Umm...no, he didn't. The Muslim expansions started afterthe prophet was long dead; the expansions outside of Arabia began mostly under the reign of the Calipha Omar. None of them happened while the prophet was still alive. Muslims were attacked and persecuted early and often by their enemies. The Muslims had to leave Mecca due to the heavy persecution of the new converts. Muslims migrated to Yathreb (current day Medina) as they were welcomed by the inhabitants of that town, most of whom had already converted to Islam and decided to invite this 'new prophet' and his followers, thereby creating the first base for the 'ummah' (i.e. Islamic nation), which is now marked by the Hijri calender (Muslim calender). Even then, Muslims were attacked and fought three full-scale battles against the allied tribes of Mecca, despite being vastly outnumbered in every one of them (by a 10:1 ratio at times); so even then they were not left alone. Despite all that, the prophet decided to sign a 'truce' agreement with the same Meccan tribes that wanted to destroy him and his followers. However, the Meccans proceeded to violate the terms of that agreement and continued their hostilities, at which point the Muslims conquered Mecca. The Meccans wanted nothing less than the total annihilation of Islam, which ironically enough is what made it even stronger and enabled it to thrive. Sorry for the history lesson, just wanted to give you a quick background here... I don't think he called it "jiza" because that's an Arabic word, and Alexander was not an Arab. Think of the jiza as a 'tax', that's basically what it was. Muslims were already paying a 'tax' of sorts as part of their religious commitment, the jiza was basically a tax that was roughly equivalent to what Muslims were obliged to pay. Probably because they are "extremists". However, in certain circumstances, Muslims are no different than any other group of people in that they will defend their lands when attacked; in fact, it's a religious duty. Probably not, since the removal of Saddam Hussein was declared as a matter of policy under the Clinton administration. 9/11 provided the pretext, but sooner or later the Iraq war was going to happen. That didn't always use to be the case, it's a pretty recent phenomenon. Furthermore, I wouldn't exactly call America 'pacifist', we have a long history of being a 'war-like' nation and continue to uphold that tradition to this day. Religion is more or less a 'philosophy', you can still respect and appreciate contributions made by other religions/cultures without necessarily subscribing to their 'way of life' or the way they see the world.
I don't like to waste time discussing religion on a message board as most people have already made up their minds before they even engage, but just to add on to what tiger said: The first political action Muhammad undertook upon his arrival at Yathrib was to create a peace treaty between the Jews and Arabs. An Arab tribe had sided with each of the Jewish tribes, and they had been locked in a brutal civil war prior to Islam. Muhammad convinced them to lay down their arms for the benefit of the community and to protect each other from outside attack. Again, the concept of 'survival' is very pertinent in this historical context. The claim can be made that expansionism under Omar was done through the sword, and the Orientalists have argued so. But it is simply historically incorrect to claim that Muhammad spread Islam by the sword.
DaDa, WTH are you talking about?! Mohammad was not in any way, shape, or form a "violent" man before he founded Islam. It was the complete opposite... In his early life as a young man, Muhammad was a simple shepherd, and was raised by his uncle after the death of both of his parents and grandfather when he was still very young (His father died before his birth, his mom died when he was only six, while his paternal grandfather died while he was eight). During his youth, he became a merchant and was employed by his future to-be-wife Khadija, who had asked for his hand in marriage. Khadija was mostly impressed by the character of Muhammad, who was roughly 15 years her junior. Around Quraish, he was a trusted man, nicknamed "Al-Amin" (literally "the trustworthy one") by the tribes of Mecca, some of whom sought his services as a 'mediator' and a 'just man' in important matters (this would serve as a huge positive that would win over his first converts, including the first Muslim Calipha Abu Bakr, who accepted the message of Muhammad the second he heard of it, telling a companion of his that "if he says it, it's true, he's never been known to be a liar;" Abu Bakr wasn't the only one, many converted in a similar manner based entirely on whom they had known Muhammad to be prior to him receiving the message of Islam). Feeling spiritually 'lost', he would hike to a mountain outside of Mecca to seek solitude and worship in the tradition of Abraham, where he -- at the age of 40 -- is believed to have received the first revelations of the Quran and therefore the 'duty' to carry the message of radical monotheism to the masses. I really don't want to pick on you DaDa, but dude you're so misled about Islam and its history it's not even funny. I remember back in the day when you would post links to sites that were openly anti-Islam as your source for information...You're doing yourself a huge disservice, DaDa. Someone is purposely misleading you about Islam, I am not sure where you're getting your info from, but the information you're getting is completely false.
With all due respect, I just can't take you seriously. You make brash comments about Islam, but you aren't even sure who founded it? Are you kidding me? Do you still believe Muslims worship a stone?
Did you not just read my first post? All of Arabia was united under the first dynasties. Before Muhammad's death, they did not 'conquer.' The neighboring tribes came and pledged allegiance to Muhammad and Islam. Outward expansion did not begin until the 2nd Caliphate.
Completely false. Muhammad was one of the most respected and peaceful people in Mecca both before and after Islam came around.
I mentioned what has Islam contributed of late! What has been the contribution say in the last 20 years? Not historically. My point is to show that Islamic civilization is far from it's peak. It's not about Islam...or religion, it's about the region...which has been engulfed in poverty and hasn't been able to shed off the yoke of colonialism as others have done. What's disturbing is that instead of embracing modernization, these societies are embracing a non-helpful view of the world and the west in particular. Look, this women is making some awesome points. How long with Islam blame the west for it's trouble? When are Muslims going to take responsibility for their own future instead of saying it can not happen because the west supports the dictatorships and doesn't act correctly. What is correct behavior? We can't install democracies, and yet we can't work with dictators. You can offer a lot of critque...but let's hear the solution. Honestly, I don't think it matters what the west does...because ultimately, the responsibility of rising up and attaining their place in the world is up to Muslims. No one is stopping them...but I think instead of addressing what they need to change in their culture, they are satisfied pointing the finger elsewhere. Why can't more muslim countried be like Malaysia? That's what I want to know. There was a time when Islam was a source for science and discourse. Now clerics speak out against this as being "western". I hate to break it to you Tiger, but a lot of "Western" society that Muslims dispise comes from the old Islamic world.
The problem here is that you guys are converging the issues. I think a critique on the Muslim and Arab world in present day is completely warranted as it is in shambles. However, you then have people like DaDakota who take it back to an inherent problem with Islam, but then ignorantly/arrogantly dismiss Islamic history and acheivement throughout the ages or don't even have their basic facts straight surrounding the birth of Islam. It doesn't work that way. You either include it all or you include nothing. As far as the issue of the plight of the Arab world in present day, there's no simple answer. These things work in phases. It's funny because you guys want them to become so progressive like the West, but then you don't even take into account the fact that we keep supporting these corrupt, authoritarian regimes like Mubarak's. You then have a place like Lebanon that took the necessary steps to fight extremism, yet we blow them to smitherines through a proxy war because the process wasn't fast enough to our liking, disregarding the fact that they had been locked in a vicious civil war so recently. Extremism doesn't just exist in a vacuum. All of these places have been fighting colonialism since the fall of the Ottomans. You guys are so hypocritical. We gave birth to these same extremists when we aided them everywhere to stop Soviet expansion. And now that it has caught on, suddenly everyone is wondering why Muslims are so violent. Go figure.
It's funny how some people become so defensive and aggressive at the same time when they think they should feel compelled to defend their religion by all means. It's also funny how otherwise intelligent people will twist reality in order to cater to their first reflex: "defend, defend, defend..." - no matter how bad things are. The typical response is "Yes, but...". Hell, there were a lot of Muslims who would come up with the weirdest explanations why 9/11 or 7/7 (in London) were at least to some extent justified. That is just stupid.
Because we just want Muslims to start asking questions about their faith and asking why there is so much violence and take some of the blame for it as well instead of just blaming the West. So long as Muslims just blame the west for everything they will never take responsibility and nothing will get better. Bin Laden is the West's fault. Our poverty is the west's fault. Everything bad in the Islamic world is the west's fault. Hezbelloh is the west's fault Hamas is the west's fault Hate is the west's fault all the violence everywhere from Kashmir to Chechyna to the Phillipines is the west's fault Iran is the west's fault Frankly, take some responsibility - that's all this women is trying to say!
Islam was founded in 622, right? So, I missed the exact dates.....wooooppptteeee dooooo.....do I miss out on the virgins now, or can I go eat my bacon and egg sandwich in peace? Islam stealing Pagan rituals and ideals in founding their religion? Pagan ideas copied by Islam Example: Polytheistic worshippers prayed 5 times a day towards their local kaba’s. "The Sabeans have five prayers similar to the five prayers of the Muslims. Others say they have seven prayers, five of which are comparable to the prayers of the Muslims with regard to time [that is, morning, noon, afternoon, evening and night; the sixth is at midnight and the seventh is at forenoon]. It is their practice to pray over the dead without kneeling down or even bending the knee. They also fast for one lunar month of thirty days; they start their fast at the last watch of the night and continue till the setting of the sun. Some of their sects fast during the month of Ramadan, face Ka'ba when they pray, venerate Mecca, and believe in making the pilgrimage to it. They consider dead bodies, blood and the flesh of pigs as unlawful. They also forbid marriage for the same reasons as do Muslims." (Bulugh al-'Arab fi Ahwal al-Arab, Muhammad Shukri al-Alusi, Vol 1, p 121-122, Muslim) Prior to Islam the people would pray 5 times a day facing Mecca (The Encyclopedia of Islam p. 303) Worshippers in pagan Sabian religion that worshipped stars were "obliged to pray three times a day" (Preliminary Discourse to the Koran, Sale, 1801) At first, Muhammad prayed towards Jerusalem, but when he was rejected by the Jews, started directing his prayers towards Mecca. Today, monotheistic Muslims pray 5 times a day towards Mecca to Allah. Muhammad grafted this pagan practice into Islam. By the way, I do find it ironic that the site is bible.ca and that Christianity itself has been proven to copy pre-existing religious ideals in making their own. Pagan ideals copied in Christianity Which shows to me, just how silly all of this really is....maybe this deserves it's own thread? DD PS. Cue the attack on the authors of the sites, rather than dealing with the posted content.
I couldn't agree more with you here, the Muslim world needs to -- and is starting to -- take matters into their own hands, develop themselves and strengthen themselves both scientifically and militarily, and be steadfast in supporting their own initiatives without having to cater to the neocolonialists. I have been for the longest time critical of Arabs for that 'victim mentality' you speak of, because much of it is their own doing. They're not strong or united enough for the West to respect them, and if you want respect you have to earn it. They're not doing well economically, socially, or politically. The past century has been as 'dark' as it will likely get for them, and they need to snap out of it. They really don't lack anything and are in a much better position to resurrect their civilization than almost anyone else, they have definitely have the natural and human resources necessary to do so, they just need to pool them together and invest in both wisely and over time change will come. Now, is the West complicit in the current state of affairs in the region? Yes, absolutely, but you can't blame the West for pursuing their own interests, what the Arabs have to do is start doing the same.
While I agree with people taking responsibility, one of the biggest problems is the perception of a "Jewish" world, or a "Muslim" world, or a "Christian" world. The earth has been here for over 4.6 billion years, and will be here long after we kill each other or accept each other. DD
No doubt he was a violent guy? OMG, you really need to get your facts straight before you start debating something you obviously know nothing of. You're just looking like a fool. Please, go pick up an Islamic book, or go to an Islamic site, read some history, and then come back again. As for Mohammed, he was the most humble, nice, eloquent speaking person there could ever be. It's a historical fact. Ask any historian, and that's what he'll exactly say.
This argument may be beyond salvage, but... Mohammed might be a humble, wise, gentle and eloquent, but those are qualities that can not be historical fact, even if they are generally believed.
