Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Understanding Islam -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sultan who wrote (278)	10/29/2001 11:39:52 PM
From: uu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2926

Dear Sultan, Thanks for the link you provided on prophet Mohammad. I started reading it till I came to the following statement at which time I stopped reading for which it became apparent to me the author is either blindly and foolishly biased or simply ignorant of well documented facts. From the article it says: "But in pure self-defense, after repeated efforts of conciliation had utterly failed, circumstances dragged him into the battlefield. But the prophet of Islam changed the whole strategy of the battlefield... With all due respect to you, and the author of the article I have to respectfully and strongly disagree. And I do not have to go through many examples as why I think above statement is not only ridiculously false but also offensive to many many (cultures such as Persians/Iranians) who have been brutalized over the past 1500 years by the Arabic culture that was enforced on them through Islam 1500 years ago. Without going into the details and I sincerely hope you do a bit of study on the Old persian history, and especially on Zoroastrianism (which was the religion of the ancient Persia), The last of the old Persian empir dynasty was Sassanid, whose last king was Yazdegerd III, during whose reign (632-41) the Arabs invaded Persia, destroyed all resistance through absolute usage of force, rape, and killings of thousands, gradually replaced Zoroastrianism with Islam through force, and incorporated Persia through horrific destructions of their rich cultural background, into the caliphate. Arabs invasion was not provoked by Persia. The claim that Mohammad attacked purely for self defense is not only laughable but offensive. Mohammad and his followers initiated the attacks to spread their ideology across the world. And I guess that is OK, after all, all ancient cultures spread through invasion and conqure of other lands and cultures (from Romans, to Greeks, to Persians). But to promote the notion that Mohammd and his followers spread their ideology through peaceful means is - with all due respect - wrong. What is most offensive is the very notion of creating the perception that Mohammad and his followers attacked purely for self defense. Especially when for example Anicent cultures and societies (such as Persia) are concerned. You see, for some cultures that were brutalized by Arabs (lead by Mohammad and/or his followers), such statements would be similar to making the statement that Nazis killed and destroyed the Jews purely for self defense. Regards,

To: Sultan who wrote (278)	10/30/2001 8:34:32 PM
From: IN_GOD_I_TRUST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2926

Sultan, Where am I coming from? I am trying to be objective. I am exploring history and the Qu'ran, I think in context and historically. Muhammad did what he did, and the violence is documented in the Islamic books. I am not making anything up. I can post more about the subject if need be. What we are trying to do is "Understand Islam". And the facts are what they are. I am not making anything up or manufacturing anything. In fact, I am going out of my way to stick to the Islamic holy books. So again, where am I coming from? I'll answer that by saying I am trying to find out if Islam should be considered a viable religion, and if the terroist attacks can truly be justified by the Qu'ran and Hadith. And I think we are finding out they could be, even though all Muslims might not think so. God Bless, IGIT