Haven't been here much. Did the amount of Atheist increase or what?
Yes!!!
Haven't been here much. Did the amount of Atheist increase or what?
He's defending the Companions. Realize the difference. Unless you are insulting the Companions.These coons and their love for barbaric goatfuckers. It's sickening.
Your really ignorant theres no such thing as forced conversion in Islam it’s haram there’s a whole chapter in the Quran that say keep your religion and I’ll keep mine if your referring to Islamic conquest so what wars and conquest was here before Islam and it’s still going on till now don’t blatantly lie about Islam idiotThey forced Islam and their culture throughout West Asia and NorthAfrica. Yes they converted Somalis to Islam peacefully but not in other countries.
Listen dumbass, I'm not criticizing ISLAM, i'm criticizing Arabs for invading, and forcing countries to convert to Islam.Your really ignorant theres no such thing as forced conversion in Islam it’s haram there’s a whole chapter in the Quran that say keep your religion and I’ll keep mine if your referring to Islamic conquest so what wars and conquest was here before Islam and it’s still going on till now don’t blatantly lie about Islam idiot
Haven't been here much. Did the amount of Atheist increase or what?
He's talking about the Companions 1400 years ago, not All arabs.arab lovers like you will be he first to get the rope when Somali nationalism rises again
You just ignored my message. Exactly.He's defending the Companions. Realize the difference. Unless you are insulting the Companions.
Lets talk about the first place the barbaric Arabs invaded, to spread Islam.
"Arab Muslims first attacked the Sassanid territory in 633, when general Khalid ibn Walid invaded Mesopotamia (Sassanid province of Asōristān; what is now Iraq), which was the political and economic center of the Sassanid state"
Now Persia.
"Iranian historians have defended their forebears vis a vis Arab sources to illustrate that "contrary to the claims of some historians, Iranians, in fact, fought long and hard against the invading Arabs."[5] By 651, most of the urban centers in Iranian lands, with the notable exception of the Caspian provinces (Tabaristan) and Transoxiana, had come under the domination of the Arab armies. Many localities fought against the invaders; ultimately, none were successful. In fact, although Arabs had established hegemony over most of the country, many cities rose in rebellion by killing the Arab governor or attacking their garrisons. Eventually, military reinforcements quashed the insurgency and imposed Islamic control. The violent subjugation of Bukhara is a case in point: Conversion to Islam was gradual, partially as the result of this violent resistance; however, Zoroastrian scriptures were burnt and many priests were executed"
Conquering territory =/= forced conversionListen dumbass, I'm not criticizing ISLAM, i'm criticizing Arabs for invading, and forcing countries to convert to Islam.
You critiquing the early Arabs is a trojan horse to disrespect Islam as 99% of the early Muslims were Arab you don’t make senseListen dumbass, I'm not criticizing ISLAM, i'm criticizing Arabs for invading, and forcing countries to convert to Islam.
I'm criticizing Arabs for forcing Islam on a lot of countries you dumbass. Please higher your comprehension skills.You critiquing the early Arabs is a trojan horse to disrespect Islam as 99% of the early Muslims were Arab you don’t make sense
"Gradually accepted Islam" No where does it say force.Listen dumbass, I'm not criticizing ISLAM, i'm criticizing Arabs for invading, and forcing countries to convert to Islam.
Conquering territory =/= forced conversion
People would enter Islam
Lets talk about the first place the barbaric Arabs invaded, to spread Islam.
"Arab Muslims first attacked the Sassanid territory in 633, when general Khalid ibn Walid invaded Mesopotamia (Sassanid province of Asōristān; what is now Iraq), which was the political and economic center of the Sassanid state"
Now Persia.
"Iranian historians have defended their forebears vis a vis Arab sources to illustrate that "contrary to the claims of some historians, Iranians, in fact, fought long and hard against the invading Arabs."[5] By 651, most of the urban centers in Iranian lands, with the notable exception of the Caspian provinces (Tabaristan) and Transoxiana, had come under the domination of the Arab armies. Many localities fought against the invaders; ultimately, none were successful. In fact, although Arabs had established hegemony over most of the country, many cities rose in rebellion by killing the Arab governor or attacking their garrisons. Eventually, military reinforcements quashed the insurgency and imposed Islamic control. The violent subjugation of Bukhara is a case in point: Conversion to Islam was gradual, partially as the result of this violent resistance; however, Zoroastrian scriptures were burnt and many priests were executed"
There were virtually no non Arabs Muslims when the conquering started wtf are you talking aboutI'm criticizing Arabs for forcing Islam on a lot of countries you dumbass. Please higher your comprehension skills.
There were virtually no non Arabs Muslims when the conquering started wtf are you talking about
"After the Ridda Wars, a tribal chief of north eastern Arabia, Al-Muthanna ibn Haritha, raided the Persian towns in Mesopotamia (what is now Iraq). Abu Bakr was strong enough to attack the Persian Empire in the north-east and the Byzantine Empire in the north-west. There were three purposes for this conquest: 1. Along the borders between Arabia and these two great empires were numerous Arab tribes leading a nomadic life and forming a buffer-like state between the Persians and Romans. Abu Bakr hoped that these tribes might accept Islam and help their brethren in spreading it. 2. The Persian and Roman populations suffered with very high taxation laws; Abu Bakr believed that they might be persuaded to help the Muslims, who agreed to release them from the excessive tributes. 3. Two gigantic empires surrounded Arabia, and it was unsafe to remain passive with these two powers on its borders. Abu Bakr hoped that by attacking Iraq and Syria he might remove the danger from the borders of the Islamic State."You just ignored my message. Exactly.
Idk if she is a quraanist or whatever she doesn’t even have basic knowledge of Islamic history or traditions and yet she’s coming here sneak dissing thinking we won’t catch it what an air headShe is a quraanist she doesn't believe in hadith u will be arguing with a wall saaxib just let it go!!
So basically they conquered the territory. No one wanted it at first at all. But since they couldn’t do anything they just accepted it."The Islamization of Iran occurred as a result of the Muslim conquest of Persia. It was a long process by which Islam, though long rejected, was gradually accepted by the majority of the population. On the other hand, Iranians have maintained certain pre-Islamic traditions, including language and culture, and adapted them with Islamic codes. Finally these two customs and traditions merged as the "Iranian Islamic" identity."
Some Muslims are secular world wide Islamic conquest of Iran has nothing to do with them being secularSo basically they conquered the territory. No one wanted it at first at all. But since they couldn’t do anything they just accepted it.
Did I read that correctly?
That might explain why Persians I’m hearing thing about Persians being secular on social media.
Read the later posts. It was a fierce war between the hostile but powerful Zoroasterian Sassanid and the early Companions. They gradually accepted Islam and not force, hence why they still have Persian language, culture and even mixed those zorostarian practices which resulted in Shia sect.So basically they conquered the territory. No one wanted it at first at all. But since they couldn’t do anything they just accepted it.
Did I read that correctly?
That might explain why Persians I’m hearing thing about Persians being secular on social media.