How is islam supposed to be a religion of peace when it was literally founded on conquest...

Then we could say true Christianity is only that which was not spread by conquerors?

That would leave out the Catholic Church, at least.

Islam does not mean peace, it means submission; by letting god or whatever control yer fate you are hoping for peace.
That being said Islam did not solely spread through conquest but by trade and even by just a local king converting b/c it sounds cool and shieet.

If you are looking for a peaceful sect of Islam you have to seek out the Batiniyya sects of Islam. This is found in the Bektashi and more so in the Alevi of Anatolia.

to;dr Islam by itself sucks but it is god tier when paired with other stuff like Buddhism or Shamanism

Religion of Peace was made up after 9/11 to try to make normal people see Jihadists differently from regular Muslims. Islam was never a religion of peace.

>Christianity
>founded by a peace-loving hippie
>becomes a intolerant killing machine that exterminates all non-Christians

>Islam
>founded by a conquering warlord
>tolerates other faiths fine

Just compare the fate of pagans in Northern Europe and Muslims in Spain with the fate of pagans in Mesopotamia, such as the Yazidi and the Sabeans and of Christians in the Levant and Egypt.

Christianity was always more intolerant than Islam, and if from the 20th century onwards that "changed", it's only because Christianity became less relevant.

First, it wasn't literally founded on conquest. The reason why Muhammad attacked and Conquered Mecca is because the people on Mecca keep denying the Muhammad's Divine Revelation (though Muhammad has already been so kind and peaceful in the way he spread Islamic doctrine). That's why he fled to medina and organized his army to prepare the counterattack.

>Then how about early Muslim conquest
There was many reason of it, but mainly because Arab was surrounded by two Major empire (Byzantine and Sassanids) and being passive without doing anything is not a wise thing to do.

>islam
>tolerant
Lol fucking leftists

I bet you're that kind of guy who judge everything simply by seeing its cover.

It's only peaceful when everyone is under Islam. Until that happens there will be no peace

What you wrote is interesting, do you have any examples you can point me to of Islam being paired with Buddhism or Shamanism? Are you referring to Sufi Islam?

Nah I'm a fag that knows better than to want a bunch of bloodthirsty murderous goat fuckers in my country.

You stupid nigger

>yazidis
We're legally persecuted by the ottomans and basically forced to live isolated or face problems. In modern times wellllllll
>sabeans
Offered conversion with threat of war

Not like christians are much better but all abrahamic faiths need to go back to the desert and die.

Kingdom of Heaven wasn't historically accurate, just so you know.

>ywn go back in time and tell Cyrus not to help the Hebrews

Hahahahahahahaha!! Nice try cuck. There is no such thing as a "peaceful" sect of Pisslam! They are potential terrorists and deserve our scorn! Hahahahahaha enjoy being cucked faggot.

fpbp

So because Mecca denied Muhammad's Divine Revelation he attacked them?

Meccan denied Muhammad's Divine Revelation leading to persecution, although Muhammad keep patient in spreading Islamic doctrine until he fled to medina (known as Hijra) because the situation became way more dangerous.

Well, I am Alevi. The sect is how the nomadic Turks of central Asia interpreted Islam when they first encountered it from the Sufi. These nomadic Turks had shamanism and Buddhism so they readily mixed these with their Islam, and added Christianity and Zoroastrianism to it when they came to Anatolia over Iran.

Alevism has the following; infinite reincarnation and achieving godhood/semi divinity like Buddhism, extreme respect for fire like Zoroastrianism, supposedly our Semah is descendent from shamanism, and Ali is supposedly held the same with us as Jesus to Christians (some claim we are just wildly heretic Christians)

Islam is a religion for pedophile savages

Hahahahahah too bad mudslime! Sufi rhymes with poopie. And we all know what we think of excrement.

Nuke Mecca now!

Your prophets are being boiled eternally in vats of pig blood and shit for all eternity

>Jesus gets persecuted for saying he is holy
>Everyone denies it except for a few apostles and Jesus does not resort to violence
>Muh-hummus gets persecuted for saying he is the divine word of god or whatever
>Know what, fuck them im right. I just know it. Im gonna gather an army and make damn sure everyone knows im right.

""""Islam is religion of peace""""

>prophets
Well, Jesus is one of them and one that I love for he is a reincarnation of God

Cool story brah

Fuck all the desert rat religions. Worst things to happen to humanity.

Eh, arguably true but as people move up the socioeconomic ladder people become less religious. I myself am apatheist but still able to view myself as Alevi. I hope most people will be able to become more lax about religion in the future. Live and let live

You won't be laughing when the day of the rope comes to you and your leftist subhuman allies. Time for the nukes! Reeve up those gas chambers because its going to get a little gassy in here.

HOW DOES ONE ESTABLISH PEACE IN A WORLD OF VIOLENCE? VIA RETALIATORY VIOLENCE; BY CONQUERING AND VANQUISHING THOSE BELLICOSE ONES THAT INITIATE VIOLENCE.

It's not, it's a realistic religion which acknowledges that you need violence sometimes and peace at other times.

>>day of the rope

Take that "Moonman" bullshit somewhere else.

Well certainly a religion that condones violence is going to bring us closer to global peace. Even if the entire world converted to islam, every nation would still have its own interests, just as no matter how religiously homogeneous europe was, there was still some kind of conflict. And look at it before the islamic refugee crisis, it had been in peace for a damned long time. Now the EU is dissolving in its own multiculti cesspool.

Hahaha oh man I can't wait until Trump puts me in charge of exterminating people like you! I can't wait until I can be a camp guard while you Muslims get a taste of your own medicine.

Stop feeding the troll.

Well thats an extremely simplistic, biased and uninformed view of the founding of Islam.

Yes the founding is surrounded by military conflict, but the first 13 years were nothing but peaceful preaching in the face of continual ridicule, and the final years of war were not started by the Muslims, who had managed to set up their own state only to be declared war upon by all those around them.

It should also be noted that Muhammad forced no one to believe, even when he finally conquered Mecca, capturing the people who had persecuted him the most, he did not force them to convert, or kill them.

I dont understand
Are you contending that Islam was not founded on conquest? Because that is the stupidest thing ive ever read on this whole board.
The fucking seminal moment of Islams early days was the conquest of Mecca. After that its pretty much nonstop conquest until they reached France. Islam has never spread to be the major religion of anywhere (with the literal only exception being Indonesia) without violent force.
Retards like you always bring up Christian conquests as if that somehow is relevant so im just gonna go ahead and say that yes Christianity also spread with a lot of violent force, after all the entire new world was violently colonized by christians. But Christianity has spread peacefully in many other places, whereas Islam only kind of has spread peacefully to maybe one place.

>dont want to be passive in the face of Byzantine and Sassanid empires threatening borders
>invade and conquer north africa
what?

>forced no one to believe
i mean, if threatening all non believers with death or life as a step above slaves compared to non muslims isnt forcing then i dont know what is.
>first 13 years were nothing but peaceful
oh my god you are fucking retarded. So because it was based totally on peaceful resistance for 13 years and then violent expansion and then persecution for literally the rest of its history even up until today we should consider it a peaceful religion?
Why dont we consider all christians peace loving hippies? I mean thats what it was founded on right? So all of their actions after that dont matter at all.

>with the literal only exception being Indonesia

Although they did later purge communists with partly the reasoning that they were non islamic

Yes faggot stop feeding me because it won't matter because both you and this user I am responding to is going to get the oven. Reeve up those gas chambers now.

>and felt the only way to make people believe him was by force
so did the Christians apparently since they conquered pagans, and forced them to convert at the point of the sword and built churches over their holy sites.

>Are you contending that Islam was not founded on conquest
Not him, but arabia was surrounded by the persian empire, and the byzantine empire, if they didn't conquer they would be conquered themselves. Muhammad and the caliphs knew this. It was the time of conquer and conquest.

Well, how does that refute the point?
You just confirmed that it was necessarily born of conquest, since that was the nature of the time.

The conquest of pagans happened hundreds of years after the death of christ.
Its inception was not of conquest. He lived his entire life as a virgin pacifist.

This desu Muhammad wasn't bad until the Quraysh got fed up with his shit, which prompted him to move to Medina. It didn't help either that the Jews fucked with him there too.
Muhammad was at least fairly kind for a conqueror, but he was not peaceful, nor were his rightly guided caliphs.

No they wouldn't you fag, both the ERE and the Sassanids had buffer states on the fringes of Arabia because they thought the peninsula was a worthless desert full of pagan warriors and didn't want them going into their own territory.
Arabia was never a legitimate target for either state.

>if they didn't conquer they would be conquered themselves
Jews on the other hand manage to have war in their bible, but get conquered utterly and sprinkled across the western world, and still exist today as a moderately peaceful religion.

Only Muslims have this problem needing to convince the world they follow a peaceful ideology. It would do them such a credit if they could just own the violence or cry out for reformation.
Instead we get neither, we have this culture of bad liars and apologists and it just reinforces the hate.

The best the modern world gets is pic related shit, calling it "assimilation".
Like female circumcision is suddenly a wholesome American tradition if the girl's wearing a flag.

That is because outside of Qur'anists and some other quasi-heretical sects the Islamic world is at least 100-200 years behind in essentially every aspect that is the "modern" world.
These people bemoan how awful christianity was in the past and then readily invite an even worse counterpart into the country with open arms lmao

>That is because outside of Qur'anists and some other quasi-heretical sects the Islamic world is at least 100-200 years behind in essentially every aspect that is the "modern" world.

>Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Jews were not surrounded by the two most powerful and conquering empires at the time. The Muslims defeated these two empires, after that they didn't need conquest.
>inb4 crusades
Crusades was a conquest to take back what was the Muslims' before
So after the Muslims defeated these two most powerful empires, they didn't need to conquer. Muslims never conquered Indonesia, yet Indonesia has the most Muslims today. Africa was not touched by Muslims yet Africa is Muslim today. (North)
>You just confirmed that it was necessarily born of conquest, since that was the nature of the time.
Yes, that's the point. Muhammad was a smart man, he knew what he was dealing with. The medieval era is not the modern world, you can't compare the two.
>Arabia was never a legitimate target for either state
This was before Muhammad, after Muhammad came the two empires realized that the Arabs had united and they posed a great threat. Thus the war began and Allah (SWT) granted victory to the Muslimeen.

This. "Religion of Peace" was a phrase coined by George W. Bush after 9/11.

Be at peace in our religion, or we'll fucking kill you

Watch out OP, I got a 3 day ban for a similar topic and I actually cited historical people and texts.
History and humanities aren't allowed on history and humanities because of Arab mods I guess.

the black t-shirt explains it all. It says, reading the symbols logically, "I islamically love islam". The symbol for love is embedded in the religious one. Coherence in own religious identity is more important than a concept ( such as love ) which could allow religions to communicate with each other. I of course completely overinterpretate the sht out of this t-shirt, but you get the general idea that might answer your question.

>after Muhammad they realized they posed a great threat
an apocalyptic 20+ year war had just finished between the two states, they didn't give a shit about Muhammad

Islamic history is just as shitty, if not more so than the "history" found in the OT+NT combined.
>yeah guys Abraham totally traveled 1000+km to help build the kabah (ignoring the timeline fuckery)
The entire thing read like bad capeshit fanfiction where the author desperately wants you to believe this character and the shitty half-assed retcons behind him are way better than every other superhero

May be wrong, but wasn't Mecca along a major trading route?

>Muhammad is the Brian Michael Bendis of religion

That's a nice whitewashing of Jesus who thought gentiles were dogs and was a leader of a pro-Jewish and anti-Roman sect.

You're taking Pauline Christianity and retroactively applying it to Jesus himself who had different views (as far as historians can even agree on the basics).

Also Christianity became more than a minority religion in the Roman empire due to imperial support and via directly combatting other cults at the end of the day.

In the ideological war against Islam, you're starting to see even right-wing atheists try to fit Christianity in an idealized monolithic mold that it never belonged to and it's too funny.

>Just compare the fate of pagans in Northern Europe and Muslims in Spain with the fate of pagans in Mesopotamia, such as the Yazidi and the Sabeans and of Christians in the Levant and Egypt.

That's just trolling right? Pagans and other sects in Europe were actually more persecuted than 'people of the book' were in Muslim lands before the modern radicalization. Not that there wasn't persecution and basically second-class status for most minorities in the past, including non-Muslims in Islam.

The Ottoman empire was even more tolerant than nationalist pseudo-secular Turkey was towards its Christian minorities.

t. Shufti Al Mufti

>HAHA for this next trick, I'll show how a platitude popularized by heavyweight intellectual and rhetorical superpower George W Bush is mere fantasy!
Congrats I guess.

Islam spread peacefully to places like Hungary in the 8th-10th centuries, the northern Caucasus, Mozambique, and Malabar as well as several smaller merchant/marine colonies in Southern China, Indochina, and Subsaharan Africa before the rise of the Fulani.

Also, Islam's seminal moment is Muhammad's escape to Medina. It's kind of why its calendar begins on that date, and not on the day of Muhammad's return which is considered a formality after the more celebrated and pivotal earlier and disadvantaged battles of Badr, Uhud, and the Trench.

The mistake people make is thinking Islam, or any of the larger religions, are actually founded at a certain moment by one person. Jesus did not found Christianity any more than Muhammad founded Islam. These two figures were apocalyptic preachers who attained a great spiritual reputation within their lifetimes to influence like-minded bureaucrats to consolidate their ideals into a stable philosophical school of thought. Christianity was not founded amidst the Roman subjugation of Judea but in the various urban metropolises of the Eastern Mediterranean looking back on sketchy reports of events in Judea some years before. Islam was not founded amidst the wars of the Hedjaz but in the urban boomtowns of Kufa and Basra looking back on sketchy reports of events in Arabia some years before.

Islam's real problem is big-tent politics which had them include specifically violent philosophies and cultures into the patchwork of Islamic communities historically, and in modern times the break down of the boundaries between these communities because of modern communication technology. It's a federation with compromises for some violent ideologies because of the violent cultures which had always existed in the border regions between the more civilized regions of the Middle East and those of Europe, India, or China.

>Islam tolerates other faiths fine

but it's true, and historically especially so. I'm not sure why you have to take the current status quo and retroactively apply it to a millennium and a half

Christianity was no more tolerant than Islam towards other faiths, arguably less so

You are misunderstanding the aims of the religion and the inherent cruelty and oppression of the State. The bible warns about the evils of kings, and Christianity teaches that followers of Christ should not be concerned with worldly affairs.
Islam however mandates that the entire world should be fought with until everyone submits to Islam, and gives very detailed descriptions of how this submission can take place with the Jizya and other laws for Dhimmi.

Do you live in Turkey? How is it for you being a part of a non orthodox sect?

Liberals are stupid and should be ignored

Nice sources faggot

Ps you are wrong

I'll concede the bulk of Islamist states may have been, because of the religion's autistic description of bringing about a worldwide caliphate. Meanwhile Christianity was coopted by the Roman Empire and then religious orthodoxy became a mattwr of loyalty or rebellion against the state.
Christianity is naturally apolitical. Pat your taxes, obey laws, and you can be a good Christian. There is nothing about a Christian State in the teachings of Christ or the epistles
The Quran literally describes how an Islamic state functioned under Muhammad.
In both cases you have states using religion as a method of gaining legitimacy and gaining support but one is being shoehorned into an oppressive tool, the other is an oppressive tool.

Not him, so I don't agree that Islam has no issues with tolerating religious minorities, but to say Christianity is unconcerned with worldly affairs while Islam mandates it is incorrect also. The evils of kings as part of the reason why Arabia united behind a prophet in the first place, why the early Islamic theological community focused so heavily on antinomian attitudes towards kingly authority, and so on. What people construe as a mandate and 'detailed descriptions' of a world conquest plan are in fact theoretical and academic extrapolations of ideologies far smaller in scope (legal jurisprudence about no-man's-land between Muslim held territory and hostile provinces) and later attributing of themes of submission and persecution onto archaic tax codes and sumptuary laws designed for the complete opposite purpose.

women who convert to islam just prove their own intellectual inferiority. it's completely asinine to want islam

>The Quran literally describes how an Islamic state functioned under Muhammad.
It doesn't. Not even the Hadiths go into much detail about that, which is why the vast majority of Islamic jurisprudence in history was focused on personal law with most everything dealing with matters of state being extrapolated from local customs or on precedent of later caliphs and sultans. For being naturally apolotical, it was Christianity which had bishoprics acting as political units for both law and taxation while almost every instance of an Islamic equivalent were the result of a short-lived heretical revolt.

Incorrect. Christianity and Islam have completely different approaches to how to deal with non believers. This is embodied in how each deals with proselytization. In Christianity, the method is to ask them to follow you, Christ says that those who do not attach themselves to the message will not do so because they are not ready. He likens belief to seeds cast on a field, and where the seeds take root is where the holy are. Muhammad on the other hand was a conqueror who exlusively preached a convert or die methodology.

No, all of that is incorrect. Both faiths are in theory interested in calling people to belief without compulsion, but in practice have been coercive in their approach. Christianity however has been historically very jealous of sacred spaces whereas Islam was more concerned about establishing boundaries between communities. Muhammad did not exclusively preach a convert or die ideology either. In fact he did not preach any sort of ideology, one was merely extrapolated from sermons that were specifically targeting polities like "pagan" Mecca by later writers, and even they did not draw up a convert or die methodology.

>Muhammad was at least fairly kind for a conqueror,
beheading a whole tribe of jews even kids who were classed as men by checking if they had just one pubic hair

>t. never read anything about the 4 caliphs and their deaths, never read about the wars of muhammad, never read the hadiths about chopping hands and feet of sick captives and then giving them urine as "medicine", never even fucking read the quran

that was later on nearer the time of the tanzimat reforms just before the young turks fucked everything up

or maybe the Randy Pitchford of religion

Oh please, Muhammad pissed people off because he went around Mecca and Medina preaching at people and then forcing them into situations where they had to answer yes or no to joining islam. When they told him to fuck off he got so butthurt he raised an army.

The "religion of peace" part is bullshit. Pretend it's the only one that justifies or justified religious violence is retarded however.

For instance, the Northen Crusades exist for Christianity; and currently Buddhists in Burma are actively suppressing Muslims.

In short, all religions, if they want to have a chance at spreading beyond the size of a sect, must at some point allow for some kind of message of peace. That's where the point of "religion of peace" comes up: you can conquer all you want, but as a religion that is still a minority, you cannot afford to literally kill every single infidel, because you don't have the resources needed to do that and suppress any backlash from "old believers." And, even then, acting as if non-believers don't exist/ don't matter is a losing proposition.

That's not what happened though, and I think you know it.

It's not a religion of peace. Go back to >>/pol/ with your shitposting.

No, that was horrendously simplified but Muhammad was hardly blameless

Not even simplified nor exaggerated, you're simply off the mark altogether and are now shifting goalposts from 'Muhammad preached convert or die' to 'Muhammad preached non-violently and failed so he used force' to 'he's responsible in some way.'

Point is he did not preach a convert or die theology even when he had an actual army to make good on a threat like that.

He didnt preach convert or die. He practiced it. What a great guy :^)

He did neither. And for all his failings, at least he didn't shitpost.

But the quran is a literal shitpost

I never said Muhammad preached convert or die, you have me confused with a different poster. was my first post.
Muhammad didn't preach convert or die but he was definitely a dick who intentionally sought out confrontations with other members of the Quraysh.

>Muhammad didn't preach convert or die but he was definitely a dick who intentionally sought out confrontations with other members of the Quraysh.
And what did that have to do with anything I was talking about in the first post you replied to? If you just wanted to express a low opinion of Muhammad or rabble-rousing preachers you could have saved us all the confusion.

Because you were discussing Muhammads preaching and at the time it was the newest post?

>live in the lawless desert with savage bedouins
>get banished from your mecca and take your autism to medina
>establish and defend an empire for your followers
>after your death you save your followers from getting conqured by byzantis and persians

Compared to
>live in the roman empire
>die like a pussy and leave your followers to roman soldiers,years later some guy writes that you """died for their sins"""

what would've happened to him if he didnt take the swords