[SolarCross]

Which facts were presented?

So you didn't watch it and you are not going to watch it. Why are you even here POD?

[Pants-of-dog]

So you didn't watch it and you are not going to watch it. Why are you even here POD?

You asked me what criteria I use to determine what is good evidence.

I repeated it for you twice in this very thread, not counting the many other times I have done so in other threads.

You then ignored the answer and simply copied and pasted a link to a video of a pundit.

Moreover, you have not given me any indication that you have watched it, since you cannot even tell me what facts he used as a basis for his argument.

All you have done is failed to support one of @Victoribus Spolia‘s incorrect claims.

[SolarCross]

You asked me what criteria I use to determine what is good evidence.

I repeated it for you twice in this very thread, not counting the many other times I have done so in other threads.

You then ignored the answer and simply copied and pasted a link to a video of a pundit.

Moreover, you have not given me any indication that you have watched it, since you cannot even tell me what facts he used as a basis for his argument.

All you have done is failed to support one of @Victoribus Spolia‘s incorrect claims.

Admit it you are just here to troll. That's why you tried to derail the thread by going on about South Africa and that is why you are playing these stupid games now.

[Oxymandias]

@SolarCross

I think you should look into sources that don't involve Bill French, given that he has lied several times about both his identity and credentials. He has also been criticized by pretty much every single historian under the sun for his claims.

I think you don't want to learn about Islam SolarCross. You just want it to validate your beliefs. This is why you insult others whenever they offer legitimate information or truths about Islam since those fly smack into your own sense of validation and topples it. You watch Bill Warner not because he's right or because he has "facts" but because it makes you feel good and reasserts the broken and contradictory worldview you express.

[Drlee]

Yes. Justified.

Your words are merely codes of conduct. And opinion at that. War has no rules. It isn't a game of chess. You can't say one form of land grad is OK but another isn't because the rules are different. There are no rules. And your user name should help you out there.

This is not exactly true. Wars do have rules. They are prosecuted, at least in the beginning, by two sides which share at least some of the same codes of conduct. That these codes of conduct are often abandoned in part is the inevitable result of the inherent chaos of war and its effect on individual commanders and soldiers. Sometimes this straying from rules is later rationalized but during the prosecution of a war, both sides could clearly articulate what they believe the rules to be.

The best point made so far was this:

@Red_Army said, "The crusades were obviously justified from the perspective of the pope and Christendom and probably even by the Islamic conquerors who precipitated it. They each thought the other were heretics and any incursion would obviously be met with a violent response.

I am convinced of it. I doubt a single Muslim soldier facing the advancing enemy felt that the enemy was there without cause. They knew the deal and were down with seeing it through.

[Pants-of-dog]

Admit it you are just here to troll. That's why you tried to derail the thread by going on about South Africa and that is why you are playing these stupid games now.

So no evidence.

Well, at least this saves time when VS gets back, and we can just toss that particular argument in the trash as unsupported.

[SolarCross]

The like I gave your last post was a misclick as I am sure you already guessed.

I think you should look into sources that don't involve Bill French, given that he has lied several times about both his identity and credentials. He has also been criticized by pretty much every single historian under the sun for his claims.

1. Using a pen name for a public persona which is different from a private given name is quite common for authors who hope to keep their public career somewhat separate from their private life. Scholars of uninteresting, uncontroversial subjects don't usually bother but then they aren't likely to get beheaded in the street for what they write.

2. You should name at least some of the "historians" that have supposedly criticised his claims otherwise it just looks like you are talking out your arse as usual. Also it is profoundly improbable that "every single historian under the sun" has even heard of him, he just isn't that famous so that is at least wild hyberbole.

I think you don't want to learn about Islam SolarCross. You just want it to validate your beliefs. This is why you insult others whenever they offer legitimate information or truths about Islam since those fly smack into your own sense of validation and topples it. You watch Bill Warner not because he's right or because he has "facts" but because it makes you feel good and reasserts the broken and contradictory worldview you express.

I think you don't want me to learn about Islam because you know it stinks and the more I know the more I will dislike it. I watched Bill Warner's presentations because it is interesting subject which he covers well.

[Pants-of-dog]

@SolarCross

What you really should do is find a specific argument made by Bill Warner and then see if you can find an actual historian who has published something that corroborates Warner’s claim.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

@Victoribus Spolia
Surely as someone who opposes multi-culturalism you would not support colonial endeavours.

As for paganism, what's wrong with appreciating nature? I love nature, we rely on it for our quality of life and it's inspirations.

The Abrahamic religions on the other hand worship a man. You worship and devote your life to a man. As far as I'm concerned I'm the king of all men, in my eyes no man aside from my kin before or after me is more important than myself.

Again you worship a man, a man that you have never met. You worship love and dedicate your life to a man.

[annatar1914]

Oxymandias, you replied regarding the terms ''Dar-ul-Harb/Dar-ul-Islam'' that;

I am known to exaggerate.

Do tell, lol.

It doesn't change the fact that these concepts are outdated and aren't believed in by Muslims today.

Islam is regarded by Muslims as unchanging, so that is untrue. If a concept is broadly believed in the past, you can bet that it is still broadly believed.

They didn't even exist during the time of Muhammed.

In the time of Muhammad, the whole world was regarded as being ''Kufr'' and in a state of ignorance regarding Islam, according to Muslims.

Furthermore, you are going off-topic.

The context was what Muslims believed at the time of the Crusades, certainly.

It's not that what you're saying makes no sense, it's that what you're saying is wrong.

Careful, you're getting ready to contradict yourself...

All Muslims today do not believe in the idea of "Dar-al Harb". It has no basis in both Islamic religious texts and in history.

You earlier mentioned it as being accepted under the Ummayad and Abbassid Caliphs...

This is why, whenever "Dar-al Harb" is mentioned in historical Islamic documents, it's almost always in secular or political documents, not ones concerning jurisprudence as you claim.

In Islam, there is no separation between theological, ecclesial, secular, political, or jurisprudential realms, it's all under one heading. Islam is a total way of existence, as logically befitting an Universal and absolutist religion.

I am an ex-Zoroastrian.

So you are a secularized descendant of a tiny minority of people who have been under Dhimmi status for centuries surrounded by Muslims. I understand where you're coming from,, and why you say the things you do. I've heard it from persons who are non-Muslim all over the Islamic world.

''Occupation Mentality''

Just because someone is somewhat knowledgeable on Middle Eastern and Islamic history doesn't mean that he or she is Muslim similar to how one doesn't have to be Christian in order to be knowledgeable about European history.

It certainly helps. I've talked to Muslims before on PoFo, and they did not say the things you're saying, quite the contrary.

In the following comment I humor you and your erroneous misuse of the term. In debate I tend to debunk not just the opponents arguments from an external logistic point of view but also within their own logic as such can be displayed in the likes of you.

Hubris, much?

Nope. It is in fact haram for the Caliphate to force Muslims to join the army or fight at all.

I'd like to see your source for that.

This is why the Caliphate developed the professional army before Europeans did since the former could not rely on levies.

Franks are not Romans.

Depends on the sect, and in the case of Sunni and Shias, depends on the scholar. If you want to go deeper than that, it depends on the individual.

Islam is very decentralized.

So I figured this is the ''escape hatch'' you would use just in case you needed it, like the ''no true Scotsman'' fallacy.

Why don't you show me these reams of paper?

It's easily done, I'm not going to do any work for it as it remains for you to prove your contention, not I.

By the way, modern or historical examples are completely unrelated to theology which is what we are discussing.

Theology is discussion of the knowledge of God, what is timeless and eternal, it has ultimate bearing on all these other facets of human existence. That's something true Orthodox Christians and true Muslims can agree on, which is my point.

I've actually most non-Muslims I have met know more about Middle Eastern and the basics of Islam than most Muslims

And here I was thinking I might be insulting Muslims when you are the one who has consistently done so from the start, perhaps without realizing it.

. It's just that you are not one of them.

You say that because what I say runs counter to your narrative, for which you offer no proof, just your own anecdotal commentary.

Furthermore, you are putting words in my mouth. I said you and not anyone else is misinformed about Islam. I did not single you out for being non-Muslim, I singled you out for being particularly ignorant about Islam.

You should probably ask a Muslim about that, as you are non-Muslim yourself. But then again, you earlier state that most Muslims don't know their own religion

If you don't believe me, just watch some videos about what Islamic scholars have to say about the subject.

I have in the past.

They literally have no reason to lie and often are very clear about the concepts present in Islam. They even have English versions.

You're right, and that's what I base my claims on, as a matter of fact.

Well you certainly didn't make it the center of your point so I can only assume that you decided to argue that they are states after I gave you the idea.

Your assumption is wrong. I base my ideas on the origin of the State on Sir Robert Filmer's work; ''De Patriarchia'', written against Hobbes and Locke among others.

Also that isn't true since a state requires an organized political community under a central government.

Wrong, a modern State requires a monopoly on the use of force, which is why the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution is such a revolutionary document, abolishing that monopoly and declaring the right to bear arms for the people.

If you tried to implement something even resembling a central government on a tribal confederation it will immediately fall apart. Furthermore, in place of a political community, 7th century Arabian society operated upon a system of contracts. This is not an organized political community.

What I was saying was that each of the tribes Muhammad warred against was it's own polity, and you tried to deny all that in order to dodge the concept of Muhammad as a Warlord. Something that a Muslim is not going to deny if they are a serious Muslim, but rather be proud of.

He wasn't even the general of a majority of his battles.

Some Warlords are the general in all their battles, some are not. Stalin was the ''Vozhd'' in the Soviet Union during the Second Great Patriotic War, but his field commanders fought all the battles after he consulted with STAVKA.

The only battle he ever partook in was in the siege of Mecca. Ever other conquest was done by his other, more capable, generals. His primary concern was with governance.

But not his only concern, to be sure. But then to govern, you have to get people to submit to be governed by you, don't you?

You're right. An innocent, in Islam, consists of children, women, and all those who aren't fighting or are bystanders. Only soldiers can be killed but if one refuses or stops fighting, you can't kill him since he has stopped fighting.

The rules change from circumstance to circumstance.

Nope. If it isn't out of self-defense, then they don't call it an "Islamic war".

The point being, which you are trying to dodge, is that to committed Muslims, all wars fought having anything to do with Islam, are necessarily called self defense and Islamic wars. Another thing you have to deny.

That's wrong. Furthermore, even if I did say that, I would still not be an authority on the matter and thus shouldn't be taken seriously. By the way, I didn't say that and you're just shoving words in my mouth and running with them.

Trust me, I'm not taking what you're saying seriously.

This out of context quote: "Kill them wherever you find them"

This is the most widely used quote as "proof" that the Islam and Muslims are violent. But most of these people forget that IN THE VERSE RIGHT ABOVE THIS ONE it says:

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress (limits); for Allah loveth not transgressors.” 2:190

This basically says that you should only fight in self-defense.

No, that's not what is says, it says; ''fight in the cause of Allah'', not ''defend yourself in the cause of Allah''. And it says to not ''transgress limits'', but those limits are set by the Muslims, obviously not the non-Muslims.

What Caliphates have done historically doesn't matter here since we are discussing theology.

Again, drawing distinctions that Muslims do not draw themselves. First you say we're discussing politics and secular matters, now it's theology. With me as a Orthodox Christian, and with genuine Muslims, it's all one thing with different aspects being governed by a central reality of existence, not unrelated and divided things.

I won't deny it. If there is evidence, then I will concede my point. You don't have any evidence since otherwise you wouldn't be able to resist showing it to me.



Says the person who later goes on to state that Muslims are obligated to lie. Furthermore, your entire argument makes no logical sense.



Alright, the burden of proof is on you to prove this.

Only Shias are allowed to lie and it's only when faced with persecution not just by non-Muslims but by anyone including Muslims and almost all major Shia sects disprove of this practice. This is nothing like lying to an enemy of Islam. What you are spouting is alt-right propaganda that has no basis in actual Islamic thought.

So prove it, prove that Muslims are obligated to lie.

I'm under no such obligation, as you affirmed it with Shia. But they got the idea from some original basis.

This is true, but is certainly leagues better than the religious persecution found under Christian Europe. It's because of that tolerance that Christians and Jews were able to even survive in such sizeable numbers in the Islamic world while 99% of all of Europe is Christian (I wonder why...).

Define ''Tolerance''. An Absolutist, Universalist Religion is generally not known for tolerance in any modern secular sense. Surely you are not comparing the status of Non-Muslims in the Islamic world to conditions in say, Europe or North America?

There is literally an entire wikipedia article about the Christianization of the Germanic peoples:

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

But if you want specifics:

1. Saxons Wars

During the Saxon Wars, the Christian Frankish king Charlemagne waged war on the pagan Saxons for over 20 years, seeking to Christianize and rule the Saxons. During this period, the Saxons repeatedly refused Christianization and the rule of Charlemagne, and therefore rebelled frequently. In the year 782 of this period, Charlemagne is recorded as having massacred 4,500 rebel Saxon prisoners in Verden (the Massacre of Verden), and imposing legislation upon the subjected Saxons that including the penalty of death for refusing conversion to Christianity or for aiding pagans who did the same (such as the Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae)

Charlesmagne and his Frankish realm was at that time already beginning to deviate from Orthodox Christianity, and the West was forming it's own peculiar and particular brand of Christianity. I'm claiming that it isn't the right one.

2. Northern Crusades

The Christianization of the pagan Balts, Slavs and Finns was undertaken primarily during the 12th and 13th centuries, in a series of uncoordinated military campaigns by various German and Scandinavian kingdoms, and later by the Teutonic Knights and other orders of warrior-monks, although the paganism of the inhabitants was used as justification by all of these actors. It involved the destruction of pagan polities, their subjection to their Christian conquerors, and frequently the wholesale resettlement of conquered areas and replacement of the original populations with German settlers, as in Old Prussia. Elsewhere, the local populations were subjected to an imported German overclass. Although revolts were frequent and pagan resistance often locally successful, the general technological superiority of the Crusaders, and their support by the Church and rulers throughout Christendom, eventually resulted in their victory in most cases - although Lithuania resisted successfully and only converted voluntarily in the 14th century. Most of the populations of these regions were converted only with repeated use of force; in Old Prussia, the tactics employed in the conquest, and in the subsequent conversion of the territory, resulted in the death of most of the native population, whose language consequently became extinct.

I am mainly a Wend/Sorb from my mother's side of the family, the last remaining Slavs in Germany to this day, and in knowing that history I am well aware of the ''Crusades'' to crush and subjugate the Slavic peoples to Germano-Papist domination or extinction.

3. Christianization of Scandinavia

Olaf I of Norway, during his attempt to Christianize Norway during the Viking Age, had those under his rule that practiced their indigenous Norse Paganism and refused to Christianize tortured, maimed or executed, including seidmen, who were tied up and thrown to a skerry at low tide to slowly drown. After Olaf I's death, Norway returned to its native paganism.

St. Olaf, and it didn't return to Paganism, and the events as recorded in Wikipedia are debatable

These are just a couple of examples. I'm not even getting into the death toll.

Sure, these Westerners are something else...

So you admit you are wrong and that you not only know nothing about Islam but also don't have any evidence to back yourself up? Well my job here is done.

I do not admit what hasn't been proven. I made a distinction for a reason, that while as a committed Orthodox Christian I cannot believe as Muslims do and believe their religion false, they do get some things right as a logical consequence of taking their religion seriously.

[Oxymandias]

@annatar1914

Islam is regarded by Muslims as unchanging, so that is untrue. If a concept is broadly believed in the past, you can bet that it is still broadly believed.

The Quran is regarded as eternal, not Islam. Dar-al Harb isn't mentioned in the Quran. Also if you knew a fair bit about Middle Eastern history, you would know that the idea of the Quran being eternal was questioned during the Abbasid Caliphate.

In the time of Muhammad, the whole world was regarded as being ''Kufr'' and in a state of ignorance regarding Islam, according to Muslims.

Oh really? Could you give me these sources? Early Muslims admired the Roman Empire for it's civility and for being an Abrahamic superpower (thus a part of the people of the book). In the Quran (Surah al-Rum), when the Roman Empire lost a battle against the Persians, Mohammed had to cheer up his followers since they were so sad that the Roman Empire lost the battle. Clearly Mohammed and his followers didn't feel this way and the Quran doesn't say that at all.

Furthermore, the Era of Ignorance refers to 7th century Arabia not the entire world.

The context was what Muslims believed at the time of the Crusades, certainly.

How does it feel to move goalposts?

Regardless you are still wrong. 11th century Muslims didn't have the beliefs you're claiming they had.

Careful, you're getting ready to contradict yourself...

I have done none of the sort.

You earlier mentioned it as being accepted under the Ummayad and Abbassid Caliphs...

Oh, that was a blunder on my part. This doesn't change that it has no basis in theology which is what you are claiming.

Also only the government accepted it, not the general populace.

In Islam, there is no separation between theological, ecclesial, secular, political, or jurisprudential realms, it's all under one heading. Islam is a total way of existence, as logically befitting an Universal and absolutist religion.

You're exaggerating that unity. There is separation it's just that those realms are interconnected in theology (however you're technically right since there is no central authority in Islam and thus anything anyone says is right). There's nothing about it being under one heading. Furthermore, Caliphates aren't perfect or flawless representations of Islam and you'd have to be an idiot to believe that. There is practical use in dividing religious texts with secular ones and, whether you like it or not, Caliphates were more concerned with practicality.

So you are a secularized descendant of a tiny minority of people who have been under Dhimmi status for centuries surrounded by Muslims. I understand where you're coming from,, and why you say the things you do. I've heard it from persons who are non-Muslim all over the Islamic world.

My parents were recent converts. Furthermore, my background has nothing to do with the truths I tell you. You only wish it does so that it invalidates my arguments without you having to put the effort into arguing against them.

It certainly helps. I've talked to Muslims before on PoFo, and they did not say the things you're saying, quite the contrary.

The only Muslim here on PoFo is an Australian ISIS sympathizer of which is a new convert and doesn't understand even the basics of Islamic theology. From my knowledge, there hasn't been a single Muslim other than him on this forum. Also you said yourself that those Muslims you have met, according to you, aren't following their faith correctly thus this isn't an argument on your part.

I'd like to see your source for that.

"Muslim jurists agree that Muslim armed forces must consist of debt-free adults who possess a sound mind and body. In addition, the combatants must not be conscripted, but rather enlist of their free will, and with the permission of their family."

- Islamic Rulings on Warfare, Aboul-Enein and Zuhur, pg. 12-13

Franks are not Romans.

And?

So I figured this is the ''escape hatch'' you would use just in case you needed it, like the ''no true Scotsman'' fallacy.

Honestly I figured you would think this is false and I know you won't understand this since you don't know anything about Islamic theology but what I am trying to tell you is that there is no central authority in Islam that dictates what is right and what is wrong. The closest thing to that is the Quran and even it is vague and highly interpretable. I can say anything I want about Islam and it would be just as right as any other interpretation since who the fuck is to tell me otherwise? Scholars can't tell me anything since they're just interpreting the Quran or other religious texts like me. The only central authority in Islam is God.

There's no escape hatch here. I'm telling the truth, you just don't want to believe it.

It's easily done, I'm not going to do any work for it as it remains for you to prove your contention, not I.

Why do I have to prove my contention when you made the claim in the first place?

Theology is discussion of the knowledge of God, what is timeless and eternal, it has ultimate bearing on all these other facets of human existence. That's something true Orthodox Christians and true Muslims can agree on, which is my point.

Well saying that Muslims believe in Dar-al Harb and that they are all obligated to lie while not even mentioning Orthodox Christianity is a strange way to get to that point.

And here I was thinking I might be insulting Muslims when you are the one who has consistently done so from the start, perhaps without realizing it.

I don't care about being insulting. From my experience this was the case. I don't see how reality can be insulting.

You say that because what I say runs counter to your narrative, for which you offer no proof, just your own anecdotal commentary.

1. I have given you sources when you ask for them, I just haven't given sources from the beginning because I don't want to waste time on this discussion.

2. You have given me no sources while I have cited the Quran and several stories from it to prove my point. If that's a commentary then your arguments are lies.

You should probably ask a Muslim about that, as you are non-Muslim yourself. But then again, you earlier state that most Muslims don't know their own religion

I have said I noticed that non-Muslims are more knowledgeable about Islamic history and only sometimes Islam. Furthermore, I live in Iran. I have went to Islamic school. My best friends are Muslim. This is more than you'll ever be capable of saying.

I have in the past.

Clearly you haven't learned anything from them or you think Al-Qaeda are legitimate Islamic scholars.

You're right, and that's what I base my claims on, as a matter of fact.

Cite the scholars you watched.

Wrong, a modern State requires a monopoly on the use of force, which is why the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution is such a revolutionary document, abolishing that monopoly and declaring the right to bear arms for the people.

Dude, a modern state requires a government which requires more than a monopoly on the use of force. Tribes had monopolies on the use of force within their own ranks since ancient times. I doubt you would call tribes "modern states". And it isn't an assumption, I took this from the dictionary definition of state.

What I was saying was that each of the tribes Muhammad warred against was it's own polity, and you tried to deny all that in order to dodge the concept of Muhammad as a Warlord. Something that a Muslim is not going to deny if they are a serious Muslim, but rather be proud of.

A polity, is not a state. A polity is just an all-encompassing term for any type of political organization. You need a state and you need to be within a state to be a warlord. You cannot be a warlord if there is no state.

Also you clearly do not hang out with Muslims since they are offending or disagree with the idea that Mohammed was a warlord. Most consider him a general.

Some Warlords are the general in all their battles, some are not. Stalin was the ''Vozhd'' in the Soviet Union during the Second Great Patriotic War, but his field commanders fought all the battles after he consulted with STAVKA.

A warlord has to be a military leader or general given that status by a state. Muhammed was neither a military leader by profession nor was that his primary concern. I am taking this from the historical and modern definition of a warlord.

But not his only concern, to be sure. But then to govern, you have to get people to submit to be governed by you, don't you?

His companions voluntarily went to Medina with him after they were persecuted and banished from Mecca for their beliefs. If you are implying he forced people to join then you're wrong given that he was basically a poor hobo with no power at all by that point. Furthermore, there wasn't any rebellions under Mohammed's Caliphate and even if there were, crushing a rebellion doesn't make you a warlord. You have to be an idiot to believe that.

The rules change from circumstance to circumstance.

So you say Islam is eternal and cannot be changed then say that it's rules change from time to time. You literally just contradicted yourself. So is Islam in your opinion eternal or is it fluid? It can't be a combination.

The point being, which you are trying to dodge, is that to committed Muslims, all wars fought having anything to do with Islam, are necessarily called self defense and Islamic wars. Another thing you have to deny.

I never denied this. I just denied you saying that all wars were considered to be in self-defense. All jihads were, historically, done in self-defense and usually for lost territory, betrayals, etc.

Trust me, I'm not taking what you're saying seriously.

Go ahead. Just note that pretty much all Muslims don't believe what you're saying they believe. If you want to pretend that Muslims believe this cardboard cut-out you call Islam, then that's fine. Just don't try to seriously debate a Muslim about his own religion since you're just going to get your ass-kicked. Even a 5 year old Muslim has more of a rudimentary grasp at the theology of Islam than you do.

No, that's not what is says, it says; ''fight in the cause of Allah'', not ''defend yourself in the cause of Allah''. And it says to not ''transgress limits'', but those limits are set by the Muslims, obviously not the non-Muslims.

Do you not know how to read. "Fight in the cause of Allah" is followed by "those who fight you". You fight, in the name of Allah, only people who fight you first. This is clear and you have to not know how to read (I'm starting to think you don't) in order to screw that up.

Also "do not transgress" can only refer to "don't fight them if they don't fight you" since otherwise the sentence makes no sense in context of the Surah itself and grammatically in it's traditional Arabic.

Again, drawing distinctions that Muslims do not draw themselves. First you say we're discussing politics and secular matters, now it's theology. With me as a Orthodox Christian, and with genuine Muslims, it's all one thing with different aspects being governed by a central reality of existence, not unrelated and divided things.

Dude, theology isn't ingrained in reality. I don't believe in God. I don't see it this way and I know enough about Islamic history to know that theological concepts do not translate over to reality. You may want to pretend that the Islamic world is somehow this perfect synthesis of religion and reality when this is simply not the case for someone with even a rudimentary understanding of Middle Eastern history. I separate secular (historical) topics from theology because there is very little to gain from combining the two. You can't explain everything that happens in the Caliphates with Islam since Islam wasn't the primary concern for all Caliphates. The Caliphate itself is a secular institution. Originally, Caliphs were voted on by Majils who in turn were voted on by the general population. A Caliph was supposed to be a representative of the people who had the backing of God, he was not a representative of God himself.

I'm under no such obligation, as you affirmed it with Shia. But they got the idea from some original basis.

That makes no sense since I didn't affirm it with Shia. It's a completely different concept of lying than what you are saying it is. You need to prove that Muslims are allowed to lie to non-Muslims, something that Shias don't have any religious concept of.

They got it from persecution. It's similar to the way Jews also have a religious concept for lying about their religion in the face of persecution.

Charlesmagne and his Frankish realm was at that time already beginning to deviate from Orthodox Christianity, and the West was forming it's own peculiar and particular brand of Christianity. I'm claiming that it isn't the right one.

You never claimed anything of the sort. Christianity wasn't even relevant until I pointed out the atrocities committed by Christianization. This isn't an argument against that.

I am mainly a Wend/Sorb from my mother's side of the family, the last remaining Slavs in Germany to this day, and in knowing that history I am well aware of the ''Crusades'' to crush and subjugate the Slavic peoples to Germano-Papist domination or extinction.

Then why did you ask me to give you examples of Christianity destroying entire cultures and religions when you yourself are aware of it?

St. Olaf, and it didn't return to Paganism, and the events as recorded in Wikipedia are debatable

That was a blunder on my part. But the persecution of pagans and the torture is documented.

I do not admit what hasn't been proven. I made a distinction for a reason, that while as a committed Orthodox Christian I cannot believe as Muslims do and believe their religion false, they do get some things right as a logical consequence of taking their religion seriously.

So you admit that you don't know anything about Islam, that you just disagree with them because of religious reasons, that you are only saying these things because of religious reasons, and that you kind of respect Muslims but also dislike them and find them as violent.

At least you admit it.

[Oxymandias]

@SolarCross

1. Using a pen name for a public persona which is different from a private given name is quite common for authors who hope to keep their public career somewhat separate from their private life. Scholars of uninteresting, uncontroversial subjects don't usually bother but then they aren't likely to get beheaded in the street for what they write.

He kept the pen name even during public appearances. Using fake names for anonymity is one thing, using fake names while making public appearances is another.

2. You should name at least some of the "historians" that have supposedly criticised his claims otherwise it just looks like you are talking out your arse as usual. Also it is profoundly improbable that "every single historian under the sun" has even heard of him, he just isn't that famous so that is at least wild hyberbole.

It is hyperbole. You think I'd seriously debate someone who is incapable of doing the same? I'll give you the names of the historians if you want. While you're waiting though, here is an entire debunking of Bill French's claim that there was no Golden Age of Islam:

Boy, that's a special argument. Usually modern Islamophobes like Warner, a pseudonym for Bill French, appreciate the "Golden Age of Islam" because it tucks away "the positives of Islam" safely in that scary, exotic, remote medieval past.

I will say that this list as typed contains some things that are categorically false, some things that involve terrible modern projections onto the past, one true fact, and one ideologue professional hate activist who has never seen Aladdin.

Warner sets the bar for Islam to "have a Golden Age," by which he really means make any positive intellectual contributions, as "to produce modern, post-Renaissance and post-Enlightenment, secular, scientific and intellectual output that values the classical heritage." Now. The time period he's discussing is, you know, 750 to 1150 or so. Post-Renaissance and post-Enlightenment secular intellectualism is exactly what I, personally, think of when I think of the Middle Ages.

Indeed, there was an absolutely gobsmacking amount of intellectual exploration occurring in the Middle Ages--but not guided by modern terms of experimentation and modern ideas of subject division. Muslim, Jewish, and Christian scholars all pursued knowledge towards religious ends. That's not something unique to medieval Islam. It's all over Anselm of Canterbury, one of the most important Christian theologians of the Middle Ages: "I believe so that I may understand," he famously wrote. Muslim and Christian scholar studied law and other subjects extensively in service of their religions.

Warner, on some level, realizes that his attacks on the intellectual output of Muslim scholars are groundless (yes, their progress in mapping the sky was limited. Tell me about those wonderful medieval orbit-based telescopes). That's why he has to cover his tracks and say, "But they weren't really Muslims' achievements; they were the work of people conquered by Muslims."

Indeed, during the 7th century into the 8th, Arab forces under the banner of apocalyptic Islam swept across the Near East, North Africa, and into Iberia--an absolutely stunning conquest in both its expanse and in its longevity. But this does not mean that the intellectual elite of Tunisia or Alexandria was hauled off in chains to Toledo and Baghdad. In fact, scholars of multiple faiths flocked to court circles. In Persia, Zoroastrians in the government, in cities, turned to Islam very quickly. Christian and Jewish scholars continued to pursue their intellectual work, including in service to their religions as theologians, as Christians and Jews. Muslim rulers in Iberia and Baghdad supported scholarship in a way that would eventually prove a model for Christian rulers like the Normans in Sicily. In a multireligious empire, that support was valuable to more than just Muslims.

But we also absolutely should not have a picture of medieval Islamic intellectual life as sequestered at a couple of courts as little tiny bright stars in a vast dark desert. Medieval Muslim ethnographers or anthropologists used the fruits of their travels throughout the Islamic world and their knowledge of older literature to produce vast catalogues of people and histories. It's during this era that Islam becomes the dominant religion of the West African gold empires. Not by force, mind you. Because enough traffic was going back and forth with the Islamic heartland in (at the time) Egypt that, starting with individual merchant communities, many West African people affiliated with the Mali Empire found conversion attractive for its trade-facilitating, literacy, and intellectual benefits.

This applies to the creative arts, too, which honestly is the weirdest criticism on this list. Medieval Islamic art (conveniently ignored; I wonder why) is gorgeous. As for literature? I'll make two points here. The first is that medieval vernacular literatures around the Mediterranean developed in contact and interchange with each other. Romance in particular--the style of literature so important to the formation of a modern literary sensibility that lets its characters be people instead of types, recognizes emotions and human relationships, and gives agency to women characters--is a mutual development of the Islamic and Christian literary worlds. Not only are Christian and Muslim characters written into each other's romances, but some tales have striking similarities. Beroult's Arthurian (!) Tristan and Isolde resembles one of the central versions of the Layla and Majnun tale in surprising way.

I'm genuinely perplexed by that criticism. Because honestly, the name recognition of medieval literature from the Christian and Islamic worlds is probably not that far off from equivalent. I'm guessing most English-speakers with a standard education can call to mind Beowulf, Canterbury Tales, and "King Arthur." They can probably also sing Eric Clapton's "Layla" and at least one song from the Disney movie Aladdin. Well, right there, that's Layla and Majnun (yes, the reference is the medieval romance; I've checked) and the Alf layla wa layla, a.k.a. 1001 Arabian Nights. There's loads and loads of medieval Arabic literature that should be as famous today--the satirical law commentary recently published in English translation as "The Art of Party-Crashing in Medieval Iraq" has got to be in my top five--but that doesn't mean that two of the most well-known works of the Middle Ages in fact hail from the Islamic world.

And again we cycle back to, Warner is just so uncomfortable with the medieval aspect of things it's hilarious. Muslims enslaved a million Europeans? I really, really don't think anybody of European descent (assuming the pictures of him I saw with GIS are accurate) should rev up the comparative slavery blame game, but okay, let's roll with it. Yes, medieval and early modern Muslims had slaves. Guess who else did? Medieval and early modern Christians. You know what? Sometimes they even traded with each other, either human trafficking or for ransom. If Michael McCormick's argument is right, the international slave trade during the early Middle Ages was basically the reason a Mediterranean economy managed to survive the crises of the sixth century and allow the subsequent rise of Europe. We don't approve of this practice today, much like we don't approve of border expansion through force. Again, the Middle Ages were not the modern world, which Warner just cannot seem to fathom.

But then, I guess that's the level of excellent historical methodology you'd expect from someone who talks about history on the authority of his status as "Dr., PhD".

Yes.

In physics and math.

[SolarCross]

He kept the pen name even during public appearances. Using fake names for anonymity is one thing, using fake names while making public appearances is another.

No it isn't. Pen name or stage name it is common practice amongst those who want to seperate their public careers from their private lives. It is also a small flimsy defence against mad jihadis.

It is hyperbole. You think I'd seriously debate someone who is incapable of doing the same? I'll give you the names of the historians if you want. While you're waiting though, here is an entire debunking of Bill French's claim that there was no Golden Age of Islam:

It had better be more than just one or two critics too because you were asserting that we should discount him because virtually everyone who is a reputable historian laughs in his face. That wouldn't make him wrong necessarily but it is meaningless if he just has a few critics because everyone has a few critics including yourself.

Your quoted passage lacks an attribution which in itself is rather suspicious. Moreover it seems to be an inaccurate "debunking" as it is full of strawman arguements and ad hominen. Contrast with what Bill Warner actually says about the "Golden Age".

[hartmut]

Looking on the crusades we must say: they failed because they did not serve the purpose that brought them in.
Even more, they produced the opposite of the task.

Alexios of Byzanz asks end of 11th century Pope Urban II for help against persistently intruding Seljuq.
The Pope delivers a speech which has an unexpected effect:
A movement, far bigger than anticipated, flows as a devastating torrent through the Balkans to Byzanz, where Alexios is first time, bur not last, busy not to be toppled by the “help” he asked for.
In the end Byzanz falls, thank to the crusades.
And 1683 the muslim world knocks the doors of Vienna for a second time after the crusades.

So, if we ask ourselves “were the crusades justified?”
then we should consider whether they made sense at all.
(Instead of bouncing own emotional incentives for a renewed crusade, as have been sadly displayed in some comments.)

[Oxymandias]

@SolarCross

A pen name isn't used for that purpose, it's only used for anonymity. Bill Warner isn't a stage name since he kept being anonymous and didn't officially reveal his name by himself, something a person with a stage name won't do.

Because I don't have the attribution currently since my internet isn't good. Furthermore, the goal isn't to show that he is wrong (I can do that myself) but that he has no credibility. Furthermore, what strawman arguments were made or ad hominen attacks were made? Clearly if the arguments made were that bad you can easily point them out. I doubt you can though since you, like Bill Warner, don't know anything about Islamic history. Your arguments against the Middle East are founded on strawmen and false generalizations. Whenever someone knowledgeable comes to you and proves you wrong, you insult them since you know that you have no basis to your beliefs. I give you information on Mohammed, you just tell me to enjoy camel piss. It's not even a good insult since I'm an ex-Zoroastrian atheist, not a Muslim.

[annatar1914]

Oxymandias, you replied thusly;

The Quran is regarded as eternal, not Islam.

If a Muslim is correct in thinking that the Quran is the word of Allah, and eternal, immutable, than the religion built around it is necessarily so by extension, claiming to be the true religion.

Dar-al Harb isn't mentioned in the Quran.

Neither are microwavable hot pockets or indoor plumbing, nor the Hidden Imam for that matter. Irrelevant, except that the concept of Dar-ul-Harb is a logical consequence of the Quran and the Hadiths.

Also if you knew a fair bit about Middle Eastern history

You'd be correct if you say that I do, given my life experiences of living with and/or among Persians, Egyptians, Tatars, and Lebanese friends and families, and having a university background in History. I'm rusty sometimes, but I know how to remind myself. I've forgotten what little Arabic and Farsi I had learned.

, you would know that the idea of the Quran being eternal was questioned during the Abbasid Caliphate.

Yes, a minority of religious Islamic scholars questioned it during that time, and of course skeptics today among Muslims. This is also not really relevant.

Oh really? Could you give me these sources? Early Muslims admired the Roman Empire for it's civility and for being an Abrahamic superpower (thus a part of the people of the book). In the Quran (Surah al-Rum), when the Roman Empire lost a battle against the Persians, Mohammed had to cheer up his followers since they were so sad that the Roman Empire lost the battle. Clearly Mohammed and his followers didn't feel this way and the Quran doesn't say that at all.

I'm reading this and realizing you don't know what I'm talking about.

Furthermore, the Era of Ignorance refers to 7th century Arabia not the entire world.

Wrong. If 7th century Arabia was in a state of ''Jahailiyya'' (Ignorance) of Islam (Muslims claiming that Islam has existed from the beginning of the world, however), then the world outside of Islam's birthplace had to have also necessarily been in a state of ignorance.

How does it feel to move goalposts?

I don't feel anything about what I havn't done.

Regardless you are still wrong. 11th century Muslims didn't have the beliefs you're claiming they had.

Sure they did, prove otherwise, since you're making the accusation against them not knowing.

I have done none of the sort.



Oh, that was a blunder on my part. This doesn't change that it has no basis in theology which is what you are claiming.

Also only the government accepted it, not the general populace.



You're exaggerating that unity. There is separation it's just that those realms are interconnected in theology (however you're technically right since there is no central authority in Islam and thus anything anyone says is right). There's nothing about it being under one heading. Furthermore, Caliphates aren't perfect or flawless representations of Islam and you'd have to be an idiot to believe that. There is practical use in dividing religious texts with secular ones and, whether you like it or not, Caliphates were more concerned with practicality.

All pointless blather when unable to state the true facts of the case at hand.

My parents were recent converts. Furthermore, my background has nothing to do with the truths I tell you. You only wish it does so that it invalidates my arguments without you having to put the effort into arguing against them.

A person's background goes to bias in making statements or obscuring a personal agenda on an issue, under the veil of ''objectivity'' when making pronouncements on a subject.

The only Muslim here on PoFo is an Australian ISIS sympathizer

I refuse to believe there is only one Muslim on PoFo. Anybody else care to refute this?

of which is a new convert and doesn't understand even the basics of Islamic theology

Says the secular Non-Muslim who lives in a majority Shia Muslim country, and Shia being a minority among Muslims however.

. From my knowledge, there hasn't been a single Muslim other than him on this forum

I'd be interested to find out, I haven't noticed one way or another, given the numerous liberals on PoFo and their propensity to reflexively defend Islam as much or more than any Muslim would, and in ways condescending to a Muslim at that.

Also you said yourself that those Muslims you have met, according to you, aren't following their faith correctly thus this isn't an argument on your part.

I did not say that at all, or even imply it. In fact, i'd much rather talk to an actual serious Muslim about Islam under ordinary circumstances. We usually tend to agree on the socially conservative issues.

"Muslim jurists agree that Muslim armed forces must consist of debt-free adults who possess a sound mind and body. In addition, the combatants must not be conscripted, but rather enlist of their free will, and with the permission of their family."

- Islamic Rulings on Warfare, Aboul-Enein and Zuhur, pg. 12-13

I did not say they were conscripted or forced, but imply they are compelled under duty and obedience, as all soldiers universally are. There is a distinction most non-military people don't understand.

Honestly I figured you would think this is false and I know you won't understand this since you don't know anything about Islamic theology but what I am trying to tell you is that there is no central authority in Islam that dictates what is right and what is wrong.

There are organizations looking to be the authorities

The closest thing to that is the Quran and even it is vague and highly interpretable.

Not that damn ''vague and highly interpretable''. Another interesting example where I, the Christian, have more genuine respect for Islam despite it's faults that it's alleged ''defender''...

I can say anything I want about Islam and it would be just as right as any other interpretation since who the fuck is to tell me otherwise?

I wonder if you could run around publicly in a Muslim majority area of the world and say that without some harm done?

Scholars can't tell me anything since they're just interpreting the Quran or other religious texts like me. The only central authority in Islam is God.

Who they say spoke definitively through the Quran and the authoritative Hadiths on how Muslims should live. They're wrong, but it's what they believe. I trust what they say about what they believe more than your word about what they believe, sorry.

There's no escape hatch here. I'm telling the truth, you just don't want to believe it.

You couldn't sell bananas talking like that, and you aren't persuasive on your opinions of Islam, confused and biased as they are.

Why do I have to prove my contention when you made the claim in the first place?

I did no such thing.

Well saying that Muslims believe in Dar-al Harb and that they are all obligated to lie while not even mentioning Orthodox Christianity is a strange way to get to that point.

I don't care about being insulting. From my experience this was the case. I don't see how reality can be insulting.

1. I have given you sources when you ask for them, I just haven't given sources from the beginning because I don't want to waste time on this discussion.

Like you're not wasting time and being defensively evasive now

2. You have given me no sources while I have cited the Quran and several stories from it to prove my point. If that's a commentary then your arguments are lies.

It's not my thing to defend, especially when you so helpfully contradict yourself, saying that the ''Dar-ul-Harb'' concept is not a Muslim concept, then saying it was during the Ummayad and Abbassid periods. Then denying Muslims can lie defensively for Islam, and then later admitting the ideas of Taqiyya and Kitman among the Shia...

I have said I noticed that non-Muslims are more knowledgeable about Islamic history and only sometimes Islam.

That's not what you initially said, and it's a strange thing to say in itself, to divide Islam from Islamic history.

Furthermore, I live in Iran. I have went to Islamic school. My best friends are Muslim. This is more than you'll ever be capable of saying.

Do they know that you are an unbelieving son of parents who converted to Shia Islam from Zoroasterianism? Meaning that you are an apostate Shia Muslim by some standards?

Clearly you haven't learned anything from them or you think Al-Qaeda are legitimate Islamic scholars.

Funny, I never mentioned them. What I do think is that if most serious Muslims are likely Sunni, as most Muslims are Sunni to begin with, than their opinion on what Islam is has a direct impact on the world that is impacted by Islam.

Cite the scholars you watched.

They've mainly been Sunni, although I have from time to time seen videos from Shia in Lebanon and Iran.

Dude, a modern state requires a government which requires more than a monopoly on the use of force.

Name any State, anytime, that has lived entirely on voluntary contributions, or even partially

Tribes had monopolies on the use of force within their own ranks since ancient times. I doubt you would call tribes "modern states". And it isn't an assumption, I took this from the dictionary definition of state.

In America, we have a history of centuries of treaties between Colonial and then Federal and State Governments, and Tribal governments, ruled personally by Tribal Chieftains. If you have an entity capable of Sovereignty that can make treaties with other States, than you are a State too no matter how primitive.

A polity, is not a state. A polity is just an all-encompassing term for any type of political organization. You need a state and you need to be within a state to be a warlord. You cannot be a warlord if there is no state.

No.

Also you clearly do not hang out with Muslims since they are offending or disagree with the idea that Mohammed was a warlord. Most consider him a general.

Wrong again. Never met a Muslim who had a problem with Muhammad being a Warrior or Warlord. And what precisely do you think a General is? You are quibbling over semantics.

A warlord has to be a military leader or general given that status by a state. Muhammed was neither a military leader by profession nor was that his primary concern. I am taking this from the historical and modern definition of a warlord.

Muhammad gave himself that status, irregardless of what his ''primary'' concern was. Also any modern ''definition'' saying otherwise of such people is anything but such, more like an ''obscuration''. And that's not necessarily a moral judgement call, either.

His companions voluntarily went to Medina with him after they were persecuted and banished from Mecca for their beliefs. If you are implying he forced people to join then you're wrong given that he was basically a poor hobo with no power at all by that point. Furthermore, there wasn't any rebellions under Mohammed's Caliphate and even if there were, crushing a rebellion doesn't make you a warlord. You have to be an idiot to believe that.

Again, trying to obscure something that no genuine Muslim need fear obscuring the facts about, if they're right. And they think they are.

So you say Islam is eternal and cannot be changed then say that it's rules change from time to time. You literally just contradicted yourself. So is Islam in your opinion eternal or is it fluid? It can't be a combination.

I never said that it's rules change, I said that it's rules depend on circumstances. You don't make many logical distinctions in these matters do you?

I never denied this. I just denied you saying that all wars were considered to be in self-defense. All jihads were, historically, done in self-defense and usually for lost territory, betrayals, etc.

What is called Jihad by them is called war by me. They justify it, and you try to have it both ways.

Go ahead. Just note that pretty much all Muslims don't believe what you're saying they believe. If you want to pretend that Muslims believe this cardboard cut-out you call Islam, then that's fine. Just don't try to seriously debate a Muslim about his own religion since you're just going to get your ass-kicked. Even a 5 year old Muslim has more of a rudimentary grasp at the theology of Islam than you do.

I might believe that if I debate an actual Muslim sometime rather than some confused secular person.

Do you not know how to read. "Fight in the cause of Allah" is followed by "those who fight you". You fight, in the name of Allah, only people who fight you first. This is clear and you have to not know how to read (I'm starting to think you don't) in order to screw that up.

Muslims do the invading, historically speaking. When Muslims come into a new land ignorant of Islam, they are to offer the opportunity to convert. If they are resisted after this offer is refused, they are to defeat the Non-Muslims and subject the land to the rule of Islam. This was until modern times uncontroversial fact accepted by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, until self hating people of European origin decided otherwise and Muslims tactically took advantage of that.

Also "do not transgress" can only refer to "don't fight them if they don't fight you" since otherwise the sentence makes no sense in context of the Surah itself and grammatically in it's traditional Arabic.

Right. Equally supports my contention. If they do not submit voluntarily to the Caliphate that is raiding the non-Muslim land, fight them for the Non-Muslims must be to blame. If an actual Muslim wants to deny that, I'll talk to them.

Dude, theology isn't ingrained in reality. I don't believe in God.

I can jettison the rest of what you said because you have no credibility now to any Muslim or religious Non-Muslim either.

That makes no sense since I didn't affirm it with Shia. It's a completely different concept of lying than what you are saying it is. You need to prove that Muslims are allowed to lie to non-Muslims, something that Shias don't have any religious concept of.

I have nothing to prove, as I said Muslims can lie in some circumstances, you denied it than walked that denial back a bit with your admission about Shia lying.

They got it from persecution. It's similar to the way Jews also have a religious concept for lying about their religion in the face of persecution.

I understand how they got it and why. You denied these things and then contradicted yourself.

You never claimed anything of the sort. Christianity wasn't even relevant until I pointed out the atrocities committed by Christianization. This isn't an argument against that.

Sure I did, and being that this thread is about the Crusades, it's entirely relevant.

Then why did you ask me to give you examples of Christianity destroying entire cultures and religions when you yourself are aware of it?

I don't assume that people know what they're talking about, even when they say they do. Everybody is ill-informed on some matters sometimes, and sometimes more than they realize. It wasn't some kind of personal judgement on you.

That was a blunder on my part. But the persecution of pagans and the torture is documented.

By the same sort of people who went on crusades elsewhere. It's not all about Islam, you know.

So you admit that you don't know anything about Islam, that you just disagree with them because of religious reasons, that you are only saying these things because of religious reasons, and that you kind of respect Muslims but also dislike them and find them as violent.

At least you admit it.

I think you're projecting a bit. I cannot admit to any of that.

[SolarCross]

A pen name isn't used for that purpose, it's only used for anonymity. Bill Warner isn't a stage name since he kept being anonymous and didn't officially reveal his name by himself, something a person with a stage name won't do.

Complete nonsense. If that is the best character assassination you can come up with that he used an alias with which to write and talk about Islam in public forums then he is practically a saint next to your prophet. Read the hadith and see how well Bill compares to the mass-murdering raping slaving pedophile false prophet.

Because I don't have the attribution currently since my internet isn't good. Furthermore, the goal isn't to show that he is wrong (I can do that myself) but that he has no credibility.

An honest person would respectfully show how he is wrong and let other people decide his credibility.

Furthermore, what strawman arguments were made or ad hominen attacks were made? Clearly if the arguments made were that bad you can easily point them out.

In the first sentence he calls him an "Islamophobe". In the last he implies that his background in Physics and Maths makes him not fit to investigate Islamic history, nevermind the fact that physics and maths are far more rigorously rational discipline than history.

I doubt you can though since you, like Bill Warner, don't know anything about Islamic history. Your arguments against the Middle East are founded on strawmen and false generalizations.

Clearly he knows something, and more than most westerners, or he could not have written the books he did or make the presentations he did. Also no one is making any arguments against the "middle east" that is just geographical area, getting confused about this shows you to be a rather silly low iq person; the subject is Islam. You are as much a waste time as POD; where are the capable pro-Islamic debaters?

Whenever someone knowledgeable comes to you and proves you wrong, you insult them since you know that you have no basis to your beliefs. I give you information on Mohammed, you just tell me to enjoy camel piss. It's not even a good insult since I'm an ex-Zoroastrian atheist, not a Muslim.

So you say but it seems rather doubtful to me an "ex-Zoroastrian atheist" would be so keen to whitewash Islam and attempt to derail criticism with silly posturing. Taqiya? Or perhaps it is Stockholm syndrome? Neither Zoroastrianism nor atheism are safe affiliations under Islamic rule.

---------

The facts and arguments presented by Bill Warner remain unchallenged by you, you are only attacking his character and rather feebly at that.

[Oxymandias]

@annatar1914

If a Muslim is correct in thinking that the Quran is the word of Allah, and eternal, immutable, than the religion built around it is necessarily so by extension, claiming to be the true religion.

There is no such things as "correctness" in Islam if there is no central authority which defines what is correct and what is not. Furthermore, this makes no sense when you consider sects are a thing and most Muslims are fine with that.

Neither are microwavable hot pockets or indoor plumbing, nor the Hidden Imam for that matter. Irrelevant, except that the concept of Dar-ul-Harb is a logical consequence of the Quran and the Hadiths.

Oh you need to prove that. Note that you are making this claim, thus the burden of proof is on you to confirm it. I highly doubt you can since you haven't read the Quran nor the Hadiths.

You'd be correct if you say that I do, given my life experiences of living with and/or among Persians, Egyptians, Tatars, and Lebanese friends and families, and having a university background in History. I'm rusty sometimes, but I know how to remind myself. I've forgotten what little Arabic and Farsi I had learned.

You claimed that you knew, not me. Unless you were surrounded by historians I don't see how the fact that you had Middle Eastern friends proves that you know Middle Eastern history. It's like me saying I'm an expert on Orthodox Christianity because one of my friends is an Orthodox Christian.

Yes, a minority of religious Islamic scholars questioned it during that time, and of course skeptics today among Muslims. This is also not really relevant.

Yeah, the most popular religious sect that the time that was patroned by the Caliph himself is certainly a minority. How can you say you know of Islamic history if you don't even know of the Mutazila?

I'm reading this and realizing you don't know what I'm talking about.

You stated that at the time of Muhammed the entire world was seen as being Kufr and in a state of ignorance. I mentioned that Arabians looked up to the Roman Empire and saw it as civilized (the opposite of ignorant) and they weren't considered Kufr.

I know what you're talking about.

Wrong. If 7th century Arabia was in a state of ''Jahailiyya'' (Ignorance) of Islam (Muslims claiming that Islam has existed from the beginning of the world, however), then the world outside of Islam's birthplace had to have also necessarily been in a state of ignorance.

That makes no logical sense. The idea of the "Era of Ignorance" was a term used by medieval Islamic historians to name the period in Arabia prior to Muhammad's creation of Islam. There is no correspondence between a name for a time period in Arabia and the entire world. I even gave an example in the Quran that showed that Muslims didn't see the outside world as ignorant but civilized (why the fuck do you think I brought up the Byzantines?). You ignored this, like you ignored everything.

I don't feel anything about what I havn't done.

Your original argument was that all Muslims, both historically and in the present, believe the abhorrent things you claim they believe. Now you changed it to only 11th century Muslims. That is moving goalposts.

Sure they did, prove otherwise, since you're making the accusation against them not knowing.

No, you made the accusation that they did believe this drivel you're spouting. The burden of proof is on the guy who claimed it in the first place. You are the one, in fact, making the accusation against Muslims that they believe in the shit you're talking about. Try to find a single Muslim that believes in the shit you're spouting. Not even ISIS believes in this shit because it's based on zero knowledge about Islam.

All pointless blather when unable to state the true facts of the case at hand.

You call any argument against your points pointless blather. Even if I cite you thousands of sources, you won't care since you're not concerned with facts and I would like it if you didn't portray yourself as having them since you don't have any.

A person's background goes to bias in making statements or obscuring a personal agenda on an issue, under the veil of ''objectivity'' when making pronouncements on a subject.

Oh the hypocrisy. Have you not considered the fact that a Western Orthodox Christian who sees Islam as an overwhelming boogie man would be less objective than someone who has actually lived in the Islamic world?

Furthermore, I have given the sources by which by arguments are based on. You have given none. I can safely say that my beliefs have some foundation while yours stand on sand.

I refuse to believe there is only one Muslim on PoFo. Anybody else care to refute this?

You literally just said that you talked to loads of Muslims on PoFo. I asked to tell me who these Muslims are. You can refute it yourself if you want, you just don't want to because you don't know any. I don't even think you know if any of the people you talked to are Muslim. No one can refute this but you since you made the claim that you talked to loads of Muslims.

Says the secular Non-Muslim who lives in a majority Shia Muslim country, and Shia being a minority among Muslims however.

Yes, I do say since all schools here are Islamic schools and I actually considered converting to Islam at one point. I majored in Middle Eastern and Islamic history in college and I did some archaeological research as well in sites in Iran. I certainly know more about Islam and the Middle East in general than you do.

If you're going to use my background against me, you shouldn't be talking.

I'd be interested to find out, I haven't noticed one way or another, given the numerous liberals on PoFo and their propensity to reflexively defend Islam as much or more than any Muslim would, and in ways condescending to a Muslim at that.

You claimed you talked to loads of Muslims on PoFo and that all of them believe the things you say they believe. If you haven't met any Muslims on PoFo then you're pulling this out of your ass.

I did not say that at all, or even imply it. In fact, i'd much rather talk to an actual serious Muslim about Islam under ordinary circumstances. We usually tend to agree on the socially conservative issues.

Oh really?

there are indeed quite a few Muslims not inclined to that level of seriousness and commitment to the goals of their religion,

Then what the fuck is this?

I did not say they were conscripted or forced, but imply they are compelled under duty and obedience, as all soldiers universally are. There is a distinction most non-military people don't understand.

Oh really?

the Caliphate is to be obeyed by Muslims to fight Kufr when so ordered.

The Caliph can't do jack shit.

There are organizations looking to be the authorities

So? The only legitimacy they have is given to them by the people. There is no theological justification for a central authority in Islam outside of God. There is no Islamic Pope nor Patriarch that defines what Islam is. Furthermore, even scholars are very fragmented and unorganized. Also name some of these organizations. The only organizations that exist are state run.

Not that damn ''vague and highly interpretable''. Another interesting example where I, the Christian, have more genuine respect for Islam despite it's faults that it's alleged ''defender''...

You don't respect Islam because if you did you would bother to learn about. You wouldn't make things up or claim that you're someone your not. Furthermore, go tell any Muslim what I'm saying and see if they disagree. No Muslim has ever argument that there is a central authority in Islam because such a thing doesn't exist.

I wonder if you could run around publicly in a Muslim majority area of the world and say that without some harm done?

So? This is why I separate theology from reality. Because they don't cross over each other. Just because extremist governments disagree with me doesn't mean I'm not right. There is no central authority in Islam and no one can contest this. The Ayatollahs in Iran may pretend that they're the central authority of Islam, the scholars in the Saudi government may pretend that they're the central authority of Islam but that doesn't mean they are. It doesn't mean jack what they say because there is nothing in the theology that justifies that.

Who they say spoke definitively through the Quran and the authoritative Hadiths on how Muslims should live. They're wrong, but it's what they believe. I trust what they say about what they believe more than your word about what they believe, sorry.

So you say that you should listen to scholars and that your arguments are based on them but earlier you said that scholars don't mean anything and that you expect any self-respecting scholar to disagree with you. You're contradicting yourself. You can believe what scholars say but just remember that they disagree with each other a lot.

You couldn't sell bananas talking like that, and you aren't persuasive on your opinions of Islam, confused and biased as they are.

You know every single insult you throw at me can be applied to you as well right? You can have this little self-awareness.

I did no such thing.

Since you put very little effort into this discussion why should I? You did such a thing.

When you have so little of an argument and are so lazy that you think using an emoji is an argument

Like you're not wasting time and being defensively evasive now

Says the person wasting time and being defensively evasive. Who the fuck asks someone whether or not they'd support the Ottoman Empire in the middle of a discussion?

It's not my thing to defend, especially when you so helpfully contradict yourself, saying that the ''Dar-ul-Harb'' concept is not a Muslim concept, then saying it was during the Ummayad and Abbassid periods. Then denying Muslims can lie defensively for Islam, and then later admitting the ideas of Taqiyya and Kitman among the Shia...

That was a blunder on my part. Furthermore, I denied that Muslims can lie to non-Muslims for any reason, not that a certain sect of Muslims can lie about their religion in the face of persecution. They are two very fucking different things.

That's not what you initially said, and it's a strange thing to say in itself, to divide Islam from Islamic history.

Quote me like I have quoted you. I'm done putting effort when you clearly aren't doing so. Why should I give you sources or back up my claims when you don't do it yourself?

I have not divided Islam from Islamic history. When I was referring to Islam, I meant it's theology.

Do they know that you are an unbelieving son of parents who converted to Shia Islam from Zoroasterianism? Meaning that you are an apostate Shia Muslim by some standards?

Yes. My personal life is irrelevant to the discussion. Ask me about my life again and I'll ignore you. You just want to derail the topic.

Funny, I never mentioned them. What I do think is that if most serious Muslims are likely Sunni, as most Muslims are Sunni to begin with, than their opinion on what Islam is has a direct impact on the world that is impacted by Islam.

You're the type to think ISIS is the ideal Muslim. Also you're somewhat right. Their opinions are influenced by their environment and so is their understanding of Islam.

Muhammad gave himself that status, irregardless of what his ''primary'' concern was.

Alright, prove to me that he gave himself the status. The burden of proof is on you.

They've mainly been Sunni, although I have from time to time seen videos from Shia in Lebanon and Iran.

I want you to cite the scholars you watched. As in, their names.

Name any State, anytime, that has lived entirely on voluntary contributions, or even partially

Did I say that government doesn't need a monopoly of violence? No. I said it needs more than that.

In America, we have a history of centuries of treaties between Colonial and then Federal and State Governments, and Tribal governments, ruled personally by Tribal Chieftains. If you have an entity capable of Sovereignty that can make treaties with other States, than you are a State too no matter how primitive.

You literally just changed your definition of state. First you said that tribes are states because of patriarchal structures or whatever the fuck you said. Now you're saying anything can be a state if it can have treaties with other states? That makes no sense. Also we're basing this on the definition of a state which doesn't include tribes and this is the American definition of it. Furthermore, Arabian tribal confederations did not have treaties with any major powers.

No.

What are you, 5? "No" isn't an argument.

Wrong again. Never met a Muslim who had a problem with Muhammad being a Warrior or Warlord. And what precisely do you think a General is? You are quibbling over semantics.

Oh so your experiences are apparently superior than mine? Throughout my life, all Muslims I have encountered have been disgusted by the idea of Muhammad as a Warlord. Also if you think a general is warlord you clearly have no idea what the fuck your talking about.

Also any modern ''definition'' saying otherwise of such people is anything but such, more like an ''obscuration''. And that's not necessarily a moral judgement call, either.

The term I'm using for warlord is a historical and sociological definition. Someone as well versed in history as you should know this.

Again, trying to obscure something that no genuine Muslim need fear obscuring the facts about, if they're right. And they think they are.

You never met a genuine Muslim and I'd like if you stopped lying about that.

I never said that it's rules change, I said that it's rules depend on circumstances. You don't make many logical distinctions in these matters do you?

That contradicts your point that Islam is eternal and thus, it's rules cannot change. Your cognitive dissonance is astounding.

What is called Jihad by them is called war by me. They justify it, and you try to have it both ways.

I never said lesser jihad wasn't a war.

I might believe that if I debate an actual Muslim sometime rather than some confused secular person.

I was a Muslim. You seem to be the confused one since you're just contradicting yourself all over the place and you have no idea what you're even saying.

Muslims do the invading, historically speaking. When Muslims come into a new land ignorant of Islam, they are to offer the opportunity to convert. If they are resisted after this offer is refused, they are to defeat the Non-Muslims and subject the land to the rule of Islam. This was until modern times uncontroversial fact accepted by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, until self hating people of European origin decided otherwise and Muslims tactically took advantage of that.

That's not true at all. All you have to do is look at Islamic interactions with the Byzantines and Europe. Did the Caliphate try to conquer parts of Europe? Yes. But were they in a never-ending conquest against Europe? No. You can also look at India and the entirety of South East Asia as an example of peaceful conversions. Conversions didn't even happen immediately when the Caliphate conquered the Middle East, they were very gradual. You know nothing about Middle Eastern history.

Right. Equally supports my contention. If they do not submit voluntarily to the Caliphate that is raiding the non-Muslim land, fight them for the Non-Muslims must be to blame. If an actual Muslim wants to deny that, I'll talk to them.

You clearly don't know how to read if you think self-defense is aggressive.

I can jettison the rest of what you said because you have no credibility now to any Muslim or religious Non-Muslim either.

The hypocrisy is delicious. Apparently a non-Muslim who went through Islamic education, has a degree in Middle Eastern and Islamic history, and whose best friend is Muslim can be jettisoned but when I mention the fact that you're a Western Orthodox Christian I'm being unfair and you're the victim. No wonder you don't respect Islam, you don't even respect yourself!

I have nothing to prove, as I said Muslims can lie in some circumstances, you denied it than walked that denial back a bit with your admission about Shia lying.

You said that Muslims can and are obligated to lie to non-Muslims. I said that Shias can lie about whether or not they are Shia in the face of persecution. The circumstances are completely different and you have to be retarded to think otherwise.

I understand how they got it and why. You denied these things and then contradicted yourself.

That's because you don't give sources for them and are pulling them out of your ass.

Sure I did, and being that this thread is about the Crusades, it's entirely relevant.

Then prove it. I'm not going to put effort if you're not going to do anything.

I don't assume that people know what they're talking about, even when they say they do. Everybody is ill-informed on some matters sometimes, and sometimes more than they realize. It wasn't some kind of personal judgement on you.

Then can you admit that you are ill-informed on Islam?

By the same sort of people who went on crusades elsewhere. It's not all about Islam, you know.

Yeah I know and I don't see how this is relevant.

I think you're projecting a bit. I cannot admit to any of that.

You've been assuming that I am lying about everything I'm telling you about Islam which is suspiciously what you've been doing this entire time, lying about Islam. And I'm projecting.

[Oxymandias]

@SolarCross

Complete nonsense. If that is the best character assassination you can come up with that he used an alias with which to write and talk about Islam in public forums then he is practically a saint next to your prophet. Read the hadith and see how well Bill compares to the mass-murdering raping slaving pedophile false prophet.

Whataboutism won't get you anywhere. I don't know why you're getting so angry and defensive. And it's not a character assassination, it's mitigating his credibility. Using an alias and not his real name prevents people from looking into him and finding that the "PhD" he has is actually in physics which massively lowers his credibility.

An honest person would respectfully show how he is wrong and let other people decide his credibility.

I gave you a quote of an argument when I would be incapable of doing so due to internet issues. And what other people think of him is not in my control, I'm simply voicing an opinion and providing my reasoning for it.

In the first sentence he calls him an "Islamophobe". In the last he implies that his background in Physics and Maths makes him not fit to investigate Islamic history, nevermind the fact that physics and maths are far more rigorously rational discipline than history.

1. He called him an Islamophobe because of his words, not because of his degree. I don't know where you got this implication from.

2. Physics and math require different skill sets than historical analysis does. These skill sets Bill French does not possess. The logic of math does not go into history, which is primarily about managing information and it's validity.

Clearly he knows something, and more than most westerners, or he could not have written the books he did or make the presentations he did.

You don't have to know about something to write a book on it. To think otherwise is to be in denial.

Also no one is making any arguments against the "middle east" that is just geographical area, getting confused about this shows you to be a rather silly low iq person; the subject is Islam.

I used the term Middle East due to a lack of a better term. Would've you liked me to say "to validate actions or violence against Middle Easterners"? Also anyone who uses the insult "silly low iq person" certainly isn't one to talk.

the subject is Islam.

That's strange considering that the primary subject of most of Bill Warner's are Muslims and not Islamic theology

You are as much a waste time as POD; where are the capable pro-Islamic debaters?

I gave you a really informative post about Mohammed's interactions with pets and the specific pet he personally had. Then you insulted me. If there were any more knowledgeable of Islam debaters on this forum you'd just insult them.

So you say but it seems rather doubtful to me an "ex-Zoroastrian atheist" would be so keen to whitewash Islam and attempt to derail criticism with silly posturing. Taqiya? Or perhaps it is Stockholm syndrome? Neither Zoroastrianism nor atheism are safe affiliations under Islamic rule.

You realize if anyone talked about Zoroastrianism the same way you do about Islam I would be seen as a closet Zoroastrian all the same. Whenever my friends or parents say something anti-Western or anti-Christian, they think I've turned into a Christian Donald Trump supporter.

I am devil's advocate and I try to go against the tide.

[Oxymandias]

@annatar1914

BTW, if you don't give sources for your claims other than "Muslims believe this!" I'm not going to argue with any further. You clearly do not want to learn and would rather believe whatever you want even if it isn't true. There is no point in arguing with those who choose to be ignorant.