The Abrahmic Religions

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 43
Topic's author
#1
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
in the 6th entury BC the israelite king jehoiaikim refused to pay tribute (ie 'protection money') to the powerful Babylonians which resuted in the Baylonians attacking and defeating the Israelites.  Consequently the israelite elite and part of the general poultion were removed from israel to babylon.
The exiled priests were concerned to preserve the ethic identity of the israelites and did so by creating an official mythology, in writing so it was immune from change, dilution or contamination from foreign ideas.   It was a scheme that blurred nationalism and relligion, myth and history.  

70 years later the babylonians were themselves defeated by the Persians under Cyrus.  Cyrus permitted the exiled jews to return to jerusalem, making israel a vassal state of his empire.   jewish royalty and aristocracy had been destroyed;  the reconstitued Israel was highly theocratic.

For the next few hundred years israel changed hands repeatedly.  However it remained a small minor theocracy on the fringes of world event.

By the time of Jesus, israel had passed from Greek control to the Romans, but most Isealites were poor, highly taxed subjects of foreign power.  Traditional judaism was represented by a corrupt and venal priesthood and the mass of ordinary people were open to a very different vision.

Christianity has little in common with judaism.   Judaism is ethnocentric and is not concerned with aterlife; Christianity is universal and salvation is central. 

Christianity was more successful outside israel than with the Jews inside.  However this is a period where there were any number of competing creeds and religions around the mediterranean.  The dominance of Christianity was due to a historical accident - it was championed by a roman general who went on to become emperor.  Almost at a stroke christianity was transformed from 'just another cult' to the official religion of the world's greatest empire.   

islam is closely modelled on Judaism.  In my view, islam was invented as a political device - it was intended to forge unity aross a pan-arabian empire containing a wide variety of ethnicities and religions. 




  
#2
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@keithprosser
Good read. I don't get why anyone from the Abrahmic faiths can't see how human this all is... it took one Atheist such as yourself to explain similar chain of events and i was like... oh, shouldn't defend that anymore. And i was like 10. I just don't get it. It's so clearly man-made. 
#3
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Outplayz
Just as your beliefs are.
#4
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
In my view, islam was invented as a political device - it was intended to forge unity aross a pan-arabian empire containing a wide variety of ethnicities and religions.  
 
What is your evidence that Islam was invented and intended to forge a unity of religions?


Topic's author
#5
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
All religions are invented - the only thing to think about is why they were invented.

The historical fact is that Mohammed established a united Arabian empire, and a common religion played a large part in it being unified.  i think it plausible that Islam is something of a Frankenstein's monster; having been created as a political tool of secular imperialists it soon became a powerful force in its own right, transforming a political entity into a theocratic one.   That transformation has a lot to do with causing the decline in Arab culture, ending a Golden age of philosophy with thinkers such as Averoes and Avicenna replaced with the intellectual stagnation of theologians such as al Ghazali.




#6
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
All religions are invented - the only thing to think about is why they were invented.

I agree. But your evidence for Islam being invented to forge a unity of religions, was what I asked you for. Do you have any?


The historical fact is that Mohammed established a united Arabian empire, and a common religion played a large part in it being unified.


 unified under "a common religion". That would be islam? yes or no?



Topic's author
#7
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Hard evidence is hard to come by!   Such things are not documented in policy statements or the minutes of committee meetings.  much of the early 'history' of Islam is tradition, often first recorded decades or centuries after the alleged events.

 unified under "a common religion". That would be islam? yes or no?
No. Scientology.

 
 
#8
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Hard evidence is hard to come by!  

So that is a definite no, then. So you have started a thread knowing you have absolutely no evidence for your claims. Well done.

So all this below that you have presented as fact is simply your own opinion supported without facts? 

In my view, islam was invented as a political device - it was intended to forge unity aross a pan-arabian empire containing a wide variety of ethnicities and religions. 


Such things are not documented in policy statements or the minutes of committee meetings. 
So how did you come up with the idea that " Islam was intended to  forge unity  containing a wide variety of ethnicities and religions"? 
Did you just make that up?



much of the early 'history' of Islam is tradition,

I agree Ok. from what traditional early history and where about among this  " traditional early history" did you get the idea or notion that  "islam was intended to forge unity aross a pan-arabian empire containing a wide variety of ethnicities and religions"?  

often first recorded decades or centuries after the alleged events.

Ok, so where are the records that caused you to tell us that "Islam was intended to  forge unity  containing a wide variety of ethnicities and religions"? 

 unified under "a common religion". That would be islam? yes or no?
No. Scientology.


So it is Islam we are talking about. Nice to have got that cleared up. So tell me: Just how were these "other religions" brought under the one unifying umbrella of Islam? and what other religions are you talking about specifically?
#9
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
All religions are invented - the only thing to think about is why they were invented.
That should be relatively easy to figure out. There were people simply looking for a savior from the perils of their lives.

Old Testament - Hebrews in slavery looking for a deliverer.
New Testament - the reign of the Roman Empire.
Islam - Tribes of Arabs all killing one another, the rich getting richer off the backs of the poor.


Topic's author
#10
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
what other religions are you talking about specifically?
As I implied there isn't much concrete stuff to work with, but it is generally accepted that the Arabs - like everyone else - followed unsophisticated animistic, polytheistic religions.   Certainly Islam is very 'anti' when it comes to multiple gods; it appears that is not due to conflict with Christianity or hinduism in the first instance (although it came to have the effect of exaggerating the difference) but was aimed at the Arabian polytheists who were the first to be absorbed into the Mohammedan empire.

Topic's author
#11
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Goldtop
   
Old Testament - Hebrews in slavery looking for a deliverer.
New Testament - the reign of the Roman Empire.
Islam - Tribes of Arabs all killing one another, the rich getting richer off the backs of the poor.
Sort of, but i'd give different one-line summaries from the above.  It might not be possible to condense things quite that far - i think my op is already a very broad-brush picture guilty of over-simplifying things!  But a forum post is not the place for a 40,000 word thesis - any more than 4 sentences is probably 'tl;dr' and a waste of effort!




#12
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
i'd give different one-line summaries from the above
Sure, you can try, but that's exactly what was going on and were a result of why those religions came about. Look into the details of the histories and you'll find out yourself.

Topic's author
#13
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Goldtop
Ummm... i have done just that and i wouldn't summarise things in one line the way you did.   I don't suppose there'd be a million miles between our views once they are padded out to, say, essay length.

But I'm not going to post an essay on DA - at least not all in one go!
#14
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@disgusted
Never said mine aren't... you're quite bad at understanding.
#15
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Outplayz
And yet
Good read. I don't get why anyone from the Abrahmic faiths can't see how human this all is..................... I just don't get it. It's so clearly man-made. 
I just don't get why Outy believes his self created beliefs when he knows he created them.
#16
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@disgusted
I just don't get why Outy believes his self created beliefs when he knows he created them.
Maybe you can mediate on that one... i'm sure in 1000 years it'll come to you. 

#17
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,515
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Goldtop
Lol!! Why are you so excited? Keith's explanation doesn't mean people are going to disbelieve in their Gods so easily.

Besides, this is all about history. I have no doubt Jesus wanted  to teach something good to their people, unfortunately his followers started to exagerate his story and ended up making up a fantastic story that lead to Christianity. Either way, Jesus teachings are good.
#18
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
what other religions are you talking about specifically?
As I implied there isn't much concrete stuff to work with, but it is generally accepted that the Arabs - like everyone else - followed unsophisticated animistic, polytheistic religions.  
Ok, again nothing "concrete" that would be no evidence, then.


Certainly Islam is very 'anti' when it comes to multiple gods;
That is putting it politely or in your case playing  down just how "anti" and intolerant Islam is towards any other religion.

it appears that is not due to conflict with Christianity or hinduism in the first instance (although it came to have the effect of exaggerating the difference)
I noticed you left out Judaism.

but was aimed at the Arabian polytheists who were the first to be absorbed into the Mohammedan empire.

Your careful choice of words hasn't gone unnoticed. Again you are attempting to play down how exactly these "polytheists" were actually "absorbed"  into the Islamic empire. Would you like  to expand as you seem to have have  totally ignored this part of my original question:

So tell me: Just how were these "other religions" brought under the one unifying umbrella of Islam? 

#19
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
Either way, Jesus teachings are good.
Of course you would say that, you're a Christian, Archy.

Topic's author
#20
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Ok, again nothing "concrete" that would be no evidence, then.
i said 'not much', not 'nothing'.

Being a retired computer programmer i don't claim special expertise in pre-islamic arabian religions!  I'm just a random guy on the internet that you take moreseriously than I do myself!   I know no more than you can read for yourself on wikipedia etc.  AFAICT there is a dearth of contemporary documents, certainly not much I can provide links to.  

The policy of the mohamedan empire was certainly to impose islam on their conquests.   That follows from the way that religion and politics were - and are - very blurred.   The division between church and state is alien to islam!   
Force - including lethal force - was employed and non-muslims were subject to restrictions, and were required to pay extra taxes, which undoutedly encouraged many conversions.  

My point is that the arahamic religions are the product of human politics and sociology, not the will and whims of deities.
   

#21
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
i said 'not much', not 'nothing'.

But still offered nothing of what bit there is or maybe is. OK

I'm just a random guy on the internet that you take more seriously than I do myself!  

Interesting that. But it is not you that I take as interesting, No, it is your opinions and views on Islam and Christianity that I take seriously. And why, in particular,  you are more than comfortable for me to criticize and question Christianity but not Islam. But I have started a thread all about that here>  Am I A Christianophobe? https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1609  so there is no need to press on that now.




I know no more than you can read for yourself on wikipedia etc. 

Opinion.  And it is very rarely I look at wiki. I thought that was your source of information,  you have quoted it enough in the past. No, libraries and books and documents ans scriptures have been my sources of information for over 40+ years. But wiki is a quick reference I would use if it backed up an opinion or a statement I have made or referenced elsewhere. It is just convenient, but I wouldn't say it is reliable. That is why I only usually question the actual scriptures themselves. There can be no argument as to what is written there. As with the quran.

 certainly not much I can provide links to.   

OK.  Can you recommend a book or paper/ essay source from for instance, an Arab Islamic teacher or scholar, from where you got the information that states that Islam  "was intended to forge unity aross a pan-arabian empire containing a wide variety of ethnicities and religions. ? Or shall I just take that as another no?

The policy of the mohamedan empire was certainly to impose islam on their conquests.  

It was wasn't it.  And the whole reason for these  conquest was to force Islam onto those who believed different to Muhammad . These "other religions" were not just simply "absorbed" as if by gentle persuasion as you so lightly like to put it. They were conquered and forced to accept Islam by the sword of the "mohamedan"  the very ideology that Winston Churchill and others warned about when he told us: 

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabiesin a dog. The religion of bloodand war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace isusually the better armed. The Mahommedan religion increases, instead oflessening, the fury of intolerance. Propagated by the sword, and a form ofmadness". But I Suppose Churchill would be called an islamophobic, far right  racist, bigot who is spreading hate who is  causing division and promoting intolerance. The thing was , churchill wasn't on his own when he warned the world about the threat to come from islam. William Gladstone  told us that the "Quran,an accursed book, so long as there is this book there will be no peace in theworld". There were others too. But we can leave that there. 

 The division between church and state is alien to islam!

Yes I know.  Which should be very concerning to anyone with the slightest bit of common sense, especially Westernised  so called "moderate muslims".


Force - including lethal force - was employed and non-muslims were subject to restrictions, and were required to pay extra taxes, which undoubtedly encouraged many conversions.  

Yes I know. And not much seems to have changed in the Islamic world either has it?  The Sultan of Brunei has just shown the world his commitment to Islamic sharia law, by ordering stoning for homosexuals. Lesbian sex carries a different penalty of 40 strokes of the cane and/or a maximum of 10 years in jail. And this tolerant dictate:
 "Those who persuade, tell or encourage" Muslim children under the age of 18 "to accept the teachings of religions other than Islam" are liable to a fine or jail".
This comes under the quranic verse of  "causing mischief in the land". I will admit though, that the actual punishment for those influencing others to anything other than Islam (cause mischief in the land) as written in the Quran seems a lot harsher than that imposed by the Sultan. her read it for yourself:

Quran 5:33 those who wage war against Allah and HisMessenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption/mischief is none but thatthey be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off fromopposite sides or that they be exiled from the land.




My point is that the arahamic religions are the product of human politics and sociology, not the will and whims of deities.

That is quite obvious to you and I , but it isn't you or I that people have to be concerned about, is it:?  Contrary to what you believe about me.
    

#22
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
was intended to forge unity aross a pan-arabian empire containing a wide variety of ethnicities and religions
Actually, i think that's true. I was talking to someone that knows the Koran quite well... i don't know if he got it from the Koran or just history... but, he was telling me something similar. It was suppose to work in small communities and bring them together. It's the infidel part of the Koran that throws a wrench in it. But, if you look at the Koran as a community... as in everyone in agreement with the Koran and in agreement with translation... that community is likely going to love each other and be very peaceful. It's once you add other humans to it that problems arise bc of course the Koran is flawed too. So, i don't know if in the bigger sense... that's what they hoped it would do as Keith describes. They probably just didn't anticipate humans aren't agreeable and will translate things differently. Again... bc they're flawed humans.  

#23
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Outplayz
was intended to forge unity aross a pan-arabian empire containing a wide variety of ethnicities and religions
Actually, i think that's true.


And I don't believe I have said anything to the contrary.  I needed to know if there was any written fact to support  it. And how and what religions came to be unified under Islam.

It was suppose to work in small communities and bring them together.
OK.  But I asked how did muhammad bring these "small communities" together. 


It's the infidel part of the Koran that throws a wrench in it.

I take it you mean a wrench In muhammads glorious idea?

But, if you look at the Koran as a community... as in everyone in agreement with the Koran and in agreement with translation... that community is likely going to love each other and be very peaceful.

I agree. I have said all along that the fluffy verses in the Quran only apply to muslims and are a lesson in how muslims should respect and love one another. It certainly doesn't apply to anyone outside of that ideology. As the quran testifies: Quran 51- You, who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact]allies of one another........


It's once you add other humans to it that problems arise bc of course the Koran is flawed too.
The quran appears to be contradictory on the face of it without doubt.  This is because of the Islamic law of abrogation,where an earlier verse is repealed or done away with.  This is why it started off fluffy in the fluffy christian sense,  but,  as keithprosser well knows, It turns very violent and intolerant towards outsiders very quickly. Muhammad's excuse for this was that "satan had made him write those earlier verses" known as the "Satanic Verses"


So, i don't know if in the bigger sense... that's what they hoped it would do as Keith describes.

Yes, world conquest. See Quran 8:39.  I think keithprosser knew exactly what he was doing and  saying  when he carefully chose  words such as :  "absorb and  forge unity" as if these "small communities" on believing muhammad  simply and willing just handed over all authority to Muhammad and made him their leader  and became muslim.  keithprosser was simply playing down the violence  of conquest by muhammad.  As you can read above, the actuality of what keith prosser was saying had to be coaxed and winkled out of him. 


They probably just didn't anticipate humans aren't agreeable

Oh I can assure you muhammad knew damn well there would be resistance a lot of resistance.

and will translate things differently. Again... bc they're flawed humans.  

The (good?) thing about the Quran is that it is truthful and its doesn't mince its words. Its intentions are very clear: Submit or die.  Quran 8:39
 And fight them until there is no fitnah and[until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah.

#24
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
Jesus teachings are good.

And many just do not make any sense at all.
Topic's author
#25
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
One reason Christianity is 'nice' is that it was predicated on an imminent new world order in which 'the meek shall inherit the earth'.  The original message was that a short period of being oppressed would be followed by a great change and the rich and powerful would be cast down.  Jesus taught that it was better to suffer than fight back because - very soon - the 'bosses' would be sent to hell.   There was no thought of ever becomung a political force in the mundane world; the first christians saw themselves as an elite-in-waiting, smugly self-satisfied that however much they suffered, they would soon have the last laugh over evil landords, tax-collectors and corrupt priests.  Christianity was the religion of the powerless.

Islam was born in very different circumstances - ie in a dynamic and expanding empire.  One can ask if the empire served the purpose the religion or if the religion served the purpose of the empire.   i think it was originally the latter, but the two became interwined and inseperable.


#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
Islam was born in very different circumstances - ie in a dynamic and expanding empire. 

Nope. Islam was born because muhammad couldn't get his own way. long story short:  He wasn't accepted as a prophet by the Jews of Mecca,( yes! the Jews of Mecca!!!) so went away in a serious and deadly sulk with vengeance in mind and returned when his band of men grew into a force just big enough to take his revenge on those that rebuked and rebuffed him, where  he personally beheaded 600 male Jews from the age of puberty upwards.

Islam was born [...............]  in a dynamic and expanding empire.
Nope. see above. There was "no dynamic expanding empire" at the time of Muhammad's big sulk. At the most he had taken over Medina ( which was his centre of operations anyway) and maybe a few surrounding villages who had caved in without resistance.

Try reading the work of the respected and trusted  Arab Muslim historian and hagiographer Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Yasār ibn Khiyār. He was responsible for the important biography of Muhammad. 






 
Topic's author
#27
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
I understand Ibn Ishaq was writing about 100 years after Mohamed died and worked from oral stories, not written accounts.  Reliable history of the period is hard to get.

The major expansion of the Arabic empire occurred in the generations after Mohammed's death and the koran was compiled by his successors.  There are hardly any facts - what we have are 'traditions', essentially legends that are widely believed by Muslims but have very little to back them up.

It cannot be suposed that an empire that grew to extend from Spain to India did so without any violence!   The rules of war were rather harsg
h in those days:

"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes."




#28
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes."


Yes, absolutely diabolical. And these ancient Hebrews did exactly as they were instructed by their  god of war.. Just as many of the 1.5 billion muslims still do ... to this day,  in the 21st century,  follow the instruction of the god of the quran to the letter. You can throw as many of these ancient OT verses at me all day long,  they are irrelevant. 

It cannot be suposed that an empire that grew to extend from Spain to India did so without any violence! 

Yes these would be the conquests apologist rarely wish recognize until forced to and when slapped with these facts of violent muslim conquest. Indeed many apologist will insist these were conquests  "in self defence". I think I remember you having used this expression "in self defence" yourself until I asked you what were muslims "defending in Spain, or France,or Germany and the Caucuses, not to mention the Indian subcontinent" and the Holy Land

  The rules of war were rather harsh in those days:

They were, in that there weren't any rules. It winner takes all . 


Topic's author
#29
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
. I think I remember you having used this expression "in self defence"
I doubt it was me, at least not in that sort of context.  

i think it's interesing to speculate what drives empires.  European empires - such as the British, french, spanish andotuguses undoutedly spread Chrisianity across the globe, but they were not motivated by missionary zeal to spread the word.  There isn't much in the koram about actively expanding - the emphasis is on defense, which may relect that Islam was primarily used to maintin internal cohesion afer the emire was established rather than growing it.

But if that was the reason Islam was invented, does that mean Muslims today are secretly planing for world domination?   I would say that some certainly do think like that,  but it's not my experience that ordinary muslims crave for a world caliphate!    
#30
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
. I think I remember you having used this expression "in self defence"
I doubt it was me, at least not in that sort of context.  

It must have been one of the other apologists . I am sorry.


There isn't much in the koram about actively expanding -

well apart from Quran 8:39
 And fight them until there is no fitnah and[until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease - then indeed,Allah is Seeing of what they do. and over another 100 verses of similar vein. 

the emphasis is on defense,

show me where?  

does that mean Muslims today are secretly planing for world domination?

The struggle -  Jihad - means absolutely nothing to you then, it doesn't exist and it is all a figment of my imagination and the imaginations of millions of muslims. OK.   It is not "secret".  Islam  makes no secret of its goal. This is why I have alway maintained that the Quran is more truthful than the NT. Islam does not mince its words.

 I would say that some certainly do think like that,


yes a percentage of the 1.5 billion do think in those terms 


but it's not my experience that ordinary muslims crave for a world caliphate!  

(1) what is a "ordinary muslim"? ( 2) The quran demands and indeed orders that muslims create a one world Islamic state :  "until all religion is for Allah"..