Hi Philo, thanks for your question. I actually have lots of answers. One of them is that despite the nuns trying to brainwash me as a kid, I moved on from there, educated myself and learnt to think about how I feel. Call it emotional literacy if you please.

All my bad points are quite easy to explain. When I look at the geneology of my family, I am the product of that dna, good and bad.
Mind you, when my mom complains about me, she doesent really like my explanation that its all her fault for me turning out as I did,
I was still only a twinkle in my fathers eyes. They are responsible for the rest of it :)

If you want to understand people, understand our history, our dna,
how we evolved, how our brains work. The rest kind of falls into place, if you bother to inform yourself.

Now to the bad news. As I have posted twice in a short time, I won't be able to respond for 24 hours to any further questions, which is the rule of this forum. :(

PART 2 for Dawood.

The underlying assertion by that article, when it states "There was a defacto state of war" is this:

"Islam has the legitimate right to engage in aggressive warfare to conquer territory."

One only need look at a map of the growth of Islamic Territory, to realise this is how the 'rightly guided caliphs' understood their situation and the 'sunnah' of mohamed.

There is no validity in suggesting that because today the 'West' controls most of the world, that the assumed 'defacto state of war' has diminished in the minds of true Muslims. (To do so would be a denial of the Sunnah itself.) In fact, if anything, it is WORSE today for Islam than during the early days.

I cannot imagine any Muslim who has a level of historical awareness of the 'glory days' thinking otherwise.

He goes on....

<<Still, the Muslim conquests were neither for the sole purpose of conversion nor annihilating the infidel. In addition to the fact that non-Muslims paid higher taxes -- and thus non-conversion operated to the financial advantage of the state -- the rules of jihad stipulated that non-Muslims remained free to practice their religion upon payment of the so-called jizya>>

Now.. am important question.

"Were the Christians free to PROPOGATE the gospel among all people of the Islamic state " ?

Because to 'practice' our faith means to evangelise and proclaim the gospel to all without fear or favor.

The popular Muslim mantra of "Christians were free to practice" is incorrect. Given that apostacy in Islam is a crime punishable by death, then how much more would 'luring and enticing' to another faith (as they would see it) be illegal in an Islamic state ?

So, for Christians, Islam would be the most pernicous form of spiritual darkness which could ever infest the land. Can God be gagged ? Hardly. Nor does He need armies to conquer pagan lands.
Military territorial expansion is a denial of the Gospel and Truth of God, but not a denial of Islam.

Dawood and FH,

A few weeks ago I asked FH for links to Muslim sites that question the authority, authenticity and use of the hadiths. I am still waiting.

Also please give me references to Islamic sites that debate and explain the nature of the verses I mention so often (you know, torture, the murder of Asma, shagging the slave woman, be ruthless to the infidels, etc...). There are some but not many, because Muslims don't want to talk about them. Even when the explanations can be found they are pitiful (I like the one where the Muslim explains that Asma had to die because Mohammed was weak and he could have been defeated - that is why Mo's buddies had to kill the old woman that criticized him. So Great Allah had to let the old lady die so Mohammed could establish the true faith. Pretty sick!).

Anyway, I expect to see some great links here soon from you guys that will resolve this question. Boy, am I so afraid!

On the other hand I can give you dozens of sites that consider the hadiths as integral to Islam. Not just any sites, but the big names in Muslim Internet. Shall we have at it? Do you want to go first or do you want me to start?

The fact is that all but 1,199,999,998 Muslims consider them valid expressions of Islam and Mohammed's life. The fact that the hadiths have been there and have been cited probably billions of times without anybody being concerned about the verses promoting hate, anger and oppression also says alot about Islam. The fact that Muslims typically choose certain verses to use when talking to non-Muslims, or misquote others, while ignoring other verses and accounts, also tells you a lot about Muslims.

Kactuz

Once again, a topic raised by a Muslim has devolved into a Islam = 'bad' versus Christianity = 'good'.

An example of this is the ever predictable Kactuz stating:

"The fact that Muslims typically choose certain verses to use when talking to non-Muslims, or misquote others, while ignoring other verses and accounts, also tells you a lot about Muslims."

Well, try this Mr Kactuz:

"The fact that Christians typically choose certain verses to use when talking to non-Christians, or misquote others, while ignoring other verses and accounts, also tells you a lot about Christians."

Works doesn't it? Examples of selective Christianity abound throughout this forum from our ever vigilant Christian contingent.

IMHO, all religions (I know this has been stated before - needs repeating) have both good and bad philosophies within their doctrines. Majority of people simply want to do the right thing and get along with their lives and with other people.

This 'my religion is better than yours' is indicative of the childish nature of religion and is a waste of debating space.

As Yabby clearly and intelligently stated; humans evolved to ask questions and find explanations. Where we have gaps in our knowledge, many of us have sought supernatural explanations. When we find answers, they become knowledge. For example, a solar eclipse is now understood as a natural occurance between the sun, moon and earth and is no longer regarded as an act of the malevolent gods.

Very basic stuff - many people find religion reassuring in a difficult and often frightening universe. Prefer reality myself.

Shakira, quite rightly and justifiably, stated that Muslims have as much to fear from terrorists as do the rest of us.

So just what has all this debate been about?

What has it achieved?

No one is changing their position and insults have been flying thick and fast.

Clearly humans have a lot more emotional intelligence to develop before we can consider ourselves civilised.

Kactuz: I never said the hadith are not part of Islam, I merely questioned your Shaykh bin Googlin' understanding of them, compared the process those who understand the hadith from the orthodox tradition go through.

1) No one said they are infaliable. The only people who say this are those like yourself and extremists. To state that is to go clearly against the orthodox majority who have been authenticating hadith for over 1000 years. It did not stop at Bukhari and his Jami al-Sahih, although it is used as a reference point a lot.

2) Hadith are a composite picture of the early history of the Muslims, as well as what Muhammad may or may not have said/done. They are a type of oral transmission. They employ a type of selective narrative because the people in the chain selectively chose to remember these specific things, and not others. This is basic human sciences 101.

3) Hadith generally do not show the historical context of the saying/incident, as well as the status of those who transmitted it. That is a completely different area, that you also can't find online but in classical books or from scholars. Which you don't listen to.

4) Something is deemed "authentic" and the various other grades (there are over 10) by virtue of the chain of transmission. Content analysis is a different matter altogether.

5) Again you keep arguing about these incidents which are a matter of history and not of Islamic law. They are not normative, and I am unaware of any apart from extremists who even make reference to these incidents in order to justify anything, let alone harp on about them as much as you do. If you accept the hadith which was gathered and graded according to the Islamic requirements, why don't you accept the Islamic understanding of them as well?

BOAZ_David: [[[The underlying assertion by that article, when it states "There was a defacto state of war" is this:

"Islam has the legitimate right to engage in aggressive warfare to conquer territory."]]]

I am confused how you can infer the 2nd part from the original quote. If you read the original article it clearly states that the 'state of war' was relating to pre-Islamic Arabia, and the tribal feuds which were common place, not to mention the status of the neighbouring empires around them.

"In this society, war (harb, used in the senses of both an activity and a condition) was in one sense a normal way of life; that is, a 'state of war' was assumed to exist between one's tribe and all others, unless a particular treaty or agreement had been reached with another tribe establishing amicable relations."

So even from the Professors original quote, it clearly gives a number of options, including peace treaties and the cementing of relationships. Hardly what you described at all as an aggressive taking of territory. Pre-Islamic history, and the Qur'an itself supports this clearly in numerous places.