Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Western Imperialism: The reason for growth of radical islam and poor muslim lands Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    This is laughable. You quoted a Source that says that an army was about to invade Arabia as proof of what? You just proved my point. Muhammad was attacked first So it is not imperialism to fight off an attacker, thus proving that the Muslims were not imperialists. Thanks for the assistance.
    You refuse to read any academic sources on the topic you are trying to debate--could you at least read the posts you are responding to?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
    You refuse to read any academic sources on the topic you are trying to debate--could you at least read the posts you are responding to?

    Response: In other words, you still can produce a logical rebuttal to support your bogus claim. Thanks for clarifying.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Response: Whether the states were weak or not has nothing to do with their intent and allegiance with the Byzantine empire, the same empire that was fixed on imperialism.
    I guess they really wanted to stamp out their allegiance, even 200 years after the fall of constantinople.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    This is laughable. You quoted a Source that says that an army was about to invade Arabia as proof of what? You just proved my point. Muhammad was attacked first So it is not imperialism to fight off an attacker, thus proving that the Muslims were not imperialists. Thanks for the assistance.
    Mohammed (his state historians/propagandists) claims that the Byzantines were about to attack, not that they actually did. And those same guys also admit that there was no Byzantine army planning to attack! They didn't find that out until they already launched a bloody war against Byzantium, and what the hell, might as well finish taking their land since we started. Oops!

    I always find it interesting having these debates with muslim nationalists, because as someone brought up to a large extent on the history of the British Empire, I remember these same sorts of self-serving myths, either some convoluted way we were defending ourselves, or a justification after the fact. The difference is that while most people in the British Empire - even at the time - seemed to say these things with a wry smile understanding that it was really just about denying influence and money to others who could be dangerous, Islamists seem to really believe it.

    The bottom line is, your view of Islam as a helpless weak movement at the mercy of evil foreigners is anachronistic. This has been the case for maybe 100 years, of which only about 30 years saw actual Western rule of most (but not all) Islamic countries. For about 1,000 years, from the 700s to the 1700s, it was the Islamic world that was generally both stronger and more aggressive. The Arabs first colonised the Middle East and North Africa, to the extent that today they are just regarded as the native inhabitants and culture. They then moved on to Europe, conquering much of Spain and the Balkans. Most of the conflicts today in the latter are the result of the aftermath of the Ottoman Empire; a sort of post-Apartheid South Africa on the borders of Europe.

    The fact you have to explain is how the Islamic world became weak enough to be conquered in the first place, and this isn't really a mystery: poor economic development followed from its poor cultural and political institutions. And blame for that must rest to a great extent on Islam, or at least the fact that people there take it a lot more seriously than people in the modern West take Christianity. The Ottoman Empire and the like did not become weaker; rather, the West became stronger and left them behind.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Mohammed (his state historians/propagandists) claims that the Byzantines were about to attack, not that they actually did. And those same guys also admit that there was no Byzantine army planning to attack! They didn't find that out until they already launched a bloody war against Byzantium, and what the hell, might as well finish taking their land since we started. Oops!

    I always find it interesting having these debates with muslim nationalists, because as someone brought up to a large extent on the history of the British Empire, I remember these same sorts of self-serving myths, either some convoluted way we were defending ourselves, or a justification after the fact. The difference is that while most people in the British Empire - even at the time - seemed to say these things with a wry smile understanding that it was really just about denying influence and money to others who could be dangerous, Islamists seem to really believe it.

    The bottom line is, your view of Islam as a helpless weak movement at the mercy of evil foreigners is anachronistic. This has been the case for maybe 100 years, of which only about 30 years saw actual Western rule of most (but not all) Islamic countries. For about 1,000 years, from the 700s to the 1700s, it was the Islamic world that was generally both stronger and more aggressive. The Arabs first colonised the Middle East and North Africa, to the extent that today they are just regarded as the native inhabitants and culture. They then moved on to Europe, conquering much of Spain and the Balkans. Most of the conflicts today in the latter are the result of the aftermath of the Ottoman Empire; a sort of post-Apartheid South Africa on the borders of Europe.

    The fact you have to explain is how the Islamic world became weak enough to be conquered in the first place, and this isn't really a mystery: poor economic development followed from its poor cultural and political institutions. And blame for that must rest to a great extent on Islam, or at least the fact that people there take it a lot more seriously than people in the modern West take Christianity. The Ottoman Empire and the like did not become weaker; rather, the West became stronger and left them behind.
    Response: In other words, your proof that Muhammad invaded the Byzantine empire despite there being no attack or plan to attack by the Byzantines is not from an eyewitness account, nor is is from a source that you can prove is reliable with proof that the author of the source is truthful. So your idiocy, as usual, fails.

    But this is what I love about propagandists against. islam. They quot a source that they claim supports their position but can't prove the author of the source is telling the truth. Furthermore, the fact that you claim something is true because "it says so" shows that your logic stes from being brainwashed. Since when was hearsay from being brainwashed ever logical evidence?

    The difference between your logic and the muslims is that muslims can prove that Muhammad fought in self-defense and refute your bogus propaganda. Not by using the brainwashed logic you present which is "it's true because the book says so", but from a hands-on eyewitness account. You see, your idiocy suggests the folowing:

    "Muhammad conquered a nation by inspiring people to follow his made up religion by using force"

    Yet such an act is humanly impossible. But wait, you say this is what happened right? Then I challenge you show that you can just just simply out wrestle 5 people by yourself, or anyone for that matter. That's it. You will fail and fail miserably. And when you do, you will also learn from a first-hand eywitness account that using aggression to overtake just 5 people is humanly impossible, which easily refutes the idiotic claim that Muhammad did so to conquer a nation. But wait, Muhammad had an army you say. Well, we see that getting the army by aggression fails. So what's next? Oh I see, he inspired people to follow him in conquering a nation. But the Qur'an challenge debunks that.


    "Itis humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough people to follow him/herto conquer a nation by using humanmande speech/literature that goes against thelikes and beliefs of those people."

    This is the miracle of Muhammad. For the challenge proves that it is humanlyimpossible to use any speech or literature that goes against the majority andis invented by a person/s, to inspire enough followers amongst them to conquera nation. The skeptic still disagrees? Then take the challenge and provedifferently. Try using a speech or literature that does not agree with thelikes of a majority of people that is an invention by a person/s. Then use thatvery same speech to inspire them to conquer a nation and see what happens. Thechallenge can even be simplified by asking a skeptic to just conquer the streetthat he or she lives on and see what happens. Yet the person will fail and failmiserably. Yet no person will come close to achieving the challenge. Anyindividual, when taking the challenge, will have a first-hand eyewitnessaccount from experience and observation that such acts are humanly impossibleand that is when the person will learn the miracle of Muhammad. Why? The reasonis because Muhammad used the Qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer anation in the same fashion. So if it is humanly impossible to use speech orliterature that goes against the likes of the masses to inspire them to followa person/s and conquer a nation, yet Muhammad used the Qur'an to do just that,then what does that mean? That means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used is notthe invention of any human but must come from a higher power and authoritygreater than humans, and that is Allah. Do the skeptics still disagree? Thentake the challenge and prove differently. When the challengers fail, becausethey will, this will help to demonstrate that the Qur’an is of divine origin asproven by the scientific method itself because it provides a hands-oneyewitness account that producing something like the Qur’an is humanlyimpossible. If you read this, and you yourself disagrees, then take thechallenge and prove differently.



    Simply put, your logic that Muhammad either made up a religion or conquered by using agression is "because a book says so" which is hearsay. Yet, we can see from a hands-on eyewitness account that not only is the Qur'an the true word of Allah, but Muhammad's conquest was a miracle and not done by aggression. Hearsay is not more credible than an eyewitness account. Debunked as usual.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.