Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER The Quran contains at least 109 verses that speak of war with nonbelievers, usually on the basis of their status as non-Muslims.
Was it me said that? Can you give the page or post? I don't know that 109 verses that speak of war of my own knowledge, so, if I said it at all, I must be quoting some source.
Page 53, post 530 was posted by you. Every word in your post was copied from a website. The links are within the post but the whole post was not identified as entirely copied material until the moderator mentioned it.
Therefore if you post it, I must assume that you agree with it and so is your view too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
In any case, it's irrelevant. The fact is the the Muslims from Muhammad onwards fought the unbelievers to conquer and convert, and have done up until WW1, where it all got a bit messy. Whether or not they could really justify making war on the basis of their religion from the Quran or not, that is what they did.
You had copied from a website that identifies the 109 verses of the Qur'an sanctioning violence against the nonbelievers on the basis of their status as non-Muslims, and posted here in this thread. I am responding to that false charge against the Qur'an. There isn't even one verse in the Qur'an that prescribes violence on the nonbelievers on the sole basis of their status as non-Muslims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
And of course the point in not about the warlike nature of the Muslim religion (I'm reserving "Islam" for the sense of 'submission to God' even through Judaism and Christianity, according to Kaliffiyyah...you can use the term for your new muslim sect, no charge ) but about the great majority of muslims (so I'd argue) do see their religion as right and Judaism and Christianity wrong, and if they refer to the links between Judaism, Christianity and their religion, it is to suck them into believing the revelation of the Quran.
I too have referred to the link between Judaism, Christianity and Islam but haven't tried to suck them in believing the revelation of the Qur'an. I could easily have done that but I tried to find a common ground between the three. Just as believing the revelation of the Torah does not make me a Jew and believing the Gospels does not make anyone a Christian, believing the revelation of the Qur'an does not make anyone a Muslim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
If you don't think like that, then you have your own brand of the Muslim religion. I wouldn't explain it on the Dry airline to Mecca if I were you
The anti-Islam sites too have their own brand of Muslim religion. You seem to be supporting that religion.
Muslim religion is submitting to God, and it is described in the Qur'an. That's why I always refer to the Qur'an when I describe it here in these forums. I haven't learnt it from either Meccans, Saudis, ISIS or from any other passenger on a DRY airline.
Coming back to the fighting prescribed in the Qur'an:
[9.13] What! Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
Fighting was ordained in defence against those who had done all of the following:
(1) who broke their oaths/pledges/treaties with Muslims
(2) aimed at expulsion of the messenger, and
(3) attacked Muslims first.
The last one (3) is fundamental rule in fighting anyone; they must have attacked first; we must not attack first. This rules out fighting/attacking any peaceful person on the sole basis of being non-Muslim. Those who do otherwise, they are not complying with the Islamic principles and can only be called "kuffar" (those who knowingly cover/hide/conceal the truth) rather than Islamic people. How can they be "Islamic" when they are attacking even the Muslims and Muslim children?
Page 53, post 530 was posted by you. Every word in your post was copied from a website. The links are within the post but the whole post was not identified as entirely copied material until the moderator mentioned it.
Therefore if you post it, I must assume that you agree with it and so is your view too.
You had copied from a website that identifies the 109 verses of the Qur'an sanctioning violence against the nonbelievers on the basis of their status as non-Muslims, and posted here in this thread. I am responding to that false charge against the Qur'an. There isn't even one verse in the Qur'an that prescribes violence on the nonbelievers on the sole basis of their status as non-Muslims.
I too have referred to the link between Judaism, Christianity and Islam but haven't tried to suck them in believing the revelation of the Qur'an. I could easily have done that but I tried to find a common ground between the three. Just as believing the revelation of the Torah does not make me a Jew and believing the Gospels does not make anyone a Christian, believing the revelation of the Qur'an does not make anyone a Muslim.
The anti-Islam sites too have their own brand of Muslim religion. You seem to be supporting that religion.
Muslim religion is submitting to God, and it is described in the Qur'an. That's why I always refer to the Qur'an when I describe it here in these forums. I haven't learnt it from either Meccans, Saudis, ISIS or from any other passenger on a DRY airline.
Coming back to the fighting prescribed in the Qur'an:
[9.13] What! Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
Fighting was ordained in defence against those who had done all of the following:
(1) who broke their oaths/pledges/treaties with Muslims
(2) aimed at expulsion of the messenger, and
(3) attacked Muslims first.
The last one (3) is fundamental rule in fighting anyone; they must have attacked first; we must not attack first. This rules out fighting/attacking any peaceful person on the sole basis of being non-Muslim. Those who do otherwise, they are not complying with the Islamic principles and can only be called "kuffar" (those who knowingly cover/hide/conceal the truth) rather than Islamic people. How can they be "Islamic" when they are attacking even the Muslims and Muslim children?
Ok, looking at it again, there was a whole list of passages of a warlike trend (1). Now, I am not going to let you get into a debate about the meaning, where you can fox me with translations of Arabic or argue about the context. As I say, that's irrelevant. The point is that it is plenty good enough for Muslims who do regard Jews and Christians as different and wrong religions (and they do. I have talked to some of them) can if they need to get bellicose about it (and the protests thatMmuslims are the innocent victims is just what we can expect (1), can point to those passages as Quranic justification.
So, what about it, and where am I at fault in referring to them?
(1) It makes no difference that I lifted them from a hostile site - they nevertheless qioted the Quran.
(2) we have had tons of the same from Christian apologists, and truth to tell, I haven't seem much of Muslim apologetics (not even from the nicest) that strikes me as even handed or even honest. One point that sticks in my mind (since you really brought the matter up) was some apologists on the news protesting that rockets firing into Israel was retaliation for Israeli strikes. I KNEW that was a lie and the rocket attacks had been reported for weeks before the strike. And the 'attacking first' can be very widely Interpreted - such as not being sufficiently respectful about Muhammad. And there are one or two precedents for armed attacks and conquest of peoples whole only fault was not being Muslim.
The fact is old son, that the accusations that Muslims consider it perfectly ok to lie for their religion look pretty sound to me, and you may browse the ongoing denial and dishonesty of fruit seller's Unquestionable evidences' thread while you are at it.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-15-2017 at 05:35 PM..
Ok, looking at it again, there was a whole list of passages of a warlike trend (1). Now, I am not going to let you get into a debate about the meaning, where you can fox me with translations of Arabic or argue about the context. As I say, that's irrelevant.
If you quote from the Qur'an even if it is just copying it from the websites, it is relevant to talk about those verses of the Qur'an. That won't be foxing you. It would be talking about those verses you quoted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
The point is that it is plenty good enough for Muslims who do regard Jews and Christians as different and wrong religions (and they do. I have talked to some of them) can if they need to get bellicose about it (and the protests thatMmuslims are the innocent victims is just what we can expect (1), can point to those passages as Quranic justification.
Anyone can misinterpret the verses. The question is, how do you know if it is not misinterpretation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
So, what about it, and where am I at fault in referring to them?
(1) It makes no difference that I lifted them from a hostile site - they nevertheless qioted the Quran.
They quoted, sometime only part of the verse to fox you, and misinterpreted the verses. If you believe a hostile site to Islam, and not me, you have been foxed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
(2) we have had tons of the same from Christian apologists, and truth to tell, I haven't seem much of Muslim apologetics (not even from the nicest) that strikes me as even handed or even honest.
No apologist of atheism will ever regard any Muslim even handed or honest unless he is ex-Muslim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
One point that sticks in my mind (since you really brought the matter up) was some apologists on the news protesting that rockets firing into Israel was retaliation for Israeli strikes. I KNEW that was a lie and the rocket attacks had been reported for weeks before the strike.
That's ME politics; not Islam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
And the 'attacking first' can be very widely Interpreted - such as not being sufficiently respectful about Muhammad.
Attacking first according to the Qur'an is not about being respectful about Muhammad. According to the Qur'an, it is physically attacking first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
And there are one or two precedents for armed attacks and conquest of peoples whole only fault was not being Muslim.
That is not the point of any verse in the Qur'an. There is no compulsion in religion according to the Qur'an one way or the other way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
The fact is old son, that the accusations that Muslims consider it perfectly ok to lie for their religion look pretty sound to me, and you may browse the ongoing denial and dishonesty of fruit seller's Unquestionable evidences' thread while you are at it.
You will have to tell me where I have lied. No point in calling me a liar if another guy claims to be a Muslim and is lying. You will have to show where I am lying.
On the other hand, claim that Muslims are directed in the Qur'an to use violence on nonbelievers on the sole basis of their status as non-Muslims is an utter lie by the Islam and Muslim haters.
If you quote from the Qur'an even if it is just copying it from the websites, it is relevant to talk about those verses of the Qur'an. That won't be foxing you. It would be talking about those verses you quoted.
Anyone can misinterpret the verses. The question is, how do you know if it is not misinterpretation?
They quoted, sometime only part of the verse to fox you, and misinterpreted the verses. If you believe a hostile site to Islam, and not me, you have been foxed.
No apologist of atheism will ever regard any Muslim even handed or honest unless he is ex-Muslim.
That's ME politics; not Islam.
Attacking first according to the Qur'an is not about being respectful about Muhammad. According to the Qur'an, it is physically attacking first.
That is not the point of any verse in the Qur'an. There is no compulsion in religion according to the Qur'an one way or the other way.
You will have to tell me where I have lied. No point in calling me a liar if another guy claims to be a Muslim and is lying. You will have to show where I am lying.
On the other hand, claim that Muslims are directed in the Qur'an to use violence on nonbelievers on the sole basis of their status as non-Muslims is an utter lie by the Islam and Muslim haters.
You are taking it personally. Read the posts again and you will see that it is countering the claim that you made that Muslims will only attack lying Kuffirs. And still trying to involve me in a discussion about the Quran. As I say, that is irrelevant. I already know that you have Interpreted it differently from some others. I like yours better, but that they interpret it (using those verses, perhaps) to suit themselves, is the point, not your interpretation, mine or theirs.
You are taking it personally. Read the posts again and you will see that it is countering the claim that you made that Muslims will only attack lying Kuffirs.
I can't recall ever making the claim that Muslims will only attack lying kuffirs. Can you identify my post in which I made such an alleged claim?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
And still trying to involve me in a discussion about the Quran. As I say, that is irrelevant.
If you quote the verses of the Qur'an copied from a website then you are involving yourself in a discussion about the Qur'an.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I already know that you have Interpreted it differently from some others. I like yours better, but that they interpret it (using those verses, perhaps) to suit themselves, is the point, not your interpretation, mine or theirs.
It's important to know, in the interest of peace, which interpretation is the correct one.
The correct interpratation will always be complying with ALL the verses in the Qur'an on a particular issue/topic. The incorrect interpretation will be counter to at least one verse of the Qur'an if not several verses. The incorrect interpretation can be rejected by the Qur'an itself. And that's how I have managed to reach my conclusions.
Those with an agenda, whether political terrorists or Islam haters, will always twist and take verses out of context to further their agenda. The third lot are the ignorant Muslims who do not study the Qur'an but believe anyone who tells them something even false about Islam. They will spend a full night in a graveyard trying to hear cries of a newly buried guy being punished in the grave just because their imam had told them what happens during the first night in the grave.
Postb above, 543. Not in those exact words, of course. You have made several arguments that Muslims do not invade, and if they do, they are not being respectful to the Quran (after the debacle on 'Unquestionable evidences" there is no question that evidence shows the Quran is NOT the word of Allah).
My line has been that Muslims (if necessary) will claim they have been attacked first, as in the Gaza rockets claim. I have come across the "Peaceful conversion of Java" argument before. Sure, it had to be peaceful as a massed invasion wasn't feasible. But as soon as the Rajah became a sultan, it was war after war until all Java was conquered, and,if they didn't conquer Bali, too, it wasn't because they didn't try.
Now, I don't deny that this is pretty common human behaviour, whatever your religion. But not even Christianity make religion such an important component of war an conquest. And the argument I make is that the verses I quoted can be used to justify and the verses you quotes can easily be Interpreted to make the Lying Kuffirs (can't find where i saw it, but I saw it somewhere) to make some act of the unbeliever the causus belli, or, as I said about the rockets, just lie.
Not you, I'm sure you and your personal sect of Islam don't agree with that ( though you do seem to use the same apologetiocs, like the Peaceful Java apologetic), but the argument I made has always been that Muslims (and there are statistics that refute the claim that they are a small minority) can find whatever they need in the Quran (vide the verses I posted - and that they come from a hostile site is irrelevant - they are in the Quran - and it is not too hard for them to explain or fiddle the verses you quote. Cherry -picking Holy Text is far from unknown, and fiddling them no less so.
So, while you may argue that the Quran urges peace unless in self defence, my argument is that you can always find a way to blame a war of aggression on the Other Side. It doesn't matter which interpretation is correct. That the Quran can me Interpreted or cherry - picked to suit the bellicose is the point.
I don't doubt that you deplore such. Well I deplored the Iraq way, which was a crusade if anything was. But they paid no more attention to me arguing that it was being fought on a false pretext, no more than they pad attention to my pleas not to vote for Trump.
Postb above, 543. Not in those exact words, of course.
There is nothing in my post that proves that I claimed "Muslims will only attack lying Kuffirs".
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
You have made several arguments that Muslims do not invade, and if they do, they are not being respectful to the Quran (after the debacle on 'Unquestionable evidences" there is no question that evidence shows the Quran is NOT the word of Allah).
I have never made any argument that Muslims do not INVADE. I have made argument that, according to the Qur'an, Muslims are not to attack nonbelievers first. I am talking about the Qur'an and the rule of engagement in it. (And this is not the unquestionable evidences thread.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
My line has been that Muslims (if necessary) will claim they have been attacked first, as in the Gaza rockets claim. I have come across the "Peaceful conversion of Java" argument before. Sure, it had to be peaceful as a massed invasion wasn't feasible. But as soon as the Rajah became a sultan, it was war after war until all Java was conquered, and,if they didn't conquer Bali, too, it wasn't because they didn't try.
Just as GWB invading Iraq (because his God prompted him to do so) isn't Christianity or preaching of Jesus in the Gospels, Muslims invading Iraq centuries ago wasn't Islam, commanded in the Qur'an verses or preaching of Muhammad.
By the way, Rajah does mean Sultan. The former is Hindi word and the latter Arabic word for King/Ruler.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Now, I don't deny that this is pretty common human behaviour, whatever your religion. But not even Christianity make religion such an important component of war an conquest. And the argument I make is that the verses I quoted can be used to justify and the verses you quotes can easily be Interpreted to make the Lying Kuffirs (can't find where i saw it, but I saw it somewhere) to make some act of the unbeliever the causus belli, or, as I said about the rockets, just lie.
And I have made no such argument about lying Kuffirs can be subjected to war according to the Qur'an. So I plead not guilty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Not you, I'm sure you and your personal sect of Islam don't agree with that ( though you do seem to use the same apologetiocs, like the Peaceful Java apologetic), but the argument I made has always been that Muslims (and there are statistics that refute the claim that they are a small minority) can find whatever they need in the Quran (vide the verses I posted - and that they come from a hostile site is irrelevant - they are in the Quran - and it is not too hard for them to explain or fiddle the verses you quote. Cherry -picking Holy Text is far from unknown, and fiddling them no less so.
The point is, which interpretation is the correct one? It is not intelligent thing to do to rely on one interpretation without verifying it properly. If you do, the chances are that you are going to see ALL Muslims with blinkers on. You will not be able tell the difference in good or bad Muslims. You will see them ALL as terrorists or invaders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
So, while you may argue that the Quran urges peace unless in self defence, my argument is that you can always find a way to blame a war of aggression on the Other Side. It doesn't matter which interpretation is correct. That the Quran can me Interpreted or cherry - picked to suit the bellicose is the point.
This is why I had to study the whole Qur'an in order to make any claim about it. This is also why I can refute claim made in the website you had copied the verses from and posted here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I don't doubt that you deplore such. Well I deplored the Iraq way, which was a crusade if anything was. But they paid no more attention to me arguing that it was being fought on a false pretext, no more than they pad attention to my pleas not to vote for Trump.
I am the same. I had even joined the protest in London 12 years ago but Blair was hell bent on ignoring millions to make a name for himself. Yes, it was a crusade (even according to Bush).
We are going artound in circles. What is the correct interpretation of the Quran hardly matters, since its' opinions are merely the opinions of men.
How you or I interpret it is also irrelevant. What is irrelevant in that muslims not only find it no problem at all to get around these purported Quranic exhortations to peace in the Quran, but apparently find inspiration for warlike activity in that same book. Indeed the book often seems to be the inspiration for the warlike activities even without politics.
Now, you are are revealing your craftiness to me. I know very well that Rajah changed to Sultan when the first State (can't recall which)-king in Java became a Muslim. Your chop logic is becoming rather obvious. What was the reason why Babur invaded India? Not because of any provocation that I know of, just because it was there and to convert it to Islam as soon as possible. Naked aggression. And going by your reasoning, the Crusades were utterly justified in taking back the Holy lands which had been invaded and grabbed by the Muslims.
What was the provocation for that, by the way?
The claim thast the Quran forbids warlike activity by muslims unless there is provocation was s no problem for Islam in the 15th c and is no problem now.
So you were there protesting against the Iraq war. Mind saying why?
We are going artound in circles. What is the correct interpretation of the Quran hardly matters, since its' opinions are merely the opinions of men.
But which opinion is the correct one according to the Qur'an? Don't you want to find out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
How you or I interpret it is also irrelevant. What is irrelevant in that muslims not only find it no problem at all to get around these purported Quranic exhortations to peace in the Quran, but apparently find inspiration for warlike activity in that same book. Indeed the book often seems to be the inspiration for the warlike activities even without politics.
You say, "the book seems to be the inspiration for the warlike activities". That's your possible opinion.
I have studied the book and it is clear to me that warlike activities were begun by the nonbelievers on believers in One God from the outset. Such activities stopped once the nonbelievers stopped their warlike activities. As a result, the book inspired peace in Mecca ever since then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Now, you are are revealing your craftiness to me. I know very well that Rajah changed to Sultan when the first State (can't recall which)-king in Java became a Muslim. Your chop logic is becoming rather obvious.
Are you talking about Rajah Iskander Shah? If so, he was a king before and was still a king after accepting Islam. Yes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
What was the reason why Babur invaded India?
He was invited by the Indians who were fighting between themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Not because of any provocation that I know of, just because it was there and to convert it to Islam as soon as possible. Naked aggression.
Muslims were already there in India when Babur was invited to help one side to finish off the other side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
And going by your reasoning, the Crusades were utterly justified in taking back the Holy lands which had been invaded and grabbed by the Muslims.
The Crusaders had thought that Muslims were worshiping a great big idol called Mohmet in Mecca. The Crusaders had gone there from as far as Spain. The same was done by the Crusader Bush to get some cheap oil from Iraq by blaming that Iraq has WMDS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
What was the provocation for that, by the way?
The crusaders found out about the provocation; 208 years of their ignorance!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
The claim thast the Quran forbids warlike activity by muslims unless there is provocation was s no problem for Islam in the 15th c and is no problem now.
Islam is in the Qur'an and it is what is according to the Qur'an. The Qur'an does not talk about any wars by crusaders sent by Pope but war on Muslim 1438 years ago by the Meccans. That is the historical context I have been talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
So you were there protesting against the Iraq war. Mind saying why?
The war was not authorized by the UN and thus was not a legal war, and it was based on a lie that Iraq had WMDs. UN inspectors never found any WMDs in Iraq and Iraq was attacked despite the UN inspectors having found no proof of WMDs there.
But which opinion is the correct one according to the Qur'an? Don't you want to find out?
You say, "the book seems to be the inspiration for the warlike activities". That's your possible opinion.
I have studied the book and it is clear to me that warlike activities were begun by the nonbelievers on believers in One God from the outset. Such activities stopped once the nonbelievers stopped their warlike activities. As a result, the book inspired peace in Mecca ever since then.
Are you talking about Rajah Iskander Shah? If so, he was a king before and was still a king after accepting Islam. Yes?
He was invited by the Indians who were fighting between themselves.
Muslims were already there in India when Babur was invited to help one side to finish off the other side.
The Crusaders had thought that Muslims were worshiping a great big idol called Mohmet in Mecca. The Crusaders had gone there from as far as Spain. The same was done by the Crusader Bush to get some cheap oil from Iraq by blaming that Iraq has WMDS.
The crusaders found out about the provocation; 208 years of their ignorance!
Islam is in the Qur'an and it is what is according to the Qur'an. The Qur'an does not talk about any wars by crusaders sent by Pope but war on Muslim 1438 years ago by the Meccans. That is the historical context I have been talking about.
The war was not authorized by the UN and thus was not a legal war, and it was based on a lie that Iraq had WMDs. UN inspectors never found any WMDs in Iraq and Iraq was attacked despite the UN inspectors having found no proof of WMDs there.
Correct. That's why I opposed it, too. It didn't mean that I supported Saddam (as the liar Blair tried to argue, blast his eyes) but a beastly dictator running a county is still not an excuse for the UN to invade, let alone a US -led coalition.
We might look a bit more at the circumstances of the invasion that really brought Islam to India as the Rulers (1).
The early history of the conversion of Java is not well recorded. But there is no record or evidence of a mass invasion. So the initial conversion was peaceful. A Rajah converting to Islam. Maybe. Perhaps a son or member of the ruling family being converted and supported into power by a sizeable Muslim community, who knows?
It doesn't alter the fact that, once you had a Muslim state in West Java, you had a war not between states but between religions. I don't blame Islam for that, but the fact is that not one of those Sultans even scratched his head about attacking a Hindu kingdom to the east because of anything he read in the Quran, nor do I ever hear of a single Imam or Quranic scholar remonstrating with him.
Nor do I hear anything of the kind today. Rather I hear them cheering on the struggle for Islam against the ones deemed to be against it. And if they claim that they were attacked first -as I showed with the Gaza rockets claim, lying about it doesn't seem to be a problem.
It doesn't matter a damn' about what the crusaders thought of Islam. No more than it matters what the muslims think of the gospels. Nor does it matter whether the crusades were about freeing the Holy land from the Infidel (that's muslims in this case) or getting rid of a lot of bellicose barons and landless knights looking for trouble. The point is that the muslims had long since taken the "Holy Land" from the Christians and the Christians wanted it back.
"The crusaders found out about the provocation; 208 years of their ignorance!
Islam is in the Qur'an and it is what is according to the Qur'an. The Qur'an does not talk about any wars by crusaders sent by Pope but war on Muslim 1438 years ago by the Meccans."
So aside from your deprecating remark, your point here is irrelevant and probably evasive and is one of your red herrings. What is in the Quran by way of justifying Muhammad's attacks on people who refused to accept Islam, does not prevent any Muslim Ruler prosecuting a war (no more that the Gospel drooling about love and peace prevents Christian warmongers) and waving the green banner as needed, and never have I heard a single Imam or Quranic scholar denounce it (2)
So who initiated the aggression? the Crusaders can certainly use the 'They started it' excuse of invasion. So far as I know it was Muslim holy war right from the start, and didn't end until the end of the Turkish empire.
P.s Rajah Iskander Shah king of Malacca (in present day Malaya)? You had to dig deep to find someone who even looked like he was invited by Hindu kings to invade. I only know that only just recently are the foundations of the monuments of the previous non -Islamic religion, obliterated almost leaving no trace (3), coming to light on Malaya.
(1) I had a refresher, and the story is of gradual expansion, invasion and empire -building, Indian states pushing the Muslims out and renewed invasion, until Babur invaded, set up the Sultanate of Delhi and Islam was there to stay. I saw nothing about Hindu rulers begging muslims to come and defeat the other side for them, and even if they had, why was setting up Muslim rule supposed to be the reward?
(2) though they did make the right noises about Isis
(3) which makes me ask, while there are plenty of Hindu -Buddhist monuments in central and East Java..where are they in the West? Were there none buiolt by the Hindu kings? No, they were demolished to the bases by the new religion. Say what you like about the Christian invaders when they arrived, but they denolished neither temple, stupa nor mosque.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-17-2017 at 04:18 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) but about the great majority of muslims (so I'd argue) do see their religion as right and Judaism and Christianity wrong, and if they refer to the links between Judaism, Christianity and their religion, it is to suck them into believing the revelation of the Quran.
