Islam spread peacefully in the world; like it spread everywhere else; it spread in England also:
Although Islam is generally thought of as being a recent arrival in England, there has been contact between the English and Muslims for many centuries. An early example would be the decision ofOffa, the eighth-century King of Mercia (one of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms existing at that time), to have a coin minted with an Islamic inscription .
A mancus / gold dinar of king Offa, copied from the dinars of the Abbasid Caliphate (774); it includes the Arabic text Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah, a line from the Shahada.
Professor John Makdisi's "The Islamic Origins of the Common Law" in the North Carolina Law Review, suggested that English common law was inspired by medieval Islamic law.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
Upon reading the Wiki article, we find sources to articles demonstrating violence in regards to Muslims immigrating in England. Some of the material indicating that Muslim youths were the victims of these clashes link only to BBC news clippings and not the studies themselves.
Islamic propaganda works very much like crackpot science. A conclusion is drawn, whether it be from an observation or not is irrelevant. The crackpot will then seek out any insignificant pieces of evidence to form fit the conclusion, much like the 'square peg in the round hole' kind of fit.
Upon receiving peer reviewed critiques of these conclusions whereupon the crackpot is faced with overwhelming evidence in stark contrast to their conclusion, they dismiss it without missing a beat and move on picking out and offering yet more gristle.
Soon we shall see how Islam will be spread peacefully on Uranus... or is it in Uranus?
Peer reviewed journals aren't in the habit of disseminating news. On the other hand, news agencies do sometimes report findings from peer reviewed journals.
Remember, while it is wise to evaluate the credibility of given sources, mere authority is not a substitute for critical analysis.
You appear to be a credible, sane, rational and even calm voice.
Good for you. Much needed in this sludge-ridden, opinon-machine-forum.
The religion forums are crazy-making. Beware.
Welcome to Hubpages.
And, that is why we ask for the peer review and not the pop sci magazine versions.
Quran/Islam/Muhammad were peaceful and their teachings in roots are/were peaceful. This is the Criteria; if a Religion is peaceful in its roots; and its founder is peaceful, the religion is peaceful.
The rest is Politics.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
Politics and Islam are one and the same with Muslims. Conflict only, no peace.
Hi friend (Q)]
Religion and politics are different. If you think these are one; please prove it from the roots. Please quote the text of the verse , with five preceding and five following verses; in support of what you have said.
I express my faith as I believe it with reason; others could freely believe differently with reasons.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
oh yes, the British Isles were, at the time, on the edge of the western world and invited lots of adventurers/traders, all bringing their coinage and culture with them. Traders never worry about religion, only about getting a good deal, that is why every trading port in the world is multi everything.
Common Law: I believe all European common law is rooted in Roman Law?
Coinage: Offa may well have had coinage struck with that inscription, he would have certainly seen coinage with it on, but not necessarily known what it meant. He may have known the meaning, and had it struck to honour the great man that Mohamed surely was. There again, it may have been a marketing ploy, put it on the coinage and all the Islamic traders smile? Or, the motif may be similar to a Celtic/Anglo/Saxon decorative motif. There are so many possibilities with ancient history. it is often difficult/impossible to tease out the truth.
Islam spread peacefully Paas?
What country did islam spread peacefully to?
Can you name, one?
India. Yes, things changed dramatically later. But the original incursion was peaceful.
Let's not forget that Christianity was also spread by the sword for many centuries.
The Crusades started in 1095 and lasted into the 16th century. Both the fall of the Aztec Empire and the Crusades were ostensibly Christian enterprises.
Yes... very peaceful indeed...
A Millennium of Jihad and Dhimmitude on the Indian Subcontinent
The 570 year period between the initial Arab Muslim razzias (ordered by Caliph Umar) to pillage Thana (on the West Indian coast near Maharashtra) in 636—637 C.E., and the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate (under Qutub—ud—din Aibak, a Turkish slave soldier), can be divided into four major epochs: (I) the conflict between the Arab invaders and the (primarily) Hindu resisters on the Western coast of India from 636—713 C.E.; (II) the Arab and Turkish Muslim onslaughts against the kingdom of Hindu Afghanistan during 636—870 C.E.; (III) repeated Turkish efforts to subdue the Punjab from 870 to 1030 C.E. highlighted by the devastating campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazni (from 1000—1030 C.E.); and finally (IV) Muhammad Ghauri's conquest of northwestern India and the Gangetic valley between 1175 and 1206 C.E.
This summary chronology necessarily overlooks the very determined and successful resistance that was offered by the Hindus to both the Arab (in particular) and Turkish invaders, for almost four centuries. For example, despite the rapidity of Mahmud of Ghazni's conquests—spurred by shock—tactics and the religious zealotry of Islamic jihad—his successors, for almost 150 years, could not extend their domain beyond the Punjab frontiers. Even after the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate (1206—1526), and the later Mughal Empire (1526—1707), Muslim rulers failed to Islamize large swaths of Indian territory, and most of the populace. The first Mughal Emperor, Babur (1483—1530), made these relevant observations upon establishing his rule in India:
[Hindustan] is a different world...once the water of Sindh is crossed, everything is in the Hindustan way— land, water, tree, rock, people, and horde, opinion and custom...Most of the inhabitants of Hindustan are pagans; they call a pagan a Hindu.
Buddhist civilization within India, in stark contrast, proved far less resilient. Vincent Smith has described the devastating impact of the late 12th century jihad razzias against the Buddhist communities of northern India, centered around Bihar, based on Muslim sources, exclusively:
The Muhammadan historian, indifferent to distinctions among idolaters, states that the majority of the inhabitants were 'clean shaven Brahmans', who were all put to the sword. He evidently means Buddhist monks, as he was informed that the whole city and fortress were considered to be a college, which the name Bihar signifies. A great library was scattered. When the victors desired to know what the books might be no man capable of explaining their contents had been left alive. No doubt everything was burnt. The multitude of images used in Medieval Buddhist worship always inflamed the fanaticism of Muslim warriors to such fury that no quarter was given to the idolaters. The ashes of the Buddhist sanctuaries at Sarnath near Benares still bear witness to the rage of the image breakers. Many noble monuments of the ancient civilization of India were irretrievably wrecked in the course of the early Muhammadan invasions. Those invasions were fatal to the existence of Buddhism as an organized religion in northern India, where its strength resided chiefly in Bihar and certain adjoining territories. The monks who escaped massacre fled, and were scattered over Nepal, Tibet, and the south. After A.D. 1200 the traces of Buddhism in upper India are faint and obscure.
Three major waves of jihad campaigns (exclusive of the jihad conquest of Afghanistan) which succeeded, ultimately, in establishing a permanent Muslim dominion within India, i.e., the Delhi Sultanate, are summarized in the following discussion. The imposition of dhimmitude upon the vanquished Hindu populations is also characterized, in brief.
The Muslim chroniclers al—Baladhuri (in Kitab Futuh al—Buldan) and al—Kufi (in the Chachnama) include enough isolated details to establish the overall nature of the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad b. Qasim in 712 C.E. These narratives, and the processes they describe, make clear that the Arab invaders intended from the outset to Islamize Sindh by conquest, colonization, and local conversion. Baladhuri, for example, records that following the capture of Debal, Muhammad b. Qasim earmarked a section of the city exclusively for Muslims, constructed a mosque, and established four thousand colonists there. The conquest of Debal had been a brutal affair, as summarized from the Muslim sources by Majumdar.
Despite appeals for mercy from the besieged Indians (who opened their gates after the Muslims scaled the fort walls), Muhammad b. Qasim declared that he had no orders (i.e., from his superior al—Hajjaj, the Governor of Iraq) to spare the inhabitants, and thus for three days a ruthless and indiscriminate slaughter ensued. In the aftermath, the local temple was defiled, and '700 beautiful females who had sought for shelter there, were all captured'. The capture of Raor was accompanied by a similar tragic outcome.
Muhammad massacred 6,000 fighting men who were found in the fort, and their followers and dependents, as well as their women and children were taken prisoners. Sixty thousand slaves, including 30 young ladies of royal blood, were sent to Hajjaj, along with the head of Dahar [the Hindu ruler]. We can now well understand why the capture of a fort by the Muslim forces was followed by the terrible jauhar ceremony (in which females threw themselves in fire kindled by themselves), the earliest recorded instance of which is found in the Chachnama.
Practical, expedient considerations lead Muhammad to desist from carrying out the strict injunctions of Islamic Law  and the wishes of al—Hajjaj by massacring the (pagan) infidel Hindus of Sindh. Instead, he imposed upon the vanquished Hindus the jizya and associated restrictive regulations of dhimmitude. As a result, the Chachnama records, 'some [Hindus] resolved to live in their native land, but others took flight in order to maintain the faith of their ancestors, and their horses, domestics, and other property' Thus a lasting pattern was set that would persist, as noted by Majumdar, until the Mughal Empire collapsed at the end of Aurangzeb's reign (in 1707),
...of Muslim policy towards the subject Hindus in subsequent ages. Something no doubt depended upon individual rulers; some of them adopted a more liberal, others a more cruel and intolerant attitude. But on the whole the framework remained intact, for it was based on the fundamental principle of Islamic theocracy. It recognized only one faith, one people, and one supreme authority, acting as the head of a religious trust. The Hindus, being infidels or non—believers, could not claim the full rights of citizens. At the very best, they could be tolerated as dhimmis, an insulting title which connoted political inferiority...The Islamic State regarded all non—Muslims as enemies, to curb whose growth in power was conceived to be its main interest. The ideal preached by even high officials was to exterminate them totally, but in actual practice they seem to have followed an alternative laid down in the Qur'an [i.e., Q9:29] which calls upon Muslims to fight the unbelievers till they pay the jizya with due humility. This was the tax the Hindus had to pay for permission to live in their ancestral homes under a Muslim ruler.
Mahmud of Ghazni, according to the British historian Sir Henry Elliot, launched some seventeen jihad campaigns into India between 1000 and his death in 1030 C.E. Utbi, Mahmud's court historian, viewed these expeditions to India as a jihad to propagate Islam and extirpate idolatry. K.S. Lal illustrates this religious zeal to Islamize by force, as manifested during a 23 year period between 1000 and 1023 C.E.:
In his first attack of frontier towns in C.E. 1000 Mahmud appointed his own governors and converted some inhabitants. In his attack on Waihind (Peshawar) in 1001—3, Mahmud is reported to have captured the Hindu Shahiya King Jayapal and fifteen of his principal chiefs and relations some of whom like Sukhpal, were made Musalmans. At Bhera all the inhabitants, except those who embraced Islam, were put to the sword. At Multan too conversions took place in large numbers, for writing about the campaign against Nawasa Shah (converted Sukhpal), Utbi says that this and the previous victory (at Multan) were 'witnesses to his exalted state of proselytism.' In his campaign in the Kashmir Valley (1015) Mahmud 'converted many infidels to Muhammadanism, and having spread Islam in that country, returned to Ghazni.' In the later campaign in Mathura, Baran and Kanauj, again, many conversions took place. While describing 'the conquest of Kanauj,' Utbi sums up the situation thus: 'The Sultan levelled to the ground every fort... and the inhabitants of them either accepted Islam, or took up arms against him.' In short, those who submitted were also converted to Islam. In Baran (Bulandshahr) alone 10,000 persons were converted including the Raja. During his fourteenth invasion in 1023 C.E. Kirat, Nur, Lohkot and Lahore were attacked. The chief of Kirat accepted Islam, and many people followed his example.
These continuous jihad campaigns were accompanied by great destruction and acts of wanton cruelty. Utbi describes the slaughter which transpired during the attacks on Thanesar and Sirsawa:
The chief of Thanesar was...obstinate in his infidelity and denial of Allah, so the Sultan marched against him with his valiant warriors for the purpose of planting the standards of Islam and extirpating idolatry... The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously that the stream was discoloured, and people were unable to drink it... Praise be to Allah... for the honour he bestows upon Islam and Musalmans.
[at Sirsawa] The Sultan summoned the most religiously disposed of his followers, and ordered them to attack the enemy immediately. Many infidels were consequently slain or taken prisoners in this sudden attack, and the Musalmans paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels... The friends of Allah searched the bodies of the slain for three whole days, in order to obtain booty.
Mahmud's final well—known expedition in Hindustan, to Somanath in 1025 C.E., was similarly brutal, and destructive:
Mahmud captured the place [Somanath] without much difficulty and ordered a general slaughter in which more than 50,000 persons are said to have perished. The idol of Somanath was broken to pieces which were sent to Ghazni, Mecca, and Medina and cast in streets and the staircases of chief mosques to be trodden by the Muslims going there for their prayers.
Over 900 years apart, remarkably concordant assessments of Mahmud's devastating exploits have been written by the renowned 11th century Muslim scholar Alberuni (a counselor to Mahmud), and the contemporary Indian historian A.L. Srivastava. First Alberuni, from about 1030 C.E.:
Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country...by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish of course the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims. This is the reason too why Hindu sciences have retired far away from those parts of the country conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Benares, and other places.
Srivastava in 1950, wrote:
To the Indian world of his day Mahmud was a veritable devil incarnate— a daring bandit, an avaricious plunderer, and wanton destroyer of Art. He plundered many dozens of...flourishing cities; he razed to the ground great temples which were wonderful works of art; he carried thousands of innocent women and children into slavery; he indulged in wanton massacre practically everywhere he went; and...he forcibly converted hundred of...unwilling people to Islam. A conqueror who leaves behind desolate towns and villages and dead bodies of innocent human beings cannot be remembered by posterity by any other title.
K.S. Lal believes that by the late 12th century, Muhammad Ghauri was consummately prepared for the conquest and rule of India. Well—elaborated theological justifications for jihad, and comprehensive writings on India's geography and sociopolitical culture were readily available to him, complementing his powerful army of Turks, Persians, and Afghans.
http://www.islam-watch.org/Bostom/Legac … -India.htm
YES... peaceful... as always. lololol
Copy-pasting a complete article was unnecessary. Your point would have been made with a link and a few excerpts.
I didn't claim that the entire history of Islam in India has been peaceful. I explicitly said the opposite, in fact.
I have no credentials in history, but I have recently finished a course in Indian history and politics -- taught by a Hindu from New Delhi -- and she would have disagreed with the tone of your article. She admired the Mughul Empire, particularly during the reign of Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar.
In 600 more years, Islam will have been around for as long as Christianity has been now. I ask you, 600 years ago, how was Christianity behaving?
I assume you had permission to reprint that article.
@chasuk Islam did spread every where only once it had political power..first mosque was built in kerala which was peaceful means..qasim invaded sindh ..now one cannot have peaceful invasion..similarly delhi sultanate.. in same way iran was won by war..once battle got over, victorious army had their government...then they spread their beliefs..thats how it worked and islam is similar in that..what paar says it was logic and all is incorrect..it was because of political power which then promoted religion...so power came first...then came spread...
in places like australia or europe or usa , islam never had political power , so spread is peaceful but not as fast as iran or pakistan...
the religion which did spread like fire in woods via peaceful means was buddhism...rest have there share of violence involved...jainism is again without violence...
India was continuously bombarded by Muslim kings and thats how it spread in India.Many Hindu saints were tortured and killed as they refused to convert to Islam.
Then again Hinduism engulfs all truths and hey engulfed the Islamic or Sufi masters who are against any kind of fanaticism and believe in the peaceful co-existence of religions.
Dont try to convert anyone and dont convert yourself.each religions philosophy is brilliant and One.
It is funny how Islam doesn't think the world knows about how they immigrate into a nation as, "peaceful", right, migrants.
Then when they have established a foot-hold, along come the armies of Islam.
very peaceful... Islam is still using that tactic today.
Except, um, where it isn't. Way to stereotype.
It is a very well known and documented fact of the way Islam begins it's incursion into the Dar'Al'Harb. Andrew Bostom writes all about it, in depth, with exceptional attention to details and original Islamic and contemporary sources.
You should check his work out.
It is not a steroetype, if it is the truth. That just makes it a fact.
You speak of Islam as if it were an institution both monolithic and malevolent.
This argument can't be coherently made. First, Islam isn't a single institution. There are Ibadi, Salafi, and Ahmadiyya. There are Shi'a, Quranist, Sufi, and Sunni. Within these divisions there are further divisions.Second, it isn't monolithic. There is no overarching association of cooperating Muslims. Third, being neither a single institution nor a cooperative association, it can't be labeled malevolent as a whole.
Islam isn't a whole. It has evil members and crazy members and ambivalent members, just like Christianity.
It is very clear that there had been no war in which Muslims attacked England; nevertheless Islam did spread in England very peacefully. Following points may be noted in this connection:
1. Islam in England is the second largest religion, with most Muslims being immigrants from South Asia (in particular Pakistan, Bangladesh and India) or descendants of immigrants from that region. Many others are from Muslim-dominated regions such as the Middle East, Somalia, and Malaysia; while fewer come from Equatorial African countries such as Nigeria, Uganda and Sierra Leone.
2. The first English convert to Islam mentioned by name is John Nelson.
3. By the time of Union with Scotland in 1707, only small numbers of Muslims were living in England. The first large group of Muslims to arrive, in the 18th century, were lascars (sailors) recruited from the Indian subcontinent (largely from theBengal region) to work for the British East India Company, most of whom settled down and took local wives. Due to the majority being lascars, the earliest Muslim communities were found in port towns. Naval cooks also came, many of them from the Sylhet Division of what is now Bangladesh. One of the most famous early Bengali Muslim immigrants to England was Sake Dean Mahomet, a captain of the British East India Company who in 1810 founded London's first Indian restaurant, the Hindoostane Coffee House. He is also reputed for introducing shampoo and therapeutic massage to the United Kingdom.
4. According to the 2001 census 1,536,015 Muslims live in England and Wales, where they form 3% of the population. According to The Times, there were 2.4 million Muslims in Britain as a whole as of January 2009.
5. In England, 40 percent of Muslims live in London, where 607,083 identified as Muslim in 2001, out of a population of 7,172,091. There are also large numbers of Muslims in Birmingham, Manchester, Bradford, Luton, Slough, Leicester and the mill towns of Northern England.
6. Most large cities have one area that is a majority Muslim even if the rest of the city has a fairly small Muslims population; see, for example, Harehills in Leeds. In addition, it is possible to find small areas that are almost entirely Muslim: for example, Savile Town in Dewsbury.
7. Notable English Muslims:
Rowland Allanson-Winn, 5th Baron Headley,Sir Charles Edward Archibald Watkin Hamilton, 5th Baronet,Faris Glubb,Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt,Pickthall,William ,bdullah Quilliam,Henry Stanley, 3rd Baron Stanley of Alderley,Ahmad Thomson,Timothy Winter
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
Yes, Muslim youths rioting in the streets of the UK are very peaceful, allegedly.
Islam has rioting youths and Christianity has Fred Phelps and family.
Most Muslims aren't terrorists, aren't evil, and aren't insane, just as most Christians aren't terrorists, aren't evil, and aren't insane.
In US prisons, most of the occupants are of the Christian faith. Should we use that statistic to draw any conclusions?
Unless, of course, is has something to do with their religion. Then, they are ready to die and to kill for it. That would be insane.
Christians commit crimes despite their religion and the morals it allegedly teaches?
The Bible advocates violence as often as the Qur'an.
Here are Jesus' own words:
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me (Luke 19:27 King James version)."
I can provide many other citations.
Understand that I am not an adherent of any religion. I'm arguing here against what I see as your incorrect perceptions, not against Christianity, or for Islam.
Fair enough. Please point out my incorrect perceptions when you see them so that I may correct them, muchly appreciated.
Today is my 29th wedding anniversary. I'm headed out to dinner with my wife.
However, until I return and respond in greater detail, here is an example of what I see as an incorrect perception, quoted from you:
'Politics and Islam are one and the same with Muslims. Conflict only, no peace."
I've known quite a few apolitical Muslims.
Anyway, I'll be happy to give other examples later.
The fact that you may have known some apolitical Muslims doesn't change the fact that the politics of Muslims are rooted in Islam.
Congrats on your 29th!
And Quran/Islam/Muhammad give peaceful and rational teachings.
Thank you. We went to a nice Thai buffet with our eldest daughter and her husband.
Now back to our topic...
For some politically involved Muslims, politics and faith may be inseparable. I really can't deny that. But that still doesn't justify your claim. First, because not all Muslims are politically involved (in my experience,the politically involved form only a very small percentage of them). Second, because of those Muslims who are politically involved, not all of them base their politics on their faith. Perhaps they should, if they were "good," devout Muslims, but Islam -- like Christianity -- has a spectrum of believers, from rabid fundamentalist to secular.
Christians and Muslims both kill, but when Muslims do it it is bigger news. The relatively recent conflicts in former Yugoslavia were Muslims killing Orthodox Christians, and Orthodox Christians killing Western Christians. But most think of it as an ethnic conflict.
How many know who Helen Ukpabio is? This charming woman, a Nigerian Pentecostal preacher, is responsible for the torture-murder of hundreds (maybe thousands) of children in her homeland, accusing them of witchcraft. If Ukpabio were Muslim, everyone would know her name.
What about Ugandan Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army? His Christian guerrilla group has abducted over 30,000 children and turned them into soldiers. Why do so few know about him? If he was leading a group of jihadists, everyone would know his name.
I'm not excoriating Christians because they are Christians, nor exonerating Muslims because they are Muslims. I am arguing that actively evil Christians and actively evil Muslims are in the minority.
Isn't it better for good Christians and good Muslims to help each other, instead of accuse?
I don't deny anything you say. The fact that Muslims, or Christians are not devout to their religious teachings in many aspects of their beliefs does reflect their words and actions. The point is that the politics of the Muslim state are rooted in Islam as it is a requirement of Islam that all aspects of the lives of Muslims are rooted in Islam, politics included. The fact that there are Muslims who may not accept that is clearly demonstrated in the many varying sects of Islam itself and the various interpretations of Islam that affects their lives and their politics.
Perhaps, that may have to do with the fact that Islam is several hundred years behind Christianity in history, and is probably now experiencing the very violent periods Christianity experienced then, relatively speaking.
I couldn't agree with you more. But, if you look closely at the actions of those good Christians and good Muslims, you'll notice they do very little to hinder the actions of their brethren, passively and quietly watching from the sidelines. Sure, in public they'll disassociate themselves from their brethren, but will sit back silently and do little if nothing at all to stop them.
It is not correct.
Islam pleads for the secular type of government more than any religion and more than any political system. For correct understanding the Relationship Between Religion and Politics in Islam, please access:
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
Okay, maybe I can agree with this. Your expression here seems a bit more moderate, or perhaps I am just reading it contextually and amplified for the first time.
I'm not religious, and I don't believe that religion should be given a free pass for bad behavior -- it isn't a Christian's or a Muslim's "right" to misbehave, on the excuse that hey are exercising their faith -- but I don't know how to eliminate or suppress these bad players without resorting to totalitarian strategies.
If we must turn to totalitarian methods to preserve the social order, then the zealots have won.
The zealots refuse all forms of education, unless it is based on scriptures. This is again the result of childhood indoctrination to the cult. The zealots will destroy us all if we do nothing. Of course, speech and education are our ammunition although it may also be our epitaph.
A whole lot of difference between one small group of Phelps... and millions of muslims rioting in the streets of dozens of country.
Islam is, always has been... and will always be... a socio-politico-religious doctrine.
One cannot be seperated form the other.
Just the mere act of removing allah and the quran from the politics of a nation, or to live under a nation which does not rule through use of the quranic Shari'a, is oppression and unacceptable under Islamic Shari'a.
There can be no peace with Islam...
Millions of Muslims rioting in the streets? Really? Can you substantiate that with links? "Millions" would mean at least two million, so you'll need to provide a few links to incidents of many hundreds of thousands of Muslims rioting, or hundreds of links to incidents of smaller numbers of Muslims rioting with a cumulate total of at least two million.
Okay man... you haven't seen footage of all the muslims in the streets rioting... I know it looks alot like thier just having fun.... cause they are... but most times, like the israel thing... millions around the world riot in the streets.
lol... man you are too funny... lolol.. you really need links... lolol
Danish cartoons... riots in the streets. There are plenty of examples... you should be able to find your own links man.
Just curious, don't you think it rather hypocritical to criticize a violent religion from the perspective of being a follower of another violent religion?
Your too funny, Q...
I reject the premise of your question.
You must be confusing the Old testament with the New... or simply blaming Christ for his followers mistakes and actions. Too bad the same cannopt be said for ISLAM.
Islam on the other hand, inculcates violence and oppression within the law of allah and the quaran itself.
Islam is chock full of hatred and violence toward any one outside the Ummah.
They, the Quran and Hadith... spew anti-semitism... (which I believe is the familial relation to socailism... the left's NAZI blood, we have seen it simmering the last few days, if not boilong over on accassion.)... with every breath of it's text. That is why Israel cannot be allowed to exist, you think that is just a coincedence.
(I guess the leant leftists figure it is okay to flex their antisemitism toward the Jews so vehamently.... because they love the Arabs and Islam sooooo much, that it all wieghs out in the end.)...
"Jihad is commanded for the Muslim till the day of judgement."... thier quran states plainly.
I told you Q, read the quran and the Ingeel.... then tell me you see the same message in both.
I don't know whether you are disingenuous, a troll, or actually believe what you are saying. However, it has become obvious -- with your dismissive "lols" and dogmatism -- that you are interested more in haranguing than in discussion.
You win, TMMason. I'd grown tired of the "Did not!" "Did to!" debating style by the time I was twelve, so I bid you adieu.
I leave you with this verse, however. which appropriately describes all of the overzealous, followers of Muhammad and Jesus both.
"By their fruits ye shall know them. (Matthew 7:16 (American Standard Version)."
I'm leaving this discussion,. Q, but I'd like to apologize for misunderstanding and mischaracterizing your beliefs.
Have a good day.
Obviously I've seen videos of Muslims in the streets rioting. But I haven't seen millionths rioting, and neither have you.
This time, I will chalk your exaggeration down to hyperbole.
by paarsurrey 5 years ago
Hi friendsIslam spread very peacefully in Europe as can be seen from the following account of the Wikipedia:A major development in the history of Muslim Spain was the dynastic change in 750 in the Arab Caliphate, when an Ummayad Prince escaped the slaughter of his family in Damascus, fled to...
by paarsurrey 7 years ago
Hi friendsIt is a wrong notion that Islam spread with sword or bloodshed. Islam never needed it; Islam’s brilliant teachings are sufficient to convince anybody for its natural spread.This can be well observed from the following article:Islam in IndiaFrom New World EncyclopediaIslam in India...
by Mark Knowles 8 years ago
http://www.france24.com/en/20121004-art … unir-fatmi
by gulnazahmad 9 years ago
Prophet Muhammad was the most peaceful man on the earth ever and he is and he will be. People who say that religion teaches aggression should know that all the prophets Muhammad, Jesus and Moses who followed their religion to the extremes were the most peaceful human beings. They never invoked any...
by marinealways24 10 years ago
If you are a Islamic and you hate Americans, I think you should have the courage to state why you hate Americans. Are you Islamic Extremist that hates Americans? If so, why?
by augustine72 8 years ago
I want to know when Islam started? Did Muhammad start it or did it exist before Muhommad?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|