beloved Imam explains Islam

[carolineislands]

This Imam is one of the most respected Imams and lecturers in all of Islam. Zakir Naik. In this video he asserts that anyone who is terrorizing America, whom he refers to as "the biggest terrorist" is "following Islam" and he is with them. Then he says if Osama Bin Laden is terroizing the USA then he is following Islam and that every Muslim SHOULD BE A TERRORIST.

Watch and give your opinion.

1. The Quran orders Muslims to terrorize the enemies of Islam.
2. Then all Muslims are commanded by the Quran to be terrorists, as Zakir Naik states.

The question is this -- Is Zakir Naik WRONG? If so, give proof that he is wrong. If he is right, then Islam is a terrorist religion.

Here's the vid:

[carolineislands]

... muslim protests do not get much media coverage.

You've got to be kidding! Muslims make themselves heard when they really care about something and it DOES get coverage. LOTS of coverage. Matter of fact, it's plastered all over every newspaper in the west, played on TV etc. etc.. Don't tell me these demonstrations and riots are happening but they just don't get covered. I've spoken to plenty of people about this. There is a handful of Muslims who disagree with terrorism and are willing to protest but when only 20 show up to the protest and 17 of them are Christians and Jews, it probably doesn't get much coverage. Unlike the hundreds of thousands of protesters who stood up against the profound injustice of a mis-named teddy bear.

lately there was conference held by the second largest islamic madarsa of the world , which had (not the so called moderate muslims, but muslim maulanas ) who stood up against terrorism in about a crowd of approx. 30,000 men.
they condemed all the terrorist acts and told that they are not to be associated with islam or islamic teachings.

Well, that's a start. Nothing close to the demonstrations about stuff that doesn't matter, but at least it's something. I wonder though, have you thought about the fact that all those men disagree with Naik, and with you on that issue?

and i have my self seen many small and big protests.

Next time take pictures, will you? The world needs to know that there are some Muslims who don't follow the actions of Muhammad to the letter and are attempting to reform Islam.

but here in india the scene is a bit different from the outer world, you might have heard about the recent gujarat riots

The situation in India is just a mess. I've heard about the RSS slaughtering Muslims and Sikhs and Muslims slaughtering Sikhs and the government slaughtering Sikhs and blowing huge holes in the Golden Temple. I've heard about how the Muslims slaughters thousands of Sikhs in Delhi, hacked their bodies into bits, crammed them into a train and sent them home to Punjab like that. I know that India was conquered by Muslims and that many Hindus are not coming back to Hinduism because their family's conversion to Islam was never done by free choice and they are now rejecting a religion that was forced on them. I know a little bit about the situation in India but only from news and from Indian friends I have here.

so plz dont think that , muslims like to promote or spread terrorism, this is all just a misconception being propogated in the present society .

No, this is not a misconception propagated by anyone. This is the history of the religion and it's conquests. These are the facts in the Quran and Hadiths. This is the story of Islam. It was a violent, political, bloody conquest. Period. The facts are right there in the Quran and Hadith and the history of Islam, Umair. I understand that you love your religion and there are things you wish were not true about it. I get that. That's human, and I respect that. But the facts are facts and trying to cover it up just makes you look dishonest. Islam is a violent religion and anybody who has ever read the Quran, the Hadiths, or the history of Islam knows that.

but even after all this political debate , the question still remains intact, that why do people associate islam with violence.

Why? Because violence is part and parcel of Islam. Its a founding principle and is intrinsic to the nature of the philosophy in general. Muhammad started out in Medina with a group of bandits that attacked caravans and took booty, then he attacked the jews in Medina and surrounding villages, be-headed them, threw them down wells, etc.. From there he spread out, warring for Islam. By the time he reached Mecca his reputation as the most vicious leader with the most blood thirsty army in Arabia had already reached them. The Quraysh were given 3 choices: 1. convert to Islam 2. accept dhimmi ("guilty") status and live as subservients to the Muslims 3. Die. Except some of the people that Muhammad had hard grudges against, likeUqba bin Abi Mu'ait, who plead for his life before Muhammad's sword saying, "But who will look after my children, Oh Muhammad?!" to which Muhammad replied, "Hell!" and order Uqba be-headed. (Ibn Ishaq 308)

Muhammad went into those battles with confidence because Allah had told him to go in and "smite them in their necks," meaning chop their heads off. Allah promised to send angels to help them be-head the non-believers in CONQUEST. "I will instill TERROR into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all thier finger-tips off them." Qur'an 8:9, 23-13.

So why would people associate violence with Islam? Because the "prophet" of Islam set the standard and it still holds (Nicholas Berg).

Come on umair, just tell the truth about this. You know how Muhammad spread his religion. Trying to act like you don't is just an insult to our intelligence.

murders...if it would have been so , then possibly no one could have remain a non-muslim.

Only the ones who accepted dhimmi status. And many of them ended up dead later for some minor infraction. You do know about the Qaynuka Jews that had accepted dhimmi status in the face of death or conversion, don't you? In case you don't, they accepted dhimmi status and were living amongst Muhammad and his Muslims but Muhammad changed his mind and killed them for hiding some of their jewels from Muhammad instead of turning them all over as commanded. Ibn Sa'd Vul II 137)

in islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.

This is simply the furthest thing from the truth. Kinana bin al-Rabi was the person entrusted with the treasure of his tribe, the Banu Nadir. If you read Ibn Ishaq 515, you will see where Muhammad order him to be TORTURED until he confessed where the treasure was hidden.

Umair, these are the texts of Islam I am quoting here -- not right wing neo-con propaganda. Read again in Ibid about the conquest of Mecca and Abu Sufyan who would confess that there was only one God but doubted the veracity of Muhammad. Under Muhammad's order, the lieutenant Abbas held a sword above his head and ordered him "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head."

Or read Bukhari, vol 7, book 76, 5727,; cf online edition vol. 8, book 82, nos 794-797 and see how when some of these forced converts escaped and renounced Islam Muhammad had them pursued and ordered that their hands and feet be chopped off and their eyes put out with heated iron bars and then to leave them in the desert to die like that. And to top it off, he ordered that any and all of their cries for water be refused.

Muhammad had a poet killed for making fun of him in poems. Ibn Ishaq 550-551.

3) (de lacy o leary)- in the book "islam at the cross roads"(page8)
"history makes it clear however that the legends 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"

Aparently, Mr O'Leary has not read the Quran or Hadith.

4)muslims ruled spain for 800 years- muslims ruled spain for about 800 yrs. the muslim in spain never used the sword to force the people to convert.

I guess you've never heard of the Barbary Coast Pirates or the Umayad Conquest of Spain? Check them out sometime.

here are 14million arabs who are coptic christians ie: christians since generations. if the muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single arab who would have remained christian.

As I've already proven, some were given a choice to turn over all their riches and live as subservients (dhimmis) among the Muslims. Consequently some survived.

more than 80% non muslims in india[/b]- the muslims ruled india for about a thousand years. if they wanted,they had the power of converting each and every non-muslim of india to islam. today 80% of the population of india are non-muslims.

Most people know about partition and the formation of Pakistan and that many Muslims went to live in Pakistan at that time. During partition, of course, Muslims slaughtered as many non-muslims as they could in order to become a majority in those areas since the rule had been made that whatever zones were majority Muslims would be part of Pakistan. That, combined with the fact that hundreds of thousands of former Hindus returned to their native religion after they escaped the control of the Muslim conquerers. That accounts for the fact that 80% in India are now non-Muslim. As an aside I would assert that, if Islam were to lift the apostasy rule, millions of Muslims would leave Islam.

7)indonesia and malaysia- indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of muslims in the world. the majority of people in malaysia are muslims.may one ask,"which muslim army went to indonesia or malaysia?"

The war on birth control! Muslim men take 4 wives and have 10 kids with each one, by the time a Muslim man is a grandparent they might have as many as 500 grandchildren. All those children are born Muslim and grow up with full knowledge that apostacy is punishable by death. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do the math on that one.

8)east coast of africa-similarly islam has spread on the east coast of africa. one may again ask, if islam was spread by sword,"which muslim army went to the east coast of africa?"

This is one unusual case in which Islam was spread more through inter-marriage. Only after several failed attempted at military conquest by the Muslims however. Read about the Conquest of Nubia.

9) Thomas Carlyle- "the swowd indeed, but where will you get the sword? every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one . in one mans 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 propogate with that , will do little for him. you must get your sword! on the whole , a thing will propogate itself as it can."

This statement is not only completely nonsensical it is in direct contradiction with the Islamic texts which clearly prove that Islam was spread by the sword. I don't know why Muslims feel such a need to deny this.

10)no compulsion in religion- with which sword was islam spread ? even if the muslims had it they could not use it to spread islam because the quran says in the following verse: "LET THERE BE NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION: TRUTH STANDS OUT CLEAR FROM THE ERROR"(al quran 2:256)

11)sword of the intellect- it is the sword of the intellect. the sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. the quran says in surah nahl, chapter 16 verse 125: "INVITE (ALL) TO THE WAY OF THY LORD WITH WISDOM AND BEAUTIFUL PREACHING; AND ARGUE WITH THEM IN WAYS THAT ARE BEST AND MOST GRACIOUS."

Nice. There are many nice sounding passages in the Quran that speak like this. Unfortunately, they were abrogated by later declarations that Muhammad made after he formed his armies and began to spread Islam by war and conquest. We know that the practice of abrogation is used in Islam, whereby any text from the Quran or Hadith that occurs at a later date than a text it contradicts takes precedence over the former text and cancels it out. So most of these nice, candy-coated pretty verses that Muslims love to quote are irrelevant to Islam because they have cancelled out by later texts that contradict them. It's very dishonest to quote them, actually. Because most Muslims know that they are moot and yet they quote them in hopes of making Islam appear to be something it is not.

Truth is, it takes a lot of work and study to find out what Islam really is. If I weren't willing to do some heavy reading and research I would believe all of the misinformation that's out there.

[ islam, which increased by 235% , and christianity had incresed only by 47%. may one ask ,which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to islam?

Unfortunately, many western nations have very generous immigration laws, as did Lebanon when it was a free, Christian democracy. Influx of Muslims into western nations, candy coated lies about Islam, and the combination of polygany and uncontrolled reproduction have created this dynamic. Christians on the whole, practice birth control and are concerned about the environment. Muslims do not.

Things will be changing soon. The U.S. for one, is going to begin restricting immigration and tightening immigration laws. Many Muslims in the U.S. will have to go home when those laws change and the influx of Muslims will halt completely. Which I have to say I think should happen. If Muslims cannot accept the principles of freedom of speech and democracy then they should not live here. These are our laws and our values and everybody knows that, and if people can't abide by them, they should stay in the Islamic states where there is no freedom of speech and enjoy Sharia law.

13)islam is the fastest growing religion in america and europe- today the fastest growing religion in america is islam. which sword is forcing people in the west to accept islam in such large numbers?

As I said, loose immigration laws and Muslims breeding like rabbits.

14)Dr. joseph adam pearson- Dr joseph adam pearson rightly says,"people who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of arabs, fail to realize that the islamic bomb has already been dropped, it fell the day MUHAMMED(pbuh) was born"

Interesting. That is quite a telling description by comparing the birth of Muhammad to a nuclear bomb. And you're using this excerpt to support your argument that Islam is not violent? Unfortunately you've proven the opposite.

Zakir Naik is right. Osama Bin Ladin IS practicing Islam.

Now, umair, as I said, I realize you love your religion -- at least you love what you think your religion is. But there is no sense in trying to cover up the truth or distort reality. The violence in Islam is exemplified by it's own history and texts, along with the actions of it's followers. I realize that you can't judge all systems by the behavior of a few of the followers. But you CAN judge a system by the behavior of a majority of it's followers, especially if the rest of them will not stand up and object to that behavior AND even more so if that behavior is supported by their organizing documents, their sacred texts AND the actions of their founder. When all those things line up, it's time to accept the truth about a system. And it is high time people accept the fact that violence, war, bloody conquest, and domination is intrinsic to Islam.

I know you don't want to think of your religion in that light umair. But denying it isn't helping anyone, least of all you.

I read the personal story of a lady who woke up to the truth of Islam left the religion altogether. She described how she defended Islam before her awakening and how passionately she fought against non-Muslims. She talks about how angry she used to get when someone would challenge Islam and then she started realizing that she felt that way because deep down in her heart she was starting to doubt Islam too. She said she got so angry because she didn't really even know where she would go if she left Islam and she was frightened of the truth. She wanted to believe in Islam but the facts were staring her right in the face and she got so angry. Eventually she woke up to the truth and walked away from Islam. It was a traumatic experience for her because when the clouds started to clear she began seeing a whole different world. She is very happy now but it took her a long time to get past the fear. She said that was the worst part. She had nightmares and people threatened her, her life was in danger, etc.. She had to leave her family and her country. It's not like leaving any other religion where the worst you get is your mother crying or people trying to talk you out of your decision. That's why so many Muslims are so defensive of their beliefs. Nobody want to believe they've been deceived. Especially when admitting it and making a change could put your life in danger.

But it doesn't change the truth, does it?

[umair]

... muslim protests do not get much media coverage.

You've got to be kidding! Muslims make themselves heard when they really care about something and it DOES get coverage. LOTS of coverage. Matter of fact, it's plastered all over every newspaper in the west, played on TV etc. etc.. Don't tell me these demonstrations and riots are happening but they just don't get covered. I've spoken to plenty of people about this. There is a handful of Muslims who disagree with terrorism and are willing to protest but when only 20 show up to the protest and 17 of them are Christians and Jews, it probably doesn't get much coverage. Unlike the hundreds of thousands of protesters who stood up against the profound injustice of a mis-named teddy bear.

lately there was conference held by the second largest islamic madarsa of the world , which had (not the so called moderate muslims, but muslim maulanas ) who stood up against terrorism in about a crowd of approx. 30,000 men.
they condemed all the terrorist acts and told that they are not to be associated with islam or islamic teachings.

Well, that's a start. Nothing close to the demonstrations about stuff that doesn't matter, but at least it's something. I wonder though, have you thought about the fact that all those men disagree with Naik, and with you on that issue?

and i have my self seen many small and big protests.

Next time take pictures, will you? The world needs to know that there are some Muslims who don't follow the actions of Muhammad to the letter and are attempting to reform Islam.

but here in india the scene is a bit different from the outer world, you might have heard about the recent gujarat riots

The situation in India is just a mess. I've heard about the RSS slaughtering Muslims and Sikhs and Muslims slaughtering Sikhs and the government slaughtering Sikhs and blowing huge holes in the Golden Temple. I've heard about how the Muslims slaughters thousands of Sikhs in Delhi, hacked their bodies into bits, crammed them into a train and sent them home to Punjab like that. I know that India was conquered by Muslims and that many Hindus are not coming back to Hinduism because their family's conversion to Islam was never done by free choice and they are now rejecting a religion that was forced on them. I know a little bit about the situation in India but only from news and from Indian friends I have here.

so plz dont think that , muslims like to promote or spread terrorism, this is all just a misconception being propogated in the present society .

No, this is not a misconception propagated by anyone. This is the history of the religion and it's conquests. These are the facts in the Quran and Hadiths. This is the story of Islam. It was a violent, political, bloody conquest. Period. The facts are right there in the Quran and Hadith and the history of Islam, Umair. I understand that you love your religion and there are things you wish were not true about it. I get that. That's human, and I respect that. But the facts are facts and trying to cover it up just makes you look dishonest. Islam is a violent religion and anybody who has ever read the Quran, the Hadiths, or the history of Islam knows that.

but even after all this political debate , the question still remains intact, that why do people associate islam with violence.

Why? Because violence is part and parcel of Islam. Its a founding principle and is intrinsic to the nature of the philosophy in general. Muhammad started out in Medina with a group of bandits that attacked caravans and took booty, then he attacked the jews in Medina and surrounding villages, be-headed them, threw them down wells, etc.. From there he spread out, warring for Islam. By the time he reached Mecca his reputation as the most vicious leader with the most blood thirsty army in Arabia had already reached them. The Quraysh were given 3 choices: 1. convert to Islam 2. accept dhimmi ("guilty") status and live as subservients to the Muslims 3. Die. Except some of the people that Muhammad had hard grudges against, likeUqba bin Abi Mu'ait, who plead for his life before Muhammad's sword saying, "But who will look after my children, Oh Muhammad?!" to which Muhammad replied, "Hell!" and order Uqba be-headed. (Ibn Ishaq 308)

Muhammad went into those battles with confidence because Allah had told him to go in and "smite them in their necks," meaning chop their heads off. Allah promised to send angels to help them be-head the non-believers in CONQUEST. "I will instill TERROR into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all thier finger-tips off them." Qur'an 8:9, 23-13.

So why would people associate violence with Islam? Because the "prophet" of Islam set the standard and it still holds (Nicholas Berg).

Come on umair, just tell the truth about this. You know how Muhammad spread his religion. Trying to act like you don't is just an insult to our intelligence.

murders...if it would have been so , then possibly no one could have remain a non-muslim.

Only the ones who accepted dhimmi status. And many of them ended up dead later for some minor infraction. You do know about the Qaynuka Jews that had accepted dhimmi status in the face of death or conversion, don't you? In case you don't, they accepted dhimmi status and were living amongst Muhammad and his Muslims but Muhammad changed his mind and killed them for hiding some of their jewels from Muhammad instead of turning them all over as commanded. Ibn Sa'd Vul II 137)

in islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.

This is simply the furthest thing from the truth. Kinana bin al-Rabi was the person entrusted with the treasure of his tribe, the Banu Nadir. If you read Ibn Ishaq 515, you will see where Muhammad order him to be TORTURED until he confessed where the treasure was hidden.

Umair, these are the texts of Islam I am quoting here -- not right wing neo-con propaganda. Read again in Ibid about the conquest of Mecca and Abu Sufyan who would confess that there was only one God but doubted the veracity of Muhammad. Under Muhammad's order, the lieutenant Abbas held a sword above his head and ordered him "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head."

Or read Bukhari, vol 7, book 76, 5727,; cf online edition vol. 8, book 82, nos 794-797 and see how when some of these forced converts escaped and renounced Islam Muhammad had them pursued and ordered that their hands and feet be chopped off and their eyes put out with heated iron bars and then to leave them in the desert to die like that. And to top it off, he ordered that any and all of their cries for water be refused.

Muhammad had a poet killed for making fun of him in poems. Ibn Ishaq 550-551.

3) (de lacy o leary)- in the book "islam at the cross roads"(page8)
"history makes it clear however that the legends 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"

Aparently, Mr O'Leary has not read the Quran or Hadith.

4)muslims ruled spain for 800 years- muslims ruled spain for about 800 yrs. the muslim in spain never used the sword to force the people to convert.

I guess you've never heard of the Barbary Coast Pirates or the Umayad Conquest of Spain? Check them out sometime.

here are 14million arabs who are coptic christians ie: christians since generations. if the muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single arab who would have remained christian.

As I've already proven, some were given a choice to turn over all their riches and live as subservients (dhimmis) among the Muslims. Consequently some survived.

more than 80% non muslims in india[/b]- the muslims ruled india for about a thousand years. if they wanted,they had the power of converting each and every non-muslim of india to islam. today 80% of the population of india are non-muslims.

Most people know about partition and the formation of Pakistan and that many Muslims went to live in Pakistan at that time. During partition, of course, Muslims slaughtered as many non-muslims as they could in order to become a majority in those areas since the rule had been made that whatever zones were majority Muslims would be part of Pakistan. That, combined with the fact that hundreds of thousands of former Hindus returned to their native religion after they escaped the control of the Muslim conquerers. That accounts for the fact that 80% in India are now non-Muslim. As an aside I would assert that, if Islam were to lift the apostasy rule, millions of Muslims would leave Islam.

7)indonesia and malaysia- indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of muslims in the world. the majority of people in malaysia are muslims.may one ask,"which muslim army went to indonesia or malaysia?"

The war on birth control! Muslim men take 4 wives and have 10 kids with each one, by the time a Muslim man is a grandparent they might have as many as 500 grandchildren. All those children are born Muslim and grow up with full knowledge that apostacy is punishable by death. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do the math on that one.

8)east coast of africa-similarly islam has spread on the east coast of africa. one may again ask, if islam was spread by sword,"which muslim army went to the east coast of africa?"

This is one unusual case in which Islam was spread more through inter-marriage. Only after several failed attempted at military conquest by the Muslims however. Read about the Conquest of Nubia.

9) Thomas Carlyle- "the swowd indeed, but where will you get the sword? every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one . in one mans 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 propogate with that , will do little for him. you must get your sword! on the whole , a thing will propogate itself as it can."

This statement is not only completely nonsensical it is in direct contradiction with the Islamic texts which clearly prove that Islam was spread by the sword. I don't know why Muslims feel such a need to deny this.

10)no compulsion in religion- with which sword was islam spread ? even if the muslims had it they could not use it to spread islam because the quran says in the following verse: "LET THERE BE NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION: TRUTH STANDS OUT CLEAR FROM THE ERROR"(al quran 2:256)

11)sword of the intellect- it is the sword of the intellect. the sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. the quran says in surah nahl, chapter 16 verse 125: "INVITE (ALL) TO THE WAY OF THY LORD WITH WISDOM AND BEAUTIFUL PREACHING; AND ARGUE WITH THEM IN WAYS THAT ARE BEST AND MOST GRACIOUS."

Nice. There are many nice sounding passages in the Quran that speak like this. Unfortunately, they were abrogated by later declarations that Muhammad made after he formed his armies and began to spread Islam by war and conquest. We know that the practice of abrogation is used in Islam, whereby any text from the Quran or Hadith that occurs at a later date than a text it contradicts takes precedence over the former text and cancels it out. So most of these nice, candy-coated pretty verses that Muslims love to quote are irrelevant to Islam because they have cancelled out by later texts that contradict them. It's very dishonest to quote them, actually. Because most Muslims know that they are moot and yet they quote them in hopes of making Islam appear to be something it is not.

Truth is, it takes a lot of work and study to find out what Islam really is. If I weren't willing to do some heavy reading and research I would believe all of the misinformation that's out there.

[ islam, which increased by 235% , and christianity had incresed only by 47%. may one ask ,which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to islam?

Unfortunately, many western nations have very generous immigration laws, as did Lebanon when it was a free, Christian democracy. Influx of Muslims into western nations, candy coated lies about Islam, and the combination of polygany and uncontrolled reproduction have created this dynamic. Christians on the whole, practice birth control and are concerned about the environment. Muslims do not.

Things will be changing soon. The U.S. for one, is going to begin restricting immigration and tightening immigration laws. Many Muslims in the U.S. will have to go home when those laws change and the influx of Muslims will halt completely. Which I have to say I think should happen. If Muslims cannot accept the principles of freedom of speech and democracy then they should not live here. These are our laws and our values and everybody knows that, and if people can't abide by them, they should stay in the Islamic states where there is no freedom of speech and enjoy Sharia law.

13)islam is the fastest growing religion in america and europe- today the fastest growing religion in america is islam. which sword is forcing people in the west to accept islam in such large numbers?

As I said, loose immigration laws and Muslims breeding like rabbits.

14)Dr. joseph adam pearson- Dr joseph adam pearson rightly says,"people who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of arabs, fail to realize that the islamic bomb has already been dropped, it fell the day MUHAMMED(pbuh) was born"

Interesting. That is quite a telling description by comparing the birth of Muhammad to a nuclear bomb. And you're using this excerpt to support your argument that Islam is not violent? Unfortunately you've proven the opposite.

Zakir Naik is right. Osama Bin Ladin IS practicing Islam.

Now, umair, as I said, I realize you love your religion -- at least you love what you think your religion is. But there is no sense in trying to cover up the truth or distort reality. The violence in Islam is exemplified by it's own history and texts, along with the actions of it's followers. I realize that you can't judge all systems by the behavior of a few of the followers. But you CAN judge a system by the behavior of a majority of it's followers, especially if the rest of them will not stand up and object to that behavior AND even more so if that behavior is supported by their organizing documents, their sacred texts AND the actions of their founder. When all those things line up, it's time to accept the truth about a system. And it is high time people accept the fact that violence, war, bloody conquest, and domination is intrinsic to Islam.

I know you don't want to think of your religion in that light umair. But denying it isn't helping anyone, least of all you.

I read the personal story of a lady who woke up to the truth of Islam left the religion altogether. She described how she defended Islam before her awakening and how passionately she fought against non-Muslims. She talks about how angry she used to get when someone would challenge Islam and then she started realizing that she felt that way because deep down in her heart she was starting to doubt Islam too. She said she got so angry because she didn't really even know where she would go if she left Islam and she was frightened of the truth. She wanted to believe in Islam but the facts were staring her right in the face and she got so angry. Eventually she woke up to the truth and walked away from Islam. It was a traumatic experience for her because when the clouds started to clear she began seeing a whole different world. She is very happy now but it took her a long time to get past the fear. She said that was the worst part. She had nightmares and people threatened her, her life was in danger, etc.. She had to leave her family and her country. It's not like leaving any other religion where the worst you get is your mother crying or people trying to talk you out of your decision. That's why so many Muslims are so defensive of their beliefs. Nobody want to believe they've been deceived. Especially when admitting it and making a change could put your life in danger.

But it doesn't change the truth, does it?

hello caroline,

well i am just posting to inform you and other debators that my exams are over my head so i will join you back by 20 may(inshallah),

by that time there is a small job for you, plz check the authenticity for your above claims,related to the islamic texts, because when i checked a few of them , i found that , the verse of the quran that you have given ,say something totaly different from what you have provided,
and similarly the hadith of bukhari which you have given is half, ie : you missed out the part that the people who were given such punishments, had earlier looted and killed some poeple.

plz check the authenticity , this is what i have always repeated.

[carolineislands]

"the american alliance which is repsonsible for all the unrest in the world..."

LOL

What about this? http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

Muslims have been raiding, looting, and doing bloody jihad since Muhammad got pissed off at the Medina jews for not adoring him and start cutting heads off.

By the way, if you go to look at the list of Islamic terror attacks over the globe since 9/11, you'll have to download them a few months or a year at a time because the list is so long it will bog down your computer! Serious, they have it in separate segments because the list is just too huge.

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

the Medina jews

Yathrib. Medina simply means ‘city’ and stems from the people who remained in that city (after the natives ended up ousted) referring to it as ‘medinat an–nabi’ = ‘city of the prophet’. I think it high time someone reclaimed the original name.

[carolineislands]

How do you say "the city that was stupid enough to admit the prophet when everybody in his home town was so sick of him they were about to chop off his head" in Arabic?

[carolineislands]

the Medina jews

Yathrib. Medina simply means ‘city’ and stems from the people who remained in that city (after the natives ended up ousted) referring to it as ‘medinat an–nabi’ = ‘city of the prophet’. I think it high time someone reclaimed the original name.

The Jews in that town at that time were Yathrib? Thank you for this correction.

[Truth_Teller]

That´s an accusation on Islam by a Muslim scholar himself. He is being absolutely wrong here. If he has said this it doesn´t mean it´s right and is what Islam preaches. He just one of those senseless Mullahs, nothing else!!! If he is an Imam that doesn´t qualify of his words being the righteous most and last ones.

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

the Medina jews

Yathrib. Medina simply means ‘city’ and stems from the people who remained in that city (after the natives ended up ousted) referring to it as ‘medinat an–nabi’ = ‘city of the prophet’. I think it high time someone reclaimed the original name.

The Jews in that town at that time were Yathrib? Thank you for this correction.

Not quite. They were several tribes of Jews there. The inhabitants called the city itself Yathrib. After Muhammad ousted/executed the Jews from Yathrib they renamed it Medina in his honour (city, short for city of the prophet).

[carolineislands]

the Medina jews

Yathrib. Medina simply means ‘city’ and stems from the people who remained in that city (after the natives ended up ousted) referring to it as ‘medinat an–nabi’ = ‘city of the prophet’. I think it high time someone reclaimed the original name.

The Jews in that town at that time were Yathrib? Thank you for this correction.

Not quite. They were several tribes of Jews there. The inhabitants called the city itself Yathrib. After Muhammad ousted/executed the Jews from Yathrib they renamed it Medina in his honour (city, short for city of the prophet).

Ah.. I wonder how many times this same thing occurred during the Muslim conquests? But then, that wouldn't actually be past tense, would it?

Thanks for the info. I'll call it Yathrib from now on.