Islam, " only a tiny minority".

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 259
Topic's author
#241
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain what you consider a "Muslim extremist" or "radicalized" and why anyone should "be afraid of them".
Already responded. here it is again.
Start a thread and I gladly will give you an explanation.  If you don't want to do that, then fk off my thread which is about the myth of  " only a tiny minority". Now you either debunk the respected  Pew Research point for point or just fk off.

Or get super defensive and try to bully others out of the conversation.

I am not bullying you. You are asking for something that is irrelevant to this thread as far as I am concerned. I have offered to  willingly and gladly join you on a thread that you start on the subject. You it seems are reluctant to do so. 

Ok, try this one, ONLY A TINY MINORITY OF MUSLIMS ARE DANGEROUS TO THE AVERAGE WESTERN CITIZEN.

Is that a claim? 

Please either agree or disagree.


I will gladly answer your question when you have produced the evidence for your claim above.
#242
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
@3RU7AL
As I understand it, the myth Stephen refers to is that the majority of Muslims have 'western values', ie the majority is pro democracy, secular and in favour of women's and gay rights.   The myth hold that it is only a tiny minority of Muslims who are misogynistic, homophobic and sympathetic to religious rule. 

Closer to the truth is that few Muslims are terrorists or support terrorism or the most extreme forms of Islamism, but Muslims are moving way from liberal values, not towards them.  It is a mistake to think the Muslim community is overwhemingly liberal but being held hostage by a fanatical few.  

Truly liberal Muslims are, or are becoming, the minority.   Moderate does not mean liberal - at least not any more. .

I hope Stephen won't mind me plugging that BBC radio documentary again - anyone who hasn't listened to it really should do!

#243
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
As I understand it, the myth Stephen refers to is that the majority of Muslims have 'western values', ie the majority is pro democracy, secular and in favour of women's and gay rights.   The myth hold that it is only a tiny minority of Muslims who are misogynistic, homophobic and sympathetic to religious rule.  

Closer to the truth is that few Muslims are terrorists or support terrorism or the most extreme forms of Islamism, but Muslims are moving way from liberal values, not towards them.  It is a mistake to think the Muslim community is overwhemingly liberal but being held hostage by a fanatical few.   

Truly liberal Muslims are, or are becoming, the minority.   Moderate does not mean liberal - at least not any more. . 
Well stated.
#244
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stephen
ONLY A TINY MINORITY OF MUSLIMS ARE DANGEROUS TO THE AVERAGE WESTERN CITIZEN.

I will gladly answer your question when you have produced the evidence for your claim above.
16% of the population in the Muslim world, according to the PEW data processed by us, continue to openly support Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda, 17% the Taliban, 21% Hezbollah, and 22% Hamas. 27% of Muslims worldwide do not oppose suicide bombing. [LINK]

Even if all terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims, you still could not associate terrorism with Islam: There have been 140,000 terror attacks committed worldwide since 1970. Even if Muslims carried out all of these attacks (which is an absurd assumption given the fact mentioned in my first point), those terrorists would represent less than 0.00009 percent of all Muslims. To put things into perspective, this means that you are more likely to be struck by lightening in your lifetime than a Muslim is likely to commit a terrorist attack during that same timespan.

If you are scared of Muslims then you should also be scared of household furniture and toddlers: A study carried out by the University of North Carolina showed that less than 0.0002% of Americans killed since 9/11 were killed by Muslims. (Ironically, this study was done in Chapel Hill: the same place where a Caucasian non-Muslim killed three innocent Muslims as the mainstream media brushed this terrorist attack off as a parking dispute). Based on these numbers, and those of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the average American is more likely to be crushed to death by their couch or television than they are to be killed by a Muslim. As a matter of fact, Americans were more likely to be killed by a toddler in 2013 than they were by a so-called “Muslim terrorist”. [LINK]
#245
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
This is interesting.

What we see in the news is clearly sample biased.

Even where these laws are rarely implemented, they can still lead to fines and imprisonment in some countries, such as Italy and Greece. Moving beyond strict EU borders, into Russia or Turkey, the sentences become harsher and more frequent. [LINK]
- There are blasphemy laws still in France, they just dropped the name for a different laws. & people do get fined & sent to prison for that too, all the time.


Al-Qaeda still commands double-digit support despite its mass killings of Muslims and widespread conspiracy theories that it is a puppet of the CIA and Mossad. Altogether, 13% of Muslims in these countries have a favorable view of Al-Qaeda and 57% have an unfavorable view. [LINK]

I'm not personally convinced that Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist groups, but Al-Qaeda seems pretty clear-cut.  Let me know if these numbers sound reasonable to you or if you have alternative sources that contradict them.
- I read the Pew Research report on this. Their data is generally reliable, but their method is often un-meaningful. Like their study on religious diversity, which failed spectacularly to showcase religious diversity in favor of irreligious diversity. In this case, these statistics do not convey in any meaningful way the true inclinations of Muslims in these country. Hamas is not classified as a terrorist group in much of the Muslim world (except in the axis of evil: Saudi, UAE & Egypt), on the contrary, it is seen as a resistance group -so is Hizbullah. Why are Sunni Muslims supporting Hizbullah (a Shia group) & why are Shia Muslims supporting Hamas (a Sunni group)?! One word: Israel. If North Korea decided to oppose Israel, the next day most Muslims will support it. Al-Qaeda's support does not stem from their ideology, it stems from their opposition to the US. If the Christian IRA opposes the US, a lot of Muslims would support it too. This is why Boko Haram has virtually no support, because it does not oppose the US. & this is the same reason why ISIS enjoyed immense support from Muslims at its beginnings, until it started butchering fellow Muslims. The issue of suicide bombing is just as irrelevant, when Muslims in the ME are asked about suicide bombing they are thinking about the kind designed to kill American soldiers or Israelis -NOT civilians, for that is the effective discourse there. According to this Gallup poll OIC countries (Muslim majority countries) are much less likely to see targeting civilians as justifiable than non-OIC countries. In particular, 13% in the MENA region (Middle East North Africa) believe attacking civilians is sometimes justifiable while 79% believe it's never justifiable, in contrast to 47% in North America believe attacking civilians is sometimes justifiable. This trend is similarly observed within the US itself, 78% American Muslims believe military attacking civilians is never justifiable, whereas most (58%) Christians believe it is sometimes justifiable. Further, American Muslims are also the least likely with 11% to think targeting civilians is sometimes justifiable & 89% believe it's never justifiable, whereas American Christians are the most likely to think so: 27% believe it's sometimes justifiable & only 71% believe it's never justifiable.


Sam Harris does seem slightly more reasonable than Stephen though
- I don't doubt his intelligence, just his qualification. He should stick to his domain & leave things he is clueless about to those qualified.


Hanafi scholars refuse to control a human religious or spiritual destiny, and refuse to give that right to any human institution. Among the Hudud crimes, those crimes against God, blasphemy is not listed by the Hanafis. Hanafis concluded that blasphemy could not be punished by the state. The state should not be involved in deciding God-human relationships. Rather, the state should be concerned only with the violation of human rights within the jurisdiction of the human affairs and human relationships. [LINK]
- More accurately this relates to their definition of Accountability, in that the Hanafis differentiate two types of accountability: legislative (Shariya) & universal (Kawnya). Legislative accountability relates to secular Justice in this life, while universal accountability relates to divine Justice in the next life. They postulate that jurists & judges can only concern themselves with secular Justice, only God has jurisdiction over divine Justice. In contrast to this, the Malikis consider legislative accountability to be part of universal accountability, for the basis of right & wrong is the same in both accounts -& that is Sharia. Historically, the Hanafi school has been -by far- the most adopted by the various Islamic empires & states, especially the major ones like the Abbasid Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Mughal Empire, the Mamluk Sultanat...etc. The Maliki school has flourished mostly in the Maghreb, in Andalusia (Islamic Spain) & Almoravids Empire & other dynasties of the west. The Hanafi school has proven to be best suited for multi-nation empires, the great Hanafi legal theorist as-Sarakhsi (died 1096) says:
“This, for the fact that when Allah (swt) created humans to bear al-Amana (the Charge), he bestowed them with Intellect & Accountability, so that they may be eligible to assume the rights of God on them. He (swt), then, established for them: Inviolability, Liberty & Ownership so that they may be able to fulfil the Charge they have been assigned with. Further, this Liberty, Inviolability & Ownership is firmly established for all human beings from their birth, the discerning among them or the non-discerning alike.” - Usul as-Sarakhsi.





#246
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Yassine
According to this Gallup poll OIC countries (Muslim majority countries) are much less likely to see targeting civilians as justifiable than non-OIC countries. In particular, 13% in the MENA region (Middle East North Africa) believe attacking civilians is sometimes justifiable while 79% believe it's never justifiable, in contrast to 47% in North America believe attacking civilians is sometimes justifiable. This trend is similarly observed within the US itself, 78% American Muslims believe military attacking civilians is never justifiable, whereas most (58%) Christians believe it is sometimes justifiable. Further, American Muslims are also the least likely with 11% to think targeting civilians is sometimes justifiable & 89% believe it's never justifiable, whereas American Christians are the most likely to think so: 27% believe it's sometimes justifiable & only 71% believe it's never justifiable.
Good point.
#247
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Why are you so afraid?
#248
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Yassine
- There are blasphemy laws still in France, they just dropped the name for a different laws. & people do get fined & sent to prison for that too, all the time.
Citations


Topic's author
#249
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I hope Stephen won't mind me plugging that BBC radio documentary again - anyone who hasn't listened to it really should do!



    Why would I?  It supports my opinions and arguments perfectly. So thanks again.
Topic's author
#250
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
ONLY A TINY MINORITY OF MUSLIMS ARE DANGEROUS TO THE AVERAGE WESTERN CITIZEN.

I will gladly answer your question when you have produced the evidence for your claim above.
16% of the population in the Muslim world, according to the PEW data processed by us, continue to openly support Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda, 17% the Taliban, 21% Hezbollah, and 22% Hamas. 27% of Muslims worldwide do not oppose suicide bombing. [LINK]



  I notice you left out a relevant part of  your link that goes nowhere near  in debunking the respected Pew Research findings.

from your link; 


>>>>>>Where does all this radicalism come from—including the 8% of Muslims worldwide who now support ISIS?<<<<<<<<<  

  Not surprisingly the above - from your link -  is/was only a summary of a forthcoming analysis. I read all of your link.

SO: 

Considering this is  8% of 1.6 Billion muslims "WORLDWIDE" which sound very tiny until it is converted into figures and words, this then amounts to 128000000 or One Hundred & Twenty Eight Million muslims who support Islamic State which is by no means a "tiny minority".  And I am sure anyone running for government office wouldn't turn their noses up to this "tiny minority" on election day.

So back you your original statement # 240:

ONLY A TINY MINORITY OF MUSLIMS ARE DANGEROUS TO THE AVERAGE WESTERN CITIZEN.

Please either agree or disagree.

 I disagree. 

Now are you going to be brave enough to start that thread? if not fk off my thread.


#251
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
But it'll take a while for the schism to fully be healed. As I said though, we get along great, and we do share our churches with them. They are now training their clergy at our seminaries.
- That sounds like good news.


I don't really think the Spanish are entitled to give back any mosques, because Muslims invaded their country. Just as they invaded south Eastern Europe. Just as they invaded India.
- False. First, that's not their country. It was the northern Spanish who invaded Andalusia (southern Spain) purging the Muslims who settled there for 9 centuries -without just cause, killing 7 million in their infamous Reconquista & expelling millions others! This is like Scotland invading Britain & killing & expelling its people claiming it's taking their land back. LOL! Second, Muslims went into Spain upon the request of the count of Ceuta & his ally the lord of Seville to depose the tyrannical Visigoth king who raped the former's 14 year daughter Florinda when she was sent to the palace court for cultivation ; they crossed the sea & deposed the king in Toledo conquering the land in 6 months with minimal resistance & casualties.

- As to the Balkans, I will concede the Ottomans took the offensive in many instances, but most times it was the European side that instigated the warfare, which ended in Ottoman favor & the expansion of their lands. The root conflict between the Ottomans & the Byzantine was that of supremacy, which the Ottomans won with Mehmet II who adopted the title Emperor of Rome under the recognition of the Eastern Church & appointed the Byzantine royal family to his court. The Ottomans considered themselves legacy of the Roman Empire & protectors of its land.

- As for India, it was the Hindu king Jayapala who provoked the Muslims & instigated war against them by invading Ghazni (the capital of Ghaznavid dynasty), which resulted in Muslim retaliation & his eventual defeat & the fall of his kingdom to Muslims.


And spreading the faith militarily is not our way, as it is written.. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

- False. Rome, Byzantine, Rus... to name a few.


But spreading the faith militarily is a precedent started even by the one you call prophet, who took his revenge on his persecuters.
- False. One, the faith was not spread militarily ; Muslim political dominion was indeed spread either by military or treaty -like any other expansion, Muslim religious dominion was not. In fact, Egypt & the Levant only became Muslim majority nations 3 centuries after the Arab Conquest. Half the Muslim world today (Southeast Asia & West/East Africa) adopted Islam through trade & proselytization.

- Two, prophets are delegates of God to His people, some are granted secular authority while others are not. Noah, Abraham... (pbut) were given authority to only guide their people. Jesus (pbuh) was granted authority to guide in his first mission & rule in his advent at the end of time. Just & just like Moses, David, Solomon... (pbut), Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) was granted authority to both guide & rule his people, for he is the Seal of Prophets.

- Three, the Prophet (pbuh) never took revenge on his persecutors. On the contrary, he pardoned them -even the worst of them. Habbar Ibn Aswad attacked the Prophet's pregnant daughter causing her miscarriage & death shortly after, who the Prophet (pbuh) pardoned him after he repented & asked for forgiveness even though he killed his own daughter & her unborn child. When the Prophet (pbuh) was in Mecca he was an absolute pacifist, even though him & his companions tortured & blockaded & killed, just like Prophet Jesus (pbuh) just like all other prophets. When he was made to lead the nation of Muslims, he acted accordingly & enacted Law.


Yet Jesus Christ said, "That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."  
Beautiful passage, similar passages in the Quran:
"Those who defend themselves when they are oppressed. Let harm be requited by an equal harm, though anyone who forgives and puts things right will have his reward from God Himself" 
"Though if a person is patient and forgives, this is one of the greatest things."
"Hold to forgiveness; command what is right; But turn away from the ignorant"


"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
- From the Hadith:
"By Allah, he is not a believer! By Allah, he is not a believer! By Allah, he is not a believer! One whose neighbor does not feel safe from his evil"
"Jibril kept recommending me to treat my neighbor well until I thought that he would tell me to make him one of my heirs"
"He is not a believer who eats his fill whilst his neighbor beside him goes hungry"


But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
"And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend"


That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just."


#252
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Yassine
"And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend"
Yet Christ says,

"For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil."

This reward Christ speaks of is not friendship.



Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just."

"Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong."

This is very different from Jesus who says, "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you", and this is understood to also and even in particular apply to religious persecution.

Whereas Mohammed doesn't just say to not be friends with them, but to not deal with them kindly or justly.



#253
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stephen
Considering this is  8% of 1.6 Billion muslims "WORLDWIDE" which sound very tiny until it is converted into figures and words, this then amounts to 128000000 or One Hundred & Twenty Eight Million muslims who support Islamic State which is by no means a "tiny minority".
Even if all terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims, you still could not associate terrorism with Islam: There have been 140,000 terror attacks committed worldwide since 1970. Even if Muslims carried out all of these attacks (which is an absurd assumption), those terrorists would represent less than 0.00009 percent of all Muslims.
#254
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Essentially, you're saying in that scenario, [TERROR ATTACKS = MUSLIM PERPETRATED] which is definitely different than [ALL MUSLIMS = PERPETRATORS OF TERROR TO FEAR]? If so that makes sense to me.   
#255
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ludofl3x
Essentially, you're saying in that scenario, [TERROR ATTACKS = MUSLIM PERPETRATED] which is definitely different than [ALL MUSLIMS = PERPETRATORS OF TERROR TO FEAR]? If so that makes sense to me.   
To be perfectly clear, I'm saying, the MOST GENEROUS argument is, (IFF) all terrorist attacks were carried out by professed Muslims (which is definitely not the case) (THEN) terrorists would still only represent less than 0.00009 percent of all Muslims. 

And I'd also like to drive home the point that the average American is more likely to be crushed to death by their couch or television than they are to be killed by a Muslim. As a matter of fact, Americans were more likely to be killed by a toddler in 2013 than they were by a so-called “Muslim terrorist”.

There are plenty of things in this world that are way more likely to kill you.

#1 killer HEART DISEASE - where's the daily outrage?

#2 killer CANCER - why is cable news brushing this deadly epidemic under the rug?
#256
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Yassine
I have also repeatedly told you that Rome, Russia, any secular government does not represent the Church, which is very intentionally not a worldly government. 

Spreading the faith militarily is definitely not our way.

#257
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
The Prophet (pbuh) never took revenge on his persecutors


I am not sure that the way Mohammed behaved after moving to Medina really shows that. They certainly warred against their persecutors. Certainly, you could make a case that this was justified, and you could even make the case that Mohammed was more merciful than he could have been. However, it is not the same way Jesus Christ taught.
#258
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac

Yet Christ says,
"For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil."

This reward Christ speaks of is not friendship.
- Friendship is not a reward, it's an outcome... Jesus (pbuh)'s teachings are the Prophet's teachings, for they are God's teachings. It is reported in the Hadith that Jesus (pbuh) said: "Virtuous action does notconsist in doing good to someone whohas done good to you—that is merelyreturning a favor. Virtuous action consistsin doing good to those who have wrongedyou" -"Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better". The Prophet (pbuh) said: "He will enter Paradise only he who possesses Mercy. It is not the mercy that one has for his friend, but the Mercy for all mankind", "The merciful are shown mercy by The Most Merciful. Be merciful on the earth, and you will be shown mercy from Who is above the heavens", "Be merciful to others and you will receive mercy. Forgive others and Allah will forgive you"...etc.


Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.""Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong."
Whereas Mohammed doesn't just say to not be friends with them, but to not deal with them kindly or justly.
- The verse does not say that, don't make stuff up. The verse prohibits Muslims only from befriending & allying themselves with the oppressors, not from dealing with them justly & kindly, for that is commanded for everyone: "Allah commands justice, the doing of good, and liberality to kith and kin, and He forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and rebellion", "And if you punish [an enemy, O believers], punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed. But if you are patient - it is better for those who are patient" (16:126) ; Justice & Mercy. 


This is very different from Jesus who says, "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you", and this is understood to also and even in particular apply to religious persecution.
- Similar to what the Prophet (pbuh) said: "Forgive those who transgress against you, keep ties of kinship with those who severe them, be good to those who wrong you and speak the truth even against yourself". But we also believe in fighting against oppressors & persecutors, defending the weak & defending the rights. Submitting to persecution & allowing it is not a good thing, it's as bad as doing the persecution yourself.


I am not sure that the way Mohammed behaved after moving to Medina really shows that.
- Yet, it's a fact. The Prophet (pbuh) was an absolute pacifist in Mecca. That didn't suddenly change in Medina! He was just as pacifist when it came to himself, though not so when it came to his people, for once in Medina he became the head of state & the leader of his nation, responsible for their security & wellbeing, internal & external. He enforced the law & established defense. If Jesus (pbuh) took leadership, he would do the same. Many many people have persecuted the Prophet (pbuh), insulted him, harmed him & even attempted to assassinate him, yet he forgave all of them, except that they were treated justly. Uqbah Ib Abi Waqqas, Malik Ibn Sinan & Abdulallh Ibn Qamiah injured the Prophet & cracked his skull & broke his jaw, the Prophet (pbuh) then says: "My Lord, forgive my people for they do not know", the first survived & when Muhammad conquered Mecca he pardoned him, the second became a muslim, & the third died of disease. In fact, upon the conquest of Mecca, after 20 years of persecution & invasions & expulsions & torture that the Meccans did to Muslims, the Prophet (pbuh) pardons them all & says: "No blame upon you today. Allah will forgive you, for he is the most merciful of the merciful. Go, for you are free".


They certainly warred against their persecutors. Certainly, you could make a case that this was justified, and you could even make the case that Mohammed was more merciful than he could have been. However, it is not the same way Jesus Christ taught.
- What Jesus (pbuh) taught is what the Prophet (pbuh) & all the prophets. Jesus (pbuh) was never leader of a nation or head of state. If he was, he would certainly enforce the Law & defend his people, as he would do at the end of time. Or do you disagree? Do you believe that if Jesus (pbuh) was the sovereign he will allow the persecutors to massacre & annihilate his people? 

#259
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
I have also repeatedly told you that Rome, Russia, any secular government does not represent the Church, which is very intentionally not a worldly government. 
- I'm sure you believe that, but the Church's authorities then thought otherwise. Take it up with their patriarchs.


Spreading the faith militarily is definitely not our way.
- Sure. I was merely referring to history.