''decades''? Later, you somewhat contradict yourself. Now, keep in mind that some of the things I've said make sense from a Muslim perspective, especially if Islam happened to be true. Now personally I do not believe that, but so it is that if you take God seriously, Faith does have to be encompassing as a whole way of life, informing the social collective of human beings as well as personal being. And if there is any shred of concern for the salvation of one's fellow human beings, this concern also applies.
I am known to exaggerate. It doesn't change the fact that these concepts are outdated and aren't believed in by Muslims today. They didn't even exist during the time of Muhammed. Furthermore, you are going off-topic. It's not that what you're saying makes no sense, it's that what you're saying is wrong. 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. 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.
For context; are you a Twelver or Sevener Shia Muslim or some other sort of Shiite?
I am an ex-Zoroastrian. 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.
I don't believe so, because the following comment you make;
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.
Muslims have been under what they believed to be Caliphates during most of Islamic history, and the Caliphate is to be obeyed by Muslims to fight Kufr when so ordered.
Nope. It is in fact haram for the Caliphate to force Muslims to join the army or fight at all. This is why the Caliphate developed the professional army before Europeans did since the former could not rely on levies.
Right. And the Caliphate is the normative state of how an Islamic society should be organized under.
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
Reams of paper have been used over just this argument and it's denial.
Why don't you show me these reams of paper?
By the way, modern or historical examples are completely unrelated to theology which is what we are discussing.
As a Non-Muslim I am expected by you to be ''ignorant and biased about everything related to Islam'' almost by definition, ill-informed, otherwise you'd have to think that I'd be moved interiorly to convert and am just willfully against your religion.
I've actually most non-Muslims I have met know more about Middle Eastern and the basics of Islam than most Muslims. It's just that you are not one of them. 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.
If you don't believe me, just watch some videos about what Islamic scholars have to say about the subject. They literally have no reason to lie and often are very clear about the concepts present in Islam. They even have English versions.
am arguing that. They are states (not perhaps in the European secular modern sense) because all states come from the patriarchal family/collection of families in origin.
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. Also that isn't true since a state requires an organized political community under a central government. 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.
Muhammad did not shrink from warfare when he sensed he was obligated to do so, and he was the leader of the warriors gathered under his command.
He wasn't even the general of a majority of his battles. 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.
Islam also defines who are innocent.
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.
All Islamic wars are defined as out of self defense.
Nope. If it isn't out of self-defense, then they don't call it an "Islamic war".
From an Islamic perspective, any quote from the Quran I use, because I am a Non-Muslim, is considered out of context.
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.
And what quote would that be?
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. What Caliphates have done historically doesn't matter here since we are discussing theology.
If I did, you would be obligated to deny it.
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.
If you considered a certain religion to be a false one, that religion's perspective is already considered illegitimate by you. However it would be false to say that ''Muslims are liars'' as this is an unproven and unprovable generalization logically speaking.
Says the person who later goes on to state that Muslims are obligated to lie. Furthermore, your entire argument makes no logical sense.
Concealing the truth from an enemy of Islam is not considered a lie.
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.
Under Islamic rule and subject to obey guidelines as ''Dhimmis'', forced to pay the Jizya, etc..
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...).
Cite an example of that specifically if you would, please.
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)
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.
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.
These are just a couple of examples. I'm not even getting into the death toll.
I would expect any Islamic scholar worth his salt would disagree with me.
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.
You're right, I haven't met ''one'', I've met hundreds and known dozens personally.