Instead of fighting [they had their weapons - as all Arabs always carried their weapons all the time - and they had faced worse odds] they decided to negotiate a peace treaty. The Muslims conceded every major point to the non-Muslims when drafting the treaty but insisted on one - ten more years of peace. Much to the dismay of the Meccan non-Muslims it was during these many years of peace that Islam grew the fastest. Not coincidentally, the peace was only broken when the non-Muslims attacked a clan allied with the Muslims. In defense, the Muslims sent a large army to Mecca and through surrender the 'conquest of Mecca' occurred - the one where I mentioned where not a single drop of blood was spilled and all the brutal oppressors of the Muslims were pardoned.
Muhammad [peace be upon him] did not spread warfare. In the end you could say 'the proof is the pudding'... yeah. Prior to Islam the entire Arabian Peninsula would be in a state of vengeful tribal warfare throughout the year for centuries. Within 20 years of an Islamic state all these wars ended. Also, the number of killed in the battles that Muhammad [peace be upon him] commanded was much less than the usual number killed in battles of the time.
(you had a choice of converting to Islam, or being able to follow your own religion..under strict rule!) thotoz
Stict rule? Care to elaborate? To begin, the Quran says "there is no compulsion in religion" [2:256.] As a result there was no sort of forced conversion as the statement implies.
In fact, the non-Muslim groups [Dhimmi's] were allowed to govern themselves independently from the Muslims. They created and applied their own laws to themselves. They were truly independent and allowed to do as they willed. This is a degree of freedom than even modern governments do not provide.
So, you are talking about the Jizya I would guess. These were taxes they paid as a "Dhimmi" status that were used to finance the Muslim army that protected them. The non-Muslims did not fight together with the Muslims as this would potentially result in infighting and indecision. The non-Muslims would give their money and the Muslims would give their lives.
For an example, when the Muslims who conquered Cyprus were driven out the general returned this money to the non-Muslims saying he had failed them. This was not just a tax simply for being non-Muslim.
The Muslims would also pay a 'Zakat' tax. Many say that this tax was not as high as the Jizya non-Muslims paid. However, first of all, this statement is an inaccurate simplification. The Jizya was at a fixed rate per person while the Zakat was given percentage wise. You could, however, try to claim that for most people the Jizya would have come out more expensive but apparently that doesn't demonize Islam enough for some people. Secondly, Jizya was a lot less difficult to pay than some people dramatize it to have been. Thirdly, the jizya usually only needs to be paid by able bodied men – not women, children or the disabled. Fourthly, and most importantly the Jizya and Zakat were different amounts for completely practical reasons. For the Jizya, every potential soldier is valued equally and therefore every able-bodied male must pay equally. Zakat, however, is primarily used for charity so it makes sense to tax percentage wise since this would have the rich give more.
Also, out of curiosity, have you seen any indications or records that any people were ever punished because they were too poor to pay the Jizya? I haven't.
The two most respected Muslim Leaders of all time, who had vast empires but still were nice are: Saladin, and Akbar. They both didn't follow everything in Qur'an, coincidence?! That's how they became peaceful, by not following the Qur'an word for word!"thotoz
Salauddin Ayyubi? He DID follow everything in the Quran and of what the prophet said – more than any other leader of his time. That’s exactly why he is praised by so many Muslims. What sources are you using? He has been considered a hero by the Muslims for actually following the teachings of Islam when other leaders were starting to slip. He was very, very religious to the point that he would lead Friday prayers and give the ‘Khutba’ [Friday sermon.] His exceptional chivalry and kindness was reminiscent of what the Prophet Muhammad [Peace be upon him] and his companions used to do. He followed every single rule of engagement of jihad.
Read these sources:
http://www.crusades.org/salahuddin.htm
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/archive/article.php?lang=E&id=67702
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin
http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/islam_middleeast.html [under ‘Justice of Saladin’]
http://www.famousmuslims.com/Saladin%20Ayyubi.htm
Where does he ever go against what the Quran or the Prophet [peace be upon him] said? The exact opposite is indicated.
Also, the following link should temper your apparently seething hatred of Aurengzeb a little.
Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler or Bad History?
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2007/mughal-emperor-aurangzeb-bad-ruler-or-bad-history/
If I've said anything right it's from God so praise Him. If there's anything wrong it's from me so please forgive me and may God forgive me.
Suicide bombers are no match for her. And buddhists, well, they're too peaceful to fight. 
Log in to comment