Moslem Conquests; A Short History of the Beginning of Islam

bhkad · 06-15-08, 03:52 AM

Moslem Conquests; A Short History of the Beginning of Islam

Quote:

The Moslem Conquests; A Short History of the Beginning of Islam

Edited by: Scott Holroyd

The name Islam means "Surrender" in Arabic. Islam became distinct from other religions of the time because of the preaching of Mohammed Quraysh (Quraysh is the tribe to which he belonged). Mohammed was born around 570 C.E. in Mecca in what is now Saudi Arabia. He was born into a religious culture of idols, polytheism and animism. The Ka'bah was already in existence in Mecca where a sacred piece of meteorite is surrounded by 360 idols. One for each day of the year. The Ka'bah was believed to be built by Adam, and repaired later by Abraham. So there is a great deal of overlap with Judaism. Every Muslim is directed to travel to the Ka'bah once in his life and walk around it seven times then touch the black stone on one of it's corners.

Muslim means "one who practices Islam". Qur'an, or Koran means Recitation. The Qur'an was recited by Mohammed between the years 610 C.E. until his death in 632 C.E. . Many of the stories of the Qur'an are parallels to the old testament with a few mentions of the new testament, Hebrew writings, and other earlier religions.

Soon after the completion of his teachings, Mohammed set out to get others to "surrender" to his own beliefs.

Reference: "Mankind's Search for God", by the Watch Tower Bible Society of New York, 1990.

For further reading read "Why I Am Not A Muslim"....read review

Quote:

Following are the accounts of the battles fought in the name of Islam by the generals of Mohammed. The entire accounts are taken from : "An Encyclopedia of Battles", by David Eggenberger, Dover Publications, 1985. These historical accounts are not taken from a theological point of view, rather tell the account of the battles as they happened from a historical perspective.

To understand Islam is to understand that from its very inception, it was a means by which a people subjugated the surrounding tribes and later entire nations. The following is quoted directly from Mr. Eggenberger:

Beginning with Mohammed, the Arabs carried the sword of Islam for about 350 years. From Arabia the Moslems overran the Middle East, North Africa, Portugal, Spain, and part of France before being checked. The Turks then became the most militant arm of Mohammedanism.

The Moslem Conquests, a short history of the beginning of Islam

This is a really good reference for anyone wanting a list of all the ancient Muslim battles and a short description of each one.

It deserves to be bookmarked.

Here is a particularly interesting listing I'm sure will come in handy the next time someone brings up the Crusades.

Quote:

637 C.E. The Battle for Jerusalem

Following their great victory on the Yarmuk River, one Arabian army pressed northward to Damascus while a second Moslem force launched an attack against Jerusalem. With no Byzantine army to defend them, the residents, under the patriarch Sophronius, rallied behind the city's walls. The strength of the Moslem armies lay in their hard-riding cavalry, which could do little against a fortified city except surround it.

For four months the Arabs, under the personal direction of Caliph Omar I, besieged Jerusalem. Finally, realizing the hopelessness of their isolated position, the defenders surrendered the city to Omar. Within the next year all of Palestine lay under Moslem rule.

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways · 06-15-08, 10:00 AM

Quite useful, thanks.

Mach · 06-16-08, 02:39 PM

Wow, in that context it looks just like U.S. law. I wonder if this means anything.

Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Removal, reservations, and forced assimilation

Shoshoni tipis, c.1900.See also: List of Indian reservations in the United States
In the nineteenth century, the incessant westward expansion of the United States incrementally compelled large numbers of Native Americans to resettle further west, often by force, almost always reluctantly. Under President Andrew Jackson, United States Congress passed the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which authorized the President to conduct treaties to exchange Native American land east of the Mississippi River for lands west of the river. As many as 100,000 Native Americans eventually relocated in the West as a result of this Indian Removal policy. In theory, relocation was supposed to be voluntary and many Native Americans did remain in the East such as the Choctaw who were first to be removed. In practice great pressure was put on Native American leaders to sign removal treaties.

The most egregious violation of the stated intention of the removal policy took place under the Treaty of New Echota, which was signed by a dissident faction of Cherokees but not the elected leadership. President Jackson rigidly enforced the treaty, which resulted in the deaths of an estimated 4,000 Cherokees on the Trail of Tears. About 17,000 Cherokees — along with approximately 2,000 black slaves held by Cherokees — were removed from their homes.[24]

A Choctaw Belle (1850)Indian Removal forced or coerced the relocation of major Native American groups in the Eastern United States, resulting directly and indirectly in the deaths of tens of thousands. The subsequent process of assimilations was no less devastating to Native American peoples. Tribes were generally located to reservations on which they could more easily be separated from traditional life and pushed into European-American society. Some southern states additionally enacted laws in the 19th century forbidding non-Indian settlement on Indian lands, with the intention to prevent sympathetic white missionaries from aiding the scattered Indian resistance.[25]

Little Turtle, defeated American forces at the Battle of the Wabash in 1791.At one point, President Jackson told people to kill as many American Bison as possible in order to cut out the Plains Indian's main source of food.[citation needed] There was enough greed in hunting without his encouragement. From overhunting due to trophy hunters and people hunting from trains, by 1885 there were fewer than 500 bison left in the Great Plains.[26]

Conflicts generally known as "Indian Wars" broke out between U.S. forces and many different tribes. U.S. government authorities entered into numerous treaties during this period but later abrogated many for various reasons. Military engagements included Native American victories at the Battle of the Wabash in 1791 and the Battle of Little Bighorn in 1876. Massacres included the Minnesota Massacre in 1862,[27] the Sand Creek Massacre in 1864 and the Wounded Knee in 1890.[28] These events, together with the near-extinction of the bison which many tribes had lived on, were catalysts to the decline of Prairie Culture that had developed around the use of the horse for hunting, travel and trading.

“ The Indian (was thought) as less than human and worthy only of extermination. We did shoot down defenseless men, and women and children at places like Camp Grant, Sand Creek, and Wounded Knee. We did feed strychnine to red warriors. We did set whole villages of people out naked to freeze in the iron cold of Montana winters. And we did confine thousands in what amounted to concentration camps.

independent_thinker2002 · 06-16-08, 09:47 PM

What's a Moslem?

I thought Islam meant "peace" in Arabic.

WI Crippler · 06-16-08, 09:58 PM

Why is it that every discussion about Islam is always redirected to either a debate about Christianity, or the US? Why are people unwilling to approach the subject of Islam exclusively?

I mean, I'm not claiming the US or christianity to have spotless records, or that they are even approaching a level of near perfection now. There are plenty of flaws to discuss. But they seem to be discussed when someone broaches the subject of Islam. Why the misdirection? Why deflect the topic? It happens just about every time.

Now I know the OP is certainley guilty of redirecting just about any thread into a discussion about Islam, so he is complicit in this kind of misdirection as anybody. But others start threads about these subjects, and the same tactics are employed. Why?

Why not discuss Islam on its own merits, its own history, its current state? Certainley people start threads about Christianity or the US to criticize it, and the thread usually stays on target.

To borrow a little something from Silence of the Lambs, why not point that high powered perspective towards Islam? Or are you afraid of what you will see?

independent_thinker2002 · 06-16-08, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WI Crippler

Why is it that every discussion about Islam is always redirected to either a debate about Christianity, or the US? Why are people unwilling to approach the subject of Islam exclusively?

I mean, I'm not claiming the US or christianity to have spotless records, or that they are even approaching a level of near perfection now. There are plenty of flaws to discuss. But they seem to be discussed when someone broaches the subject of Islam. Why the misdirection? Why deflect the topic? It happens just about every time.

Now I know the OP is certainley guilty of redirecting just about any thread into a discussion about Islam, so he is complicit in this kind of misdirection as anybody. But others start threads about these subjects, and the same tactics are employed. Why?

Why not discuss Islam on its own merits, its own history, its current state? Certainley people start threads about Christianity or the US to criticize it, and the thread usually stays on target.

To borrow a little something from Silence of the Lambs, why not point that high powered perspective towards Islam? Or are you afraid of what you will see?

I can tell you why. It's because it's tied to the war in Iraq. The people who want to criticize Islam do so with the alterior motives of justifying us being in Iraq. People derail it because they oppose the war. That and people are more familiar with Christianity than they are Islam.

WI Crippler · 06-16-08, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

I can tell you why. It's because it's tied to the war in Iraq. The people who want to criticize Islam do so with the alterior motives of justifying us being in Iraq. People derail it because they oppose the war. That and people are more familiar with Christianity than they are Islam.

You are probably right. If it wasn't for the Iraq war, very few on here would even give a **** about Islam(to include myself). Most people in America didn't care to understand anything about it even after 9/11. They just wanted their revenge on Al-Qaeda, and that was about it. The current struggle in Iraq, to me, gives us the opportunity to see Islam and all its factions, peaceful and otherwise, laid bare before our eyes. The problem I have, is that people continue to not really care to understand anything about Islam. For them, they remain unaffected by what happens over there, so they simply do not care to explore it. Its a very "American" attitude to have, I am sorry to admit.

Lightdemon · 06-16-08, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

What's a Moslem?

I thought Islam meant "peace" in Arabic.

"Surrendering" give rise to "Peace." Though, to be more accurate, believers are "surrendering" to God/Allah. That is why it brings peace.

It is no different than "accepting" Jesus as your Lord. In essense, I think it is the act of submitting yourself, your heart, to your religion.

But then again, what would I know? I'm not even religious.

Lightdemon · 06-16-08, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Beginning with Mohammed, the Arabs carried the sword of Islam for about 350 years. From Arabia the Moslems overran the Middle East, North Africa, Portugal, Spain, and part of France before being checked. The Turks then became the most militant arm of Mohammedanism.

The bolded word in the above paragraph is poorly chosen, I think. Conquered could have been better. As it would have implied a sense of nation building and imperialistic behavior, which is exactly what had happened and what was planned. But to use the word "overran" implies the same thing, except without the glory I suppose. Rome had conquered and not overran the Mediterranean. Great Britain had conquered much of the world in the 18th - 19th Century, not overran. Same could be said of France and Napoleon.

There is a certain status that is implied if one conquers, rather than "overruns" a territory. And certain status is linked to the legitimacy of rule. This is perhaps linked to the acknowledgement that the people of the East can defeat the West. That "developed" Western societies, such as Byzantium, Spain, and France, can be conquered by the likes of the "backward" societies of the East.

I find that a certain type of attitude can be read from just that one poorly chosen word. An attitude whose facial gesture can be produced by placing a skunk under someone's nose, while pointing your chin high so that others may see the hair of your nostrils.

scourge99 · 06-17-08, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mach

Wow, in that context it looks just like U.S. law. I wonder if this means anything.

Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The significant difference is secular government policies are much easier and much more readily repealed or amended than that which claims to be divine in origin.