The army who fights may be slaughtered, yes, but the spread of the religion is not done via violence.

Why has it got to spread it to another country anyway? why can't you just respect that country?

The army who fights may be slaughtered, yes, but the spread of the religion is not done via violence.

What reasons for fighting or attacking your neighbour. I do know what the Koran asks of Muslims , I'm just trying to get you to admit it.

why can't you just respect that country?

Do you respect Zimbabwe and allow Mugabe to carry on?

Do you respect Zimbabwe and allow Mugabe to carry on?

Muslim culture, fundamentally, is neither military based nor trade based; it is Qur'an based. The Qur'an teaches jihad by the sword and so the Arabs were justified in doing so. This must be acknowledged first and foremost before any further analysis can take place.

I think we really need to study the Koran don't you?

It wouldn't help.

If you want to find advocacy of violent evangelism it's there.

If you want to find advocacy of magnaminous acceptance of other beliefs it's also there.

You are giving me a history lesson on the justification of the Islamic invasion of Spain and so is that point your making or what? was it justified or not, come on tell me?

I made reference to Iraq because with your reasoning of the invasion of Spain, as you so kindly pointed out, could be applied to the invasion of Iraq..I know your retreat on this point is because you realised the stupidity of your suggestion, that invasion can be justified.

Now I will ask again, the two of you, give me proof of my bigotry or apologise.

Of course - the spread of the religion is down to whether or not people accept it (or pretend to).

But they are more likely to accept it (or pretend to) if the alternative seems to be war or death.

Evangelism isn't acceptance, it's spreading the word. Hence evangelism by slaughter - or at least the threat of slaughter - is an ineluctable result of offensive jihad.

Im sorry I don't see the resmblance to be honest and isn't that off topic, we are talking about the spread of Islam? Also, would you mind learning how to quote properly please, there's a vid on it the video section, only it confuses me.
Thanks.

---------- Post added 09-17-2009 at 10:49 AM ----------

And no I don't respect Mugabe, never have! Thank you.

It may sound like I'm quibbling here, but be open to the possibility that I'm asking a valid question. Muslims believe the Qur'an is the actual words of God, right? God has condoned in the Qur'an jihad by the sword. The actual word is sword? A Boeing 767 jet is not a sword. I realize my point is subtle, but it's this: either God's words in the Qur'an can be interpreted poetically or not. To pick and chose over which parts we'll allow to be poetic is disingenuous. Either we'll allow the Qur'an to to be fully translated into a modern perspective which demands that tolerance is an ideal and war is the price we pay for our own past stupidity, or the whole thing has to remain in a 7th century perspective, swords and all. Or so logic would suggest.

It wouldn't help.

As much as any invasion can be justified - either way, it's beside the point. You gave a narrative of the history which was incorrect. That's why I responded. If, in the face of correction, all you have is jingoism, by all means, enjoy yourself.



Except that I did not "so kindly point out" that the invasions are comparable much less that the reasoning could be accurately applied to Iraq.

Here's another history lesson for you - the citizens of Iraq were not begging the US to invade. I suppose you forgot that part, hmm?



Should I also prove to you that you have a nose?

Well neither the word sword or Boeing 767 is in the Qur'an! Jihad of the sword is a term later coined by the scholars of Islam.

Sorry, my bad. All I know about Islam comes from reading history, not religious commentary.