Who created Islamism?

[Cheerful Charlie]

There were almost no atheists in Mohamed's day. Islam started on a path of military conquest with him. Islam has never been a "religion of peace". From the invasion of Spain onwards, Islam was an invasive religion always on the attack, in Spain, France, Italy, India, and elsewhere, all the way to the final attack on Vienna in 1683. Islam has been making attacks on peaceful nations that never attacked Islam in any way. The reason Islam stopped that was because Islamic nations became military weak and incapable of continuing on in that manner. Even in Bangladesh, Pakistan showed itself not a nation of peace when it killed 3 million people in what is now Bangladesh, and India had to militarily step in to stop the slaughter.

Now you're starting to stretch the historical evidence too far. The expansionism ebbed and flowed over the centuries - it was not some non-stop assault on anyone and everyone around all Muslim societies. And it's not that remarkable when compared to Christianity's track record of expansion, which is arguably a lot worse. It was driven overwhelmingly by self-interest and circumstance, like most expansionism. Far more complicated than simple religious bloodlust. And Islam spread in many places totally absent military invasion.

In Europe, Islam was an incessant problem for centuries.

Not the only one, we had vikings and Norsemen, but the history of Islam cannot be whitewashed in this fashion. Nor does the expansion of Spain in the New World et al excuse Islam.

 

[iolo]

I'd say that the Pope who decided to free Europe of feudal violence by sending the killers to capture Jerusalem was probably the nearest you get to a 'founder of Islamism'.

 

[Warpoet]

In Europe, Islam was an incessant problem for centuries.

A debatable claim at best, in which numerous, separate entities of different natures are lumped together under a single banner simply because they happen to share the same religion, and in which the bar is clearly set quite low, given how relatively little success most Muslim incursions into Europe met with. But regardless, the point is that the motivations were not particularly different than those of everyone else who tried to get a piece of the pie over the years, and certainly not as simple as fundamentalist zealotry.

Not the only one, we had vikings and Norsemen, but the history of Islam cannot be whitewashed in this fashion. Nor does the expansion of Spain in the New World et al excuse Islam.

Correction of exaggeration/misrepresentation of historical evidence is not whitewashing.

 

[Syed]

Originally Posted by DBT ; Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax (9:29)

which translation of the quran you posted above ?

 

[Syed]

There were almost no atheists in Mohamed's day. .

do you think hippies started atheists movement?

islam is the ONLY religion accept legitimacy of other religions
quran
Verse (2:62) - English Translation Yusuf Ali: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

 

[Elixir]

To the OP: it's unclear what you're asking about. "Islamism" as understood in the present day? bigfield addressed that. But the broader concept of mixing religion and state goes back much further, and there's no one common thread to point to that explains all iterations of the concept in the world.

To syed: just stop. Whatever you think you're accomplishing by participating in these threads, it's not working.

Whatever it was that I was asking about (which wasn't clear even to me at the time) has been well addressed by you, Charlie, bigfield et al. Really appreciate y'all entertaining my laziness - this has turned into a really interesting thread, no thanks to yours truly. Got some reading to do now... hopefully it might lead to understanding a little bit about how irrational characters like Syed got that way.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

There were almost no atheists in Mohamed's day. .

do you think hippies started atheists movement?

Do you think there were lots of atheists in 7th century Arabia? There were lots of polytheists, quite a lot of Jews, and a bunch of Xians. There might have been some atheists, but not many, I would think, and those that there were would have been quiet about it for fear of reprisals from the believing majority - much like Arabia today.

islam is the ONLY religion accept legitimacy of other religions
quran
Verse (2:62) - English Translation Yusuf Ali: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Cherry-picking again, Syed? As usual with "holy" books, cherry-pickers will find whatever they want to find to suit their purposes ...

[3:85] (Yusuf Ali) If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

 

[Syed]

do you think hippies started atheists movement?

Do you think there were lots of atheists in 7th century Arabia? There were lots of polytheists, quite a lot of Jews, and a bunch of Xians. There might have been some atheists, but not many, I would think, and those that there were would have been quiet about it for fear of reprisals from the believing majority - much like Arabia today.

islam is the ONLY religion accept legitimacy of other religions
quran
Verse (2:62) - English Translation Yusuf Ali: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Cherry-picking again, Syed? As usual with "holy" books, cherry-pickers will find whatever they want to find to suit their purposes ...

[3:85] (Yusuf Ali) If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

islam simply mean submission, thats mean allah or..............god will not accept a religion but total submission to god


btw they dont translate word islam into english that cause misunderstanding

 

[Elixir]

In Europe, Islam was an incessant problem for centuries.

That's not terribly informative... anywhere large numbers of people are convinced - by ANY means - to believe superstitious crap, there is an incessant problem. The American Bible Belt is just as much a problem today as is middle eastern Islamism. Sometimes I wonder if either could survive without the other...

 

[LordKiran]

Now you're starting to stretch the historical evidence too far. The expansionism ebbed and flowed over the centuries - it was not some non-stop assault on anyone and everyone around all Muslim societies. And it's not that remarkable when compared to Christianity's track record of expansion, which is arguably a lot worse. It was driven overwhelmingly by self-interest and circumstance, like most expansionism. Far more complicated than simple religious bloodlust. And Islam spread in many places totally absent military invasion.

In Europe, Islam was an incessant problem for centuries.

Not the only one, we had vikings and Norsemen, but the history of Islam cannot be whitewashed in this fashion. Nor does the expansion of Spain in the New World et al excuse Islam.

Muslim incursions into Europe stopped with the failed Ummayad invasion of Aquitaine in 720 and did not begin again until the Turks expanded into the Balkans. Between this time period and for some time after, what we see are European quasi-militarist incursions into the Holy Land, North Africa, and East Rome. In fact, European Crusaders sacked and conquered Nova Roma hundreds of years before the Ottoman Turks ever had the chance. This act by-the-by is considered by historians to be the beginning of the end of the Byzantine Empire.

In other words, history doesn't agree with your assertions. The worst anyone in Europe had to worry about from the Islamic world were Berber pirates.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

A debatable claim at best, in which numerous, separate entities of different natures are lumped together under a single banner simply because they happen to share the same religion, and in which the bar is clearly set quite low, given how relatively little success most Muslim incursions into Europe met with. But regardless, the point is that the motivations were not particularly different than those of everyone else who tried to get a piece of the pie over the years, and certainly not as simple as fundamentalist zealotry.

Not the only one, we had vikings and Norsemen, but the history of Islam cannot be whitewashed in this fashion. Nor does the expansion of Spain in the New World et al excuse Islam.

Correction of exaggeration/misrepresentation of historical evidence is not whitewashing.

A look at Islam's series of attacks on Europe demonstrates that Islam was indeed set on invading Europe.

That these efforts in the end failed, does not mean that these attempts didn't happen or had little meaning. What Christians did later does not excuse Islam. The fact that often enough Islamic nations were at war among themselves does not excuse the nature of Islamic attempts to spread Islam by the sword, repeatedly.

After Charles Martel stopped the Moslem at Tours, the Caliph at Baghdad attempted to raise a very large army to attempt to invade France again. A revolt in Syria and Persia meant he had to use that army to deal with the revolt, rather than attack the Franks. Europe was saved a lot of trouble by that revolt. Just how much do you really know about Islamic jihad in Europe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraxinet

 

[LordKiran]

A debatable claim at best, in which numerous, separate entities of different natures are lumped together under a single banner simply because they happen to share the same religion, and in which the bar is clearly set quite low, given how relatively little success most Muslim incursions into Europe met with. But regardless, the point is that the motivations were not particularly different than those of everyone else who tried to get a piece of the pie over the years, and certainly not as simple as fundamentalist zealotry.



Correction of exaggeration/misrepresentation of historical evidence is not whitewashing.

A look at Islam's series of attacks on Europe demonstrates that Islam was indeed set on invading Europe.

That these efforts in the end failed, does not mean that these attempts didn't happen or had little meaning. What Christians did later does not excuse Islam. The fact that often enough Islamic nations were at war among themselves does not excuse the nature of Islamic attempts to spread Islam by the sword, repeatedly.

After Charles Martel stopped the Moslem at Tours, the Caliph at Baghdad attempted to raise a very large army to attempt to invade France again. A revolt in Syria and Persia meant he had to use that army to deal with the revolt, rather than attack the Franks. Europe was saved a lot of trouble by that revolt. Just how much do you really know about Islamic jihad in Europe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraxinet

There were just as many attacks into the Arabic world by Christians, and even that ignores the subjugation, conquest and cleansing of Islamic steppe peoples by the Russian Empire.

I mean are you really going to complain about one fortress established in Provence when establishing fortresses into foreign territories they didn't own was a running theme of Christian crusaders?

 

[Warpoet]

A look at Islam's series of attacks on Europe demonstrates that Islam was indeed set on invading Europe.

"Islam" didn't attack anyone, and "Islam" wasn't set on anything. Various Muslim neighbors tried to take what they could when they could do it, but they weren't the only ones, and there's no evidence that their motivations were radically different from anybody else's.

That these efforts in the end failed, does not mean that these attempts didn't happen or had little meaning. What Christians did later does not excuse Islam. The fact that often enough Islamic nations were at war among themselves does not excuse the nature of Islamic attempts to spread Islam by the sword, repeatedly.

Stop with this silliness about "excusing" things that happened a millennia ago. Nobody has to excuse anything - you're the one painting an overly simplistic picture of complex historical matters, so it's your job to defend it.

After Charles Martel stopped the Moslem at Tours, the Caliph at Baghdad attempted to raise a very large army to attempt to invade France again. A revolt in Syria and Persia meant he had to use that army to deal with the revolt, rather than attack the Franks. Europe was saved a lot of trouble by that revolt. Just how much do you really know about Islamic jihad in Europe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraxinet

Apparently more than you do. The Umayyad caliphate was based out of Damascus, not Baghdad. Baghdad was very near to Persia and there's no fucking way the Umayyads, who privileged Arabs over non-Arab Muslims, would place their capital there. That same alienation and discontent is precisely what made their empire so difficult to govern, and the relentless expansionism, which pretty consistently failed in Western Europe, compounded the problem. The Abbasids overthrew them not even 20 years after Tours, moved the capital and focused far less on expansionism than their predecessors did, even allowing new caliphates to emerge in Iberia and elsewhere. There were plenty of conflicts over the coming centuries, but it's nothing remarkable in the broader context of European history. There was much more intense bloodletting at various times - the Mongols, some of whom eventually converted to Islam, but who invaded Europe before that, utterly devastated much of Eastern Europe, for instance - and on a level of brutality unmatched by the Ottomans or Umayyads. And it's not as if the Christians didn't themselves attempt to take land from the Muslims that hadn't been theirs for centuries.

But in any event, the picture you are trying to paint of fanatical scimitar-wielding Muslims assailing Europe relentlessly with little thought of anything other than jihadist zeal is bullshit not supported by the evidence. You should get a better handle on the facts before you try to lecture others about these kind of detailed questions of historical record.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

A look at Islam's series of attacks on Europe demonstrates that Islam was indeed set on invading Europe.

That these efforts in the end failed, does not mean that these attempts didn't happen or had little meaning. What Christians did later does not excuse Islam. The fact that often enough Islamic nations were at war among themselves does not excuse the nature of Islamic attempts to spread Islam by the sword, repeatedly.

After Charles Martel stopped the Moslem at Tours, the Caliph at Baghdad attempted to raise a very large army to attempt to invade France again. A revolt in Syria and Persia meant he had to use that army to deal with the revolt, rather than attack the Franks. Europe was saved a lot of trouble by that revolt. Just how much do you really know about Islamic jihad in Europe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraxinet

There were just as many attacks into the Arabic world by Christians, and even that ignores the subjugation, conquest and cleansing of Islamic steppe peoples by the Russian Empire.

I mean are you really going to complain about one fortress established in Provence when establishing fortresses into foreign territories they didn't own was a running theme of Christian crusaders?

There were just as many attacks into the Arabic world by Christians, and even that ignores the subjugation, conquest and cleansing of Islamic steppe peoples by the Russian Empire.

I mean are you really going to complain about one fortress established in Provence when establishing fortresses into foreign territories they didn't own was a running theme of Christian crusaders?[/QUOTE


There were actually no Russian attacks on Islamic states until the Turks and their subjects the Tatars attacked Russia.

Russia was rather, devastated by the Islamic Mongols.

Crusades? Response to two centuries of Islamic jihad. No, whitewashing Islamic jihad and expansionism isn't right.

 

[LordKiran]

There were just as many attacks into the Arabic world by Christians, and even that ignores the subjugation, conquest and cleansing of Islamic steppe peoples by the Russian Empire.

I mean are you really going to complain about one fortress established in Provence when establishing fortresses into foreign territories they didn't own was a running theme of Christian crusaders?

There were just as many attacks into the Arabic world by Christians, and even that ignores the subjugation, conquest and cleansing of Islamic steppe peoples by the Russian Empire.

I mean are you really going to complain about one fortress established in Provence when establishing fortresses into foreign territories they didn't own was a running theme of Christian crusaders?[/QUOTE


There were actually no Russian attacks on Islamic states until the Turks and their subjects the Tatars attacked Russia.

Russia was rather, devastated by the Islamic Mongols.

Crusades? Response to two centuries of Islamic jihad. No, whitewashing Islamic jihad and expansionism isn't right.

The mongols were Tengri and converted later. Also yeah, those Sibir steppe peoples were the staunchest of Turkish allies I am sure.

Also no, The Crusades were not a response to Islamic expansion into Europe. They were a political power play to give the fractured warring kingdoms of Europe a common enemy and to assert the papacy's authority of the patriarchate of Constantinople.

 

[DBT]

Originally Posted by DBT ; Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax (9:29)

which translation of the quran you posted above ?

Here's a whole selection:

Chapter (9) sūrat l-tawbah (The Repentance)

Sahih International: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Pickthall: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Yusuf Ali: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Shakir: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Muhammad Sarwar: Fight against those People of the Book who have no faith in God or the Day of Judgment, who do not consider unlawful what God and His Messenger have made unlawful, and who do not believe in the true religion, until they humbly pay tax with their own hands.

Mohsin Khan: Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Arberry: Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.

 

[Syed]

Originally Posted by DBT ; Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax (9:29)

which translation of the quran you posted above ?

Here's a whole selection:

Chapter (9) sūrat l-tawbah (The Repentance)

Sahih International: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Pickthall: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Yusuf Ali: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Shakir: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Muhammad Sarwar: Fight against those People of the Book who have no faith in God or the Day of Judgment, who do not consider unlawful what God and His Messenger have made unlawful, and who do not believe in the true religion, until they humbly pay tax with their own hands.

Mohsin Khan: Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Arberry: Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.

does those verse says to Kill the jews and the christians?

 

[DBT]

Here's a whole selection:

Chapter (9) sūrat l-tawbah (The Repentance)

Sahih International: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Pickthall: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Yusuf Ali: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Shakir: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Muhammad Sarwar: Fight against those People of the Book who have no faith in God or the Day of Judgment, who do not consider unlawful what God and His Messenger have made unlawful, and who do not believe in the true religion, until they humbly pay tax with their own hands.

Mohsin Khan: Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Arberry: Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.

does those verse says to Kill the jews and the christians?

Do you think 'fight' refers to a pillow fight? What about feather dusters? Is that right? Or maybe 'fight' means using actual weapons of war...what do you think?

Why do you ignore verses that do specifically say to kill and maim non believers?

 

[Syed]

does those verse says to Kill the jews and the christians?

Do you think 'fight' refers to a pillow fight? What about feather dusters? Is that right? Or maybe 'fight' means using actual weapons of war...what do you think?

Why do you ignore verses that do specifically say to kill and maim non believers?

again does those verse mention jews and the christians?

 

[bigfield]

Do you think 'fight' refers to a pillow fight? What about feather dusters? Is that right? Or maybe 'fight' means using actual weapons of war...what do you think?

Why do you ignore verses that do specifically say to kill and maim non believers?

again does those verse mention jews and the christians?

The translations specifically refer to Jews and Christians:

Sahih International: those who were given the Scripture
Pickthall: those who have been given the Scripture
Yusuf Ali: (even if they are) of the People of the Book
Shakir: those who have been given the Book
Muhammad Sarwar: those People of the Book
Mohsin Khan: the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)
Arberry: those who have been given the Book