Islam Denounces Terrorism

[TrueReligion]

From Source -> http://www.harunyahya.com/terrorism3.php

I would like readers to comment after reading whole article, with open mind and heart, and neutral approach..

We shall discuss after this. Special points to be noted in this article is the remarks and opinion of non-muslim historians, christians, Jews about Islam.

Example -> Canon Taylor, one of the mission leaders of the Anglican Church, expresses the beauty revealed by the Islamic morality in one of his speeches as follows:

It [Islam] brought out the fundamental dogmas of religion - the unity and greatness of God, that He is merciful and righteous, that He claims obedience to His will, resignation and faith. It proclaimed the responsibility of man, a future life, a day of judgment, and stern retribution to fall upon the wicked; and enforced the duties of prayer, almsgiving, fasting and benevolence. It thrust aside the artificial virtues, the religious frauds and follies, the perverted moral sentiments, and the verbal subtleties of theological disputants… It gave hope to the slave, brotherhood to mankind, and recognition to the fundamental facts of human nature.

The false assertion that people in conquered countries converted to Islam under threat has also been disproved by Western researchers, and the justice and tolerant attitude of Muslims has been confirmed. L.Browne, a Western researcher, expresses this situation in the following words:

Incidentally these well-established facts dispose of the idea so widely fostered in Christian writings that the Muslims, wherever they went, forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword.

[Wyvern]

I would like readers to comment after reading whole article, with open mind and heart, and neutral approach..

Coming from a neutral viewpoint I would say the article itself is not neutral. Glossing over the negative parts of history don't make them go away, especially when in glossing over the negative aspects of one culture you highlight those same negative aspects in another culture.

[Wyvern]

The false assertion that people in conquered countries converted to Islam under threat has also been disproved by Western researchers, and the justice and tolerant attitude of Muslims has been confirmed. L.Browne, a Western researcher, expresses this situation in the following words:

Although the koran does state that noone should be forced to convert to islam, googling forced conversion to islam brings up over two and a half million hits. Certainly there are quite a few double posts and what not but no matter how you cut it there have been quite a few forced conversions over the years. In order to be fair I also googled forced conversion to christianity which resulted in 168,000 hits.

[TrueReligion]

The false assertion that people in conquered countries converted to Islam under threat has also been disproved by Western researchers, and the justice and tolerant attitude of Muslims has been confirmed. L.Browne, a Western researcher, expresses this situation in the following words:

Although the koran does state that noone should be forced to convert to islam, googling forced conversion to islam brings up over two and a half million hits. Certainly there are quite a few double posts and what not but no matter how you cut it there have been quite a few forced conversions over the years. In order to be fair I also googled forced conversion to christianity which resulted in 168,000 hits.

This all misconception is cleared in depth in this article, hope you will find all your answers here.

Peace to you

[TrueReligion]

I would like readers to comment after reading whole article, with open mind and heart, and neutral approach..

Coming from a neutral viewpoint I would say the article itself is not neutral. Glossing over the negative parts of history don't make them go away, especially when in glossing over the negative aspects of one culture you highlight those same negative aspects in another culture.

As I mentioned already that onw should aproach the article neutraly, and with open heart and mind, but seems its not followed.
You can read more history, to find the real truth, rather than googling and reading the BIAS websites, and ignoring the real history my friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm all for folks proclaiming that one shouldn't be forced to support any a/religious notion, especially when violence is condemned. I'll take such messages at face value, regardless of underlying issues or who happens to say it.

[McCulloch]

Why is it then that Islamic countries will not implement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that many Islamic countries have not ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ?

I suspect that it is article 18 that expresses one fundamental human right that Islamic countries are unwilling to recognize:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

[Wyvern]

I would like readers to comment after reading whole article, with open mind and heart, and neutral approach..

Coming from a neutral viewpoint I would say the article itself is not neutral. Glossing over the negative parts of history don't make them go away, especially when in glossing over the negative aspects of one culture you highlight those same negative aspects in another culture.

As I mentioned already that onw should aproach the article neutraly, and with open heart and mind, but seems its not followed.
You can read more history, to find the real truth, rather than googling and reading the BIAS websites, and ignoring the real history my friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam

I did approach the article from a neutral viewpoint. Being neutral does not mean you ignore all the bad aspects of something. If you can not accept the good along with the bad aspects of something you can not be neutral. Why is it you have no problem highlighting the negative aspects of christianity but when anything negative about islam is mentioned you immediately deny it no matter how much evidence is brought to prove it is true?

[Wyvern]

The false assertion that people in conquered countries converted to Islam under threat has also been disproved by Western researchers, and the justice and tolerant attitude of Muslims has been confirmed. L.Browne, a Western researcher, expresses this situation in the following words:

Although the koran does state that noone should be forced to convert to islam, googling forced conversion to islam brings up over two and a half million hits. Certainly there are quite a few double posts and what not but no matter how you cut it there have been quite a few forced conversions over the years. In order to be fair I also googled forced conversion to christianity which resulted in 168,000 hits.

This all misconception is cleared in depth in this article, hope you will find all your answers here.

Peace to you

There is no misconception, you claimed islam does not forcibly convert people but a quick google search clearly shows this is not true.

[TrueReligion]

I would like readers to comment after reading whole article, with open mind and heart, and neutral approach..

Coming from a neutral viewpoint I would say the article itself is not neutral. Glossing over the negative parts of history don't make them go away, especially when in glossing over the negative aspects of one culture you highlight those same negative aspects in another culture.

As I mentioned already that onw should aproach the article neutraly, and with open heart and mind, but seems its not followed.
You can read more history, to find the real truth, rather than googling and reading the BIAS websites, and ignoring the real history my friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam

I did approach the article from a neutral viewpoint. Being neutral does not mean you ignore all the bad aspects of something. If you can not accept the good along with the bad aspects of something you can not be neutral. Why is it you have no problem highlighting the negative aspects of christianity but when anything negative about islam is mentioned you immediately deny it no matter how much evidence is brought to prove it is true?

Because you have'nt shown bad till now, what you are saying, is about some few cases , but in those cases as well, if somebody is converted by force, there is no use, because conversion is done from heart, not from outside.
So if there is nothing negative, obviously I have not to accept the negative accusation on Islam.