gay muslim

[Diego_Ryan]

You need to go back to history class...


Muslims had to pay zakah, had to enlist in the military and were responsible for defenses and the welfare of the state.

A non-Muslim had to pay the jizayah, did not have to serve in the military and was given complete protection from invading forces.

Islam spread because the warring empires were weak and oppressive. The Muslim leaders offered an alternative.

Of course there are plenty of examples of "bad Muslim nations" just as they are "bad christian nations". But let's not be stupid.

So, you don't deny that they forced their way into other nations by conquering them if they refused to be part of their empire. That’s still not good because in a way it shows that Islam was spread through force. According to Encarta one of the reasons the crusades expanded was to prevent such expansion of the Islamic empire (they were conquering nations that belonged to Christians). I’m not saying that Christians are angels because they also did their fare share of atrocities, but I think it’s terrible that people see nothing wrong with the Muslim nations conquering others sometimes by force (if they refused to surrender).

Islam spread because the warring empires were weak and oppressive. The Muslim leaders offered an alternative.

I assume you agree with Bush's war then?

 

[pmpinla]

terrorist 1, your reply "From the Islamic perspective, every people were given the same message. Worship One God, do good deeds and pray" just proves my point about blinders. For example, Hindus, like the followers of many other religions on this planet, worship more than one god, so your statement is inherently false in its premise when you state that "every people were given the same message". There is nothing wrong with the message you claim Islam teaches, but you, like John, are looking at the world with Islamic blinders on. There is a lot more to this universe than Islam, and you should not presume that it is the only true path to God.

 

[Spensed]

Everything changed through human whims and corruption. Of course you don't have to believe that. But that's how I believe the world is. The truth and the corruption of the truth

Of course, that ignores the many good things that human beings have achieved and the elements of truth that survive corruption.

But that's ok. Some guys are just glass-half-empty rather than glass-half-full kinda guys.

 

[pmpinla]

Even if hinduism was all about seperate gods, that doesn't mean the message didn't come to them first.

[For those of you who are just joining this discussion, the "message" was defined by terrorist1 as: "From the Islamic perspective, every people were given the same message. Worship One God, do good deeds and pray."] [As a second parenthetical observation, it seems probable that terrorist1 and newbie 2 are the same entities.]

What proof, newbie2, can you offer that the "message" came to the Hindus first before they fell off the wagon and became polytheists? Your statement that "even if hinduism was all about seperate gods, that doesn't mean the message didn't come to them first" doesn't prove that the "message" was originally given to the Hindus. Just saying that something happened doesn't make it so or prove anything. When making such a bold assumption as you have made, you need to back up your observations and statements with incontrovertible facts, otherwise you open yourself up to the charge that you engage in illogical argument based on unfounded assumptions and wishful thinking.

Any further blanket statements, such as the ones you have made on this thread, will only serve to trumpet your ignorance and open you up to public embarrassment. You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but you should not make the jump from belief to statements of fact based on those beliefs, when such facts cannot be proven either historically or scientifically.

Think carefully before you speak, or in this case, write.