The history of Islam

by Elsewhere 111 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Elsewhere

  http://www.islamicweb.com/history/chronology.htm

  According to a pro-Islam website... Islam?s history is filled with conquest and violence. I was intrigued by another posters post about how the crusades were in response to the Muslims invading the western world... so I had to do my own research to see if this was actually true.

  As it turns out, the Muslims have a habit of trying to take over the world. They have done it over and over throughout their history... and each time they have had their collective @$$ kicked.

  My opinion still stands that Islam is an inherently violent religion that wishes to conquer the world and establish a world wide Islamic state. (Their own web sites brag about this fact)

  I?m not too worried about the long-term? history tends to repeat itself. The Muslims will conquer enough places so as to anger the world, and then the world responds by putting them back where they belong.
• 

  Badger

  Both Islam and Christianity have historys of reciprocal periods of crusades and jihads...

  Over the past hundred years, though, Islamic aggression has been at high boil.

  Remember: both the Ottoman Empire and Manifest Destiny expanded in their respective theaters with "God's Blessing"
• 

  Carmel

  Elsewhere, I'd be curious as to the sources you used for investigating Islam. There are two extremes of historical accounts, those who see Muhamed as a mad man (perhaps the anti-Christ) and worthy of contempt and hatred. Objectivity is likely scarce from such sources, especially Christian writers that see all other claims to divinity as absurb. The other extreme is the fanatical faithful that use the Quran and Hadith for their own personal (usually political) gain. They are often the ones claiming all kinds of hysterical ideas that are antithetical to core religious values. Again, objectivity is likely sacraficed for a good story. In between there are few objective historians, but they do exist. I would suggest "Muhammed and the Course of Islam" by H.M. Balyuzi. It's published by George Ronald 46 High St. Kidlington, Oxford OX5 2DN.

  Almost in your back yard.

  carmel

  ps. don't forget the Jewish history isn't exactly pacifist...:-)
• 

  Carmel

  Whoop! Sorry, I was thinking of Englishman when I signed off my response..

  Sorry

  carmel
• 

  cain

  how are the GB "accomodating" islam into it's latest attempts at mind controlling (ie. lying to) the rank & file - i'm a little out of touch and wouldnt mind being updated

  tnx

  cain
• 

  Mary

  My opinion still stands that Islam is an inherently violent religion that wishes to conquer the world and establish a world wide Islamic state. (Their own web sites brag about this fact).

  I agree whole-heartedly with you but it's not just their religion, it's their culture too. Even before Mohammed got his uh, "revelations", they were an extremely violent bunch of people. In fact, when Mohammed first tried preaching to these people, there were numerous attempts on his life. Incest, rape, robbery and muder were commonplace. Interestingly enough, Islam flourished the best when you didn't have a bunch of religious fanatics running the show. From the 8th Century to about the 12th century, Islam collected a fabulous treasure of philosophy, art, riches, science and wealth all during the time when Christianity was going through it Dark Ages. In fact, the stories of The Arabian Nights with their fabulous wealth is based on this time period. It was in the late 19th or early 20th centuries, when the ruler of Saudi Arabia, a fanatical moron, changed the face of Islam and instead of progressing, they started to regress and they've been regressing ever since. The lunatics that encourage fanatical terrorism are basically uneducated, backward, violent, religious idiots. They have no toleration for any view but their view and they take the Koran all at face value. They ignore the fact that the founder of their faith was a pedophile (marrying a 6 year old girl and consumating the marriage when she was 9), a violent madmad who most definitely promoted the idea of "conquor or kill" attitude.
• 

  Carmel

  Mary is correct in the cultural aspects of the Arabians. They burried their new born daughters alive, performed horrendous debauchery and were want to go to war at the drop of a hat. She is also correct that Islam has declined over the centuries, not unlike Chistianity, to look nothing like its origin. In fact within a year after the Prophet's (that's right Mary) death, the rigthful inheritors of Muhummed's leadership were over run by those that chose leaders by election or military action. They became the Suni muslims, those who followed the right of primogenitor became the Shiites. While contemporary values would label Muhammed a "pedophile" for taking in the orphan child of a faithful follower and eventually marriing her, in the culural context it was considered an act of charity to provide and protect an unprotected female. It would be comparable to calling Jesus a "bastard" for being born of Mary out of wedlock, a term most Christians would recoil at.

  The militaristic nature of early Islam was essentually defensive in nature. Muhammed protected not only His followers but the Jews and Chistians as well from the onslaught of the tribal leaders of Mecca who waged war against the new movement. Once the Sunni's assumed leadership, they turned military expansion into a way of life. Even at that, they were much more beneficient than the Mongols, the neighboring tribes or even the Crusuaders who really taught them the art of carnage. Even Saladin who re-captured Jerusalem, allowed those he conquered to remain in peace, if they chose. Most did, only the fanatical Christians who were blinded by hate were discharged. Not exactly how the Christian crusuaders handled things. They, encouraged by the corrupt papacy, killed every thing in site, muslims, christians and anyone that remotely looked Arab. Now that the fanatical muslims are doing the same thing, we should be careful how we wag our fingers at them.

  Carmel
• 

  ThiChi

  Elsewhere:

  Good for you. You are correct. History teaches us a lot about what we are up against today.

  Sadly, some here take the JW propaganda side regarding the Crusades and what Islam is and has been. Medieval people would be shocked today at what we do for "political" expediency and why.

  With all its faults, the Crusades saved Europe from invasion...
• 

  ThiChi

  Here is an example of the one-sided propaganda that is out there:
  

  ""chose. Most did, only the fanatical Christians who were blinded by hate were discharged. Not exactly how the Christian crusuaders handled things. They, encouraged by the corrupt papacy, killed every thing in site, muslims, christians and anyone that remotely looked Arab. Now that the fanatical muslims are doing the same thing, we should be careful how we wag our fingers at them.""

  The fact is Islam was the aggressor. The fact is every Crusade responded to a conquest or invasion. It was in fact, that under the Turks, all were living in peace in the Holy land. When Islam invaded, the intolerance started. Churches were burned and pilgrims held hostage or killed.

  The greatest slaughter of all the Crusades was brought by Saladin at the slaughter of Hadden. Beheading, woman and children, out of all the conflicts, this was the worse. Was there reprisals? you bet.

  In fact, Saladin had so much respect for how Richard the LionHeart conducted the war, that he commented that if he lost, "be it better to King Richard" than anyone else.

  Notice the use of "fanatical", Christians or muslims, that should gieve any thinking person a red flag right off the bat.

  One only need to research the information on Medieval institutions and thinking to see this misguided attempt to explain the dynamics of what was happening at the time. All this is, is "internet cut and paste" rubbish.

  .
• 

  Satanus

  Thichi

  With all its faults, the Crusades saved Europe from invasion...

  Not. While christian europe squabbled, the knights of st john stopped the mohammedons as they rounded the mediteranean. Perhaps the st john knights are considered to be crusaders. Anyway, it was around 700, when muslims sauntered into spain, crossing the the mediteranean from north africa. They entered without any resistance, and remained for about 700 yrs.

  During this time, europe was in the dark. The muslims in spain brought learning to its highest at the time. Many jews flocked to spain, as well as some progressive christians. The greek classics were preserved here, and left behind for christendom when the muslims were driven out.

  SS

  Ps, i understood that the main thrust of the crusades was to take jerusalem from the infidel moslems