Islam in America

[J @ M @ L]

Muhammad and later Umar spent a lot of time conquering with their swords just as much as their wisdom.

The quote was meant to answer that.

You brought up Greece, Cyprus, and Armenia... and I hope you know that Mohammad wasn't a leader of the Ottoman Empire.

Really? I could have sworn Muhammad lived over 800 years.


The quote said "fanatical Muslims" not Muhammad. I called the info false, and I was right. I said Muhammad was like Alexander, not Hitler. If you think an army is going to takeover a nation or any group of pewople and magically convert them you're nuts. Most pagans converted without too much difficulty because it was practical. They saw the Gods as being at war with each other and if they were taken over it was because the god they were worshipping had een beaten or some shit some like that. Particularly after Muhammad when Umar was leading shit was when the real take overs started coming in.

In my opinion holy men do not raise swords and attack even in defence, and prophets are supposed to let God handle it.

In "your opinion"... and you're not God so who are you to say what prophets are "supposed" to do. You're free to hold opinions and say what you don't like about a certain religion, but there's a difference between that and holding on to historic misconceptions.

First of all, the word Islam is derived from the word Salaam (Shalom in Hebrew) which means peace.  Islam does however teach to fight oppression.... to fight oppression in order to promote peace and justice.
Now on to the main point of the discussion... there are a lot of dumbfucks like CWalker who still believe Christopher Columbus was a great guy who discovered America, but I hope most of us know that this is a great misconception. In the same way it is a great misconception that Islam actually “spread by the sword”. 
At the birth of Islam, the first Muslims did fight battles, but not to spread Islam... they were fighting tribes that were trying to kill them off. I assume that's what you were referring to when you said raising the sword in defence. Think about it... if you know anything about the number or power of these people, it doesn’t make sense for them to be able to force everyone from Spain to China to convert to Islam. Let’s look at some specific areas.

Spain - Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. Muslims didn’t force anybody to convert. However, during the Inquisition, the Christians forced every Muslim and Jew to either convert, leave, or be killed.

Middle East - There are millions of Coptic Christians (that were there since the beginning of Christianity)...and if Muslims ruled the region for over a thousand years, and forced everyone to convert by “the sword”, these Arab Christians wouldn’t be there.

India - Muslims ruled India for about 1000 years. Now look at the population of Hindus in India, or better yet look at the proportion of Hindus to Muslims and tell me that Muslims forced the Hindus to convert by “the sword”.

Indonesia - Country with the largest Muslim population in the world. Tell me which Muslim army went there and forced the people to convert by the sword.

Mongols - They weren’t Muslims and they conquered a great part of the Muslim world. They were the CONQUERORS and they converted. Please don’t say that Muslims used the sword on them as well.

America and Europe - Islam is the fastest growing religion in these regions. More people are converting to Islam than any other religion. You really don’t mean to say that Muslims are also using a sword and forcing everyone to convert here as well. Maybe the same thing is happening here that was happening back then?

 
When the Muslim world was colonized by the West... Islam still kept growing at an even faster rate, despite the many Christian missionary efforts.


Thomas Carlyle (historian):
"The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can."


Mahatma Gandhi:
‘I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place in Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every trouble.’

De Lacy O’Leary (historian): “"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated."


You can compare the Roman Empire to the Ottoman Empire... but you can't compare the Ottoman Empire to the group of Muslims under Mohammed's leadership.

[Shallow]

JML you're going to find that I am one of the most stubborn posters on the forum. If the issue at hand cannot be 100% proven then I will argue it to death or until you give up. I never claimed to be the smartest, but definitely the most stubborn.

In "your opinion"... and you're not God so who are you to say what prophets are "supposed" to do. You're free to hold opinions and say what you don't like about a certain religion, but there's a difference between that and holding on to historic misconceptions.

I find it silly that you had to highlight the words "your opinion", considering I meant and presented my thoughts as just opinion. It's your own foolishness that leads to assume things.

First of all, the word Islam is derived from the word Salaam (Shalom in Hebrew) which means peace.  Islam does however teach to fight oppression.... to fight oppression in order to promote peace and justice.

Now here is what turned me way from Islam. Why would a major prophet like Moses rely on the power of God to fight battles while Mohammad and friends had to fend for themselves? Why wouldn't God intervene and defeat his enemies with Godly powers rather than let the army fight. He split open a sea for Moses. I couldn't understand why the "most important" and final prophet could not perform out of this world miracles. It's just what turned me away and I have no intention of it causing you to turn away (or think that it will).

Spain - Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. Muslims didn’t force anybody to convert. However, during the Inquisition, the Christians forced every Muslim and Jew to either convert, leave, or be killed.

It's not easy to forcefully convert Christians or Jews because they both feel their religion as superior and are not pagans. It's also convenient to have them remain non-Muslims because then they can be enslaved. You just have to make sure the people on top are Muslim. They are still treated as the dhimmis they are seen as and have less rights.

That's not to say bad things didn't happen to non-Muslims. Ongoing debates argue how severe the punishment of Jews was in Spain, but I've never heard anyone debate the expulsion of the Jews from Granada in 1066 or the murder of 1500 Jewish families for not leaving.

The Martyrs of Cordoba show what can happen to Christians, as 48, mostly priests, were decapitated for "blaspheming". Most even deliberately did it in order to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the faith. Another reason I prefer Christianity. The most extreme Christians (not warriors who pretend to be cheistian but true Christians), sacrifice their lives for the faith but not for a war. They don't suicide bomb or try and kill anyone, but rather get themselves killed to show the power of their belief.

Middle East - There are millions of Coptic Christians (that were there since the beginning of Christianity)...and if Muslims ruled the region for over a thousand years, and forced everyone to convert by “the sword”, these Arab Christians wouldn’t be there.

Like I said, it's hard to convert Christians, just like it's hard to convert Muslims.

India - Muslims ruled India for about 1000 years. Now look at the population of Hindus in India, or better yet look at the proportion of Hindus to Muslims and tell me that Muslims forced the Hindus to convert by “the sword”.

India has much debate. Historian Will Durant states that the invasion on India was very bloody and forced and that high officials were converted against their will. There was no point in converting everyone because then you can't treat them as dhimmis and make them work double and earn half. Hinduism is also very strong and survived any attempts of Christian rule. If the evil Christians couldn’t convert them then how could the Muslims? Many Indians during the Muslim rule probably pseudo-converted like the Greeks did in Ottoman, just to attain more rights but were glad to denounce Islam when they were no longer taken over. The ones that were fully converted became Pakistan.

P.S. It was hardly 1000 years of rule. Half of that the country was in peril fighting with itself. Then Britain came and took it over.

Mongols - They weren’t Muslims and they conquered a great part of the Muslim world. They were the CONQUERORS and they converted. Please don’t say that Muslims used the sword on them as well.

I'm pretty sure Mongolia consists of 96% Vajrayana Buddhists and atheists. Where is the power of Islam? and why couldn't stay? 4% Muslim? What's up with that?

Indonesia - Country with the largest Muslim population in the world. Tell me which Muslim army went there and forced the people to convert by the sword.

I have read that many Muslims in Indonesia are non practicing anyway.

Christianity didn't spread just with the sword either but you know as well as I do that the sword played a large part. Just because Indonesia took to Islam like the Greeks took to Christianity doesn't mean that the spreading of either religion in other parts of the world wasn't forced.

America and Europe - Islam is the fastest growing religion in these regions. More people are converting to Islam than any other religion. You really don’t mean to say that Muslims are also using a sword and forcing everyone to convert here as well. Maybe the same thing is happening here that was happening back then?

 
When the Muslim world was colonized by the West... Islam still kept growing at an even faster rate, despite the many Christian missionary efforts.

Of course it's the fastest growing. Muslim families and instructed to have like 10 kids. I personally know dozens of Muslim families with at least 7 children. Also since Christianity is already the religion of the vast majority, how can it grow? USA-80% Christian, Mexico-95% Christian, Canada-70% Christian, UK-70% Christian, Germany-70% Christian, France-90% Christian. These countries don't even have Muslim as over 5% on the country with the most Muslims and the most have it as under 2%, if at all. It's really easy to grow rapidly in conversions when everyone is mostly Christian. And freedom of religion is not only allowed but encouraged with, much more than it is in Islamic families.

Thomas Carlyle (historian):
"The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can."


Mahatma Gandhi:
‘I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place in Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every trouble.’

De Lacy O’Leary (historian): “"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated."


You can compare the Roman Empire to the Ottoman Empire... but you can't compare the Ottoman Empire to the group of Muslims under Mohammed's leadership.

For every quote helping your point I can find one going against it. I can find historians that say Jesus was black, and a whole bunch that says he wasn't. There are people that assume he had children, but offer nothing but speculation.

So Gandhi assumed Islam was spread properly everywhere. How does he know this? By looking at the people. I could go to any Baptist Church down south and watch the blacks congregate and if I didn't know better I'd never know that Christianity was forced upon them. But it was.

For every person that says Muhammad only fought to defend himself there is a person that says he also fought to conquer (and was Maria al-Qibtiyya, a Coptic Christian, his slave at one point? Didn't he have slaves?), and less people argue this about Umar, who did conquer. He took over Jerusalem. You can argue that it was in defense all you want, but there are also people who argue that Bush took out Iraq out of defense.



(Man was that a long response)

[King Tech Quadafi]

People still believe that Christopher Columbus was a great guy who discovered America, showered the indigenous people with gifts, and helped them become civilized. A similiar misconception is that Islam actually spread by the sword.

Columbus was a horrible man and deserved to burn in hell
anyone mexican/american or native american will agree with me

You gotta have a minimum IQ of 75 to come in this thread....mods...erase this chumps post

[J @ M @ L]

Ok I guess I'll just post my response in bold lol

JML you're going to find that I am one of the most stubborn posters on the forum. If the issue at hand cannot be 100% proven then I will argue it to death or until you give up. I never claimed to be the smartest, but definitely the most stubborn.
Argue to death? I'll get banned before that, but anyways..

In "your opinion"... and you're not God so who are you to say what prophets are "supposed" to do. You're free to hold opinions and say what you don't like about a certain religion, but there's a difference between that and holding on to historic misconceptions.

I find it silly that you had to highlight the words "your opinion", considering I meant and presented my thoughts as just opinion. It's your own foolishness that leads to assume things.

You presented your opinion, that's all I was portraying, so there's no assumption on my part. If it's just or not doesn't matter, all I stated was that it's your opinion, and in context that doesn't mean much.

First of all, the word Islam is derived from the word Salaam (Shalom in Hebrew) which means peace.  Islam does however teach to fight oppression.... to fight oppression in order to promote peace and justice.

Now here is what turned me way from Islam. Why would a major prophet like Moses rely on the power of God to fight battles while Mohammad and friends had to fend for themselves? Why wouldn't God intervene and defeat his enemies with Godly powers rather than let the army fight. He split open a sea for Moses. I couldn't understand why the "most important" and final prophet could not perform out of this world miracles. It's just what turned me away and I have no intention of it causing you to turn away (or think that it will).

Once again like I said earlier, I'm talking from a historic point of view here, not a religious one, and I'm not trying to push any ideas on anyone. I don't expect everybody to accept or hold the beliefs I have, just like others shouldn't expect me to accept or hold theirs. Although, I don't mind hearing another's point of view on things like that.

Spain - Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. Muslims didn’t force anybody to convert. However, during the Inquisition, the Christians forced every Muslim and Jew to either convert, leave, or be killed.

It's not easy to forcefully convert Christians or Jews because they both feel their religion as superior and are not pagans. It's also convenient to have them remain non-Muslims because then they can be enslaved. You just have to make sure the people on top are Muslim. They are still treated as the dhimmis they are seen as and have less rights.

That's not to say bad things didn't happen to non-Muslims. Ongoing debates argue how severe the punishment of Jews was in Spain, but I've never heard anyone debate the expulsion of the Jews from Granada in 1066 or the murder of 1500 Jewish families for not leaving.

The Martyrs of Cordoba show what can happen to Christians, as 48, mostly priests, were decapitated for "blaspheming". Most even deliberately did it in order to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the faith. Another reason I prefer Christianity. The most extreme Christians (not warriors who pretend to be cheistian but true Christians), sacrifice their lives for the faith but not for a war. They don't suicide bomb or try and kill anyone, but rather get themselves killed to show the power of their belief.




Ok, just to regain perspective of the argument at hand, let me state again what my discussion was based on. I'm taking a couple lines out of your original post:

"Muhammad and later Umar spent a lot of time conquering with their swords just as much as their wisdom."

By conquering we were talking about forced conversions, and I was saying that Muhammad didn't use force to convert people.

In the second part of your post you said:

"It wasn't until after Rome adopted it that it started detiorating, but he essence is alive and well in my opinion and just because those that claimed to be the head of the religion over the centuries contradicted it does not mean the religion is at fault. If I go aroud Toronto killing people and carving DUBCC on their heads, should the forum be blamed, or should it be me?"

I agree with that, so keep that in mind throughout the post.

Ok, so you say that it's not easy to forcefully convert Christians or Jews. I agree. So if these people weren't forced to convert, since that's hard, then they must've converted by choice.
You mentioned dhimmis, but now keep in mind your 2nd quote because that dates back to the Pact of Umar, not the prophet. I'll just give you one quote from the prophet, since that's my argument here: The Prophet said, "He who abuses a non-Muslim citizen then I will be his rival and dispute him on the Day of Judgment."
You gave examples of events in Spain, but they didn't occur when the first Muslims conquered Spain. Keep in mind your 2nd quote, and let me tell you that religious persecution by Muslims in Cordoba occurred when the Almohads took over, and I agree they weren't tolerant. I could also make this a relative thing by saying that compared to the rest of Europe, religious tolerance at the time was greatest in Muslim parts, but I've already answered this part of your post.

Middle East - There are millions of Coptic Christians (that were there since the beginning of Christianity)...and if Muslims ruled the region for over a thousand years, and forced everyone to convert by “the sword”, these Arab Christians wouldn’t be there.

Like I said, it's hard to convert Christians, just like it's hard to convert Muslims.

Like I said, I agree, yet so many Christians chose to convert.

India - Muslims ruled India for about 1000 years. Now look at the population of Hindus in India, or better yet look at the proportion of Hindus to Muslims and tell me that Muslims forced the Hindus to convert by “the sword”.

India has much debate. Historian Will Durant states that the invasion on India was very bloody and forced and that high officials were converted against their will. There was no point in converting everyone because then you can't treat them as dhimmis and make them work double and earn half. Hinduism is also very strong and survived any attempts of Christian rule. If the evil Christians couldn’t convert them then how could the Muslims? Many Indians during the Muslim rule probably pseudo-converted like the Greeks did in Ottoman, just to attain more rights but were glad to denounce Islam when they were no longer taken over. The ones that were fully converted became Pakistan.

P.S. It was hardly 1000 years of rule. Half of that the country was in peril fighting with itself. Then Britain came and took it over.

Muhammad bin Qasim was after the prophet, and the later Afghan invasions throughout the centuries were way after the prophet.
Let's not even take into account that your bullshit assumption holds no ground and is irrelevant here ("Many Indians during the Muslim rule probably pseudo-converted..."), and let's just consider your ignorant statement, since I'm nice. You said that they "probably denounced Islam afterwards". We won't take into account that this is once again just your assumption, so don't come with the "It's your own foolishness that leads to assume things." Did you know that a lot of the Hindus who converted to Islam were poor people who were suffering because of the caste system? Did you also know that there are still Hindus converting in India, and don't tell me there's a Muslim empire in India using force to do this. By the way, you just proved your ignorance with the last line in your paragraph: "The ones that were fully converted became Pakistan." LOLLL... what the fuck? There are almost 150 million Muslims in India today... the third largest Muslim population after Indonesia and Pakistan, so please keep your BULLSHIT out of this.

Mongols - They weren’t Muslims and they conquered a great part of the Muslim world. They were the CONQUERORS and they converted. Please don’t say that Muslims used the sword on them as well.

I'm pretty sure Mongolia consists of 96% Vajrayana Buddhists and atheists. Where is the power of Islam? and why couldn't stay? 4% Muslim? What's up with that?

You're making the connection of the early Mongols to modern-day Mongolia. The early Mongols settled throughout the lands they conquered. You think they came out of Mongolia, conquered lands, and they all went back to Mongolia? The term Mongol when referring to the 12th/13th century reign of the Mongols included generals/soldiers in the Middle East, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, China... they had the identity of being Mongol but no heritage in modern-day Mongolia.  I can give you one specific example and that is Afghanistan. The Hazara ethnic group consists of people that are descendants of the early Mongols, and 100% of them are Muslim. There are descendants of Mongols in other Central Asian countries, including Tajikstan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan... if you want the percentage of Muslims there, I'd be glad to provide. I wish life were as easy as checking a couple of statistics in an almanac instead of having any sort of background information, don't you?

Indonesia - Country with the largest Muslim population in the world. Tell me which Muslim army went there and forced the people to convert by the sword.

I have read that many Muslims in Indonesia are non practicing anyway.

LOLLL please tell me that's not your response.


Christianity didn't spread just with the sword either but you know as well as I do that the sword played a large part. Just because Indonesia took to Islam like the Greeks took to Christianity doesn't mean that the spreading of either religion in other parts of the world wasn't forced.

I never said that Christianity spread with just the sword. I said I agreed with your statement in the original post aka the 2nd quote I referred to earlier.

America and Europe - Islam is the fastest growing religion in these regions. More people are converting to Islam than any other religion. You really don’t mean to say that Muslims are also using a sword and forcing everyone to convert here as well. Maybe the same thing is happening here that was happening back then?

 
When the Muslim world was colonized by the West... Islam still kept growing at an even faster rate, despite the many Christian missionary efforts.

Of course it's the fastest growing. Muslim families and instructed to have like 10 kids. I personally know dozens of Muslim families with at least 7 children. Also since Christianity is already the religion of the vast majority, how can it grow? USA-80% Christian, Mexico-95% Christian, Canada-70% Christian, UK-70% Christian, Germany-70% Christian, France-90% Christian. These countries don't even have Muslim as over 5% on the country with the most Muslims and the most have it as under 2%, if at all. It's really easy to grow rapidly in conversions when everyone is mostly Christian. And freedom of religion is not only allowed but encouraged with, much more than it is in Islamic families.

So you agree that more and more are converting to Islam each year, and you just showed me that the majority must be from Christianity. Let's look at what you said:

"It's really easy to grow rapidly in conversions when everyone is mostly Christian".

"Like I said, it's hard to convert Christians, just like it's hard to convert Muslims."

LOL we won't even talk about the contradiction, but I just want to ask you something. If these people in the West are so "easily" converting from Christianity to Islam (since the majority is Christian), then could the same not be true centuries ago in places where the majority was Christian? That's the only point I was trying to make by bringing up America/Europe.

Thomas Carlyle (historian):
"The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can."


Mahatma Gandhi:
‘I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place in Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every trouble.’

De Lacy O’Leary (historian): “"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated."


You can compare the Roman Empire to the Ottoman Empire... but you can't compare the Ottoman Empire to the group of Muslims under Mohammed's leadership.

For every quote helping your point I can find one going against it. I can find historians that say Jesus was black, and a whole bunch that says he wasn't. There are people that assume he had children, but offer nothing but speculation.

So Gandhi assumed Islam was spread properly everywhere. How does he know this? By looking at the people. I could go to any Baptist Church down south and watch the blacks congregate and if I didn't know better I'd never know that Christianity was forced upon them. But it was.

For every person that says Muhammad only fought to defend himself there is a person that says he also fought to conquer (and was Maria al-Qibtiyya, a Coptic Christian, his slave at one point? Didn't he have slaves?), and less people argue this about Umar, who did conquer. He took over Jerusalem. You can argue that it was in defense all you want, but there are also people who argue that Bush took out Iraq out of defense.

"For every quote helping your point I can find one going against it."
I agree with that, so we'll just leave the quotes out of it.


(Man was that a long response)
The next one is gonna be longer.

[Shallow]

You're nuts. You brought up Spain, and all the other countries then you say "oh but that wasn't Muhammad", so then why the fuck did you bring it up?

I don't even think you know what your talking about or what you think you're arguing.

I'm not even going to respond to you, other than correcting a few mistakes you made when interpreting what I meant.


- when I said non practicing Muslims in Indonesia I meant I read that you have to be part of a major religion tere, like it's a rule, I'm  not sure how true that is, but I read it like they are Muslim because they are from Muslm familes and say tey are muslim but they aren't religious.

- Yes thrre are lmost 150 million Muslims in India but there are over 800 million Hindus. There are more Muslims in Pakistan than in India, and al those used to be part of India.

-Show me where the Muslim Mongols are. Over 75% live in Mongolia and Inner Mongolia and they are almost all Bhuddists. You can talk about crossbred descendants all you want but the bulk of Mongols still live in Mongolia and are Bhuddist.

-When I say it's hard to convert Chritians and Muslims I mean devout ones, not ones that converted because it was easier to live under the coutries rules. You say India converted to Islam, so then why did 80% convert back to Hinduism?


And then there's this;

"LOL we won't even talk about the contradiction, but I just want to ask you something. If these people in the West are so "easily" converting from Christianity to Islam (since the majority is Christian), then could the same not be true centuries ago in places where the majority was Christian? That's the only point I was trying to make by bringing up America/Europe. "

I'm not sure what you are getting at. There is no contradiction in what I said. It's hard to convert devout Christians because they are devout. It's not as hard to convert people who were told to be Christians by their parents and then feel like doing something different for a while. I'd like to see how many Muslims would convert in the Islamic world if it was acceptable in society to even read Gospel. Every Muslim I know would get slapped in the mouth if they were caught with a New Testament by their parents drowing up, and they live in Canada. I can only imagine what it's like in Iran.

When I say ofcourse it's the fastest growing I mean Christianity can't grow it's already the huge majority. You can only grow so much. Talk to me when Islam comes anywhere near close to the numbers Christianity has in North America or Europe. This growth rate works in percentages. It's like if there are 2 Muslims in Nebraska and two more convert, and you come to me with the headline; "The Islamic population in Nebraska has doubled". It doesn't mean shit because there are two. (That was a hypothetical example).

[J @ M @ L]

Since you can't/don't want to respond to my post, I guess we're just left with your "corrections".. so here we go...

"when I said non practicing Muslims in Indonesia I meant I read that you have to be part of a major religion tere, like it's a rule, I'm  not sure how true that is, but I read it like they are Muslim because they are from Muslm familes and say tey are muslim but they aren't religious."

LOLLLL it's funny reading through your posts and comparing this statement to: "Also since Christianity is already the religion of the vast majority, how can it grow? USA-80% Christian, Mexico-95% Christian, Canada-70% Christian, UK-70% Christian, Germany-70% Christian, France-90% Christian."
Do you happen to know what percentage of these "Christians" are religious? Or do you only use statistics as facts for yourself, but arbitrary bullshit for me? That was too easy... moving right along.


"Yes thrre are lmost 150 million Muslims in India but there are over 800 million Hindus. There are more Muslims in Pakistan than in India, and al those used to be part of India."

I'm gonna bring up my original post on India: "India - Muslims ruled India for about 1000 years. Now look at the population of Hindus in India, or better yet look at the proportion of Hindus to Muslims and tell me that Muslims forced the Hindus to convert by “the sword”."

You just confirmed it.
In the last post you stated:"The ones that were fully converted became Pakistan."
However, now we know that isn't true as you just admitted that there are almost 150 million Muslims in India, which is close to the number of Muslims in Pakistan, so we could say that a little more than half of the "fully converted" became Pakistan. Keep the bullshit out homie cuz I'ma call you out on it.

Show me where the Muslim Mongols are. Over 75% live in Mongolia and Inner Mongolia and they are almost all Bhuddists. You can talk about crossbred descendants all you want but the bulk of Mongols still live in Mongolia and are Bhuddist.

You can't talk about history and historic facts without taking into account crossbred descendants. The "bulk of Mongols" live in Mongolia... no shit, but if can't take into account that they ruled from Korea to Hungary, and that their descendants remain in parts of these lands, especially Central Asia, then your ignorance can't be blamed on me. I gave you a specific example of the Hazara ethnicity in Afghanistan who are direct descendants of the Mongols/Huns/etc.

When I say it's hard to convert Chritians and Muslims I mean devout ones, not ones that converted because it was easier to live under the coutries rules. You say India converted to Islam, so then why did 80% convert back to Hinduism?

I never said India converted to Islam. LOLL you keep proving my point. Once again, same quote:"India - Muslims ruled India for about 1000 years. Now look at the population of Hindus in India, or better yet look at the proportion of Hindus to Muslims and tell me that Muslims forced the Hindus to convert by “the sword”."
I don't know if you have trouble putting 2 and 2 together, but if you find it easier to believe that 800 million people converted to Islam and back to Hinduism, be my guest.

And then there's this;

"LOL we won't even talk about the contradiction, but I just want to ask you something. If these people in the West are so "easily" converting from Christianity to Islam (since the majority is Christian), then could the same not be true centuries ago in places where the majority was Christian? That's the only point I was trying to make by bringing up America/Europe. "

I'm not sure what you are getting at. There is no contradiction in what I said. It's hard to convert devout Christians because they are devout. It's not as hard to convert people who were told to be Christians by their parents and then feel like doing something different for a while. I'd like to see how many Muslims would convert in the Islamic world if it was acceptable in society to even read Gospel. Every Muslim I know would get slapped in the mouth if they were caught with a New Testament by their parents drowing up, and they live in Canada. I can only imagine what it's like in Iran.

When I say ofcourse it's the fastest growing I mean Christianity can't grow it's already the huge majority. You can only grow so much. Talk to me when Islam comes anywhere near close to the numbers Christianity has in North America or Europe. This growth rate works in percentages. It's like if there are 2 Muslims in Nebraska and two more convert, and you come to me with the headline; "The Islamic population in Nebraska has doubled". It doesn't mean shit because there are two. (That was a hypothetical example).

I think you're having trouble comprehending simple statements, so let me clarify once again... I wish I could have diagrams here for people like you, but whatever...

I know the growth rate works in percentages, and you're missing the whole point, even though I've stated it time and time again. The point I was making by saying that more people are converting from Christianity to Islam each year in America/Europe is that: Don't you think the same could've been true back then in lands where the majority of the population was Christian?

I'm not even going to respond to you

Anyways, you made all those correction, so I made another one for you:

"I am one of the most stubborn posters on the forum. If the issue at hand cannot be 100% proven then I will argue it to death or until you I give up"

Nice talking to you. 

[Shallow]

I haven't given up you just keep contradicting yourself. Your beating yourself more than I'm beating you. You bring up one point I respond to it and then you call the point irrlevant.


What I meant with Indonesia was that I read that the Governemt forces people to pick a religion, and I said I'm not sure how true that was.

If there are more Hindus in India than Muslim then were there at a time more muslims than Hindu or did the Hindu's remain Hindu and lived as second rate citizens? Either way it doesn't hurt my argument. When I say "by the sword" I mean or force, even if indirectly. If you conquer a nationand say you don't have to convert but those that don't will be enslaved or have to live at the bottom then that isn't willful conversion. It's a disgrace to the God that you worship. It goes against the very basis of what God is supposed to be.

Hazara is stil in the Minority of Mongols and they live in an Islamic country. I'll bet if the Afaghanistan was Chrstian from day one that the they would be Christian too. It's called adapting to your surroundings because sometimes you are forced to.


Here it is. You say that Islam never forced anyone to convert and we had a mix up from the beginning, because to me forcing someone and bribing someone (and punishing them when they won't take the bribe) are the same thing. You may think otherwise.

[J @ M @ L]

I haven't given up you just keep contradicting yourself. Your beating yourself more than I'm beating you. You bring up one point I respond to it and then you call the point irrlevant.

Talk about a delusion... you say I bring up a point and you respond to it? Please stop the bullshit... let me quote you:
"I'm not even going to respond to you, other than correcting a few mistakes you made when interpreting what I meant."
Even with that, I still respond to your "corrections" and point out everything. What I called irrelevant is your comments like "maybe the Indians converted to Islam and then converted back to Hinduism"... this is your own fucking opinion with no ground to base that 800 million Hindus converted to Islam and back to Hinduism. If anyone is beating themselves, it's you. You argue against my point, and while you do so, you bring up evidence to back my claim. Thanks.

What I meant with Indonesia was that I read that the Governemt forces people to pick a religion, and I said I'm not sure how true that was.
What percentage do you want to assign to that? Come on just make something up and I'll go with it. Even if you said 50%... 50 fucking percent... that would still be over 80 million people... you're reaching for straws man.

If there are more Hindus in India than Muslim then were there at a time more muslims than Hindu or did the Hindu's remain Hindu and lived as second rate citizens? Either way it doesn't hurt my argument. When I say "by the sword" I mean or force, even if indirectly. If you conquer a nationand say you don't have to convert but those that don't will be enslaved or have to live at the bottom then that isn't willful conversion. It's a disgrace to the God that you worship. It goes against the very basis of what God is supposed to be.
No there weren't more Muslims than Hindus. The poor Hindus converted because they were 3rd rate citizens within their own caste system. You're making assumptions here... I bring up facts, and you keep coming with "maybe this happened", "well probably this happened"... yeah the Muslims in America and Europe are also conquering America and Europe and are telling the Christians to convert or become slaves. 

Hazara is stil in the Minority of Mongols and they live in an Islamic country. I'll bet if the Afaghanistan was Chrstian from day one that the they would be Christian too. It's called adapting to your surroundings because sometimes you are forced to.
Hazara is in the minority of Mongols, but it's an example of one country. The Mongol empire stretched from Korea to Hungary. Did you know that some of the Greeks who conquered under Alexander... remained in Afghanistan and crossbred with the Afghan population there? If you were to make some dumb remark like "show me the Greeks in Afghanistan" I obviously wouldn't be able to "show you", but if you had any sort of common sense alongside some knowledge, you would know.

Here it is. You say that Islam never forced anyone to convert and we had a mix up from the beginning, because to me forcing someone and bribing someone (and punishing them when they won't take the bribe) are the same thing. You may think otherwise.

Here it is. You can't comprehend simple statements. Let me quote myself once again, since you have trouble remembering things:
"Muhammad and later Umar spent a lot of time conquering with their swords just as much as their wisdom."

By conquering we were talking about forced conversions, and I was saying that Muhammad didn't use force to convert people.

In the second part of your post you said:

"It wasn't until after Rome adopted it that it started detiorating, but he essence is alive and well in my opinion and just because those that claimed to be the head of the religion over the centuries contradicted it does not mean the religion is at fault. If I go aroud Toronto killing people and carving DUBCC on their heads, should the forum be blamed, or should it be me?"

I agree with that, so keep that in mind throughout the post.

And please don't accuse me of contradicting myself when you make comments like:

"It's really easy to grow rapidly in conversions when everyone is mostly Christian".

"Like I said, it's hard to convert Christians, just like it's hard to convert Muslims."

I'm tired of arguing with people who have no background knowledge of the subject at hand, and continue reaching for straws, making assumptions, and purposely putting words in my mouth just because they have no ground to base their argument on... and it's getting boring because I feel like I'm teaching people like you and CWalker instead of discussing.

[J @ M @ L]

Now look through the last 2 or 3 of my posts... and see how after fucking up your entire argument with facts, you come with "well maybe this", and "probably this".... and tell yourself that you won the argument. I could really care less... tell yourself that I contradicted myself... when your posts are flip-flopping like John Kerry's pancakes... you already admitted you won't (can't) respond... so instead of trying to "make corrections" over and over... just save yourself the trouble because at this point you're just another CWalker... you admitted you were the most "stubborn" person... so there really is no point in trying to convince you that I'm right when you're telling yourself whatever helps you sleep at night. I shouldn't have even responded to your corrections, since you had no argument but were just trying to clarify your first post for your own dignity... understandable. However, I shouldn't have even responded after:

I never claimed to be the smartest, but definitely the most stubborn.

because you have proven just that.... part 1 and 2 of that sentence.

Have a good day.

[ZILLA THA GOODFELLA]

CWalker, without getting into detail, you don't believe Christopher Columbus was a murderer?

[Shallow]

Now look through the last 2 or 3 of my posts... and see how after fucking up your entire argument with facts, you come with "well maybe this", and "probably this".... and tell yourself that you won the argument. I could really care less... tell yourself that I contradicted myself... when your posts are flip-flopping like John Kerry's pancakes... you already admitted you won't (can't) respond... so instead of trying to "make corrections" over and over... just save yourself the trouble because at this point you're just another CWalker... you admitted you were the most "stubborn" person... so there really is no point in trying to convince you that I'm right when you're telling yourself whatever helps you sleep at night. I shouldn't have even responded to your corrections, since you had no argument but were just trying to clarify your first post for your own dignity... understandable. However, I shouldn't have even responded after:

I never claimed to be the smartest, but definitely the most stubborn.

because you have proven just that.... part 1 and 2 of that sentence.

Have a good day.

Whatever, you can call me Walker you want, but you're taking my posts out odf context and then ignoring the clarification I made.

I never said that every Muslim is/was converted by force or even that the majority were, but you brought up a quote that said it never happened. I know that Muhammad took over places in the last years of his life, and I know that there are just as many people that say he forced conversion as there are that say he didn't but I think we both agree that he lived under the rules that you cannot be a slave if you are Muslim, which directly implies that you can be a slave if you aren't. Now you took this argument straight from the facts while incorperated spirituality in it from the beginning.

Don't pretend like antone can prove the other wrong here. When history is debated as much as this history is it cannot be proven. We were just arguing different things and misconceiving what the other meant.

[J @ M @ L]

Actually I didn't take your posts out of context, since I quoted them directly, and/or addressed everything within your posts. I even addressed your clarifications, so don't bring that.
"We were just arguing different things and misconceiving what the other meant."
All I can say is: Speak for yourself.

Once again, have a good day. Save yourself the trouble... you've been done... and since you admitted how stubborn you are, there really is no point for me to reply to you since you reach for straws due to your stubbornness.

[Shallow]

Actually I didn't take your posts out of context, since I quoted them directly, and/or addressed everything within your posts. I even addressed your clarifications, so don't bring that.
"We were just arguing different things and misconceiving what the other meant."
All I can say is: Speak for yourself.

Once again, have a good day. Save yourself the trouble... you've been done... and since you admitted how stubborn you are, there really is no point for me to reply to you since you reach for straws due to your stubbornness.

But you are ignoring my clarifications. When I said it's hard to convert Christians and it's easy to grow when the country is Christian as I meant and stated that I was talking about devout Christians and forceful conversion.

When I say we are arguing different things I meant I was under the impression you were speaking from the point of view that Islam is better and that's why it didn't need forceful conversion, which I was wrong to assume, and you thought I was associating every bad thing Muslim conquerers did with Muhammad and him being a part of it, which you were wrong to asume.

[Real American]

JML lost another debate.

[J @ M @ L]

Actually I didn't take your posts out of context, since I quoted them directly, and/or addressed everything within your posts. I even addressed your clarifications, so don't bring that.
"We were just arguing different things and misconceiving what the other meant."
All I can say is: Speak for yourself.

Once again, have a good day. Save yourself the trouble... you've been done... and since you admitted how stubborn you are, there really is no point for me to reply to you since you reach for straws due to your stubbornness.

But you are ignoring my clarifications. When I said it's hard to convert Christians and it's easy to grow when the country is Christian as I meant and stated that I was talking about devout Christians and forceful conversion.

When I say we are arguing different things I meant I was under the impression you were speaking from the point of view that Islam is better and that's why it didn't need forceful conversion, which I was wrong to assume, and you thought I was associating every bad thing Muslim conquerers did with Muhammad and him being a part of it, which you were wrong to asume.

No I didn't ignore any of your classifications. I addressed every argument you made, I addressed your clarifications, and I addressed the part where you made your corrections.
You said it's hard to convert Christians with FORCE... I said I agree, which would back my argument.
You said it's easy to grow when the country is Christian... my response was:
"I know the growth rate works in percentages, and you're missing the whole point, even though I've stated it time and time again. The point I was making by saying that more people are converting from Christianity to Islam each year in America/Europe is that: Don't you think the same could've been true back then in lands where the majority of the population was Christian?"

Ok, so you admit that you had wrong assumptions, I can accept that... but no I did not at any point believe that you were associating every bad thing Muslim conquerors did with Mohammed... I even used your quote at the beginning where you made the reference to the Roman Empire... and I specifically said "keep this in mind throughout the argument".