Did Mohammed instruct his followers to spread the faith by the sword?

Factual Questions
41

Sorry to keep posting so much, but the fact is that when you get into the Hadiths and the history of early Islam while Mohammed was still alive, you realize that asking whether Mohammed instructedhis followers to spread the faith by the sword is like asking if Al Capone wanted his mob to use violence.

When it was alleged just after September 11 that Islam promises sexy virgins to Muslims who die for the “cause” in battle, there was an angry outcry. But in fact, promises of sex in paradise and heavenly reward to those who fight are recorded in multiple Hadiths. Please see this article by Ali Sina that details BOTH hadiths and verses from the Quran that promise rewards to a Mujahid who dies in battle. As an apostate, Ali Sina is admittedly not pro-Islam, but then again the Islamic apologists who claim Islam was founded as a religion of peace are not exactly unbiased either. Please see Faith Freedom International

42

[QUOTE=Valteron]
Wow! I have apparently achieved the status of the archetype irrational bigot! Who says I can’t amount to anything on this Board?
[/QUOTE]
If your goal is to follow any number of bigots who were pushing ignorance in direct conflict with the stated goal of the SDMB in a manner that flouts the rules of the Fora in which you are posting, you are perfectly welcome to do so, then join the horde of twits who have been banned for doing exactly that.

Valteron, you were not chastised for providing information. The stuff you have supplied in the last few posts is arguable, (both directions), and as such it is appropriate to this Forum as an effort to provide a factual answer even if we lack a time machine to provide absolute proof of a position.

You were, however, chastised for comments such as:

This nonsense was pure polemic and had no place in this discussion. If you want to go on about the “true nature” of a belief system, then you are simply expressing your opinion (or witnessing) and it is not appropriate, here.
If you want to make insulting comments about “useful idiots” you are both expressing an opinion inappropriate to this Forum and hurling insults outside the BBQ Pit.

If you are incapable of discerning the differences between your first post in this thread and your later posts, then you have no business posting in General Questions, because you appear to lack the capacity to understand and follow the rules.

43

Why isn’t this thread in GD?

44

Because it actually has a legitimate question that does not require a debate, despite the efforts of a couple of posters to turn it into a soapbox for their private views.

I believe Tamerlane has provided the best factual answer, but the thread has remained open in case someone can provide something even more concrete or better documented than his response.

45

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
For those who do not have the time to open the linked story, it should be noted that, in the context of a speech on dialogue between faiths, the pope was quoting Manuel II Paleologus, Byzantine emperor from 1391 to 1423 and not expounding any belief of his own.
[/QUOTE]
That seems disingenuous to me. If the Pope had read that quotation and then said something along the lines of “But I disagree with that”, it would be as you said. But when one quotes something and doesn’t take issue with it, the only valid conclusion to draw is that the speaker does agree with it.

46

Now that I’ve seen Captain Amazing’s link, I withdraw my comment regarding disingenuousness in my previous post. However, assuming the text at that link is just what the Pope said recently (which isn’t quite clear), I still think a fair-minded listener would conclude that the Pope included that quotation because he agreed with it, since he did not distance himself from those words.

47

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
If your goal is to follow any number of bigots who were pushing ignorance in direct conflict with the stated goal of the SDMB in a manner that flouts the rules of the Fora in which you are posting, you are perfectly welcome to do so, then join the horde of twits who have been banned for doing exactly that.

If you are incapable of discerning the differences between your first post in this thread and your later posts, then you have no business posting in General Questions, because you appear to lack the capacity to understand and follow the rules.
[/QUOTE]

**“There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil”

        ------- Alfred North Whitehead, a British mathematician and American philosopher, 1953.

“BIGOT, n. One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.”

              -------- Ambrose Bierce, the Devil's Dictionary

Polemic : n. An argument, dispute or controversy.

            - ----Dictionary of Canadian English

**
In the first place, Tomndebb, if you want to ban me from these boards go ahead. Frankly, I probably would use my time more profitably doing exercise or in volunteer work. But being constantly threatened with banning and being patronized by your explanations is far worse.

I have already gotten my $14 worth of entertainment seeing people pretend that questions such as “Did Mohammed instruct his followers to spread the faith by the sword?” can be treated with the same detached objectivity as “Why do gas barbecues make a popping sound when you shut off the gas?” The original OP question is NOT an objective question from the word “go”. It is a natural invitation to debate and polemics, and everyone knows it.

The phrase “useful idiots” is not just a gross insult; it is a term invented by Lenin to describe people who while not actually Communists themselves could serve the ultimate aims of a world Communist victory without realizing it by accepting and spreading propagnda designed to pacify and lull non-Communist countries. It was in this context that I was using it to describe non-Muslims who accept and repeat the contention that Islam is a religion of peace.

I note that in you opening paragrpah, you infer that I might be compared to “bigots… who were pushing ignorance in direct conflict with the stated goal of the SDMB in a manner that flouts the rules of the Fora in which you are posting, you are perfectly welcome to do so, then join the horde of twits who have been banned for doing exactly that.”

May I ask if a paragraph using words and expressions like “bigot” “pushing ignorance” and “horde of twits” could be likened to a polemic, or were the people you banned scientifically and medically diagnosed as “twits”? Was an objective, scientific standard used to determine that they were “pushing ignorance” ? Scientifically speaking, how many twits make up a “horde”?

There are no whole truths, Tomndebb. Outside of undeniably objective questions that carry no political baggage, such as “Why is the sky blue?”, most questions are MEANT to be answered by polemics and debate.