Muslim theology emphasizes the idea that entire world must be Muslim, and that this should be achieved by conquest

And this, this is the worst fucking argument used by apologists.
Islam is Quran and hadiths, plus some other sources but that's not relevant.
There are many schools of interpreting both, but overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars agree on everything I said.

>Islam is Quran and hadiths

>she will never give you a blowie on the street
Also, this is a giant bait thread. Kills yourself OP

Theology doesn't really matter, people interpret their own faith and own religion the way they want to.

Go cry about it on reddit

Christianity was never the same, and spread of Christianity was a lot more peaceful and far slower than spread of Islam.
Christian values are a lot different.
Christians did much shit of course, but little of that was motivated by religion.

>spread of Christianity was a lot more peaceful and far slower than spread of Islam

just fucking stop posting, you imbecile.

I already do. I'm on Reddit right now.

Then what is Islam?
Yes, and majority of Muslims historically and now interpreted it the way I described it.

You're so dumb, holy shit.

No I won't you Muslim rat. Christianity is totally different from Islam.
The fact you vermin still exist despite the fact you're inferior to Christian societies in every sense is a testament to that.
Either fight the arguments I made or fuck off, this isn't Reddit, you won't get upboats for one-liners.

>Islam apologist coincidentally also redditor

10/10, looks like you baited everyone.

Spread of early Christianity was totally different to spread of early Islam.
I'm not even sure how can you dispute this.

In that Christianity was FAR more violent and aggressive. It took a thousand years for Islam to become a majority in Iran. The Arabs didn't want any converts, they were elitist as fuck and they got more tax revenue if less people converted.

The difference being though that Christian doctrine doesn't tell you to spread Christianity by sword

>It took a thousand years for Islam to become a majority in Iran
More like 300 years, and that's totally missing the point, Iran was conquered by Muslims in 7th century.
The fact they allowed non-Muslims to live as second-class citizens doesn't mean shit.

>Yes, and majority of Muslims historically and now interpreted it the way I described it.

The majority of modern Muslims are no more Jihadists than the majority of Christians are humble pacifists.

There's nothing wrong with Reddit. You go there all the time.

Christianity only started getting aggressive in the 4th century or so, Islam was aggressive from the start

>islam isn't quran and hadiths

what else it is then fucklord?

That's because they're powerless.
That's because many of them are lapsed Muslims.
But most of them still believe in Quran, and in most of those hadiths, that were historically used to justify Muslim conquests and policies.
It's a question of means, not whether Islam changed. Islam changed very little, and as we can see from recent trends there are many Muslims who are encouraging a return to early behavior.
To put it this way: if they ever get the chance, they'll do same shit their ancestors did in past. Try to conquer the whole world.

>no u
The searing wit and deep intellect of an admitted redditor. Go home you faggot

I told you already, my Alzheimer's riddled chum, I'm already there.

>"The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."
This was fucking 19th century.

This is from your own imagination, not reality.

I live in a muslim society, i studied islamic law and he is right.

Again with the one-liners.
Okay, explain me this. In Sunni tradition first four caliphs are called ''rightly guided''.
That means that actions of those caliphs were in accordance with Islam, right?
So doesn't that mean their conquests were in accordance with Islam?
And are you implying modern Sunni schools don't also consider those caliphs to be rightly-guided?

Forget about caliphs, mohammad himself made lots of wars of conquest in order to spread islam.

I want to know why /pol/ chooses the more SJW of the two sand faiths

Surely Islam fits the whole redpilled shit a lot better?

Even Hitler loved Islam

I've told you already, religion is down to personal interpretation, people take whatever they want from it, Just like most Christians wouldn't dream of actually following Jesus' teaching as laid out in the bible.

Your interpretation of Islam (or mine) is irrelevant. There is absolutely no evidence, except your own imagination, that the majority of Muslims worldwide want to conquer you.

>religion is down to personal interpretation

No it is not. This is a secular concept. Islam regulates every aspect of your life. You have no idea about islamic ideology.

>Islam regulates every aspect of your life. You have no idea about islamic ideology.

There is no centralized authority determining what Islamic ideology is.

It is you who does not have a clue what they are talking about.

>le deus vult
>larping

It was. You can't force somebody to become a Christian.

Random anime girl passes.

10 minutes of research into Islam or Mohammed and you can pull a ridiculous amount of shit. Added to that the ONLY way Islam has expanded is by conquest and the shithole conditions that result from the application of Sharia. The forced modesty of women without the same standards for men, the persecution of religious minorities through Jizyah and the proscribed punishment (under Sharia) of apostasy being death by stoning or beheading. Islam itself is an oppressive religious lifestyle and the only reason liberals in the west support it is they have never been exposed to mainstream Islam other than the Muslims that were smart enough to get the fuck out of the Middle East aka the Muslim world. The only thing anyone ever brings up is the "Golden Age" as the pinnical of the Islamic world, awesome, what have they done since then? Aside from propagate their oppressive lifestyle?
The fact remains that Islam itself is in dire need of reform, much like Christianity was in dire need of reform

>Added to that the ONLY way Islam has expanded is by conquest

Wrong.

al-islam.org/articles/how-did-islam-spread-sword-or-conversion-sayyid-muhammad-rizvi

But people actually followed this.
They found validation for their actions in sources of Islam (Quran and hadiths).
Many people still follow it.
The reason Muslims don't go on Jihad right now is because they would be decimated ASAP. But all means of conquest are allowed.
>religion is down to personal interpretation
No it's not, religion is religion, it's a dogmatic set of ideas.
I already said many Muslims are lapsed Muslims, but those who call themselves Muslim believe in everything I wrote. Islam is a very strict religion in regards to this, ''hypocrites are worse than infidels'', to quote their holy book.
Can you read English?
There is no central authority but there are many authorities and they AGREE with shit I wrote.
Do you understand now?

>The fact remains that Islam itself is in dire need of reform, much like Christianity was in dire need of reform

What Christian reforms are you referring to? We believe the same things we believed thousands of years ago.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitulatio_de_partibus_Saxoniae

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Crusade

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_persecution_of_paganism_under_Theodosius_I

Use your words young man.

The Reformation and the general assault against the corruption of values and doctrine within the Catholic Church?? The last time Islam self examined was the Sunni/Shia split and we all know how that turned out

In majority of regions Islam spread by sword.
Exception is SE Asia.
Everywhere else, Islam spread by sword.
>b-but conquest doesn't mean Islam was spread!111
What an idiotic argument.
Islamic rule was installed, and conquered people were treated in accordance to Islamic tradition.
Islam itself tolerates the existence of Christians and Jews, as long as they accept their second-class status.
How does this dispute anything I said?
Did Muslims conquer those lands? Yes.
Did they find validation for conquest in their religion? Yes.

This appears to be more ranting and raving rather than any evidence that Muslims want to conquer you.

And note by evidence I mean proper evidence, not your personal interpretation of Islam.

No one ever denied in this thread that Christians did shitty things.
Point is those shitty things aren't in accordance with Christian theology.
Muslim conquests are.

>You should just make up stuff, like me!

You are what is wrong with Veeky Forums

What changes in Christian morals occurred as a result of the reformation?

What do you want, some documents about Muslim plot?
I gave you history, I gave you their ideology, which many of them still believe in.
I don't have any fucking evidence, but I can add 2 and 2, you retarded fuck.

The person I replied to literally said Christianity spread peacefully and you could not be forced to convert to Christianity.

I'll just spam links instead of formulating a position or argument.

No change in morality but an assault against the corruption in the institutions. Islam's morals line up with Christianity, the institutions themselves are corrupt case in point the Salafism spread by the Saudi government, who controls Mecca and Medina

But you can't force somebody to become Christian. The goal of Christianity is to get people into heaven by accepting Jesus in their hearts. This simply cannot be done by holding a sword to somebody, you have to convince them. It would be stupid to deny that there weren't instances of people forcing somebody else to say they were Christian but that's irrelevant to the matter since they're not really Christian.

>Islam's morals line up with Christianity

That's a bold claim Cotton. So are asserting that the only problem with Islam is that it's corrupt?

OP here, you can't force someone to become Muslim either.
But you can conquer them, force them to pay a special tax, force them into inferior status, and coerce them into Islam via that method. This was done historically.

Not the only problem with Islam.

Four examples of mass forced conversions from history, hardly link spamming. Don't be such a lazy fucker and stop complaining that I'm not just sitting here making things up - it's people that do that (and you apparently prefer that) who are wrecking Veeky Forums as a board.

>you can't force someone to become Muslim either.

You absolutely can. All that's required from Islam is submission. If you submit, you're a Muslim. That's literally what Muslim means.

...

Peaceful and non violent

People that lie and call themselves Christian aren't actual Christians. You can't force somebody to accept Jesus into their heart.

The ideology that doesn't see race

>>Muslim theology emphasizes the idea that entire world must be Muslim, and that this should be achieved by conquest
If by emphasizes you mean indirectly imply from the writings of a handful of Muslim writers that gave an opinion on political expansionism, mostly those in the 9th century and later in the 17th century.

>>Muslim prophet initiated conquests
Against other Arabs, which was the reasoning Abu Bakr supposedly used to reconquer other Arabs, but had nothing to do with his decisions to raid Syria and Iraq.

>>first Muslim state undertook several campaigns that conquered vast lands, motivated by religion
There's very little evidence of a new religion or religious zeal in the Rashidun and early Umayyad conquests, with most overt trappings of religion appearing with Abd al-Malik onwards.

>>most Muslim states through history repeated this stance: non-Muslims are the enemy and entire world must be Muslim
Most Muslim states didn't have a stance, they had a court culture that varied wildly between chauvinism and timidity. Most sources we have that discuss things like political stances and the theory of conquest, peace treaties, and alliances, were written by individuals who regularly clashed with their government.

>>even most modern Muslim scholars agree with all this, though they sugarcoat it better
See, this is where the actual problem is, and where you probably began piecing together all the above into a narrative both modern Muslim Islamists (and anti-Islam critics) have been pushing but which doesn't stand up to historical criticism. This is exactly why you feel like you're in the Twilight Zone, because you're convinced one politically-charged narrative you've adopted is the truth, but realize there are others with their own politically-charged narrative they also consider truth.

I suppose they aren't True Scotsman either.

All are welcome under Sharia, including homosexuals

What exactly is fallacious about saying that somebody who doesn't accept Jesus in their hearts is not Christian?

Remember this woman? How desperately she tried to cover her face to perserve her modesty? Even as she was being lynched

How do you know they didn't accept Jesus into their hearts?

Just because people were forced to convert to Christianity, does not mean that there is theological justification for this.

As such the Catholic church tended to try frame conversions by the sword as not really forced Because otherwise they would be invalid.

>HURR DURR MUSLIMS WANT TO CONQUEOR US
>t. Westerner whose country as a history of colonialism and empires

Fuck off.

I'm not even digging, these are all from google images

Because it can't be forced.

That flag he's holding is the Black Standard of Mohammed

Westerner whose civilization literally invented human rights and the intellectual justification for why Imperialism is in principle bad

kek

Answer this Then explain this:
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam
It's not my political ideology, it's historical precedents that have complete backing in mainstream Islamic thought, especially Sunni schools.
So to put it simply, Muslims acted exactly how I said they acted and they found validation for their acts in sources of their religion.
How the fuck can I be wrong?

Yes it can. Evidence has been provided. It's highly probable that you wouldn't even be spouting the crap you are coming out with if it hadn't happened to your ancestors.

I'm from Balkans. What now?

>Just because people were forced to convert to Christianity, does not mean that there is theological justification for this.

I never claimed that it did.

You have evidence that somebody can force somebody else to genuinely hold a belief with pure force? Let's see it. Don't be one of those guys that just makes shit up. Nice job not explaining how I committed a no true Scotsmen fallacy by the way.

But that was OP's point about why Islam is different

>lets rape and pillage the planet
>it's all good now senpai

Again, fuck off.

Because Muslims didn't rape and pillage?
And I already told you I'm from Balkans.
And just one note: I heard many Westerners apologize or criticize colonialism.
I never ever heard a single Muslim criticize or apologize for Muslim empires, like Ottoman empire.
In fact most of them are apologists for it.

pls stop bait the board is shit enough as it is

>You have evidence that somebody can force somebody else to genuinely hold a belief with pure force?

Yes. I have provided it. Entire countries and peoples subjugated by Christian violence and forced to become Christians.

Are you still denying this happened?

Pls. Most westerners are chauvinist pigs.

>REEEEE MUSLIMS GET OUT
>meanwhile western nations are STILL messing the Middle East.

>all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners [...]every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."
I know you guys have a vested interest in muh white people muh Christianity but this shit sounds cool as fuck desu

>Okay, explain me this. In Sunni tradition first four caliphs are called ''rightly guided''.
>That means that actions of those caliphs were in accordance with Islam, right?
It means they followed each other's 'sunnah,' were elected properly, and were not tyrants as the Umayyads that followed them were seen as. The Shia meanwhile only consider Ali as rightly guided, and once again the arguments, besides all the spiritual ones that appear later of Ali's holiness, are about Umar, Abu Bakr, and Uthman acting like tyrannical kings.

>So doesn't that mean their conquests were in accordance with Islam?
Modern Sunnis can consider their actions, or supposed actions, to be in accordance to Islam. It behooves them to believe so obviously. That doesn't mean their actions actually were taken with religious scruples in mind, and this is where their, and your, issue begins and ends. The narrative you've adopted is a later religious one cast over a more mundane political history, which you then go and attack for being something other than what it was.

Once more, these are accumulated political theories by a handful of scholars throughout history, most of whom were never government officials (or even despised the government), and who were validating the past through a religious lens (as these came long after the actual conquests themselves).

You provided links to people forcing other people to say that they're Christian. I say those people aren't really Christian because you can't force people to accept Jesus into their hearts which is the central aspect that differentiates a Christian and non-Christian. What exactly is your problem with this? If you say that people can be force others to genuinely hold a belief purely through force then you need to provide evidence of that.

> I say those people aren't really Christian

It doesn't matter what you say, that is completely irrelevant. You are not the person that decides who is Christian and those nations and people are still Christian today.

You still aren't grasping this not just pulling bullshit out of your ass concept are you?

>How the fuck can I be wrong?
Yeah this debate is never going anywhere.