Do you think religious studies should be left out of school curricula?

[plekhanov 10]

The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" -page 8 "History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated."

To say that some past historians have depicted the rise of Islam inaccurately (which they undoubtedly have) is a world away from saying 'Islam does not have a violent history- it was not spread by the sword.'

 

Don't you even realise that even that quote which you cite rebuts your own absurd declaration that.

 

Islam does not have a violent history- it was not spread by the sword. All historians agree to this fact.

As De Lacy O’Leary explicity refers to historians he disagrees with who are of the opinion that Islam has an extremely violent past.

[plekhanov 10]

What the heck you on about. They were not 'elected' governments. The situation is very different now.

Who said Stalin & Mao were elected?

 

Me, depict religion as pacifist, are you schizophrenic or something.

Yes you, don't you remember posting this earlier in the thread?

 

Christianity has failed, we've just had the worst century in living memory for violence, including two A bomb attacks.

Religion is having no impact on the character of man.

[jonsastar 11]

yes, I think religion should be left out of school curriculum..

[Baz1 28]

 

As De Lacy O’Leary explicity refers to historians he disagrees with who are of the opinion that Islam has an extremely violent past.

 

 

Of course there is agreement and disagreement. Those who wish to tarnish something (be it a faith or person etc) will only ensure they represent that thing/person in a way that shows it/them to be negative. That is how history works, but I would say with quite strong conviction,(from what I have read and learnt) that Islam has not had a violent history that has been made out to be.

 

And Umar was not the type of warlord associated with greed or corruption or even hatred. You can even read on the link below how he peacefully entered Jerusalem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(637)

 

Upon taking Jerusalem, `Umar demonstrated the utmost respect for members of the other faiths living in the city. For the first time in 500 years since their expulsion from the Holy Land, Jews were allowed to practice their religion freely and live in the vicinity of Jerusalem. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, seventy Jewish families took up residence in the city. `Umar also agreed to several pacts, called the Umariyya Covenant, with the local Christian population, determining their rights and obligations under Muslim rule.

As a conqueror, `Umar undertook many administrative reforms and closely oversaw public policy. He established an advanced administration for the newly conquered lands, including several new ministries and bureaucracies, and ordered a census of all the Muslim territories. During his rule, the garrison cities (amsar) of Basra and Kufa were founded or expanded.

 

 

 

But everyone is entitled to their views Pleckhanov and that is all. There is enough evidence in history to clearly show that where Islam spread, there was no sword in place- and where could this sword come from anyway? The Quran makes it abundantly clear that there should be no compulsion in religion. It does not exist. Wisdom and Truth does. Wagin war on those who "fight you" is a right.

[plekhanov 10]

Of course there is agreement and disagreement.

Yet you previously claimed the exact opposite when you falsely claimed that 'All historians agree' with your absurd attempts to deny Islams violent history.

 

Those who wish to tarnish something (be it a faith or person etc) will only ensure they represent that thing/person in a way that shows it/them to be negative. That is how history works, but I would say with quite strong conviction,(from what I have read and learnt) that Islam has not had a violent history that has been made out to be.

Your thinking is just riven with the most abject black and white fallacies, does the possibility that Islam's history could be less violent that some Christian historians have claimed whilst still being violent really escape you?

 

And Umar was not the type of warlord associated with greed or corruption or even hatred. You can even read on the link below how he peacefully entered Jerusalem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(637)

So? He was still a warlord who embarked on numerous wars of territorial expansion. Just because he didn't go round biting the heads off babies and kicking puppies all the time that doesn't mean that he a key figure in the history of Islam wasn't a very violent man.

 

But everyone is entitled to their views Pleckhanov and that is all. There is enough evidence in history to clearly show that where Islam spread, there was no sword in place- and where could this sword come from anyway? The Quran makes it abundantly clear that there should be no compulsion in religion. It does not exist. Wisdom and Truth does. Wagin war on those who "fight you" is a right.

Right, so in your world there were no "swords" involved in the Muslim armies conquering of the Arabian Peninsular, Mediterranean Africa, Persia, Byzantium, Spain... nor did the systematic discrimination against newly subject peoples who failed to convert to Islam in any way count as a form of compulsion

[Baz1 28]

 

Right, so in your world there were no "swords" involved in the Muslim armies conquering of the Arabian Peninsular, Mediterranean Africa, Persia, Byzantium, Spain... nor did the systematic discrimination against newly subject peoples who failed to convert to Islam in any way count as a form of compulsion

 

No. I think you know what I meant and what my posts have clearly stated. The forcing of religion by the sword, spreading Islam forcefully NEVER occurred. Battles were won and lost, yes. But history is there (if you bothered to read) to tell us that Islam spread not because of the sword.

There is no compulsion in religion. Period.

 

It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?

 

Millions convert to Islam today, intellectuals, women and men. You think a religion engulfed in violence and hatred (as is led to believe) would so easily and quickly unite people of all colours and backgrounds under one banner??

Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe is Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers? It is mostly a Western missionary propaganda that the Muslim conquests in history were aimed at the spread of Islam. In fact, the objectives of these conquests were political, which to a certain extent might have helped to create an atmosphere conducive to the spread of Islam.

 

Even if the Muslim conquests helped the spread of Islam, how can we explain the phenomenon of Islam becoming the fastest growing religion now, especially in the West, long after the sword was taken away from Muslim hands?

 

 

 

 

Topic ends.

[prioryx 10]

No. I think you know what I meant and what my posts have clearly stated. The forcing of religion by the sword, spreading Islam forcefully NEVER occurred. Battles were won and lost, yes. But history is there (if you bothered to read) to tell us that Islam spread not because of the sword.

There is no compulsion in religion. Period.

 

It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?

 

Millions convert to Islam today, intellectuals, women and men. You think a religion engulfed in violence and hatred (as is led to believe) would so easily and quickly unite people of all colours and backgrounds under one banner??

Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe is Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?

Could the sword you ref err to in the last line of your post be the sword of fear?

You say that Islam preaches that non-combatants and civilians both women and children should not be harmed by soldiers of Islam. Big cop out ....don't make them soldiers call them fanatics. No consolation to the innocent victims.

Maybe Islam does not preach violence but what does it do to stop the violence perpetrated in it's name.

Topic ends.

 

 

Topic ends.

[prioryx 10]

Due to some kind of ck up my reply reads from (Islam in such large numbers)

[jobee 10]

Who said Stalin & Mao were elected?

 

 

Yes you, don't you remember posting this earlier in the thread?

 

 

Let me make myself clear, Christianity IS in the construction business and is 'negative' in making humanity any different in any way.

 

And whilst we are at it, so is Islam. Their construction ambitions are supported by tax concessions from both our types of government, including

VAT, governments need their votes. The saturation of the planet with buildings is a strait forward competition [ at the moment] between the

fictional characters God and Allah, with Allah in the lead and moving further

ahead.

 

Both God and Allah are supported by Sheffied education, who's teachers wish to teach about the construction business worldwide.

 

There is no point in trying to change mankind because the vast majority of us

are behaving ourselves and always did.

 

Do I make myself clear.

 

[ To die and know nothing IS heaven] jobee

[geerarffe 10]

Teach kids about different faiths but there's no need to make them take a GCSE in it!

[carmencarter 10]

I'm an atheist,and I was educated in France: laicity is the norm there, meaning that you shoudn't talk about religion, let alone display it (which led to a few problems when Muslim girls wanted to wear veils at school)

I think RE, on paper, is a great idea: I don't believe in any religion, but it is so interesting to find out about different faiths and cultures.

As long as it's about educating and informing instead of promoting, then great.

Singing hymns in assemblies is wrong though imo.

[jobee 10]

Teach kids about different faiths but there's no need to make them take a GCSE in it!

 

In that case geerarffe, they can buy the koran or bible and read it at home.

job done.