Discussion:
Is Islam spread by the sword?
(too old to reply)
Acharya
2006-10-02 05:38:13 UTC
Permalink
Islam, "Spread by Sword"
Dec 7, 2004
http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/2/4793




This is how Islam spread by sword. So much for religion of peace. Submit to
arab way of life(Islam) or die.

Muslims' movement speak for itself, even today after 1400 years of
bloodshed.



570 - Birth of Muhammad in Mecca into the tribe of Quraish.
577 - Muhammads mother dies
580 - Death of Abdul Muttalib, Muhammads grandfather.
583 - First journey to Syria with a trading Caravan
595 - Muhammad marries Khadijah a rich widow several years older than him.
595 - Second journey to Syria
598 - His son, Qasim, is born
600 - His daughter, Zainab, is born
603 - His daughter, Um-e-Kalthum, is born
604 - His daughter, Ruqayya, is born
605 - Placement of Black Stone in Kaaba.
605 - His daughter, Fatima, is born
610 - Mohammed, in a cave on Mt. Hira, hears the angel Gabriel tell him that
Allah is the only true God.
613 - Muhammads first public preaching of Islam at Mt. Hira. Gets few
converts.
615 - Muslims persecuted by the Quraish.
619 - Marries Sauda and Aisha (9 years old)
620 - Institution of five daily prayers
622 - Muhammad immigrates from Mecca to Medina, which was then called
Yathrib, gets more converts.

Power of Sword

623 - Battle of Waddan
623 - Battle of Safwan
623 - Battle of Dul-Ashir
624 - Muhammad and converts begin raids on caravans to fund the movement.
624 - Zakat becomes mandatory
624 - Battle of Badr
624 - Battle of Bani Salim
624 - Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr and Zakat-ul-Fitr
624 - Battle of Bani Qainuqa
624 - Battle of Sawiq
624 - Battle of Ghatfan
624 - Battle of Bahran
625 - Battle of Uhud. 70 Muslims are killed.
625 - Battle of Humra-ul-Asad
625 - Battle of Banu Nudair
625 - Battle of Dhatur-Riqa
626 - Battle of Badru-Ukhra
626 - Battle of Dumatul-Jandal
626 - Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah
627 - Battle of the Trench
627 - Battle of Ahzab
627 - Battle of Bani Quraiza
627 - Battle of Bani Lahyan
627 - Battle of Ghaiba
627 - Battle of Khaibar
628 - Muhammad signs treaty with Quraish.
630 - Muhammad conquers Mecca.
630 - Battle of Hunsin.
630 - Battle of Tabuk
632 - Muhammad dies.
632 - Abu-Bakr, Muhammads father-in-law, along with Umar, begin a military
move to enforce Islam in Arabia.


633 - Battle at Oman
633 - Battle at Hadramaut.
633 - Battle of Kazima
633 - Battle of Walaja
633 - Battle of Ulleis
633 - Battle of Anbar
634 - Battle of Basra,
634 - Battle of Damascus
634 - Battle of Ajnadin.
634 - Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat Umar Farooq becomes the Caliph.
634 - Battle of Namaraq
634 - Battle of Saqatia.
635 - Battle of Bridge.
635 - Battle of Buwaib.
635 - Conquest of Damascus.
635 - Battle of Fahl.
636 - Battle of Yermuk.
636 - Battle of Qadsiyia.
636 - Conquest of Madain.
637 - Battle of Jalula.
638 - Battle of Yarmouk.
638 - The Muslims defeat the Romans and enter Jerusalem.
638 - Conquest of Jazirah.
639 - Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt.
641 - Battle of Nihawand
642 - Battle of Ray in Persia
643 - Conquest of Azarbaijan
644 - Conquest of Fars
644 - Conquest of Kharan.
644 - Umar is murdered. Othman becomes the Caliph.
647 - Conquest of the island of Cypress
644 - Uman dies and is succeeded by Caliph Uthman.
648 - Campaign against the Byzantines.
651 - Naval battle against the Byzantines.
654 - Islam spreads into North Africa
656 - Uthman is murdered. Ali become Caliph.
658 - Battle of Nahrawan.
659 - Conquest of Egypt
661 - Ali is murdered.
662 - Egypt falls to Islam rule.
666 - Sicily is attacked by Muslims
677 - Siege of Constantinople
687 - Battle of Kufa
691 - Battle of Deir ul Jaliq
700 - Sufism takes root as a sect of Islam
700 - Military campaigns in North Africa
702 - Battle of Deir ul Jamira
711 - Muslims invade Gibraltar
711 - Conquest of Spain
713 - Conquest of Multan
716 - Invasion of Constantinople
732 - Battle of Tours in France.
740 - Battle of the Nobles.
741 - Battle of Bagdoura in North Africa
744 - Battle of Ain al Jurr.
746 - Battle of Rupar Thutha
748 - Battle of Rayy.
749 - Battle of lsfahan
749 - Battle of Nihawand
750 - Battle of Zab
772 - Battle of Janbi in North Africa
777 - Battle of Saragossa in Spain

And they call it, " 'Islam', Religion of Peace ".
zeke
2006-10-02 21:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Islam is going to die by the sword.
Nusrat Rizvi
2006-10-03 12:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by zeke
Islam is going to die by the sword.
Realistically speaking, a sword can not do much harm to Muslims except
chop off a few heads.
The real harm can come from a nuke strike on Mecca which would remove
one pillar, a critical one at that and make the Islamic faith wobbly.
milou
2006-10-03 16:26:34 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 08:53:04 -0400, Nusrat Rizvi
Post by Nusrat Rizvi
Post by zeke
Islam is going to die by the sword.
Realistically speaking, a sword can not do much harm to Muslims except
chop off a few heads.
The real harm can come from a nuke strike on Mecca which would remove
one pillar, a critical one at that and make the Islamic faith wobbly.
That would be bad PR for non existent allah
Albert
2006-10-05 11:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nusrat Rizvi
Post by zeke
Islam is going to die by the sword.
Realistically speaking, a sword can not do much harm to Muslims except
chop off a few heads.
The real harm can come from a nuke strike on Mecca which would remove
one pillar, a critical one at that and make the Islamic faith wobbly.
Yes, and generate 1 million more terrorists, eager to kill Americans
bigdude
2006-10-05 13:16:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert
Post by Nusrat Rizvi
Post by zeke
Islam is going to die by the sword.
Realistically speaking, a sword can not do much harm to Muslims except
chop off a few heads.
The real harm can come from a nuke strike on Mecca which would remove
one pillar, a critical one at that and make the Islamic faith wobbly.
Yes, and generate 1 million more terrorists, eager to kill Americans
Why? According to CNN, the nuke will come from North Korea..
--
bigD
Nusrat Rizvi
2006-10-06 12:01:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert
Post by Nusrat Rizvi
Post by zeke
Islam is going to die by the sword.
Realistically speaking, a sword can not do much harm to Muslims except
chop off a few heads.
The real harm can come from a nuke strike on Mecca which would remove
one pillar, a critical one at that and make the Islamic faith wobbly.
Yes, and generate 1 million more terrorists, eager to kill Americans
Terrorists are created every time a Muslim woman gives birth. With
Mecca nuked and gone Koran's promise that Mecca will be around till
doomsday becomes highly suspect.
Albert
2006-10-05 11:49:36 UTC
Permalink
How many thousands of children died in Irak due to the infamous US invasion
(for nothing) ? Look your sins first.
Acharya
2006-10-06 12:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert
How many thousands of children died in Irak due to the infamous US invasion
(for nothing) ? Look your sins first.
Saddam could have avoided war by simply stepping down from his dictatorship.
You do not see the big picture due to your pseudo secular illogic which
blames the victims of terrorism instead of the terrorists.
CSGD
2006-10-08 11:13:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Acharya
Post by Albert
How many thousands of children died in Irak due to the infamous US invasion
(for nothing) ? Look your sins first.
Saddam could have avoided war by simply stepping down from his
dictatorship.
Post by Acharya
You do not see the big picture due to your pseudo secular illogic which
blames the victims of terrorism instead of the terrorists.
I think Terrorists are an extreme equivelant of every time you see a bully
hit someone close to you, the urge you feel to defend them by punishing that
bully, or better yet getting your friends together to beat the shit out of
that bully.

Terrorists, while generally very violent and extreme and irrational and not
terribly logical, do have one common undeniable thread - they are all out
for vengeance. People do not feel vengeance towards a person, group of
people, or country for no reason.
Therefore when dealing with extremely violent illogical people, you have the
choice of:

1) War - endless and ultimately taxing on both sides, and ultimately cannot
be won by one side or the other, ever, due to the non-geographical nature of
the "enemy". The enemy will always go further and further underground and
become more and more extreme as their numbers decrease, therefore making
erradication as difficult as it is immoral.
2) Tolerance - this has proven to be the same thing as letting innocents in
a shopping mall be shot down one after another because of something that
happened in another state. Tolerance cannot be considered while the actions
of the "enemy" are so offensive and harsh.
3) Suppression - Move in and occupy enemy territory, resources, governing
infrastructure and information dissemination centres, thereby crippling the
enemy. This tactic achieves the same thing as war, except instead of
reducing numbers you are reducing the effectiveness of the numbers. Ultimat
ely there will still always be a percentage that become more and more
extreme, and therefore this strategy achieves nothing other than tying up
massive amounts of resources while "stirring up the hornet's nest"...
basically it's a short-term measure that only makes the problem worse in the
long-run.
4) Education - This strategy is not glamourous, is expensive, and has
limitted and somewhat dissapointingly slow results. Basically it is
propoganda, but rather than setting out to brain-wash and confuse, it sets
out to assimilate and coerce the enemy... effictively converting them to
allies. This is essentially the key weapon that muslims currently use
themselves, and they are extremely good at it. This front is something that
western forces have not specialised in, instead focusing on military and
technological prowess, rather than "matters of the heart". If western
powers moved in according to the "suppression" strategy, but rather than
taking resources they provided infrastructure, education, benifits, jobs,
and entertainment, while catering entirely for the free will and right to
practice whatever religon people wanted to, then the islamic attitude of
western oppression and decadence would subside. Effectively voices that
preached the horrible terrible western powers are out to get us would ring
hollow on the ears of people who could look around and see the benifits of
western influence everywhere. These preachers would end up hanging
themselves on their own words. Ultimately it would be more profitable than
suppression and war, also, even not counting the improvement in death tolls
and the resulting hatred this causes.

Terrorist growth on a national scale is clear indication that current
methods of addressing this threat is not correct.
We need to try other ways to correct this situation, or we are cornering
ourselves and the end result is inevitably war.
Acharya
2006-10-09 10:35:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Acharya
Post by Acharya
Post by Albert
How many thousands of children died in Irak due to the infamous US invasion
(for nothing) ? Look your sins first.
Saddam could have avoided war by simply stepping down from his
dictatorship.
Post by Acharya
You do not see the big picture due to your pseudo secular illogic which
blames the victims of terrorism instead of the terrorists.
I think Terrorists are an extreme equivelant of every time you see a bully
hit someone close to you, the urge you feel to defend them by punishing that
bully, or better yet getting your friends together to beat the shit out of
that bully.
Terrorists are the ultimate face of evil in the world because they kill
people mercilessly in god's name. Thus terrorism can masquerade as religion
and politics which are the function of the upper intellectual class of
society. Thus it must be dealt with most urgently.
Post by Acharya
Terrorists, while generally very violent and extreme and irrational and not
terribly logical, do have one common undeniable thread - they are all out
for vengeance. People do not feel vengeance towards a person, group of
people, or country for no reason.
Therefore when dealing with extremely violent illogical people, you have the
1) War - endless and ultimately taxing on both sides, and ultimately cannot
be won by one side or the other, ever, due to the non-geographical nature of
the "enemy". The enemy will always go further and further underground and
become more and more extreme as their numbers decrease, therefore making
erradication as difficult as it is immoral.
Defective logic. Terrorism is absolute ignorance and delusion which preys on
the weak minded that cannot think for themselves. Those who kill must be
killed or at least arrested and removed from society. That is not immoral.
In fact that is the moral responsiblity of protecting the people.
Post by Acharya
2) Tolerance - this has proven to be the same thing as letting innocents in
a shopping mall be shot down one after another because of something that
happened in another state. Tolerance cannot be considered while the actions
of the "enemy" are so offensive and harsh.
The crux of the logic is this. If someone tries to beat you to death
repeatedly, how long will it take until you defend yourself?
Post by Acharya
3) Suppression - Move in and occupy enemy territory, resources, governing
infrastructure and information dissemination centres, thereby crippling the
enemy. This tactic achieves the same thing as war, except instead of
reducing numbers you are reducing the effectiveness of the numbers.
Ultimat
ely there will still always be a percentage that become more and more
extreme, and therefore this strategy achieves nothing other than tying up
massive amounts of resources while "stirring up the hornet's nest"...
basically it's a short-term measure that only makes the problem worse in the
long-run.
Defective military and political logic. See reply to number 2 above.
Democracy based on human rights is worth protecting and giving to others
being killed by terrorist dictators.
Post by Acharya
4) Education - This strategy is not glamourous, is expensive, and has
limitted and somewhat dissapointingly slow results.
False it is the most rewarding and important short of military action in
that it cost no lives.


Basically it is
Post by Acharya
propoganda, but rather than setting out to brain-wash and confuse, it sets
out to assimilate and coerce the enemy... effictively converting them to
allies.
Education, knowledge, and truth is never propaganda.


This is essentially the key weapon that muslims currently use
Post by Acharya
themselves, and they are extremely good at it. This front is something that
western forces have not specialised in, instead focusing on military and
technological prowess, rather than "matters of the heart".
Secular intelligence cannot be used when understanding religious terrorism
modus operandi which misuses deep religious sentimentalism to control and
enslave the masses in an imaginary holy war against humanity. Their illogic
is that the rule people by terror and death instead of complete and perfect
knowledge of reality distinguished from illusion for the welfare of all
people regardless of the material dualities (differences) of race, religion,
gender, occupatiion , and nationality etc.

Philosophical defects in violent fundamentalist Islam also known as Islamic
fascism and moslem terrorism.
(1) It lacks knowledge of pure devotional service thus it cannot overcome
material dualities (sectarianism).

(2) It does not differenciate the soul from the material body thus it is
unable to liberate one from material bondage to sinful life.

(3) It limits religion to only one authority for all time which is a form of
atheism.

(4) It teaches people to engage in offensive fundamentalist violence and
terrorism (killing people including Moslems) which is fascism,
totalitarianism and irreligion.



If western
Post by Acharya
powers moved in according to the "suppression" strategy, but rather than
taking resources they provided infrastructure, education, benifits, jobs,
and entertainment, while catering entirely for the free will and right to
practice whatever religon people wanted to, then the islamic attitude of
western oppression and decadence would subside. Effectively voices that
preached the horrible terrible western powers are out to get us would ring
hollow on the ears of people who could look around and see the benifits of
western influence everywhere. These preachers would end up hanging
themselves on their own words. Ultimately it would be more profitable than
suppression and war, also, even not counting the improvement in death tolls
and the resulting hatred this causes.
Let's be clear. Moslem terrorism is not a western problem but present
globally.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

Contrary to popular belief the democratic solution is working in Iraq and
Afghanistan so effectively that the moslem lunatics must resort to suicide
bombings in order to disrupt society from making steady progress. They prey
on generations of cultural extremism and communal/tribal violence and hate
as well as the young and immature who are guided by emotions instead of
wisdom and intelligence.
Post by Acharya
Terrorist growth on a national scale is clear indication that current
methods of addressing this threat is not correct.
We need to try other ways to correct this situation, or we are cornering
ourselves and the end result is inevitably war.
No. The modern world has never fought a war on global moslem terrorism what
to speak of the U.S. Therefore it is as much a learning experience for
everyone as it is a test of our individual and collective intelligence and
abilities. The main thing is to never give up fighting global terrorists on
all fronts wherever they arise because they are evil incarnate that trive
off of other's ignorance in the form of tolerance, freedom, human rights,
and secularism etc.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...