Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

It appears that my reading of history that Islam wasn't spread by the sword is at odds with other people's views.

I cite the example of how Islam spread to Indonesia, China etc as an example. Indonesia is now the biggest Muslim country in the world.

I also cite the fact that Islam in Arabia spread fastest when there was peace - between the treaty of Hudaibiyya and the peaceful conquest of Mecca, there was no fighting and yet the Muslim population went from only being able to muster a small armed force of irregulars to one that had a 10,000 strong army that could walk into Mecca peacefully.

I also cite the fact that today Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West.

I have to admit that this last claim from the media, and that Valkyrie has posted information to the contrary - so I'll also post information on this thread about the spread of Islam today (it may be that Islam isn't the fastest growing religion and that 'no-religion' is - we'll see).

Cheers,
Shafique

The presence of Muslim armies and the expansion of the Muslim empire territorially should not be confused with the spread of the religion.

The rights of other religions was safeguarded and recognised in law. They even had different responsibilities than Muslims and paid different taxes as a mark of this difference.

Where there were strong local religions and people did not want to convert, the fact that these communities continued to exist is a testimony to Islam's tolerance. Copts are still in Egypt, Hindus are still in India, Jews are still in all the territories ruled by Muslims. Compare this with what happened when Ferdinand drove the Moors/Muslim rulers out of Spain and the forced conversions of Jews and Muslims that took place after this.

The Judaic empire during and after Moses comprised of armies that conquered territories. Deuteronomy 18.18 predicts a prophet like Moses will be sent - and hence the fact Muhammad, pbuh, headed up armies is a fulfilment of this prophecy - at least it is to me.

Cheers,
Shafique

valkyrie wrote:

shafique wrote:Do you also disagree it is [Islam] the fastest growing religion in the US

Well, not sure about the UK, but in the US, Islam is only the 9th fastest growing religion.
Here are the growth rates according to adherents.com:

1. Deist - 71.1% per year
2. Sikhism - 33.8% per year
3. New Age - 24.0% per year
4. Hindusim - 23.7% per year
5. Baha't - 20.0 % per year
6. Buddhism - 17.0% per year
7. Native American Religion - 11.9% per year
8. Non-Religious / Secular - 11.0% per year
9. Islam - 10.9% per year.

In 2002, Islam fell from 4th to 5th Place among American religions when it was surpassed by Buddhism. In 2005 it fell to 6th Place when it was surpassed by Hinduism.

I could not immediately find this list on adherents.com - the information it had about the growth rates. The entry on the FAQ on 'what is the fastest growing religion' makes informative reading though:

http://www.adherents.com/adh_faq.html#fastest
I recommend everyone interested in this question read the above short link - he makes some of the points I make below, better than I do!
People often ask us about growth rates. It may seem odd that a database which has collected tens of thousands of religion statistics does not store growth rates as well. But we don't. It's not unusual for us to come across studies and data sets which mention growth rates. But this type of data is only in the Adherents.com database if it is part of the text that accompanies the adherent statistics which are our main objective.
A quick set of searches shows that the US census does not ask about religion, and that estimates of numbers of Muslims in US range from 1m to 8m.

I'm also not sure what 'deist' means - does that include Christiantity which is conspicuous by it's absence. Also, a 77% annual growth rate cannot be sustained - mathematically within a short number of years the whole world will be 'Deist'

Also, I find it hard to believe that were more converts to Sikhism (a religion that does not evangelise) than to Islam. I suspect we are talking of a small number of Sikhs and an increase due to immigration.

What is clear though, is that the figures for growth of religions are muddied by birth rates and immigration.

For the purposes of this thread and other discussions, we need to get to the numbers of people converting to respective religions out of conviction (and not by force).

Here are three links which give different perspectives and show there aren't reliable stats (that I've found so far):
http://www.islamfortoday.com/america01.htm
(From 2000, says there are 6m muslims in the USA and growing fast)

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/76
(from 2003, says number of muslims probably around 2m)

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms. ... ry_id=3835
(from May 2007, giving global rates of growth of religions - including by birth - showing Islam the fastest. Interestingly, looking at the areas of growth, backs up the reports that say Islam is growing faster in Europe and USA)

Looks like more research is required.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:The presence of Muslim armies and the expansion of the Muslim empire territorially should not be confused with the spread of the religion.

i never studied asian history... i cited north africa

egypt was nearly 100% christian till islam came in, with their armies, with the sword, shed blood, forced people to convert, pay jizya otherwise... leaving a good 3% of wealthy people that can afford to pay such money on a monthly basis. thankfully for me, my family was one of them - because i would have turned completely aethiest if i was born a muslim.


that was also the point where egyptians got inheritly dimmer in intellect... and it was the point where the downward spiral from being one of the world's brightest civilisations - to now a laughing stock..... leaving people like me no choice but to leave the country to get an education abroad, go to universities abroad, and go seeking another nationality that would respect my free mind, my free speech, my free will to be and do whatever i please... a society that i dont feel victimised being a christian in a predominantly muslim surrounding, where i get the 2nd best in everything.. i feel sorry for others that were never given that chance or choice in their life - to grow up to really make something out of themselves... instead they're still stuck with a passport and an identity card that clearly states their religion - so people can treat them accordingly..

why should any ID card state your religion? who's problem is it who you worship? oh thats right, religion and politics are one & the same - what a joke.

and could islam have direct corrolation with loss of brain cells and general cognition? there will never be concrete proof, but in all corners of the globe, there seems to be evidence to support this theory

ebonics wrote:

shafique wrote:The presence of Muslim armies and the expansion of the Muslim empire territorially should not be confused with the spread of the religion.

i never studied asian history... i cited north africa

Ok - no problems. We'll take it for granted that Islam spread not by the sword in asia (as there weren't any armies that went there).

ebonics wrote:egypt was nearly 100% christian till islam came in, with their armies, with the sword, shed blood, forced people to convert, pay jizya otherwise... leaving a good 3% of wealthy people that can afford to pay such money on a monthly basis. thankfully for me, my family was one of them - because i would have turned completely aethiest if i was born a muslim.

Egypt was nearly 100% Christian. Could you please give me a reference for this fact - I'm not sure I've read this before. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd like to verify this statement.
[Edit - yes you are right, northern Egypt was predominantly Christian. A good reference is Jill Kamil's book on the Coptic Church. This book is a reference in the next post.]

A simple question for you though - if a person converted to Islam, did they pay more or less to the authorities in taxes that muslims paid than the jizya?

Please don't avoid this question, as it puts into context what the Jizya was - a tax - and not a sum of money to avoid execution if you chose not to convert.

As I presume your family are Coptic Christians, I think you will appreciate the fact that people of that community continue to exist to this day as opposed in Egypt as a sign of Islam's tolerance - as opposed to the wholesale slaughter and forced conversions of Jews and Muslims in Spain (which took place long after Egypt became Muslim).

Whilst I appreciate that Coptic Christian reading of history is that Islam coming to Egypt was a disaster, I would balance the accounts you have learnt from your family with what serious historians have written about the spread of Islam to Egypt.

ebonics wrote:that was also the point where egyptians got inheritly dimmer in intellect... and it was the point where the downward spiral from being one of the world's brightest civilisations - to now a laughing stock..... leaving people like me no choice but to leave the country to get an education abroad, go to universities abroad, and go seeking another nationality that would respect my free mind, my free speech, my free will to be and do whatever i please... a society that i dont feel victimised being a christian in a predominantly muslim surrounding, where i get the 2nd best in everything.. i feel sorry for others that were never given that chance or choice in their life - to grow up to really make something out of themselves... instead they're still stuck with a passport and an identity card that clearly states their religion - so people can treat them accordingly..

So now you are going to try and convince me that the accounts of Islamic learnings - the advances in the arts and sciences - the minds of Al Biruni etc did not happen.

The Islamic empire shone brightly for centuries - and this included Egypt.

I sense a lot of frustration about the plight of your countrymen today - I can fully understand. However, to blame Islam rather than Egyptians is convenient for a non-Muslim.

I wonder if in 100 years time there will disaffected Hindu American youths who blame the decline in America's powers with Evangelical Christian beliefs of George W Bush?

ebonics wrote:why should any ID card state your religion? who's problem is it who you worship? oh thats right, religion and politics are one & the same - what a joke.

And this has what to do with the Quran?

ebonics wrote:and could islam have direct corrolation with loss of brain cells and general cognition? there will never be concrete proof, but in all corners of the globe, there seems to be evidence to support this theory

And this is based on what scientific evidence? Or do you want us to believe you blindly?

Anyway, I see you have major issues with Islam - fair enough.

I offer you a chance to take each issue, point by point and make your case. I am just saying that Islam is logical, beautiful and above all the final religion of the God you believe in. I'm not asking you to believe me, but am asking for civility if you choose to challenge this.

I believe that Islam can withstand all the onslaughts of logic and comparisons with alternative religions/belief systems. As proved (so far) in the other thread, the holy scripture of Islam is without contradiction and peerless.

Given you posted you-tube links featuring an arabic speaking priest, and the revelation now that you are from Egyptian stock - you are better placed than I to understand the words of the Quran in the original form. Therefore you are best placed (as an Arabic speaking non-Muslim) to help find contradictions in the Quran and to challenge me when I cite the Quran in favour of the logicality of Islam.

However, if you cannot get beyond the emotional aversion to Islam and if discussing the Quran/Bible etc only elicits emotional personal attacks, then the discussion will generate more heat than light.

I try to stay out of personal attacks (but I am human and have been known to stoop to sarcasm) - but you, ebionics, have my committment to a civilised discussion here if you so wish.

Cheers,
Shafique

Concerning Muslim conquest of Egypt and the Christians in Egypt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Ort ... Alexandria

From Chalcedon to the Arab conquest of Egypt

Copts suffered under the rule of the Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire. The Melkite Patriarchs, appointed by the emperors as both spiritual leaders and civil governors, massacred the Egyptian population whom they considered heretics. Many Egyptians were tortured and martyred to accept the terms of Chalcedon, but Egyptians remained loyal to the faith of their fathers and to the Cyrillian view of Christology. One of the most renowned Egyptian saints of that period is Saint Samuel the Confessor.


So Egyptian Christians were persecuted by other Christians before Islam came.


The Arab-Muslim conquest of Egypt

The Muslim conquest of Egypt took place in AD 639. Despite the political upheaval, Egypt remained a mainly Christian land. However, the gradual conversions to Islam over the centuries changed Egypt from a Christian to a largely Muslim country by the end of the 12th century.[6]


So, Egypt was predominantly Christian - and remained so after the coming of Islam according to this. The reference is to a book by Jill Kamil who is a historian. This quotation seems to imply that there weren't mass forced conversions, and therefore that Islam in Egypt was not spread by the sword.



This process was sped along by persecutions during and following the reign of the Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah (reigned AD 996–1021) and the Crusades, and also by the acceptance of Arabic as a liturgical language by the Pope of Alexandria Gabriel ibn-Turaik.[7]

During Islamic rule, the Copts needed to pay a special tax called the jizya in order to be defended by Muslim armies, as non-Muslims were not allowed to serve in the army. This tax was abolished in 1855.

Note - jizya is a tax.

Anyway - the above is from Wikipedia's entry for Coptic Christianity and the above quotes do not seem to have been disputed on wiki.

I also read that the Bishop of Alexandria gave instructions to Coptic Christians not to offer resistance to the Arab armies when they marched into Egypt - I'll look up the references.

cheers,
Shafique

yes because ill let someone called Jill and wikipedia tell me about the history of my country..


shafique, wiki is not a credible source, or a valid referance, any credible educational institution would fail you if you quote wikipedia as a referance.


it makes sense that when prosecuted, the copts gave up their lives to uphold their faith - then give it up for another... makes all the sense in the world.



now do you see what i mean by islam making people inheritly dimmer in the brain?

ebonics wrote:yes because ill let someone called Jill and wikipedia tell me about the history of my country..


shafique, wiki is not a credible source, or a valid referance, any credible educational institution would fail you if you quote wikipedia as a referance.


it makes sense that when prosecuted, the copts gave up their lives to uphold their faith - then give it up for another... makes all the sense in the world.



now do you see what i mean by islam making people inheritly dimmer in the brain?

That is why I gave you the reference to the book. I went out of my way to look for a source from the Coptic point of view and yet you dismiss it because of what you have been taught.

Fair enough.

The Copts were persecuted by 'orthodox' Christians for holding Monophysite doctrines - they enjoyed greater religious freedom under Islamic rule than when they were persecuted in pre-Islamic Egypt.

I'm sorry if this is contrary to your belief, but we should be able to come to a sensible conclusion if we consult with credible historical sources. I've named one and await a contrary view.

Cheers,
Shafique

i would go dig up some books and detail what actually happened, but the UAE restricts intellectual material of the sort (surprise surprise)

they also restrict all the websites that detail scripture by scripture from the qur'an all its contradictions (no surprise there either)


do you have a proxy by-pass shafique, i can send you the links to look yourself. - unfortunatly i cannot be your guide through it, the higher powers are watching..

Shafique, I wasn't referring to forced conversions so much as I was talking about the spread of Islamic law and emipire. That happened through military conquest.

If you want to discuss forced conversions, then I agree with you, they didn't happen in former Christian lands. But they did happen in other places, where people of other religions weren't immediately considered dhimmis.
This is what I posted on another thread awhile ago.
the following is from 'Why I am not a Muslim' by Ibn Warraq p235-236

Zoroastrians

According to the "Tarikh-i Bukhara," a history of Bukhara written in about A.D.. 944, Islam had to be enforced on the reluctant inhabitants of Bukhara. The Bukharans reverted to their original beliefs no less than four times: " The residents of Bukhara became Muslims . But they renounced [Islam} each time the Arabs turned back. Qutayba b. Muslim made them Muslim three times, [but] they renounced [Islam] again and became nonbelievers. The fourth time, qutayba waged war, seized the city, and established Islam after considerable strife. . . . They espoused Islam overtly but practiced idolatry in secret."
Many Zoroastrians were induced to convert by bribes, and later, out of economic necessity. Many of these "economic converts" were later executed for having adopted Islam to avoid paying the poll-tax and land tax. In Khurasan and Bukhara, the Muslims destroyed Zoroastrian fire temples and constructed mosques on these sites. The "Tarikh-i Bukhara" records that there was considerable outrage at these acts of sacrilege, and a concerted resistance to the spread of Islam. One scholar sums up the situation thus: "Indeed, coexistence between Muslims and Zoroastrians was rarely peaceful, cooperation was fleeting, and conflict remained the form of intercommunal contact from the initial Arab conquest of Transoxiana untile the late thirteenth century A.D." A similar situation existed in Khurasan: "The violent military conflicts between the forces of the Arab commander Abd Allah b. Amir and the local Iranian lords, combined later with the destruction of Zoroastrian religious institutions, produced lasting enmity between Muslims and Zoroastrian in Khurasan."
The early conquests of Zoroastrian Iran were punctuated with the usual massacres, as in Raiy. If the town put up brave resistance to the Muslims, then very few men were spared. For example, at Sarakh, only a hundred men were granted amnesty, and the women were taken into captivity; the children taken into captivity were brought up as Muslims. At Sus a similar situation emerged--about a hundred men were pardoned, the rest killed. At Manadhir, all the men were put to the sword, and the women and children enslaved. At the conquest of Istakhr, more than 40,000 Iranians were slaughtered. The Zoroastrians suffered sporadic persecution, when their fire temples and priests were destroyed, for example, at Kariyan, Kumm, and at Idhaj. In a deliberate act of provocation the caliph al-Mutawakkil had cut down a tree putatively planted by Zoroaster himself. Sometimes the fire temples were cnverted into mosques.
The fiscal oppression of the Zoroastrians led to a series of uprisings against the Muslims in the eight century. We might cite the revolts led by Bihafarid between 746 and 748 and the rising of Sinbadh in 755.
Forced conversions were also frequent, and the pressures for conversion often led to conflict and riots, as in Shiraz in 979. To escape persecution and the forced conversions many Zoroastrians emigrated to India, where, to this day, they form a much respected minority known as Parsis. Conditions for the Zoroastrians became worse from the seventeenth century onwards. In the eighteenth century, their numbers, to quote the [i]Encyclopaedia of Islam (2d ed.), "declined disastrously due to the combined effects of massacre, forced conversion and emigration." By the nineteenth century they were living in total insecurity and poverty and suffered increasing discrimination. Zoroastrian merchants were liable for extra taxes; houses were frequently looted; they had to wear distinctive clothing; and were forbidden to build new houses or repair old ones.

Hindus are still in India

In India, the sheer number of "polytheists" meant that the rulers had to settle for having a large number of them as their subjects, unconverted, but it was matter of realism, not tolerance.

ebonics wrote:i would go dig up some books and detail what actually happened, but the UAE restricts intellectual material of the sort (surprise surprise)

they also restrict all the websites that detail scripture by scripture from the qur'an all its contradictions (no surprise there either)


do you have a proxy by-pass shafique, i can send you the links to look yourself. - unfortunatly i cannot be your guide through it, the higher powers are watching..

I am fortunate to not have a proxy at home - I live in one of the 'free zones'.

Give me the references and I'll gladly look them up and share the quotes here.

Cheers,
Shafique

valkyrie wrote:Shafique, I wasn't referring to forced conversions so much as I was talking about the spread of Islamic law and emipire. That happened through military conquest.

I'm currently reading a number of books on this period - fascinating stuff.

There were different waves of territorial conquests - something that goes on into the twentieth and twenty first centuries. The initial Arab conquests did impose Arab rule, but then various rulers/empires ruled at different times.

This is distinct from the religion and conversions to Islam or not.

Take the Mongols for example, they defeated the 'Islamic' empire, but then took on Islam for their religion and now they are seen as part of the Islamic empire.

ebonics wrote:If you want to discuss forced conversions, then I agree with you, they didn't happen in former Christian lands. But they did happen in other places, where people of other religions weren't immediately considered dhimmis.

I do agree with you there were persecutions and forced conversions over the long period of history. Muslims oppressed other Muslims as well as non-Muslims.

However, these incidences were the exception rather than the rule. When the 'Islamic Empire' was at its height - the courts of the rulers had non-muslims in high positions, and scholars from the world came to the courts to learn and discuss.

The quote about Zoroastrians I agree with - and there was persecution of Bahais in Iran in the 20th century (although the persecution was because of their rebellious political views rather than religious).

My argument is that there are enough examples of tolerance of other religions from all periods of Islamic history to say that the instances of intolerance took place in-spite of Islam's teachings and not because of it.

Hindus are still in India

In India, the sheer number of "polytheists" meant that the rulers had to settle for having a large number of them as their subjects, unconverted, but it was matter of realism, not tolerance.[/quote]

You say tomato..

The fact we can agree upon though is that there wasn't a campaign of forced conversion. We'll disagree on the motives (I say it is because this is not what Islam taught - you say it was pragmatism).

In summary - yes, the Islamic empire won a lot of territory. However, this was not the cause of the spread of the religion - for we have another example in Asia which became Muslim not from territorial conquest but through the message of the religion.

I quoted above the example of Egypt - where after the conquest the Historian says the country remained largely Christian, but gradually over time more and more converted to Islam. This re-inforces the view that Islam (the religion) was not spread by the sword.

cheers,
Shafique

quoted above the example of Egypt - where after the conquest the Historian says the country remained largely Christian, but gradually over time more and more converted to Islam. This re-inforces the view that Islam (the religion) was not spread by the sword.

Well, if you look at the list of rules that the jews and christians had to abide by (Pact of Umar), you'll see that many of them (especially those added on later during the crusades) are clearly intended to slowly convert them over time.

For example, a muslim woman was not allowed to marry a non-muslim man. However, a muslim man was allowed to marry a non-muslim woman, and she would be allowed to keep her religion, but all the kids had to be raised as muslims. You can do the math and figure out where that system was meant to lead.

Also, no new churches or synagogues were allowed to be built and no repairs were to be made without permission from the authorities. I'm sure you can easily figure out where that would have lead as well had it been strictly enforced in all areas.

So, make no mistake about it, extension of Islamic political rule, in the long run, meant extension of the Islamic religion.

Valkyrie I would also add that many converted for the same reasons that all the Indonesians, Mongols etc converted - they were attracted to the teachings of Islam.

That the Muslim rulers made the conditions conducive to the preaching of Islam is not in doubt. Those who wished to remain Christians etc were given given this freedom - and the fact that Christians and Jews fled to Islamic states to escape persecution is testimony to this fact.

Anyway, the main point I wanted to highlight was that Islam was not spread by forced conversion or primarily by territorial gains (eg in asia and China).

I'm currently reading how certain 'heretical' Christian sects were persecuted by Byzantium and how they found refuge in Muslim Syria, where they continue to have a presence to this day.

Cheers,
Shafique

Hello everyone, I've been a keen reader of this part of the forum (Im a northener as you can see) and an avid reader of historical, religious books. Can you please cite or list the name of book or references from where you have cited your replies.

I would love to follow up the readings I have seen in here.

Hope this doesn't come as burden to you guys.

reviewer wrote:Hello everyone, I've been a keen reader of this part of the forum (Im a northener as you can see) and an avid reader of historical, religious books. Can you please cite or list the name of book or references from where you have cited your replies.

I would love to follow up the readings I have seen in here.

Hope this doesn't come as burden to you guys.

Currently I'm reading:

'A House of Many Mansions' - Kamal Salibi (covers history of Lebanon)

General history of Middle East/Islam:

Recommended:
Holy War - Karen Armstrong (covers crusades and modern day conflicts and shows how they are linked.
Also by Karen Armstrong - Islam - a short history.
(Karen Armstrong is a historian and also was a former Nun)

History of Middle East (from Christianity to today) - Bernard Lewis (his latest books are quite anti-Islamic - but reading his earlier work which covers history rather than opinion is good).
BL is a historian - and I recommend his other books as well (the Assassins is a fascinating look at one Islamic sect).

Other books by Karen Armstrong are interesting - History of God, Muhammad - a biography.

On the history of the Bible and early Christianity - I go back to the original work by Edward Gibbon in 'History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' (which also contain good coverage of the rise of Islam). However it is a long book and I aim to finish this before I die - but I'm not sure I will

For a more leisurely introduction to history of the region, I highly recommend William Dalrymple's 'From the Holy Mountain' - which is essentially a travel book of his visits to Monasteries in the region (and it was on his recommendation in this book that I'm reading the books on Lebanon at the moment). I have read all his books so far - except for the last one (the Last Mughal) - which awaits me after I finish Kamal Salibi's book and a couple by Robert Fisk (Pity the nation, and The Great War for Civilisation).

Anyway - these are the books I've read recently on the subject, there are countless web-sites and other 'standard' books on history which I've read in the past. Google and wikipedia are great at quickly giving you the range of views out there.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,
Shafique

Thanks a lot Shaf for the tons of info; sure have a lot of reading for the coming summer, ...err..nice to see I'm not alone in peeking at the Assasins (sect). Me too fascinated by them as well as Ismails and Sufism. Im into history of Sub-continent and Central Asia as of now.

Cheers..

reviewer wrote:Thanks a lot Shaf for the tons of info; sure have a lot of reading for the coming summer, ...err..nice to see I'm not alone in peeking at the Assasins (sect). Me too fascinated by them as well as Ismails and Sufism. Im into history of Sub-continent and Central Asia as of now.

Cheers..

For history of the sub-continent - I can't recommend William Dalrymple highly enough. His books on India are a pleasure to read and the history just becomes part of the tale.

Age of Kali is a collection of articles/essays on India. City of Djinns is a travel back in time in one place - Delhi (covers independence back to the origins of Delhi). White Mughals is about Hyderabad and India generally just before the British finally took over - but after Clive of India. And, as I said, I've yet to read 'the last mughal' which is his latest book.

Oh - and if you want to borrow any of the books listed - just let me know, happy to lend them out (providing I get them back, of course!)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

reviewer wrote:Thanks a lot Shaf for the tons of info; sure have a lot of reading for the coming summer, ...err..nice to see I'm not alone in peeking at the Assasins (sect). Me too fascinated by them as well as Ismails and Sufism. Im into history of Sub-continent and Central Asia as of now.

Cheers..

For history of the sub-continent - I can't recommend William Dalrymple highly enough. His books on India are a pleasure to read and the history just becomes part of the tale.

Age of Kali is a collection of articles/essays on India. City of Djinns is a travel back in time in one place - Delhi (covers independence back to the origins of Delhi). White Mughals is about Hyderabad and India generally just before the British finally took over - but after Clive of India. And, as I said, I've yet to read 'the last mughal' which is his latest book.

Oh - and if you want to borrow any of the books listed - just let me know, happy to lend them out (providing I get them back, of course!)

Cheers,
Shafique

Agree on you about William Dalrymple, he's a must read....also I'm extending my search up north to Pakistan/Afghanistan to Central Asia...It's been fascinating reading this histories.

Appreciate your offer, but would love to buy them one by one, these are treasures to be read over and over again....

reviewer wrote:Agree on you about William Dalrymple, he's a must read....also I'm extending my search up north to Pakistan/Afghanistan to Central Asia...It's been fascinating reading this histories.

Appreciate your offer, but would love to buy them one by one, these are treasures to be read over and over again....

Totally agree. (I'm planning to re-read Holy Mountain and have re-read parts of White Mughals to refresh my memory on the sequence of events of some of wars etc).

Let me know what books you recommend on these areas - I'll add them to my list!

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Totally agree. (I'm planning to re-read Holy Mountain and have re-read parts of White Mughals to refresh my memory on the sequence of events of some of wars etc).
Let me know what books you recommend on these areas - I'll add them to my list!

I would certainly give you info on some good readings I have done...well don't want anymore to interpolate in this thread...will send the info on your pm. Cheers

shafique wrote:Recommended:
Holy War - Karen Armstrong (covers crusades and modern day conflicts and shows how they are linked.
Also by Karen Armstrong - Islam - a short history.
(Karen Armstrong is a historian and also was a former Nun)

Hi Shafique

Thanks for the recomendations. I have been meaning to read some Armstrong for a while. I really think that now, I will go out and purchase Holy Wars...

By the way, have you read her biography of The Prophet? Just wondering what your opinion was on it...

Lasty, Shafique - have you read/heard of a book called either(!) Islam and the West, or Islam in the West?? Sorry I can't remember the exact title or the author.

It is written by a female, western author. It sounds very much in the same vein as Armstrong but yes, essentially a critical look at the (historical) representation of Islam in the west - or rather the historical 'misrepresentation'...

I have never come across another book like it, simply because of the sheer abundance and different types of sources that it quotes. It is an eye-opener for anyone who thinks that this claim - of misrepresentation - is exaggerated. Actually, from what I understand it even caused quite a few 'problems' for some muslims themselves - precisely because of the nature of the sources contained within...\

Does it ring a bell? I lent it to a friend, he's lost it, and I'm trying to get another copy!!

burton,

Yes, I have KA's biography of the Prophet, pbuh. I think it is an excellent book - well researched and balanced. I recommend it.

No, I haven't read the other book 'Islam and the West'.

I meant also to recommend Edward Said's book 'Orientalism' - it is a classic now and well worth reading for the background of the whole field of 'Orientalism' into which a lot of the old 'Western' sources of information fall into. The treatment of Islam by European writers is part of the thesis of this book - but it covers more than just this.

Bernard Lewis falls into the 'Orientalism' genre, whilst Karen Armstrong is definitely a post-Orientalism scholar.

Cheers,
Shafique

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st71Awze ... re=related


footage of muslim attacks on coptic clerics, and the burning of a church...


when have you ever heard of christians moving in on a mosque and setting it alight, bashing nuns and clerics in their way...


yes - peaceful, completely peaceful.


PS - before you raise the "look what george bush does" - realise the difference between organised war - and people getting bashed and churches burnt for the absolute f*** of it!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ogQ04Sb6x8&feature=user


Sunday, 20 January 2008
Former Muslim Mohammed Higazi is lucky that he was not present in an Egyptian courtroom on Tuesday. An Islamic fundamentalist lawyer made death threats against the Egyptian for converting to Christianity. To the dismay of Higazi's lawyer the judge made no objection.
What made matters even worse, the judge went so far as to express his loathing off the accused because he had converted. There was no verdict but the judge vowed that he would never let Mr Higazy be registered as a Christian. He defended his decision by saying that Islam is the principal religion in Egypt. No mention was made of the freedom of religion established in the constitution which is a fundamental right of all citizens





thats the truth of the world we live in shafique - islam seems to prosecute everyone else, and their freedoms - and then say they're a religion of peace.... the footage and the article speaks for itself.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufv8-Sbk ... re=related

in english.. watch for yourself.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19FU7Yyx ... re=related


also in english

commentary on youtube

Father Zakaria is an Egyptian Coptic priest who was kicked out of his country for converting Muslims to Christ. Today he has a ministry to the Muslim world through his satellite TV broadcast, 'Truth Talk.'


the links are available through the video to talk to him.


and finally

http://www.youtube.com/user/Muslims4Jesus





thank you - sword, knife, stab, and blow up away.

ebonics wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st71AwzeLAA&feature=related


footage of muslim attacks on coptic clerics, and the burning of a church...


when have you ever heard of christians moving in on a mosque and setting it alight, bashing nuns and clerics in their way...

Did you hear of a little thing called the Bosnian war?

ebonics wrote:yes - peaceful, completely peaceful.


PS - before you raise the "look what george bush does" - realise the difference between organised war - and people getting bashed and churches burnt for the absolute f*** of it!!

Ok - but you agree though that 'Christians' have killed far more Muslims than the other way round.

ebonics wrote:thats the truth of the world we live in shafique - islam seems to prosecute everyone else, and their freedoms - and then say they're a religion of peace.... the footage and the article speaks for itself.

Thanks - if you condemn Islam for what some Muslims have done, do you similarly condemn Christianity for the persecution of the Jews in WWII?

What about the persecution of Blacks in South Africa - they used the Bible to justify Apartheid.

As always, I'm happy to argue the case for Islam - citing the Quran and other sources. You claim you don't follow a religion, but say you have read the Bible and support all that is in it. Yet when a basic question is asked about Christianity's intolerance of other religions you refuse to answer a question.

Many Coptic Christians converted of their own free will to Islam, many chose to stay Coptic. History shows that more Copts were killed by other Christians than were killed by Muslims - the other Christians objected to the theology of the Copts. Coptic historians bear this fact out - but I expect you'll say you know better and will not give me a reference.

Cheers,
Shafique

im not going to repeat myself, dont confuse WAR - organised declared war with pure cave man mannar


here you go

gander at this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGXq8pRe ... re=related


no war here mate, just barbarism.. this is murder for the sake of murder. hate for the sake of hate - he considers what he does getting him closer to heaven..

i dont follow any religion, but i strongly condemn the way muslims carry themselves, and treats the freedoms of any other religion - be it christian or anything else..

i wonder what muslims think of buddhists and athiests? look into that while you're at it.

Thanks ebonics.

It's a shame you have so much hatred that you feel it necessary to condemn a whole religion and accuse it of being intolerant.

I'm shocked that you argue it is ok to kill people over their religion if you are 'civilised' to declare a war against them first. At least you don't say this is part of your religion.

My religion teaches me to condemn all injustices, regardless of who carries them out.

I wish you peace.

Cheers,
Shafique

if that is your religion, why do the people pictured above go un-announced to cause such carnage?

how would you feel if you're praying at your mosque and someone comes in unanounced, kills your brother, father then storms out screaming death to muslims? (that would NEVER happen)

i hope im making my point clear.


do you want to discuss what happened with bush and iraq?


lets rewind time,

iraq first attacked kuwait

why?

because kuwait owed millions upon millions to iraq for protecting it from iran - after years of getting pelted.... iraq finally demolishes iran, kuwait refuses to pay up, sadam pelts kuwait - kuwait screams to america, america gets paid twice as many millions, they come and get the job done...


but was it done? no it wasnt - and the taste for oil now is in america's mouth - so they go for round 2, making every excuse they can make to re-enter the region...


besides the point that it was declared war, look at the original scenario that started all this? iran vs iraq - muslim against muslim - a pure scenario of greed... is it true that iran also has a hold of a few of the emirates smaller islands at the moment? just heard whispers about this - interested to see what the truth behind it is..

that would also explain america's hinting at smashing iran to bits, because guess who the UAE's best buddy is? george dubya !

lets just keep going

from IQRA'A - a saudi arabian hard left islamic channel


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7zDJ8jl ... re=related

you dont like hitler shafique?



your sisters here seem to..

this imam tends to agree with me that islam makes you dimmer - damn i should invest time collecting data and conduct social experiements, i know i would get somewhere.




pay special attention to the part that says "IF YOU KILL - DO IT RIGHT" the Quran teaches you that if you are going to kill, you make sure you do it right....

the imam also asks why the zionists are miles ahead of muslims, well they used their brains, have freedom of expression, are not opressed by cave-man like rule of nations that confuse religon with politics making them one... you're free to do as you please in isreal, and that doesnt comprimise their love for their religion - something islamic countries seem to be terrified of doing...



let me ask you this shafique, if you dont know arabic, how do you understand fatwa's that come out in arabic, nearly every other day?

have you heard of the fatwa that said:

a woman, should not work with any man.... but there is a way around that he claimed, she could breast feed her co-worker - then its ok for her to work with him.. i swear to you on my mothers life, someone lost his brains and said that... it made every channel, every show, i think it caused him to step down by the very end... no one knows what he really meant, surely he couldnt have meant that - but he said it, and it was a fatwa..

similarly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNtnsNBX ... re=related
^^^
this guy is a bit of a joker, but the topic at hand is in fact serious.


and this is 100% accurate according to the verse that says something along the lines of "and whatever their right owns" - their right owns means a man is allowed to sleep with his slaves, or anyone that works for him (the man being the employer, in effect owning her according to islam), and this was validated by the imam in this video:



that i posted earlier, that was the topic of that conversation, she wanted to know what on earth or how on earth would the qur'an say a man can sleep with any woman he employs without marriage, how is that possible, and his reply was - we do not question our faith, or God's theories...

he accused father zakariya that he is a lunatic, and that he should go to hell for questioning the qur'an, she then said, to hell with father zakariya, I WANT TO KNOW, forget him, me, as a muslim, i want to know.... which then caused the cleric to get up and leave her show because it got a little bit too much for him.

and my god:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx6Is1uq ... re=related

and i also swear to you, he translates as he reads, word for word....... this leaves me just speechless. SPEECHLESS - i cannot, not in a miilion years, fathom, how anyone can say this and be a man of "allah"



as i said i can go on and on, there are so many things in islam that leave you saying "ARE YOU DEADLY SERIOUS???!!" - and yes it can be quiet "deadly" for the people that bring these things out...

i cant believe my luck

i thought i would never find this, this guy is on the ball

Hadeeth about breast feeding adults:




it was also mentioned, that everytime muhammad was faced with a perdicament, he would magically go in, make a "sura" that would solve it... and his wife commented on it once, she goes its strange that you always seem to find the answer straight away... his reply was that allah shows him the way..

seems to me that he manually cut and pasted all his rules as he goes - how he pleases... telling women to breast feed men so they can come into his house?

wow.