I’ll reply to both of your posts in this single quote.

I really like how you used the point of view of a single person who decided to leave said religion. I can easily find scores of sources of Christians (or other) people becoming Muslim with opposite points of view. Is it more probable that he turned away from Islam because Islam is “inherently evil” or is it that his personal experiences within his family and country (considering Afghanistan being the most brutal of any nation)? I think it is far more probable that it has everything to do with his personal experiences and the extreme view his nation puts on the Hadiths, not the Qur’an or Islam itself.

I also disagree with your view on religious titles. But, that is really a different topic all together. Just pointing out that Muslim does not mean someone who follows Islam, it means “one who submits himself to God”. In a general sense, this is why Muslims refer to all past prophets as Muslims, even though Islam as a named religion didn’t exist.

You’re history is a bit skewed here. Unlike the Catholic Church that immediately forced religion on the peoples their empire conquered, including Africa and the Americas, the Arab invaders allowed every area free religion and the ability to govern their adherents according to their own laws. This includes the allowance of their own judges and Priest full control over their clergy. Granted, I’m sure they were not allowed to come out and openly denounce Islam, but that would be the only real difference between the Arab Empire then and the common use of Freedom of Religion in the western world now.

Islam itself took centuries to become the dominate religion in each and every one of these areas. You bring up the Philippines as an example of devastation. However, it was never under Arab rule. It became the most populace Islamic state solely due to centuries of Arab trading that eventually caused the nation to almost completely convert. Sure today they are extremist but so is the case with all Dark Age Islamic nations; which is the real point of the OP, btw.

What do modern inventions have to do with any of this thread? You mention these as if the foundations of most of this were not based in various parts of the world including the Arab/Islamic empire. Where did the foundation of all higher math come from? (Algerbra) Why is the numbering system used by the entire world called the Arabic numeral system? Who saved the, essentially, entire Greek thought and literature from devastation? Who had the largest and first real world library, until it was destroyed by the Mongols, who themselves very soon afterward became Muslim? Who advanced the study of the stars far beyond where the Greeks and others started? Who created distillation, purification, oxidization, ethanol, 2,000 various medical substances, various highly used acids, arsenic, coffee, restaurants, sugar refining, tons of spices put into foods (this is mainly towards the west), kerosene, petroleum industry, various specialties in pottery and fabrics, kerosene lamp, waste removal, surveying instruments, modern soap, toothpaste, perfumes and deodorants, Agencies, College, charitable trusts, drugstores, medical schools, public hospitals (including the sanitation of), various forms of automation (including programmable), abacus (i.e. the first computer), various pump designs, gas masks, adhesive bandages, surgical suture, tracheotomy, marching bands, fireproof clothing, abus gun, metal cased rocket artillery, mechanical analog computers of various types for navigation, basis of observation tubes which later begat the telescope, homing pigeons, scientific method itself, guitar, …

I can go on with tons of other innovations that all stemmed from the Islamic empire and Arabs in particular. They form the foundation of nearly every level of science and medicine. See this Wikipedia page for a good summary and tons of sources. This was all due to Islam’s origination in being a free and open society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventions_in_medieval_Islam

So, yes, while there is obviously cases where any nation learned from another, (your example of the number 0), it is also well known that Arab society during this time was the peak of world culture, science, medicine, navigation, stellar observation, math, etc. Hence, why it’s called the Arab Golden Age. This all is supported by the freedom that Islam used to allow based on what is actually written in the Qur’an which would disallow the entirety of what is the modern Islamic nation and its full adherence to its own made up Hadith.

Also, your ignorance on the influence Muslim Spain had on the beginnings of the Renaissance is simply lacking of world historical knowledge. Black Plague only supported the medical advances and general cleanliness Spain and the rest of the Muslim world was already commonly using. Hell, just a quick study of the effects of the Black Plague on the Islamic Empire as compared to Europe is enough to prove the differences in culture during that time.

Now moving on to your next post…

At least you did recognize the actual context of the quotes, yet you still throw that out because of the use of generic words like “unbelievers”. That makes absolutely no sense at all. I mentioned in another post that it was the only term usable in this context. They were not fighting foreign armies. They were not fighting Persians or Romans. They were fighting other Arabs. So, the verses could not possibly of used a national specific term as nothing existed. The only differentiating choice was the most obvious and only thing left, was religion. So, the Qur’an uses the term nonbelievers.

Fact is, all of your quotes refer directly to wars they were in. They were meant to keep the Muslim fighters engaged and unafraid to fight for their freedoms against the pagan Arab’s assaults. No different than a speech given by a coach before a game.

I also notice how you gloss over the phrase “But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.” Clearly this was regardless if they were converted or not. Simply put, if one seeks peace you must offer it back. The greater majority of any war verse always ends like this where God wants you to accept

peace with those you’re fighting without any limitations or conditions. These endings directly contradict your assertion that they are globally to fight any non-Muslim.

I find the entire last paragraph a horrible insinuation (seriously mothers who send off kids to suicide, wtf) . All it does is to promote my OP in that Islam is in its Dark Ages and requires a renaissance. Plenty of non-Muslims have done the same ignorant suicides based on their belief system. Kamikazes come to mind most recently. Additionally, the entirety of the Crusades is another, as was the infighting in Northern Ireland. Again, Islam and the Qur’an is not the culprit here. The extremists who use Hadiths and manipulated Qur’anic verses to push a largely uneducated and hopeless society to perform actions and create laws that are clearly against what the Qur’an actually dictates as well as the greater majority of the history of Islamic culture are the ones to blame.

Actually credit goes to the Mongols, whose vast Eurasian network managed to bring together disparate European, Muslim, Indian, and Chinese sciences, but that's a debate for another day.

So essentially what you just said is that no one should judge Islam by it's observable merits but instead should see it the way you see it.

The disturbing but expected thing is that your words sound like any other fanatic I've ever heard utter them before you and most of them much more eloquently.

I think they should judge Islam by its source, the Qur'an. By doing so they should not distort it and should consider what it says in context to the entire book as well as history when it was written. My point is that modern Islamic nations by large are following their own Hadith literature and not what the actual Qur'an says. This is not fanatic and its certianly not representative of Islam as it originated.

I don't see how anything I have said could in any way be perceived as a 'fanatic'. Just because I disagree with your viewpiont doesn't mean I'm automatically wrong.

I wonder if you actually read my post you quoted or simply dismissed it all together.

sooo much bs.

1. Shariah law as it is found in every Islamic nation relies almost entirely on Hadiths. That's where all that extremism comes from, not the Qur'an or Islam itself.

2. Muslims are not allowed to lie. Show me a Qur'anic verse claiming such. In fact the Qur'an says multiple times that instead of arguing about religion with others, you should simply say "peace with you. You believe as you wish and I as I wish." (Maybe I should follow this guidance...)

3. This last one makes absolutely no sense. The Qur'an is not laid out chronologically. Parts that came out very early in Muhammad's life are mixed all over the place with parts that came out very late. If you read the Qur'an you can easily see this in that the chapters jump all throughout the early Muslim history. Abrogation is a hot topic for this very reason as there is no chronological order. Additionally, I don't see a point in the Qur'an where abrogation is really relevant. I think it refers to previous holy books, not the Qur'an in itself.

So much BS? Get off your high horse, your entire OP was highly condescending and intolarant. Calling people ignorant just because they don't agree with your misguided opinions is NOT ok.

1. Doesn't matter, the fact that amost every, if not every Muslim "sect" adheres to Sharia law in some form or another, and fact of the matter is, Sharia law have VERY close ties to Islam, Therefore my point still stands.

2. This came from an x-muslim who was very well versed in the Quaran. According to her, A muslim can lie as long as it does not "offend" Allah. Give me a Quaran and I WILL find the verses (apparently there are several, not just one.) 

3. Clearly you did not understand what I said, there is a verse  in the Quaran that dictates that if there are conflicting verses in the Quaran, the one in the latter part of the Quaran is to be adhered to, this has nothing to do with chronological order, and everything to do with the locations of verses in the Quaran.

Okay Mr. Rubber I'll be your glue if you'd accept that your arguing against the modernisms of Islam.

I'll be forth right and say if you do accept this (which as far as I am concerned you already have) your at the very least showing how intentionally fundamental your position is, all allusions from there I'll leave to anyone who chooses to read this thread to judge. (My apologies)

And honestly dialectic with you seems totally pointless and not because of any virtue of truth in your words; a concept your clearly divorced of but rather your explicit relativism.

So much BS? Get off your high horse, your entire OP was highly condescending and intolarant. Calling people ignorant just because they don't agree with your misguided opinions is NOT ok.

1. Doesn't matter, the fact that amost every, if not every Muslim "sect" adheres to Sharia law in some form or another, and fact of the matter is, Sharia law have VERY close ties to Islam, Therefore my point still stands.

2. This came from an x-muslim who was very well versed in the Quaran. According to her, A muslim can lie as long as it does not "offend" Allah. Give me a Quaran and I WILL find the verses (apparently there are several, not just one.) 

3. Clearly you did not understand what I said, there is a verse  in the Quaran that dictates that if there are conflicting verses in the Quaran, the one in the latter part of the Quaran is to be adhered to, this has nothing to do with chronological order, and everything to do with the locations of verses in the Quaran.

1. Sharia is law in Islam, you're right. However, the basis of the greater majority of these laws is what I argue is not Islamic as the Qur'an dictates. Instead they are from the Hadith literature, which varies greatly depending sect or warlord. That is why I state it does not stem from the Qur'an and Islam, but from men's wishes and the Hadith's.

2. There are several searchable online Qur'ans.

3. I mentiond the exact verse you spoke of and I mentioned that I believe it actually refers not to itself, but to previous holy books. Furthermore, the Qur'an is not organized in any special order. The only pattern, if you will, is that as you move down the book the chapters get shorter. This has nothing to do with when or where a verse was given to Muhammad. Its just put together that way.

This lack of knowledge leads to confusion with various sects as to what is or is not abrogated, however, I don't believe anything is, within the Qur'an. Am I the majority in this? no. However, this doesn't mean I'm wrong as the Qur'an does specifically state no other book should be used for Islam and the Hadiths have become paramount to every Islamic nation, including having certain Hadiths abrogate the Qur'an itself.

Also, I did not call people ignorant because the don't agree with me. I called people ignorant who make ignorant claims about something they clearly know nothing about.