Who was the most influential person to walk the earth?

[SethZaddik]

No doubt. the world's time is based upon his coming to earth

capumetu @yours.com

No space after u

The world's time is based upon his coming to earth?

Time is based on movement of the planet.

Who is "he"?

 

[SethZaddik]

In psychology a thing called projection exists, a concept where one's own inadequacies are "transferred or projected" to whoever is available.

A perfect example would be if your religion is known historically for having been forced upon six continents "by the sword" and recorded its own history of persecution because it believed it was the will of God in the name of Christ to have the "Inquisition" and "Crusades" recorded proudly, and Christ forced upon "heathens."

If since Iranaeus your religion has been proud of persecuting and claimed to have once been persecuted itself, an act of pure hypocrisy...

I kind of understand why it is so important for Christians to slander Islam as a religion likewise spread allegedly "by the sword."

If a politician is caught in a scandal like Clinton and Lewinsky you can expect some deception and distraction in the form of lies or worse (Clinton sent a military strike somewhere I forget exactly).

Likewise a Church with a bad history like the RCC has owned up to, non Catholic believers are stuck with admissions of guilt by the original Church from where their offshoots sprang that peace played no part in the spread of their religion.

All one can do is try, by deception, slander, propaganda and just plain lies, to make a better religion with an honorable history that is unfamiliar to most seem worse by comparison.

Try being the important word, as it may look like everyone thinks this way about Islam, it is truly just the ignorant.

Lies NEVER "Abound to God's glory."

Though Paul says otherwise, it proves lies were the foundation of his theology that knows nothing of a historical Jesus p.

Although just because I understand why it is done...

Doesn't make it less despicable.

 

[Augustus]

I guess not every Reverend was afraid of the truth about Mohammed (s.a.w.s) and I don't know much about this Rev. but I am going to find out right now. God bless him.

Western scholarship of Islam has 3 major trends (in order of appearance).

1. Anti-Islamic polemics motivated by religious and political animosity
2. Romantic idealisations based on uncritical readings of Islamic theological sources
3. Critical historical enquiry of the kind that is applied to every other aspect of history and every other religion (i.e. not anti-Islamic polemics)

Number 2 is the reason why so many of your quotes come from the 19th and early 20th C because this is when biographies began to be translated from Arabic and became more available. Number 3 really started to develop from the early 20th C, but advanced significantly from the 1980s onwards.

But it is not an excuse for parroting lies. No matter who they come from or how many people believe them because it's hard to tell sometimes, everyone has a responsibility to find out the truth in the age of information if they are going to open their mouths about other cultures, and that involves learning the lies going back to the first Europeans to slander Islam and the Evangelist fanatics who use it today as "history."

Lies are never history,

That's why number 3 from above is important. You can assume that every scholar is a biased hater blinding themselves to the truth if you like, you'd be breaking your own rules though.

Second, nobody was killed for not converting and at worst had to pay a tax.

While many people do exaggerate and misrepresent the various Islamic Empires, and forced conversions were generally quite rare, pretending they didn't ever happen is willful ideological blindness.

Devshirme[a] (Ottoman Turkish: دوشيرمه‎, devşirme, literally "lifting" or "collecting"), was chiefly the practice whereby the Ottoman Empire sent military officers to take boys, ages 8 to 18, from their families in order that they be raised to serve the state.[2] This tax of sons was imposed only on the Christian subjects of the empire, in the villages of the Balkans and Anatolia.[3][better source needed]

The boys were then forcibly converted to Islam[4] with the primary objective of selecting and training the ablest children and teenagers for the military or civil service of the empire, notably into the Janissaries.[5]

Devshirme - Wikipedia

When he took it back he allowed the Catholics to stay, and it was interactions with Muslims that allowed Europeans to learn what the Muslims had and eventually you have the Intellectual Renaissance because of it.

Much of it was based on the reintroduction of Greek texts to Europe, much of it caused by the migration of Byzantine Christians due to the Turkish wars with and conquest of Byzantium.

There was also some influence from philosophy from the Islamic Empire, not necessarily Islamic philosophy though.

Also, the translation movement through which these Greek texts came to be translated into Arabic in the first place was almost entirely carried out by Christians (although mostly paid for by Muslim patrons).

Scientific advancement relies on a chain of knowledge, and the Islamic Empire was one of the links in this chain, as were the Greeks and Persians before and the Europeans after. Scientific advancement tends to follow the money which is why little advancement has come from the Islamic world since the decline of the Golden Age of Empire.

 

[SethZaddik]

Who do you think was the most influential person in History? I'm guessing Jesus...and He was born in a barn

I just wanted to say excellent thread Pope. Anything I said about the history of Catholicism is no reflection on anyone personally, I merely needed to cite history to prove my point and further my case for why Mohammed (s.a.w.s) is the most influential person in history and in a positive way.

See, we have an apartheid in occupied Palestine going on daily. They have zero human rights and live in a police state and virtual prison camp, are persecuted daily just for going on "Jewish only roads" (yes, they are real) and indiscriminately killed without so much as a peep from CNN, MSNBC or any mainstream news organization.

Israel is run by racist Jewish supremacists who don't think there is a difference between calling yourself the "Chosen" or "Master" race. And non Jews who would not be allowed to borrow a Jews phone on the Sabbath in Israel to save a non Jewish life are their parrots and lackies.


Yet it is Islam that is called evil, terrorism, why?

Because Israel controls America, so said Ariel Sharon in 2002 and "Americans know it."

The smart ones do.

Regardless I have to defend the truth so if I muddied up your thread in so doing I apologize.

I just can't stand lies, liars and people who believe them because they want it to be true and don't do a bit of research.

 

[SethZaddik]

Western scholarship of Islam has 3 major trends (in order of appearance).

1. Anti-Islamic polemics motivated by religious and political animosity
2. Romantic idealisations based on uncritical readings of Islamic theological sources
3. Critical historical enquiry of the kind that is applied to every other aspect of history and every other religion (i.e. not anti-Islamic polemics)

Number 2 is the reason why so many of your quotes come from the 19th and early 20th C because this is when biographies began to be translated from Arabic and became more available. Number 3 really started to develop from the early 20th C, but advanced significantly from the 1980s onwards.



That's why number 3 from above is important. You can assume that every scholar is a biased hater blinding themselves to the truth if you like, you'd be breaking your own rules though.



While many people do exaggerate and misrepresent the various Islamic Empires, and forced conversions were generally quite rare, pretending they didn't ever happen is willful ideological blindness.

Devshirme[a] (Ottoman Turkish: دوشيرمه‎, devşirme, literally "lifting" or "collecting"), was chiefly the practice whereby the Ottoman Empire sent military officers to take boys, ages 8 to 18, from their families in order that they be raised to serve the state.[2] This tax of sons was imposed only on the Christian subjects of the empire, in the villages of the Balkans and Anatolia.[3][better source needed]

The boys were then forcibly converted to Islam[4] with the primary objective of selecting and training the ablest children and teenagers for the military or civil service of the empire, notably into the Janissaries.[5]

Devshirme - Wikipedia



Much of it was based on the reintroduction of Greek texts to Europe, much of it caused by the migration of Byzantine Christians due to the Turkish wars with and conquest of Byzantium.

There was also some influence from philosophy from the Islamic Empire, not necessarily Islamic philosophy though.

Also, the translation movement through which these Greek texts came to be translated into Arabic in the first place was almost entirely carried out by Christians (although mostly paid for by Muslim patrons).

Scientific advancement relies on a chain of knowledge, and the Islamic Empire was one of the links in this chain, as were the Greeks and Persians before and the Europeans after. Scientific advancement tends to follow the money which is why little advancement has come from the Islamic world since the decline of the Golden Age of Empire.

Regarding Islam and science.

It was not just that they guarded ancient and ridiculed-by-Christianity scientific texts until they were ready to use them.

Or just rediscovered old sciences.

They ALSO invented modern sciences, in spades too.

If you are trying to say that they don't deserve credit or something you are quite misinformed.

The remainder of your comment was total b.s., sorry, but it was just another attempt to discredit the truth.

How honorable of you!

And you know why my quotes are from when they are yet I did not tell you.

So you don't actually know and it doesn't even actually matter.

True words have no expiration date.

And liars never stop existing.

 

[SethZaddik]

Is there a secret "tell lies about Muslims at all cost" fan club or something?

Because I have told nothing but the truth since joining this forum and it seems there is a never ending wave of uneducated (but unaware of it) people who see the truth and just can't believe it, almost as if they WANT Islam to be evil.

Every good statement is responded to by a dullard who thinks it a given his spoon fed opinions are correct over the real truth.

And when they can't fight the truth any longer they resort to rhetoric and long winded rants of no substance, EVERY TIME!

Never actually accomplishing anything but letting others know they are either ill informed or decieved, or getting a pat on the back from fellow Islamaphobes who don't know the first thing about their history and culture but are experts in their own eyes just because they are entitled to superiority or something equally ridiculous.

Winners!

 

[Kirran]

I find it somewhat concerning how nobody is ever willing to actually respond in kind to @Augustus 's commendable historical scholarly understanding of the processes around the emergence of Islam and its later development. Augustus does not demonstrate any anti-Islamic bias, as many others do, and has a well-founded understanding of the period. Why this invites such emotionally vitriolic responses I do not understand.

 

[SethZaddik]

Western scholarship of Islam has 3 major trends (in order of appearance).

1. Anti-Islamic polemics motivated by religious and political animosity
2. Romantic idealisations based on uncritical readings of Islamic theological sources
3. Critical historical enquiry of the kind that is applied to every other aspect of history and every other religion (i.e. not anti-Islamic polemics)

Number 2 is the reason why so many of your quotes come from the 19th and early 20th C because this is when biographies began to be translated from Arabic and became more available. Number 3 really started to develop from the early 20th C, but advanced significantly from the 1980s onwards.



That's why number 3 from above is important. You can assume that every scholar is a biased hater blinding themselves to the truth if you like, you'd be breaking your own rules though.



While many people do exaggerate and misrepresent the various Islamic Empires, and forced conversions were generally quite rare, pretending they didn't ever happen is willful ideological blindness.

Devshirme[a] (Ottoman Turkish: دوشيرمه‎, devşirme, literally "lifting" or "collecting"), was chiefly the practice whereby the Ottoman Empire sent military officers to take boys, ages 8 to 18, from their families in order that they be raised to serve the state.[2] This tax of sons was imposed only on the Christian subjects of the empire, in the villages of the Balkans and Anatolia.[3][better source needed]

The boys were then forcibly converted to Islam[4] with the primary objective of selecting and training the ablest children and teenagers for the military or civil service of the empire, notably into the Janissaries.[5]

Devshirme - Wikipedia



Much of it was based on the reintroduction of Greek texts to Europe, much of it caused by the migration of Byzantine Christians due to the Turkish wars with and conquest of Byzantium.

There was also some influence from philosophy from the Islamic Empire, not necessarily Islamic philosophy though.

Also, the translation movement through which these Greek texts came to be translated into Arabic in the first place was almost entirely carried out by Christians (although mostly paid for by Muslim patrons).

Scientific advancement relies on a chain of knowledge, and the Islamic Empire was one of the links in this chain, as were the Greeks and Persians before and the Europeans after. Scientific advancement tends to follow the money which is why little advancement has come from the Islamic world since the decline of the Golden Age of Empire.

3 important words you missed in your little citation:

BETTER SOURCES NEEDED.

Your sources suck, it is not an exaggeration when I say nobody was forcefully converted to Islam because it is literally impossible according to the book which defines Islam, anyone who did such a thing is only pretending to be Muslim, like ISIS of today (Israel's secret intelligence service??? I know no Muslim organization would name itself after a pagan goddess).

And rape? What slanderous rags are you pretending are accurate and verified historical information?

You fool nobody.

Pretending to be humble by admitting to a portion of the truth to make yourself appear honest only to eventually tell tall tales is not a good strategy.

It's classic deception. You scoured the internet looking for anything to refute the truth and the best you got is called by itself, "BETTER SOURCE NEEDED."

In other words it is the only source of the claim and a lie.

"There is no compulsion in religion."

Is what the Qur'an says, to violate the Qur'an is to be a hypocrite, if you call yourself a Muslim, and makes one NOT a Muslim.

Nevertheless your story is as absurd as Ishaq being used as evidence for that fabrication.

 

[SethZaddik]

I find it somewhat concerning how nobody is ever willing to actually respond in kind to @Augustus 's commendable historical scholarly understanding of the processes around the emergence of Islam and its later development. Augustus does not demonstrate any anti-Islamic bias, as many others do, and has a well-founded understanding of the period. Why this invites such emotionally vitriolic responses I do not understand.

Maybe because his "understanding" is not well founded and only a few truths are admitted to so his lies LOOK true.

Good enough reason?

If one knows the truth but yet cites unreliable source, A source, that is the opposite of the truth what do you think is being done?

One incident was hunted down to "refute" what I said which IS true, that incident not even legitimate or reliable.

Don't be so easily duped by words, this person is telling fairy tails.

I find it worrisome you think this person is anything but deceptive and devious, unreliable and not concerned with the truth at all, willing to quote unreliable sources as fact, and that this passes for informed in your eyes.

 

[Augustus]

If you are trying to say that they don't deserve credit or something you are quite misinformed.

See text in bold from previous post. The concept of links in a chain requires the presence of all of them, they all deserve credit as all were necessary.

Much of it was based on the reintroduction of Greek texts to Europe, much of it caused by the migration of Byzantine Christians due to the Turkish wars with and conquest of Byzantium.

There was also some influence from philosophy from the Islamic Empire, not necessarily Islamic philosophy though.

Also, the translation movement through which these Greek texts came to be translated into Arabic in the first place was almost entirely carried out by Christians (although mostly paid for by Muslim patrons).

Scientific advancement relies on a chain of knowledge, and the Islamic Empire was one of the links in this chain, as were the Greeks and Persians before and the Europeans after. Scientific advancement tends to follow the money which is why little advancement has come from the Islamic world since the decline of the Golden Age of Empire.

The remainder of your comment was total b.s., sorry, but it was just another attempt to discredit the truth.

How honorable of you!

And you know why my quotes are from when they are yet I did not tell you.

So you don't actually know and it doesn't even actually matter.

True words have no expiration date.

And liars never stop existing.

Easy now. No need to get angry.

Your quotes had names and dates attached to them. Go back and check them. As I explained 19th C European Orientalism was often based on the Romantic literary tradition and uncritical restatement of the Islamic tradition. I provided a quote from a Muslim to support this (Kecia Ali).

Carlyle, deeply influenced by the German writer Goethe, linked ideas of genius with notions of
greatness. Muhammad’s unspoiled natural genius allows him to do things that will affect the world.
Carlyle emphasized the primitive, the lack of artifice and artificiality, in his thinking about
Muhammad’s relation to environment as well as to his inner self. Muslims were not his target
audience, though he became “the favorite author of all Islamic modernists in India.”22 Muslim authors
appropriated his praise for apologetic purposes, a trend that only increased after the 1911 translation
of his lecture into Arabic... Conventional wisdom deems his lecture, which includes its share of negative remarks, “a vehement and unusual rehabilitation of Muhammad.”24... [it should also be noted that] Carlyle was less interested in Muhammad himself than in what the Prophet allowed Carlyle to say about humanity as a whole... Carlyle synthesized the Romantic genius and the great man. (Kecia Ali - The Lives of Muhammad)

This is a fact. Uncontroversial to anyone with even a basic understanding of the history of Western orientalism.

I'm not even sure why you care so deeply about this being 'lies', what English people in the 19th C thought seems to have little importance in the history of Islam.

And if you think what I said about the Ottomans is "BS" then you would be well served to learn some basic history. It is again completely uncontroversial and uncontested. The Janissaries are so well known they even appear in versions of the computer game Civilization as unique units for the Ottoman Empire civ.

Janissaries - Wikipedia

Again, I'm not sure why you find the idea that people in the past were violent and did things we wouldn't do today so shocking and offensive.

History is history, don't assume that everybody who reports facts does so out of blind hatred just because those facts are inconvenient to your own ideological worldview.

 

[SethZaddik]

I guess Augustus thinks being shown as one who cares little about facts and reliable sources is humorous.

I think it is sad. I mean, to hunt down ONE (false) example of forced conversion as if you are not doing it to slander Islam, yet acknowledge that forced conversion is largely (actually totally) a fabrication doesn't exactly come across as coming from one who is honest.

The fact that that ridiculous story was the best you got (although I bet we will 'discover' others, even if made up) says everything.

That you can't just admit the truth is the funniest part though.

How hard is that? Admitting that Islam has never practiced forced conversion?

Even if some rogue DID do that, it is not because Islam allows it but because they violated Islam.

And would not be the responsibility of Islam.

That is hypothetical, history isn't on DVD.

But the lies told about Islam are just that, lies, and forced conversion is no exception and forbidden.

End of story and have a great day!

 

[Augustus]

anyone who did such a thing is only pretending to be Muslim, like ISIS of today (Israel's secret intelligence service??? I know no Muslim organization would name itself after a pagan goddess).

Ahh, the Jews. There needs to be a proper name for this Muslim equivalent of Godwin's Law. Sooner or later, in any internet discussion, the Jooozzz will be castigated by at least 1 Muslim for their mendacious ways and magical ability to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

And, err, ISIS didn't name themselves after a pagan goddess, that is an English translation of ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fī 'l-ʿIrāq wa-sh-Shām

 

[jonathan180iq]

Who do you think was the most influential person in History? I'm guessing Jesus...and He was born in a barn

What good was Jesus without Paul?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Alexander The Great

 

[columbus]

3 important words you missed in your little citation:

BETTER SOURCES NEEDED.

Your sources suck, it is not an exaggeration when I say nobody was forcefully converted to Islam

The main reason your confident assertions about Islam and Islamic culture aren't taken as authoritative is your sources. You seem willing to believe implausible things if it matches your worldviews and accept authorities whoever says what you want to hear. Not all of us start with your biases and as a result don't accept your conclusions.
Tom

 

[Augustus]

Even if some rogue DID do that, it is not because Islam allows it but because they violated Islam.

So while acknowledging that it is prohibited by Islam, would you agree that, for several centuries, the nominally Muslim Ottomans did indeed take children from Christian families, turned them into slaves and forcibly converted them?

Would you accept that I am not lying about this and was reporting an uncontroversial fact? Remember, I never even suggested what their motivations were, just that this reflects real history.

If you are unsure and want to check for yourself the key terms are Devshirme and Jannissaries.

So, can we agree that it is not dishonest or biased to report this event as a fact?

 

[SethZaddik]

Any fool can and many do, make claims about Islam that are slanderous accusations.

However, it is literally impossible for a religion whose established doctrine is that it is forbidden to forcefully convert anyone...

To practice forced conversion!

Because it would not be Islam if it had forced conversion.

It'd be ancient Roman Catholicism!!!

Kidding. A little.

But it would not be Islam the second forceful conversion was practiced, it would violate the rules of Islam and not be Islam doing it.

It would be a person.

Meaning you can't say it happened because if it did it wasn't Islam but a rogue individual.

Simple stuff really.


Islam forbids forced conversion, this is a fact. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar and it is not like I am just naive I actually know what I am talking about here. It is in the Qur'an.

Dur!

 

[SethZaddik]

The lengths people go to to deny the truth when they don't like it is amazing.

Let's just ignore the facts and say things, pretend they are true and eventually people will think they are.

Is the strategy of people like this.

 

[SethZaddik]

Another strategy:

Lone incidents presented as established practice to make the uninformed believe something that happened once happens all the time.

 

[SethZaddik]

The main reason your confident assertions about Islam and Islamic culture aren't taken as authoritative is your sources. You seem willing to believe implausible things if it matches your worldviews and accept authorities whoever says what you want to hear. Not all of us start with your biases and as a result don't accept your conclusions.
Tom

The only, forget main, reason for my confidence is the knowledge that I am speaking the truth.

Nothing more.

I have said nothing implausible to begin with, so why mention things implausible?

More deception I see. You should just stop, you are embarrassing yourself.

Hell, you even agreed with most of what I said!!!

Only after I exposed your deception did you lose YOUR confidence and start ranting.

I still have mine because I don't decieve.