cont..

The hadith itself is as follows:

"Nu’aym b. Hammad records in his Kitab al-Fitan (The Book of Tribulations):
“It is related on the authority of ‘Ali (may Allah ennoble his countenance): ‘When you see the black flags, remain where you are and do not move your hands or your feet (It’s a common phrase meaning: “Stay put and don’t get involved in the fighting”). Thereafter there shall appear a feeble folk to whom no concern is given. Their hearts will be like fragments of iron. They are the representatives of the State (Ashab al-Dawla). They will fulfill neither covenant nor agreement. They will invite to the truth, though they are not from its people. Their names will be agnomens [i.e., Abu So-and-so], and their ascriptions will be to villages. Their hair will be long like that of women. [They shall remain so] till they differ among themselves, and then Allah will bring forth the truth from whomever He wills.”

Source: http://splendidpearls.org/2014/07/04/isis-and-the-end-of-times/

Ustadh Abdul Aziz Suraqah then identifies the following list of of similiaries between the group described by the Prophet and ISIS

1. Black flags: ISIS use black flags.
2. Feeble: They are newcomers to the fight in Syria and relative nobodies till they took swathes of land that was taken by other fighters.
3. Hearts like fragments of iron: Watch any of their videos and judge for yourself.
4. Ashab al-Dawla: They call themselves, the Dawla (State).
5. Breaking agreements: They broke agreements and refused Shariah arbitration.
6. Invite to the truth, though not from its people: Yes, they’re Khawarij (Separatists).
7. Their names will be agnomens: Of course, they’re a bunch of Abu Fulans.
8. Their ascriptions will be to villages: Villages here could be read as cities; most of them are al-Iraqi, al-Misri, al-Maghribi, al-Tunisi, etc.
9. Long hair: See Abu Ibrahim and the other assorted characters."

So next time you hear agnomens with ascriptions to places, such as Abu Mansour Al Australi or Abu Asma al-Australi, you'll know that these are a people who have gone against the warning of their Prophet knowingly or unknowingly.

Dear Yuyutsu.

If I am reading you right, your claim is that Mohammad has been slandered. He was a really nice bloke. A pacifist/ warlord who conducted 58 successful military campaigns to spread Islam by force, but who was just kidding really. He didn't mean to hurt anybody by leading armies and conquering other places for his religion. It was all just pretend. His religion was all about peace, love and mung beans, and that was what was in the Koran. All of the violence in the Koran to spread Islam was in there only because his followers rewrote the Koran after Mohammad's death to be a violence endorsing religion. We should not judge Mohammad as a monster because he was never subject to a western style criminal trial.

Yeah, sure.

Of course, you don't have any evidence to support your bizarre premise, other than your conviction that holy men must be really nice guys because they talk to God. And since Mohammad was a holy man who talked to God, then he must have been a nice guy. God would not talk to a psychotic murderer who married and screwed little girls and who beheaded anybody who did not convert to his religion, would he? Therefore, Mohammad must have been defamed.

Yeah, that makes sense. And of course, since you can't bring any evidence to support your wacky premise, you seriously think that the onus is upon me to disprove it. And if I can't disprove it, then it must be true.

Cuckoo. Cuckoo.

It just goes to show how debilitating religious thought can be to the human ability to think rationally and logically.

Since no-one who has made the accusation that Islam was 'spread by the sword' has come forth with any serious scholarly that would support their position, we can presume they have none. Perhaps they are too embarrassed to disclose the source of their views!

The following is from a leading scholar of the History of Islam, John Esposito. His credentials? He just happens to be editor of the Oxford History of Islam. this is what he has to say on the issue:

"Driven by the economic rewards from conquest of richer, more developed areas, united and inspired by their new faith, Muslim armies proved to be formidable conquerors and effective rulers, builders rather than destroyers. They replaced the conquered countries, indigenous rulers and armies, but preserved much of their government, bureaucracy, and culture. For many in the conquered territories, it was no more than an exchange of masters, one that brought peace to peoples demoralized and disaffected by the casualties and heavy taxation that resulted from the years of Byzantine-Persian warfare. Local communities were free to continue to follow their own way of life in internal, domestic affairs. In many ways, local populations found Muslim rule more flexible and tolerant than that of Byzantium and Persia. Religious communities were free to practice their faith to worship and be governed by their religious leaders and laws in such areas as marriage, divorce, and inheritance. In exchange, they were required to pay tribute, a poll tax (jizya) that entitled them to Muslim protection from outside aggression and exempted them from military service. Thus, they were called the "protected ones" (dhimmi). In effect, this often meant lower taxes, greater local autonomy, rule by fellow Semites with closer linguistic and cultural ties than the hellenized, Greco-Roman élites of Byzantium, and greater religious freedom for Jews and indigenous Christians. Most of the Christian churches, such as the Nestorians, Monophysites, Jacobites, and Copts, were persecuted as heretics and schismatics by Christian orthodoxy."

Source: John L. Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988 (1st edition).
reproduced here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~vika/TeachPort/islam00/esposito/chapt2.html

if those practising Islam today are in total denial what hope have we of a truthful history from them.

"In the later Qur’an there is much that doesn’t agree with this – warlike, hating, misogynist, and sectarian conflicts but this is the core of it,"

And how do we decide which bit of the Quran is "core" and which bits we can ignore? Since all of the Quran is the Quran, you must bring something external to it to make this judgment. And since you are judging the Quran by an external standard, it is clear that it is that standard that constitutes what you really believe.

Exactly the same as christians and the bible. I used to be one.

"And how do we decide which bit of the Quran is "core" " - PaulMurrayCbr

This touches another facet of the way Moslems and Western apologists seeking protection for Islam's quest to rule the world and close down dissent duck and weave.

To these

*What’s in the news media is lies.
*Most Moslems are good people.
*Islam is a race and it’s racist to diss it.
*Can’t blame Islam for fundamentalism.
*Christians do wicked things too.
*This stuff is Islamophobia.
*This stuff is right wing (or left wing – take your pick).

add

**The core message of Islam is what one chooses

Here's a simple criterion for identifying the core message:

Islam is what Islam does when free of restraints. For example when it dictates the legal structure of a state, or when it otherwise has people at its mercy such as in a terrorist operation or a beheading or a stoning or simply in the life of a suburb or a household where it holds sway. Its recorded chapter and verse are protected by taqiyya and abrogation -- qv.