Yes and I said it was not spread by sword but they used other means Such as : power in local community, privilige, lower taxes, no wife sharing and similar things if you became believer. The same thing other religions and even local "maters" did. Dark ages thingy
Everybody was doing it ! Moral values and life were different then. We cannot judge and condemn people from that time. For example everyone talks how great Roman empire was and yet roman empire was big and powerful because there was kill, steal and destroy, slaves working for nothing etc....
I was referring to the list posted in this thread. I was talking about the modern examples posted in this very thread. All of the incidents of forced conversion are recent and have nothing to do with moral values of some historical period. In 2001 the Indonesian In 2004 Coptic Christians in Egypt In August 2006 two journalists It was reported in February 2007 In May 2007, members of the Christian community
I am not Muslim, but why would an avatar/prophet of God/Allah need to be able to read or write. Assume for a minute that such a man was the herald of the correct interpretation of the Word (okay, assume for a minute the there is the Word in the first place, then assume the other part). Assume that man realigned the faith of 1/5th or more of the world's population. Being that he was so successful, why would he need to be able to read or write? Lack of certain skills does not mean that one can't have other skills. That is merely a refutation of the argument that an illiterate person could be a prophet. If one were truly a prophet and speaking the words God/whomever gave to him, what does reading/writing have to do with it? But let's look at the assumption of the argument in the first place. Was Muhammad illiterate? What proof do you have. I would say that he was not illiterate. In addition to being revered as a prophet, he was a merchant, diplomat, philosopher, orator, legislator, and more in an area that actually had a high literacy rate for the time (7th century). It is likely that he would have needed literacy for at least one of those things. In addition, he was very much for education. It seems likely that even had he not learned them as a younger man when he was running a successful business that he would have learned later in life as part of his quest to expand his knowledge. I know that some Muslims probably will not agree with me on this point, but it makes sense to me. I think that the main passage that points to the "illiteracy" actually points the lack of scripture in the Arab world. This topic isn't really about that, so I am not trying to start an argument on whether he was illiterate or not. But again, even if he couldn't read, that has little bearing on being a prophet. (If one believes in dieties in the same way as religions do) ---------------------------------- On other religions and recent examples of forced conversions, there were cases of it in Eastern Europe during WWII and cases of it still in China. Oddly though, in all the big cases involving modern Christianity did not involve forcing non-Christians to convert, rather forcing Christians of one denomination being forced into a different Christian denomination. And as far as it involving Christians forcing non-Christians to convert, it was not so long ago that Christians should now feel uppity about it, especially when the Imperialistic West has done its fair share to ensure that the parts of the world that are mostly Muslim stayed quite far behind in development. I'm not saying they did it because that part of the world was Muslim. I'm saying they did it because they were Imperialistic.
Many respected and solid sources cite the Prophet as illiterate, he only spoke when God put words into his mouth. He is the unspoken Prophet!
The passage from the Qur'an (Sura 7:157) uses the term ummi which more closely translates in English to unlettered. Some would read this to mean illiterate, but this seems inconsistent with usage of the term later in the Qur'an. In Sura 62:2 the plural of that word is used (ummiyyun) and refers to a people. The unlettered people would be Arabs, and it is well known that particularly those of the Mecca area at that time were quite familiar with written language. The lettered people would be the Jews and the Christians and the letters spoken of would be the scriptures. Granted, I did not do this translation myself as I cannot speak 7th century Arabic (sorry, make that 9th-10th century Arabic as the Qur'an was not written down until much later). But given the translation and how the word was used in the various passages, it does not seem to speak of illiteracy rather a people without scripture. And he did quite a lot of speaking after his first revelation. He spoke with his wife, he preached to many people while he united the Arab tribes, and he provided his revelations orally as he received them. Whether I am right about it or not has no bearing on whether a man can be a prophet without literacy.
Sorry for the mistake and definitely I shall remember your good point next time if such thing happened to me. Thanks once more.
It's a very basic skill and makes no sense for one who spreading the very best spiritual teaching to not be able to read what others wrote as the word of God. I as many other Christians and non Christians don't buy it. Spreading a spiritual teaching that comes from God is a REALY SERIOUS MATTER and God would never give that task to somebody who is not ready. "................the Imperialistic West has done its fair share to ensure that the parts of the world that are mostly Muslim stayed quite far behind in development. I'm not saying they did it because that part of the world was Muslim. I'm saying they did it because they were Imperialistic........." Nobody is stopping democracy in the muslim countries. (Just recently Turkey blocked youtube.com. Is that again the west's fault?) I don't want you poor and I don't want your Oil. I don't share Bush's ideas.
It's a very basic skill now, but it was not a basic skill in the 7th century. Heck, even today some studies show that close to 50% of adult Americans read so poorly that they are functionaly illiterate. In Europe reading and writing was only for the clergy and wealthy land owners. until well after th middle ages. In Sweden people were required to learn to read in 1686, but most people could not write in Sweden until the 19th century. How does that make it a basic skill in historical context? Why is literacy required to teach God's word from the mouth of God when you are teaching to a people that don't write much down and learn mostly orally? What does reading and writting have to do with that? Not much. The books of the Old Testament/Tanakh were passed down orally for hundreds of years before they were written down. Did you know that there are only two passages in the New Testament that make any reference to Jesus's literacy? One of those was not even part of the early Christian Bible, and the other passage was written in Luke, which was actually written by an anonymous author and started in 63-64 A.D. There is no specific evidence the author was even at the event where he describes Jesus reading a passage from Isiah. Historically speaking, it is very unlikely that somebody born into the status that Jesus was would have learned to read. You still have not shown either of two things. One, that literacy is needed to teach the word of God (who was fine with passing his Word down orally for generations) to a people that mostly did not possess that skill in the first place (much less that it would provide actual benefit to do so). In fact, according to Christian faith God specifically chose His Son to be born by a young girl from a lowly class that was to marry a man from a lowly class. Why did he do this? To have somebody that was closer to the people that they would listen to and because the wealthy were corrput. Two, that Muhammad was illiterate. You have not even bothered to try to back up your argument except to say a lot of other people say it. Do your own thinking and come up with an actual response. Until then your argument has no weight. As far as nobody stopping Democracy in Muslim countries. Until vey recently the US has worked to help the installation of dictators into power in many Muslim countries. The Imperial era (where much of the government of these countries was dictatd by Westerners thousands of miles away) just ended in the early middle of the 20th century. So a way of life that took Westerners hundreds of years to develop and generations of bloody wars to accept and get to the point they are at now should just automatically be picked up by the very people that were oppressed by those countries almost immediately after they got their freedom. That doesn't even make sense. You may not want their poor or their oil (not mine as I am a whitebread American) but you are not the one in charge of the policies of this or any other nation. So your desires have little impact on those that only see what the policies of those nations do to them and don't see your thoughts. (Oh, and I assume that since you don't want their oil you either pay a premium to get guaranteed US gas or don't own a car.)
I think every nation spread itself by sword,if you do not want to spread your idea to others',you will simply spread by others'.Now American spread its culture by KFC.
LOL, It was a very basic skill for clergy people those who were reading the scriptures to teach others about the Kingdom of God. A spiritual teacher or master is held to the highest possible standards. He is to be an example to others in every little detail. Muhamad was married 13 times right? How in the world that could be an example for others to follow? The sister of a guy I know from the Middle East was married to a man almost 40 years older than her. She was about 20 and he about 60 when they got married. Now they have two children. She doesn't like him, and she never did, but she cannot leave him. She didn't choose him. Her parents arranged the marriage. Islam does not allow freedom of speech as everyone knows. A number of people died about some cartoons supposedly of Muhammad. I don't know why they believed that in the cartoons it was the picture of Muhammad since there is nobody who can tell was that really him on the cartoons or not. These guys are so fanatical ...... Stick with Islam if you like it so much, it is not for me. I wish you all the best.
Well don't project history into today's moral values. At that time it was nothing unusual to have more wives and young ones so people kind of didn't think there was something wrong with Muhamad moral values since the rest did the same long before Muhamad came. This is not religious thing and has nothing to do with islam really. Those kind of thing happened long before islam came. So no religious stuff here. About freedom of speech and freedom of life ( women ) I agree with you. It is not for me also but I am not here to judge them. To each his own ...
Yes, with him saying about Muhammeds wives, he was implying that, same with the people that critisize Muhammed marrying a girl at a young age, it is to support her, not to have sex with her.
I beg to differ please quote the posts that support your statement. I guess it must be a nightmare for a 20 yo gal to marry a 60 yo old man. This has to do with age gap and generational differences.
I'm talking about Muhammed, not the 60 year old man and the 20 yr old woman. I clearly stated that in my post.