Do you the actual goal of Islam?

when Vlad The Impaler's father died Vladislav II was given the throne, Vlad The Impaler attempted to gain the throne with the aid of the Ottomans but ultimately failed as he only able to attain the throne for 2 months before Vladislav II regained the throne. Vlad the Impaler was not able to maintain the throne until he was able to receive aid from the Hungarians. Vlad The Impaler was an enemy of the Ottomans, which pleased Pope Pius II who declared a crusade against the Ottomans. The Ottmans ended up removing Vlad The Impaler and installing his brother who had converted to Islam. None the less it was wrong of me to say the Ottomans did not install Vlad the Impalers, even if it was his first reign which lasted only 2 months

as for what I mean by coalition with the church, that is pretty self explanatory, during the medieval times catholic kingdoms agreed to papal supremacy, which meant that the pope picked their bishops, all royal marriages and divorces had to be approved by the pope, sometimes even throne successors had to be approved by the pope. This made the church the main power of Europe, the pope would approve, and even request catholic nations to go to war. Nations that would abide by the church's wishes received aid from the Vatican, and sometimes if not directly through the Vatican, then through other catholic kingdoms which the church requested their alliance from

Leaders who did what the church did not approve faced possible excommunicated, which was essentially an order for other catholic leaders to cut ties that leader, and sometime even invade. Pope Alexender II excommunicated Herald II, which legitimized William The Conqueror"s invasion of Britain (again, wars were approved by the pope) which also encouraged other Catholics to side with William

the church gradually lost its influence over time

 

If you read "In the Shadow of the Sword", there's a fairly sensible and credible theory that Mohamed wasn't even the founder of Islam, at least not in the sense that we think about it.

It's much like calling Jesus the founder of Christianity is technically inaccurate, even if we take the New Testament at its word.

The triumph of the Arabs was mainly due to extremely fortuitous timing.
- The plague had just decimated as much as half the urban population, but had little impact on the Arab nomads for obvious reasons.
- The Byzantines and the Sassanids had just fought an apocalyptic war. Both militarizes were effectively incapacitated to the point where the Byzantines could field only a single field army of 20,000 or less. The Sassanids weren't able to do much better.
- Religious disputes within the Church alienated the Christian Ghassanids Arabs, pushing them closer to their Zoroastrian Lakhmids cousins, effectively uniting the Arabs into a single military bloc for the first time (there's even some speculative evidence to suggest that the Sunni-Shia split originated in this tribal division).

The rise of Islam was a historical aberration, something made possible only through the perfect storm of titanic historical events, both natural and man made. But as a religion, it appears not to have solidified until centuries later. The only surviving source besides the Koran itself attesting to Mohamed as a person came 2 centuries after Mohamed's death.

And neither Byzantine nor Sassanid sources make any mention of either a new religion or a new prophet. Which is extremely odd as you would think the Ghazis would have been quite enthusiastic to explain their religious motivation to the people they sought to convert.

 

The Pope was not nearly as powerful as your portray him.

For one thing, the monarchs of Europe often supported Antipopes, which shielded them from having to deal with the real Pope. On top of that, the papacy was an extremely corrupt institution. If they had enough money, a monarch could get the Pope to approve just about anything. These two factors effectively allowed European monarchs to act with impunity.

 

If it is, it's just another version of Democracy being a world goal. I mean, we (know) think Democracy is better. They (know) think that Islam/Sharia is better. Each of us want to spread the superior methods everywhere. Ultimately I think people only look at Islam from the media POV, rather than an honest Islam practising person... just like they will probably describe us as "invading barbarians coming to steal their oil". Perspective is everything, and everyone is biased.

 

Actually the Koran says just the opposite


[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Unbelievers are fought against because they are unbelievers

 

That does nothing for all the idolaters or people of the book at the time who had no treaty with the Muslims. That's why within 80 years of Muhamads death the muslims were waging jihad in Spain to the west and Afghanistan to the East.

 

what I described is exactly the kind of power the pope had, and yes some leaders did set up anti popes, but to say most leaders sidelined the church is off base

They did engage in offensive wars after Muhammad's death, but what is recorded in the Quran says Muhammad himself never engaged in a war that his follwers started. His fight with the Meccans was after they broke the treaty of Hudaybiyyah, so Muhammad declared war on the tribes who broke the treaty, but excepted those who honored their agreement, and even among those who did violate the treaty, he ordered his men to grant asylum to those who did not wish to fight. Among Muhammad's army were Christians, Jews and Idolaters, but he was only declaring war on those who had broke their treaty


Furthermore, even among the Muslim conquest which occurred after Muhhamad's death lived Christian and Jewish communities who willfully joined their nations, Islamic rules were very tolerant of conquered peoples. The Muslim nations become more advanced than the western nations, scientists of their empire made similar wages to what a professional athlete would today, and they introduced the western world to many scientific and cultural advancements, most notably our numeral system (which originated in India) where 0 reoccurs every 10 numbers. (imagine solving a math problem where 888 is written out as DCCCLXXXVIII)

In many ways their expansion resembled the Roman empire, they treated the peoples of conquered land as their own citizens, and introduced our world to many great advancements

 

Thank you. Someone has to stop this revisionism.

You hear the "ISIS isn't true Muslim" argument all the time. It's a classic "no true Scotsman" argument. And in this case, it's completely false as you've pointed out.

ISIS is not only Muslim, but very, very Muslim. It is taking the literal word of the Koran and the associated holy works to task.

Moderate Muslims, whatever that is, need to own up to the fact that their religion has substantial, explicit elements within it which are prone to inspiring violent extremism, far more so than other major world religions. I mean, how many extremist Buddhist suicide bombers are you aware of?

 

??? He started almost all of them. He was a common thief, raiding the Meccans caravans and the Meccans fought back.

What made up nonsense. Muhammad declared war on ALL idolaters. "slay the idolaters wherever you find them", doesnt refer to Meccan tribes.

 

that's not made up nonsense, that is the historical context to those verses, and he clearly wasn't declaring a war on all idolaters because he excepted those who did not break their treaty, and ordered his men to give asylum to those who do not wish to fight, and the Quran addresses multiple times that the other side attacked first

9:1 [This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.
9:2 So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.
9:3 And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away – then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.
9:4 Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].
9:5 And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
9:6 And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.
9:7 How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].
9:8 How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient.
9:9 They have exchanged the signs of Allah for a small price and averted [people] from His way. Indeed, it was evil that they were doing.
9:10 They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors.
9:11 But if they repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, then they are your brothers in religion; and We detail the verses for a people who know.
9:12 And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.
9:13 Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun the attack upon you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers.
9:14 Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people.


When we read from verse 1, it states that there was a treaty which the Pagan Arabs broke. Thus, Allah in the Quran says, that he gave them four months. Verse 9:4 states that Allah will punish those who broke the treaty, this verse is only aimed at those who broke the treaty, it did not affect those who abided by the treaty. When we read the passage (9:5), it is evident, it’s talking about a war with the pagan Arabs and Muslims. This was a historical event that happened in the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad (p). Furthermore, verse 9:13 provides proof that it was the Pagans who started this war, the verse states, “Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun to attack you first?” This is proof that Prophet Muhammad (p) did not start this war, but it was those treacherous Pagan Arabs that started to expel and started fighting the Messenger.

Two non-Muslim translations of the Quran on 9:13,

John Medows Rodwell What! will ye not fight against those Meccans who have broken their oaths and aimed to expel your Apostle, and attacked you first? Will ye dread them? God is more worthy of your fear, if ye are believers!

And

N J Dawood Will you not fight against those who have broken their oaths and conspired to banish the Apostle? They were the first to attack you. Do you fear them? Surely God is more deserving of your fear, if you are true believers.

Factors of breakers of the treaty ”Will you not fight people who
A) broke their oaths
B) determined to expel the Messenger
C) attacked you first
Do you fear them? But God has more right that you should fear him, if you are believers Surah 9:13

As it is shown, in that context, those pagans who violated their treaties and attacked the Muslims first, basically, the Muslims were allowed to fight back in self-defence. Why is it that Islamophobes never show 9:6? Let’s read:

9:6 And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

The verse shows that if any of the pagans who broke the treaty and wanted protection, that they be granted protection and deliver him to his ‘place of safety’. This shows even when the pagan Arabs who broke the treaty and when they attacked the Muslims first, the Muslims were commanded by Allah to make peace if they asked. Hence, it’s evident reading the verses in its context that this was a war of self-defence against those pagan Arabs who broke the treaty and attacked the Muslims.

you can read more in these links (there's much more in the first link that I did not include)

http://discover-the-truth.com/2014/03/04/quran-95-sword-verse/
http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_95_commentary

[video=youtube;kQOIXuw1gFw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQOIXuw1gFw[/video]

[video=youtube;4u-5ZJ2Frzk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u-5ZJ2Frzk[/video]


any historian will tell you that verse (9:5) is in context to the conflict with Mecca

 

Another non-Muslim who thinks he knows what Islam is all about...

 

Islam, and religions in general, are not entities. They have no self-defined, self controlled being. They're simply ideas. And ideas exist and are defined by those who believe them, AND those who opine/care about them.

Every opinion and reference to Islam defines and changes Islam regardless of the source.

ISIS is Muslim by the very fact they call themselves as such.

And even if they didn't so long as many other people think of them as Muslim, they are also Muslim.

 

A Muslim is simply one who believes in God and that Muhammad wad His final prophet.

That ISIS is Muslim is a given. The central question is whether the actions of ISIS are Islamic. To answer this question, we must consider the available evidence.

Islam is a religion of evidence, so your contention that "ideas exist and are defined by those who believe them" does not apply to Islam.

 

They who have power establish their rules now according to their ideas, their own Islam. Besides, they revive ancient caliphate system, revive dinars, the ancient currency. They kill imperialistic rats who try to spy. Everything for Muslim people to feel happy.

 

There is no individual Islam (for the most part). If it is not backed up by the Qur'an or hadiths, it isn't Islam.

 

Notice how there isnt even a mention of Mecca OR specific tribes. Thats because the declaration of war was against all idolaters.

 

it should be well noted that there are over 50 translations of the Quran in English alone

Did you click the links I provided? other translations do say "Meccans" because that is the proper historical context (particularly verse one mentions those whom they made a treaty with in Makkah ), but besides that, you can ask any historian, verse 9:5 is in reference to the war with Mecca. This isn't even a matter of opinion, even sources that slander Islam admit that verse 9:5 is in reference to their war with Mecca, and once again.. it excepts those who honored their treaty (the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah) and then the following verse orders Muhammad's men to protect those of the enemy tribe who do not wish to fight. We know that it is not a war against all idolaters, because it clearly states that they are only declaring war on those who broke their treaty, and orders Muhammad's men not to fight those who do not wish to fight. Also note that the recording of this conflict is backed by Hadiths

Why do you think all sources explaining the context mention the same war with Mecca?

once again

http://www.islamicvoice.com/August2006/QuestionHour-DrZakirNaik/

http://www.quora.com/What-does-this-quote-9-5-mean

http://haroonbaloch.blogspot.com/2007/02/explanation-of-verse-5-of-surah-taubah.html


https://norasensation.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/misquoted-violent-verses-in-the-holy-quran/


we already know the context of verse 9:5 is in reference to the conflict with Mecca.. that is of no debate... but even if it wasn't, the surrounding verses still except those who did not break their treaty

 

You really just don't get it do you?

Unless the Prophet himself (assuming he ever existed) comes back from the grave to denounce ISIS, it will go on claiming to be the proper spiritual successor to the caliphates of the past.

And it doesn't matter for practical purposes if these claims are religiously valid. The simple fact is: Islam is used as a justification, motivation, and inspiration for their deeds.

Beyond the extremists, even regular devout Muslims who insist on covering women from head to toe in black to "protect their modesty" are obviously motivated by religion. The pre-Islamic Sassanid Persians were some of the most progressive people in the ancient world, forbidding slavery, allowing female property ownership and even employing female light cavalry. Can you imagine an Iranian women serving as a tank driver today?

The pre-Roman, pre-Christian peoples of modern Iraq, Syria, and Palestine were some of the most creative, "loose" and vibrant cultures in all of Hellenism.

Antioch in Syria was considered the "happiest city int the Empire" by many Romans until well into the Christian era. They would never hold that title again after the Muslim conquests.

All the historical evidence points to the obvious:
Islam is a cancer of the mind, it is a blight of culture, it is the worst thing to befall the Middle East in all of its long history.

 

Of course he existed, and who cares what ISIS claims?

It does when you argue that ISIS is Islamic.

And...? Islam is a complete way of life, so of course it's going to motivate and inspire.

A standard Western perception. Why do you think the women themselves want to wear revealing clothing? Maybe they want to be covered up. And why readily assume it's all about male control? Has feminism hit Hong Kong?

BTW: there certainly are women in the Iranian military, and Islam allows women to own property.

Historical ignorance to say the least.

 

You think not dressing from head to toe in what is best describe as a slightly more breathable black trash bag in the middle of a freaking desert is "revealing dress"? OK, whatever you say. I'm sure you're a great Muslim man of many wives and goats.

 

Ok, then tell it to IS
Are you from Lebanon really?

 

Even if Muslim countries did try to conquer the world, and form a worldwide caliphate, they currently do not form that large a percentage of the world population. The only reason ISIS is having success right now is because the rest of the world aren't fully committing all their resources to wage war against ISIS, like they were in WWII against Germany and Japan. However, if Muslim countries did try to force the rest of the world to live under them, the rest of the world, using full strength, would probably be able to beat them quickly and without much difficulty.

 

The fact that other verses refer to Meccans, doesnt change the fact that the verses in question have no such limitation.

 

Yes, in some Islamic cultures, dressing in things like jeans and dresses in public is considered revealing. You may not like this because you are used to seeing flesh.

I heard Asians were soulless.

 

but such limitations do exist (as shown in my links) the declaration of war excepts those who did not violate their treaty, and commands to protect among those who did violate the treaty but do not wish to fight (as indicated in verse 9:4, 9:6, 9:7, 9:12, and 9:13)