Hey guys,
I wonder why whenever a bad action (at least some consider it so) is taken by a Muslim guy, people say A Muslim guy did so and so?
Why when a Christian does such a bad action, no body mentions his name?. And it is the same with Jews.!!!
Don’t tell me it’s the religion
We shouldn’t blame Islam for bad actions taken by some Muslims.
The word “Islam” means peace
I always admire Islam more and more when I read its history
For example: -
Frankly speaking, who has the most aggressive and revulsion feelings against Muslims?
I guess Jews.
But do you know that no body has ever treated Jews better than Muslims?
at the time of the Islamic empire,When they used to apply Islamic law, Jews were treated so well same as every one else.
I know it may seem strange, but read the history and you will know
Jews lived a good life in Spain through all the 800 years of Islamic administration there!!!
As soon as Muslims were out
Ferdinand (King of Spain) and his wife Isabella (in 1492) made an ordinance to drive away all the Jews from Spain

Yazan

The main problem here Yazan is that all too often today when "terrorists or militants" strike they profess to do so in the name of allah (just yesterday april 27th an incident in Thailand and one in Syria for example). Not many westerners commit terror in the name of god (abortion opponents one of the notable exceptions in the US). As for the jews some claim it is gods will others say it is simply a matter of political and physical survival of the state of Isreal. Isreal and the jews are in fact taking a beating in the media and public opinion at least here in europe. As to the kind treatment of kafirs under islamic rule if you examine non-muslim as well as muslim history you will find that treatment of kafirs varied with the mood and personal interpretation of islam of the various rulers. It was not always wine and roses (actually never wine :p )for kafirs under islam despite what islamic history says.

The problem is, it's a two-way thing. After all, in your own post you ascribe good behaviour to "islam", not the individual rulers concerned. If they behaved well thanks to islam then presumably other muslims were inspired to behave badly for the same reason.

Yazan:
But do you know that no body has ever treated Jews better than Muslims?

Perhaps you'd like to brush up on your history at this point like I have.

Remember the Nazi trend in issuing badges to the Jews in order to keep them seperate from others on German soil? There was a caliph named al-Mutawakkil that forced the wearing of yellow badges and honey colored robes by both Christians and Jews in his kingdom of Sammarra (Baghdad) in order to identify them as slaves in the marketplace. Houses of worship- church and synagoge- were torn to the ground and replaced with mosques and the teaching of Christians and Jews was prohibitted.

This the so called Golden Age of the Abbasids.

The Koran itself singles out the Jew as a bloodsucking dog:

"They [the Children of Israel] were consigned to humiliation and wretchedness. They brought the wrath of God upon themselves, and this because they used to deny God's signs and kill His Prophets unjustly and because they disobeyed and were transgressors" (Sura 2:61)

A Muslim boy is taught that the Jew breeds corruption and that he is both the enemy of Allah and his prophets. Have you been taught otherwise?

In the 8th century we look to Morocco where whole Jewish peoples were wiped out by Idris I, a Muslim ruler. 12th century North Africa had the Almohads either forcing or killing these people into conversion. How about this:

"The situation of Jews in Arab lands reached a low point in the 19th century. Jews in most of North Africa (including Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Morocco) were forced to live in ghettos. In Morocco, which contained the largest Jewish community in the Islamic Diaspora, Jews were made to walk barefoot or wear shoes of straw when outside the ghetto. Even Muslim children participated in the degradation of Jews, by throwing stones at them or harassing them in other ways. The frequency of anti-Jewish violence increased, and many Jews were executed on charges of apostasy. Ritual murder accusations against the Jews became commonplace in the Ottoman Empire."

Peacuful, huh?

I know it may seem strange, but read the history and you will know

Did- and maybe you are thinking in terms 'dhimma' or 'writ of protection' that Muslim kings and rulers extended as protection to Chritians and Jews in their land, something like the essoine used in Midevial knighthood for those not able to protect themselves in the lists.

But it was given in exchange for subordination:

"One must ask: 'protected against whom?' When this 'stranger' lives in Islamic countries, the answer can only be: against the Muslims themselves"

- Jacque Elluil, some french "authority" off of this website

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mutawakkil

But all of this is an unfair way of thinking, yes? Of course!!!

I did not read the replies, i just replied on my own, so if this has already been said... sorry :).

I think that since the attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda Extremists are what started this false stereotype and the thoughts against the Muslims. Everyone seems to think that Muslims are terrorists or some bullcrap like that.

This REALLY pisses me off. When a Muslim does something bad, I say, "That Ignorant idiot did this..." and its the same with christian, white, black, jew, mormon. Why do people HAVE to include MUSLIM or MORMON?! People who say Muslim or Mormon when referring to a person, in my opinion, are simply stating that they think the person's religion is false and is of no use. The truth is they have NO CLUE what the person's religion is really about.

My brother is Mormon, and people use the word Mormon when talking about him. Every time i ask them why they are using that word in that way, they tell me that of course every mormon does not beleive in Christ and worships their own god. They also tell me that mormons have multiple wives. These are both completely wrong. Mormons do not multi-marry more than any other insane person does. By saying insane, i am not stating they are stupid for doing it, i am stating that they will be outcasts from the community FOR doing it. They also DO beleive in christ.

My other friend is Pagan/Wiccan, and many people beleives she is a devil worshipper. MY ASS! Pagan/Wiccan generally do not even beleive in Satan, and think its nonsense. The pentagram? Its a symbol of peace. When its turned upside down, then it becomes a symbol of evil, just as the christian cross does.

Ok sorry to keep rambling on... yes i think stating someones religion as if to say they are automatically a certain personality just for being that religion is absolute ignorance and stupidity.
Maybe people who do that just need to be shot...

Caffeine:
I think that since the attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda Extremists are what started this false stereotype and the thoughts against the Muslims. Everyone seems to think that Muslims are terrorists or some bullcrap like that.


Disagree- "terrorism" seems something New Age or modern and we only begin to hear of it some time after 1967 or whearabouts, after the Six Days War.
Ever since then that area has become a struggle between Jew and Arab on account of the new use of 'terrorism' by a PLO in place of conventional warfare.

Warfare seems atavistic. Terrorism something almost......chique.

Why do people HAVE to include MUSLIM or MORMON?!
Because its damn funny.
Why did Gendanken run the Christian over with her Nissan?
They also DO beleive in christ.

Which makes them perfect prey...oops, people.

Ok... Now I understand... I Shall follow your example... *Gets Nissan* lol

No, no, no- I'm beastly bored and need a stimulant so:

Why did Gendanken run the Christian over with her Nissan?

Path:
Not many westerners commit terror in the name of god (abortion opponents one of the notable exceptions in the US).
Bush feels his election was orchestrated by god. His decision on war he's relegated to the intervention of God.
He feels entitled to re-election, albeit secretly, because of God.

Carter- throw him in as well.

Please post for me the policy statements which outline this, show me where he says we are killing disbelievers "for god" or US policy in Iraq is backed by God because god said "insert citation from bible here"and hurry cause if he is I gotta go hide ;)
Al Quaida, Jemmaya Islamiah, etc come out with public statements in which they say they are doing Allah's work they exclaim Allahu akbar before carrying out an attack or in celebration of one. Religious belief is central to their operations and policy and they say so. Religion may have a personal influence on bush but I believe economics is the main factor in most of that idiots policy decisions.

Economics are the only factor in most decisions. Religion is generally used as a recruitment method and pep-talk sort of thing...at least that's what I've seen...granted there are situations where religion is the primary cause, but economics usually runs a close second...well, either economics or freedom from oppression :)

And let me know when George starts using religion to justify his policy...'cause that's when I have to transfer to some university outside of this country heh...

Well, he may not be using it to JUSTIFY policy, but it seems like he's using it to DECIDE it!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-01-bush-cover_x.htm

Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen, meeting recently with militants to enlist their support for a truce with Israel, said that, when they met in Aqaba, President Bush had told him this: " God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [ Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38132

In Woodward's book, he quotes the president as saying he prayed "for the strength to do the Lord's will" when committing the nation to go to war in Iraq.

Leda:
God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [ Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."


That is exactly the clause I would have thrown at Path but you beat me to it. (you've fucked up the Prime minister though- Abbas)

Path:
Please post for me the policy statements which outline this, show me where he says we are killing disbelievers "for god" or US policy in Iraq is backed by God because god said "insert citation from bible here"and hurry cause if he is I gotta go hide
Al Quaida, Jemmaya Islamiah, etc come out with public statements in which they say they are doing Allah's work they exclaim Allahu akbar before carrying out an attack or in celebration of one. Religious belief is central to their operations and policy and they say so. Religion may have a personal influence on bush but I believe economics is the main factor in most of that idiots policy decisions.

Have you not seen the little lamb at Mass every fucking Sunday and then holding prayers in his jet when he misses them?
Have you not heard of his 'creeping chistianisation' into fedearal programs?
Have you not heard the dialogue he had once with a Texas evangelical (James Robinson)- "'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."

Have you not heard our wonderful, excellent, powerful president referred to as the Crawford Crusader? Where where you when "Crusade" was slipped into the naming of the Iraqui operation and then diplomatically erased from it?

Ever heard of William Boykin? A general appointed by this Bush character to lead the hunt for Osama? Did you know that he told a whole congregation of sweet little Christians that the "War on Terror" was a fight against Satan? That his God was bigger than the Somali and Muslim god, that in his heart of hearts he knew that his God was real an all others idols?

Does it have to be written policy that Bush feels divinely inspired and motivated? Oh yeah- you won't believe it until you see him frothing at the mouth like a mujahadeen who's house has just been blown up by an Apache and now he's screaming "Death to America!", yes?

You won't believe it until our quiet, deceptive little president actually looks rabid. Simpleton.

Even the the National Security Adivsor....................is a bloody Christian.

Leda:

That is exactly the clause I would have thrown at Path but you beat me to it. (you've fucked up the Prime minister though- Abbas)

Path:


Have you not seen the little lamb at Mass every fucking Sunday and then holding prayers in his jet when he misses them?
Have you not heard of his 'creeping chistianisation' into fedearal programs?
Have you not heard the dialogue he had once with a Texas evangelical (James Robinson)- "'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."

Have you not heard our wonderful, excellent, powerful president referred to as the Crawford Crusader? Where where you when "Crusade" was slipped into the naming of the Iraqui operation and then diplomatically erased from it?

Ever heard of William Boykin? A general appointed by this Bush character to lead the hunt for Osama? Did you know that he told a whole congregation of sweet little Christians that the "War on Terror" was a fight against Satan? That his God was bigger than the Somali and Muslim god, that in his heart of hearts he knew that his God was real an all others idols?

Does it have to be written policy that Bush feels divinely inspired and motivated? Oh yeah- you won't believe it until you see him frothing at the mouth like a mujahadeen who's house has just been blown up by an Apache and now he's screaming "Death to America!", yes?

You won't believe it until our quiet, deceptive little president actually looks rabid. Simpleton.

Even the the National Security Adivsor....................is a bloody Christian.
Gendanken, the answer to almost every "did you not see question" is NO I live in Norway and am not a big TV watcher. That is why I asked you for policy papers or statements that outline specifically religion as policy maker. I have no doubt that religion affects or influences the lives of many in the US, it is after all the most religious country in the western world.

lol i think its the least religious country in the western world and I live here.
The only religion that is practiced here is the worship of the dollar and thats a religion that is practiced by all. He'll they even thought about deleting "under god" from the constitution to suit athiests and that is very non-religious. Money is the only god here thats adhered to most if not all of the religions are scams anyways.

Sorry for not being in touch for a while although I raised this subject, I was out of border.
Any way I’ll try to answer for all in one short post
path, caffeine_fubar
believe it or not, most of these violent actions taken by some Muslims are reactions for many actions taken by the west against their countries
In Islam if someone took your land or invaded you, it is a very big sin to not fight back or resist, because invading a country means also a chance to change things in this country like people’s religion. Which is what Islam cannot accept.
And when I read history I see when there was a real Islamic governments people were fine. I don’t count the faked Muslim once. I read for some orientalist and I know that at the time of real Islam things were realy fine.
gendanken
read what I said to path, and by the way, what you said about what happened in Africa, I guess who ever told you that information has forgotten to tell you who was actually rolling those countries
I don’t wait you to explain Quran for me. Your explanation or whomever this is by is fault. And finally the historical information is also wrong. Please know more about Arab and Muslims before you just argue

Cazov,
Bin laden might be mistaken, but what I’m sure of is, Bin Laden is reacting for some actions taken by the west, a cording to religious believes, he is a billionaire, he doesn’t need more money and he is not going to get more by this way, and it is not because he wants to be famous, I guess there are other safe ways to be famous since he got all that money.
Yazan

Sorry for not being in touch for a while although I raised this subject, I was out of border.
Any way I’ll try to answer for all in one short post
path, caffeine_fubar
believe it or not, most of these violent actions taken by some Muslims are reactions for many actions taken by the west against their countries
In Islam if someone took your land or invaded you, it is a very big sin to not fight back or resist, because invading a country means also a chance to change things in this country like people’s religion. Which is what Islam cannot accept.


Where did the US invade muslim lands or steal muslim property before 9/11?

Where did the US invade muslim lands or steal muslim property before 9/11?
I did not say that America invaded any Arab country (although it did), America does what is worse, it builds military bases in Arab countries. It says that it is a country of democracy where it knows pretty well that 99% of Arab don’t want them there. It does it because the chicken governors of Arab countries are afraid to say no, because political and economical reasons.
1954 it put its nose in Iran business in order take out the leader of Iran who said no to the US.
1956 America made the southern Areas of Sinai clear for the seizers.
1958 the marines were loaded in Lebanon.
1967-1969 America was involved in military actions in Indonesia.
1980 Delta America transgression in Iran under the excuse of freeing the hostages.
1982 the American marines entered till 50km in the Lebanon coast to covered the Israeli invasion.
1983 bombed Libya.
Invaded Somalya (by the way what happened there is not what you saw in "Black hawk down" :)
Before Iraq invaded Kuwait, the US government said (I saw it by my self) :
What’s going between Iraq and Kuwait is an internal business, and the US has nothing to do with it.
As soon as Iraq invaded Kuwait America sent its army there and destroyed
8347 civilian buildings
157 bridges
130 electrical power station
249 nursing house
139 social building
100 hospitals
1708 school and orphanage
What is worse, America is the real invader in the northern Arab countries, Israel wont survives without the American support.

most of these violent actions taken by some Muslims are reactions for many actions taken by the west against their countries
In Islam if someone took your land or invaded you, it is a very big sin to not fight back or resist, because invading a country means also a chance to change things in this country like people’s religion. Which is what Islam cannot accept.I'm sure the Spaniards/ Greeks/ Indians appreciated this muslim attitude when they were invaded.And when I read history I see when there was a real Islamic governments people were fine. I don’t count the faked Muslim once. I read for some orientalist and I know that at the time of real Islam things were realy fine. When and where were these "real islamic governments"? If things were so fine, why were these wonderful governments got rid of?

I'm sure the Spaniards/ Greeks/ Indians appreciated this muslim attitude when they were invaded.
You forgot the Serbs, Croats, Macedonians, Armenians, and Georgians to name a few

I did not say that America invaded any Arab country (although it did), America does what is worse, it builds military bases in Arab countries. It says that it is a country of democracy where it knows pretty well that 99% of Arab don’t want them there. It does it because the chicken governors of Arab countries are afraid to say no, because political and economical reasons.
1954 it put its nose in Iran business in order take out the leader of Iran who said no to the US.
Yes the did that one I will give you
1956 America made the southern Areas of Sinai clear for the seizers.
Here this is from the Revolutionary Worker guaranteed enemy of the US

July 1956: After Egypt's nationalist leader, Gamal Abdul Nasser, receives arms from the Soviet Union, the U.S. withdraws promised funding for Aswan Dam, Egypt's main development project. A week later Nasser nationalizes the Suez Canal to fund the project. In October Britain, France and Israel invade Egypt to retake the Suez Canal.
Sounds like a typical cold war confrontation to me with Egypt getting arms from americas arch enemy then getting angry when the US withheld funding. The land was all returned to egypt anyway wasn't it. There was no US military involvement.
1958 the marines were loaded in Lebanon.
Can't quote on this fully on this yet
1967-1969 America was involved in military actions in Indonesia.
Which ones in particular that is very vague
1980 Delta America transgression in Iran under the excuse of freeing the hostages.
Oh they weren't allowed to try and free 58 american hostages? I'll bet if anybody took 58 Saudi or Syrian hostages and held them for over a year with the host government doing nothing about it the muslim world would be up in arms about it and praise any rescue attempt. The operation was an utter fiasco regardless with only US servicemen being killed.

1982 the American marines entered till 50km in the Lebanon coast to covered the Israeli invasion.
You can't cover much from 50km distance. How many shots did they fire?
1983 bombed Libya.
In retaliation for the bombing of a civilian PanAm flight. If you want to play hardball you can't complain when you get hit.
Invaded Somalya
yes an invasion to distribute food to hungry Somalis oh the horror

(by the way what happened there is not what you saw in "Black hawk down" :)
Sure it was my cousin was there :D
Before Iraq invaded Kuwait, the US government said (I saw it by my self) :
What’s going between Iraq and Kuwait is an internal business, and the US has nothing to do with it.
No internal business is internal to ONE country hence the name internal. Iraq the most powerful country in the region invaded a much smaller US ally the whole world was in agreement with US policy then.
As soon as Iraq invaded Kuwait America sent its army there and destroyed
8347 civilian buildings
157 bridges
130 electrical power station
249 nursing house
139 social building
100 hospitals
1708 school and orphanage
Yes war is hell but the US didn't start it the iraqis were given an oppourtunity to pull out, they didn't. Better yet they could have just not invaded in the first place without that NOTHING would have been destroyed :cool:
What is worse, America is the real invader in the northern Arab countries,. Again bullshit, now they are in Iraq which they shouldn't be but what other arab countries are they the real invader of and how.
Israel wont survives without the American support.
They seem to be able to hold their own against the entire region without much more aid than the US gives to their Arab neighbor states.

Not many westerners commit terror in the name of god (abortion opponents one of the notable exceptions in the US)Just a quick note that we have to include the occasional American president.

To the other, there's a saying in the U.S. that pops up from time to time. "There are no atheists in foxholes." Sure, it works as a great slam against cowardly atheists or whatever, but such a sentiment does directly imply the endorsement of God.

Ask our soldiers if they think they have God's protection. You'd be surprised at how many of them will say yes. Not all of them, of course, but a significant number.

I suppose there's always the argument that God protects what It despises in order to teach the rest of the world a lesson, but that's an ugly mess in and of itself.

Or, as talk-host Dennis Prager puts it:

We pray for you not only because
you are our sons and daughters risking your lives,
but because if God is good,
and if we humans can discern between good and evil,
you are doing God's work.
It is as clear as that. No American war has ever been clearer.

(WorldNet (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35813), 11.25.2003)

Yazan: 'But do you know that no body has ever treated Jews better than Muslims?' Perhaps you'd like to brush up on your history at this point like I have."Actually I think Yazan is right about that. Perhaps you have more Jewish relatives than I do, but I've always heard it said that on the average the Jews really did fare better under Islamic rulers than Christian ones.

They were surely not treated like the Semitic brothers that they are, but neither were they put through the degree of humiliation or outright genocide that they were in Europe. During the Moorish occupation of Spain, the Jews were treated more fairly than they had been before, and certainly better than they were afterward during the Inquisition. The Jews within the borders of the Ottoman empire lived as second-class citizens, but second-class citizens had legally enforced rights, managed to preserve a modicum of dignity, and were allowed to achieve a modest level of prosperity.

Of course life was not an uninterrupted picnic in Muslim lands, but by all the accounts I've read on a century-by-century tally it was far worse in Europe -- even if the tally stops short of including the 20th Century.

The only places where Jews as immigrants have been treated better were medieval China and the present-day U.S.A. Interestingly enough, the warm welcome in China led them to assimilate and intermarry at such a rate that as a separate ethnic group they vanished within a couple of centuries. Many Jewish leaders fear that the same thing will happen in this country.

As I've said before, they should have looked up the definition of "melting pot" before they decided to come here.

Just a quick note that we have to include the occasional American president.

To the other, there's a saying in the U.S. that pops up from time to time. "There are no atheists in foxholes." Sure, it works as a great slam against cowardly atheists or whatever, but such a sentiment does directly imply the endorsement of God.

Ask our soldiers if they think they have God's protection. You'd be surprised at how many of them will say yes. Not all of them, of course, but a significant number.

I suppose there's always the argument that God protects what It despises in order to teach the rest of the world a lesson, but that's an ugly mess in and of itself.

Or, as talk-host Dennis Prager puts it:

We pray for you not only because
you are our sons and daughters risking your lives,
but because if God is good,
and if we humans can discern between good and evil,
you are doing God's work.
It is as clear as that. No American war has ever been clearer.

(WorldNet (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35813), 11.25.2003)
Tiassa that is a whole different ball of wax and you know it. Over 80% of the worlds population believes in something. The question was why do westerners associate terrorism with islam. Take a look at one of Al Quiadas press releases and then try to find a press release from the white house that is as fraught with religious doctrine. I always wondered what Dennis Pragers' personal opinion was. BTW who is Dennis Prager?.

path,
First of all your question was:
Where did the US invade Muslim lands or steal Muslim property before 9/11?
We were not discussing the matter of “ do they have the right to do it or not?
You just asked where and I answered you?
July 1956: After Egypt's nationalist leader, Gamal Abdul Nasser, receives arms from the Soviet Union, the U.S. withdraws promised funding for Aswan Dam, Egypt's main development project. A week later Nasser nationalizes the Suez Canal to fund the project. In October Britain, France and Israel invade Egypt to retake the Suez Canal.
Sounds like a typical cold war confrontation to me with Egypt getting arms from Americas arch enemy then getting angry when the US withheld funding. The land was all returned to Egypt anyway wasn't it. There was no US military involvement.
oh they got it back, so a thief doesn’t have to go to jail if the police turned back the stolen stuff to its owner.
any way. This is wrong. Jammal nationalized the canal (which he has the right to do, its their any way) because America promised but never wanted to do it. He did it when he became sure that the America wouldn’t do it. America was always there supporting Israel in all its illegal actions.
It may be recalled that after suffering defeat in 1948 and 1967, the Arabs, under the leadership of Saadat, successfully launched an all-out military attack on Israel in 1973. The Egyptian army crossed over to the other side of the Suez Canal and started moving towards Tel Aviv. At that moment, the USA decided to establish an air bridge to deliver weapons Israel needed to turn the tide, which it did in a few days. I believe that at that particular moment, Saadat must have come to the conclusion that in any future war with Israel the USA will not let Israel be defeated. Further, that the USSR will not fight a war on behalf of the Arabs against the USA.

Oh they weren't allowed to try and free 58 american hostages
Of course they are allowed. But not replacing the government by the one which fits them.

You can't cover much from 50km distance. How many shots did they fire?
Say that they can cover nothing, say they did shot nothing, but still the question do they have the right to do it?

yes an invasion to distribute food to hungry Somalis oh the horror
At that time people were dying by thousands everywhere, why they did not distribute food there?
It was an excuse to put their feet there.

No internal business is internal to ONE country hence the name internal. Iraq the most powerful country in the region invaded a much smaller US ally the whole world was in agreement with US policy then.
Bullshit, every one knows who supported Saddam to do it.

They seem to be able to hold their own against the entire region without much more aid than the US gives to their Arab neighbor states.

America doesn’t give a thing for free
It takes even more then what it gives.

And yes Israel won’t survive without the American support.

A right to? stolen stuff given back? I think you are slightly confused. This isnt no personal crime. When one country percieves threat from another it has every right to eliminate that threat no matter what it is. You do not have to wait till someone nukes you to kill them. America and Israel have every right to invade any and all Arab countries which threaten them and persue any deplomacy in there to prevent future attacks by any means necessary ergo: change of gov't, killage of radicals including civilians and immams etc...

You are a bit tied up in all that legal crap my friend in the real world its kill or be killed EVERYONE realizes this and you cannot expect your enemy to announce their intentions these aren't Noble knights and it ain no middle ages. Its life and death international struggles. So your limits are discarded if any imminent danger is percieved weather it is to people, countries, vital interests or other things is not for you to judge but to those who risk their blood by acting upon it.

P.S. Israel should have kept Sinai and invaded egypt to force peace down their throats to make you realize that just because someone gives something back doesn't mean they ever had to or it was a "crime" to take it. "THERE ARE NO RULES IN LOVE AND WAR" (forgot who said it)

Oh and my father was a merchant marine in the Russian navy during the 67 war they shipped weapons to Egypt etc... He said that the tanks they brought to egypt were used like this: The Arabs drive em out into the desert hear a plane jump out run from the tank and hide in sand. Great warriors of Islam. Most of the tanks were vacated 5 times a day as they were driven so that they could pray to allah.Also none of the AA mobile batteries were used because the arabs had no training at all they expected that they would just drive up and israelies would fall into the sea

eluminate, I hope your being sarcastic on the first and second paragraphs. Otherwise, we might as well nuke the world and add a side helping of cobalt dust just to make sure.

I m not sarcastic I m serious wars are resolved by conflict not diplomacy. A lot of the times diplomacy doesn't work and wasnt designed to work. Why must someone negotiate with someone else if all they want is to make a feeble effort and continue their malevolent struggles. and no there is no need nuking the world but there is a need for a harsh realistic slap in the face to the arab world to make em swallow the cold hard reality we are here you accept it if you do not those who rise up will be anihilated men women and children. This message needs to be very very clear.

Hey guys,
I wonder why whenever a bad action (at least some consider it so) is taken by a Muslim guy, people say A Muslim guy did so and so?
Why when a Christian does such a bad action, no body mentions his name?. And it is the same with Jews.!!!

Although I can't be sure since I've never been in a muslim country I suspect it's the same (but opposite) there.

When you're in a place like North Dakota for example and a white guy does something wrong there isn't much point in saying he's white because that's the case for 90% of the population, kinda redundant.

I'm not saying it's right, just that it seems to be a tendency shared by most of the world. Generally people everywhere point out someone's race/religion/orientation/etc when describing them if they're not among the majority in a given community.

stolen stuff given back
P.S. Israel should have kept Sinai and invaded Egypt to force peace down their throats to make you realize that just because someone gives something back doesn't mean they ever had to or it was a "crime" to take it. "THERE ARE NO RULES IN LOVE AND WAR" (forgot who said it)
most of what you wrote doesn't deserve a reply, although I would like to tell you few things
(Orosalem) (Kudos) was build by the Canaanites (Ancient Arab tribe used to live there 5000 years ago) about 4000 years ago
you should know what you are talking about before you dare and talk


Oh and my father was a merchant marine in the Russian navy during the 67 war they shipped weapons to Egypt etc... He said that the tanks they brought to egypt were used like this: The Arabs drive em out into the desert hear a plane jump out run from the tank and hide in sand. Great warriors of Islam. Most of the tanks were vacated 5 times a day as they were driven so that they could pray to allah.Also none of the AA mobile batteries were used because the arabs had no training at all they expected that they would just drive up and israelies would fall into the sea
who is you and who is your father so I trust what you say or what he say?
so who do you think did free Sinai?
oh maybe the most generous people in this Earth (Israelis) just gave it back to the Egyptians.
really rubbish and waste of time

most of what you wrote doesn't deserve a reply, although I would like to tell you few things
(Orosalem) (Kudos) was build by the Canaanites (Ancient Arab tribe used to live there 5000 years ago) about 4000 years ago
you should know what you are talking about before you dare and talk
who is you and who is your father so I trust what you say or what he say?
so who do you think did free Sinai?
oh maybe the most generous people in this Earth (Israelis) just gave it back to the Egyptians.really rubbish and waste of time

You want me to read your beliefs and you ignore mine setting a double standard arent we? :mad:
I believe my father he served in the Russian Merchant Marines for 17 years. I could actually prove it if you go and look through the Russian Naval records.
What you say about Jerusalem is total bs and I dont buy it for one second the Jews built it end of story.

Before I dare and talk? :eek: And who are you God? :o dont give me that high moral ground routine you have your view I have mine just cause you dont agree with it doesnt mean its wrong.

I believe that fire must be fought with fire and the whole world would burn argument is complete crap. Tolerance is seen as weakness and people pay with their blood for it. So far this has not worked and is swaying into INtolerance its a natural order of things really. I m just pointing out that if something doesn't work ergo like diplomacy in mid east maybe they should have on big shabang settle their differneces with the sword and whomever is left standing will submit or perish to the natural order of things. ERgo the looser suplicates the winer not the other way around.

When I talked about Jorosalem (and I write it the way Arab used to call, which is an Arab word, and Hebrew couldn’t pronounce it and added something like y at the beginning) when I talked, I talked about a known history that only the Israelis deny. And about Egypt, the history of the war is even not that old to be considered as history, you said what you said about the Egyptian soldiers in their tanks, and I asked you a question that you did not answer, if the Egyptians were as you said who defeated Israel and took back Sinai?
I’m not God and I don’t wait you to believe what I say, I probably talked in a bad way, but because you did insult me when you talked about Muslims and Arab, I’m a Muslim and I do respect Arab.

lol you are kidding right? noone defeated Israel and noone took back sinai, it was given back to secure peace remember?... Just because you write Jerusalem with a different spelling proves nothing.

The only evidence I would except is an anthropologist that specializes in regions history and is non biased ergo neither jewish nor arabic and most of those keep in line by giving evidence that Israel was a jewish state over 5000 years ago not an arab state.

And I dont think I see a question about egyptian soldiers anywhere I looked over again maybe I missed it or something the only question I see is why would I believe my father? and I told you I could prove that he served and been to those places.
Furthermore I will state that during stays in ports he would ask others hows it going and instructors would say that the arabs have no skill or understanding of how to properly use the given weapons and just nod and smile. Most had no basic understanding of mechinized applications of tanks or other machinery.

When I talked about Jorosalem (and I write it the way Arab used to call, which is an Arab word, and Hebrew couldn’t pronounce it and added something like y at the beginning) when I talked, I talked about a known history that only the Israelis deny.
1) arabs call Jerusalem "al-Quds"
2) the Canaanites were not an "arab tribe", they weren't even arabian
3) David, the king of Israel, built Jerusalem
4) if you're saying it's not correct, show some sources

Eluminate, i absolutely agree with what you say about fighting fire with fire and how Israel shouldn't have given up on the Sinai (i'd C&P it but the computer here doesnt' allow me to do that).

it really is the natural order of things but this stupid diplomacy is ruining everything.

the result is a humanitarian disgrace that's been lasting for 56 years

i also think that the "rules of war" trumped up in the Geneva Convention should only apply where the 2 beligerant parties are both signatories.
if only one is a signatory, they rules shouldn't apply

ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR

when people realize this they'll stop being upset at people "violating the rules of war"

the mutilation of the 4 US contractors in Iraq, as gruesome and dispicableas it was, it was a natural order of things and we shouldn't criticize the little savages. we should simply do the same

yes its mindboggling when they cut the heads off non-combatants hang them off a bridge and complain when they are being driven for information when they are caught. So they have rights when we catch them but when they mutilate humanitarian workers and kill them they are just fighting the invaders. What a bunch of crock.
Personally I think the US & Israel should kill off the families of suicide bombers just like the law In JORDAN dictates. So that noone could collect the reward and any incentive for self sacrifice would result in the whole family and decendants killed off.

cruel, but probably effective
more effective than holding congressional hearings about Abu Ghraib anyway

when you got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow

1) arabs call Jerusalem "al-Quds"
2) the Canaanites were not an "arab tribe", they weren't even arabian
3) David, the king of Israel, built Jerusalem
4) if you're saying it's not correct, show some sources

Today Arabs call it Al Kudos, but they used to cal it Orosalem.
The Canaanites were Arab tribes and the Yaboosies (a Canaanite tribe came from the south) used to live there 5000 years ago as well as the Amorites, which also were Arabs. Initially it was called Yaboos. Then It is believed that the name Orosalem [ Oro means made it, Salem ( based on the leader of Yaboos Salem ] Orosalem “Salem made it” if you read Akhnaton’s letters ( in an Egyptian museum) written in hieroglyphic language. You will know that Salem was the leader of Orosalem.
The Yaboosies are the ones who built Orosalem.
Today the rotes of some Arabic tribes end to the Canaanites and some to the Amorites.
http://www.vahdet.com.tr/dokuman/dosya1/0046.html

stop repeating the bs. Solomon built it end of story this basicly kills off any historical fantasy you create. Just saying that a mule is a cow doesn't make it so. Now I'm repeating what I said earlier. All the independant and non-biased anthropologists that have world renovened reputations do not agree with the bs you are posting. I can call myself Doctor Bull and give mumbo jumbo facts but I will be ignored and brushed aside just like you.

Most of the world community tends to agree with the notion that Israel was built and occupied by the Jews 5000 years ago. That may not make those arab doctor "bulls" believe it but noone cares besides them and their followers who voice their bullsh. You remind me of a professor I have who sometimes makes fun by saying go to this website it proves all my research and both are made by him the website and the book. Everyone realizes it and laughs but you apparently think that just because you give a link its authetic and creates automatic credibility in fact it does not.

Who says that the Israelis built Jerusalem?
The Americans, I think they are not old enough in this world to be aware with the Middle East’s history.
The British or in general the west, who kicked the Jews out of their countries and brought them to Jerusalem, I think logically they will support the same Idea you say.
Logically, who should know the history of that part of the world better then any one else?
I guess all those countries surrounding that part (Jerusalem)
Who they are?
The Egyptians, Southern Arab countries and the Persians.
All the historical and archaeological sources in these countries say the same of what I say. If you don’t read Persian (Farsi), Arabic or Ordo it’s your problem not mine.
and by the way, you did laugh at that professor but you are following him.
And who you are to end or even start such a story.

You do realise that the professor was kidding and the kid did say to him "but thats your website" it was a joke by the professor. Same with the link you give its like a joke almost like quoting yourself.

listen, I built Jerusalem. God bet me 10 bucks I couldn't do it, I won.

so the rest of you keep your filthy hands off it, IT'S MINE!

The way I understand it is that the professor (west) who has the minimum probably to know the history of that part made the faked history (joke) and asked you to go and read it, and you did read and did believe it. This is the real joke.

look the professor has nothing to do with history it was a joke. The kid asked him well I dont think some of the things in your book are real so he said go to this link and gave him a link to his website so the kid said but thats your website and the prof said yes I know and started laughing. I m just saying thats what you are trying to do.
(the class is about afro-latin culture in the carribean so no its has nothing to do with this thread)

He (the west) said go to this link and gave him a link to his website (western sources) so the kid said but that’s your website (the kid could realize it where you couldn’t)
You couldn’t realize that the Propaganda made by the west to give themselves an excuse of creating Israel is same as the Theory made by that professor. They both created something and created the proof.

you dont understand what a comparison is do you ? blunt as a rock arent you
its the same exact thing as you are doing giving me that jack in the box information and then giving a link to unauthenticated source to substantiate its validity.

I M COMPARING THE EPISODE TO YOU GIVING ME THE LINK TO VALIDIFY YOUR ANGLE, do you get it now? :bugeye:

"al Kudos"
no man. it's al Quds. there's no "o", and the English spelling done by arabs is with a Q.
also, there haven't been arabians 5000 years ago as far as i know and Jerusalem is only 3000 years old, not 5000.

archeological discoveries, time and time again, discover Jewish / Israelite / Hebrew signs, letters, etc., that confirms that this was built by Jews.

The Canaanites and Amorites (don't know about Yaboosies but i'm pretty sure they also) were not Arab or Arabian.
these people were wiped out.
and they were certainly not Muslim, since Islam was born 1400 years ago, not 5000.

whoever the Canaanites, Amorites, and Yaboosies were, even if it was them who built Jerusalem (a fairytale), they're wiped out. ownership does not directly transfer to arabs.. be they Kuwaiti or Saudi or whatever

man, this is one of the moments i wish Ghassan was here

OK here is a prime example of why islam is associated with terrorism

Imam of Florence (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/05/09/italy.arrests.ap/)
If I am not mistaken that is about the sixth imam in europe to have action taken against him because of inciting to violence in the last month alone.

no its more like the 10th or 8th because two were thrown in jail for a while as soon as they said all of Russia must rise up in jihad against United states. They ended up in jail on the same day :)

the same problem,
so many disagree with the war against Iraq.
every day we get convinced more that those dirty soldiers in Abu Graib were not only representing themselves. some said that they were ordered to do what they did.
Bush said that this is a Christian War. so why don't you point at Christianity the same way you do with Islam.

Bush said that this is a Christian War. so why don't you point at Christianity the same way you do with Islam.You forget: look back to your first post here. you claimed that the best government in the history of mankind was one run by a bunch of muslims at an unspecified time and place. We're still waiting to hear where and when.
If a christian is foolish or arrogant enough to assert that the best government ever was a christian one (actually, you could argue for the Jesuits in Paraguay, but I'll leave that aside) we would undoubtedly discuss it with them.

When some (non-Muslim) heard about the greatness of prophet Mohammed (for example), they did dig for the facts by themselves.
http://jamaat.net/hart/verdict.html
It’s my pleasure to help, but really it’s not a history of one page paper or a religion that can be described or explained in a post or by attaching a link, the Arabic culture itself is not that easy to understand (by the way I’m not an Arab). The best I can do is to give you some titles that you can start from. The Islamic governments in Europe (for example) treated Arab, non-Arab, Muslims, non-Muslims almost the same way which did not happen when the European ruled Africa or parts of Asia. Muslims did not carry those countries treasures to the Arab world. Where the European tried to take whatever they could to their countries. Tell me what good did the European made in Africa except stealing.
This link contains only headlines that you may start from.
http://members.tripod.com/~salems2/islamic_background_of_western.htm
http://www.islamfortoday.com/history.htm

That is standard islamic propaganda that almost all muslims swallow whole. If this is true why then didn't the majority of the balkan peoples, serbs croats greeks montenegrens turn to islam? Why did they continue to struggle against and eventually win freedom from the ottomans? The same goes for India, Spain, Armenia and countless other nations subjected to islamic rule. I can post endless links about the harsh treatment of dhimmi under islam, in all fairness there were just islamic leaders who treated all their subjects well but it was solely dependant on the personality of the current ruler.

That is standard islamic propaganda that almost all muslims swallow whole.

Everything Muslims say is propaganda !! everything you say is truth, right ? :rolleyes:

If this is true why then didn't the majority of the balkan peoples, serbs croats greeks montenegrens turn to islam? Why did they continue to struggle against and eventually win freedom from the ottomans?

How ignorant you are of history and in fact of the realities on the ground ? can you tell us how BOSNIA, KOSOVO AND ALBANIA happened to be Muslims ???

The same goes for India, Spain, Armenia and countless other nations subjected to islamic rule. I can post endless links about the harsh treatment of dhimmi under islam,

And of course all these links are from HATE SITES !! how credible you are my dear goat ???? :p

When some (non-Muslim) heard about the greatness of prophet Mohammed (for example), they did dig for the facts by themselves.
http://jamaat.net/hart/verdict.html What does Mohammed and his alleged virtues have to do with your claims for - still unspecified- muslim governments?
The Islamic governments in Europe (for example) treated Arab, non-Arab, Muslims, non-Muslims almost the same way False. I pointed out to someone else on another thread that the muslims in Spain killed christians for religious reasons. One of the causes of the downfall of muslim rule in Spain was prejudice between Arab and Berber muslims there and in North Africa. There was prejudice and hostility against local converts to islam by other muslims in Eastern europe, because they were rightly regarded as untrustworthy opportunists. Like most muslims praising islamic tolerance you do not mention polytheists and their fate.which did not happen when the European ruled Africa or parts of Asia. Muslims did not carry those countries treasures to the Arab world. Where the European tried to take whatever they could to their countries. Tell me what good did the European made in Africa except stealing. Most of the muslims in Europe, Asia and Africa took nothing- except slaves- because they lacked the skills to extract what was not treasure in their eyes or because they intended to stay and rule for ever. The reason why the population of Africa has increased so much in the last hundred years is because of the introduction of European medicines and medical techniques.

How ignorant you are of history and in fact of the realities on the ground ? can you tell us how BOSNIA, KOSOVO AND ALBANIA happened to be Muslims ??? No I am not ignorant of history read my quote I said the majority WERE NOT muslims I never said noone converted. If you take the population of the Balkans that were under Ottoman rule you will see that the % that converted was small indeed. As to how they came to accept islam, the ottomans needed local administrators, the inherent benifit of being a muslim as opposed to a christian under the ottomans did not go unnoticed by some Balkan peoples. By converting to islam a world of possibilities opened up that were not there before the oppressed in society suddenly could become the oppressors, the tax collectors, the police, the governers, etc. There was also the added benefit that the sultans men would not take your boy children away to serve as slaves for the empire when they came every 3 to 5 years.
And of course all these links are from HATE SITES !! how credible you are my dear goat ???? :p
Riiiiight so all your islamo sites are the wellspings of truth and objectivity :rolleyes: I try never to use specifically anti islamic or pro christian sites as references because of the obvious bias. You obviously make very little effort to find objective sources.

strange how some think that they know the history of others better, and even when you tell them that what they are saying is not true, they will keep arguing about it, I know the Islamic history and the middle East history, and most of what you say path is wrong, about the slaves if you are an American you really should not talk about it, just remember Africa, it good for you, the Europeans of course were no better in that matter. Arab used to do it before Islam but not after, if bunch of guys (no matter, Kings, Sultans or normal people) did it, it does not mean Arab or Islam. it is the same unbelievable story of every day, few crimes few bad actions committed by some Muslims and all the 1.3 billion Muslim all over the world would be accused. Jews are killing civilians destroying whole villages and no body is mentioning them, American and the Europeans committed terrible crimes (like what they did to Africa) and nobody is mentioning Christianity. It’s really disgusting

strange how some think that they know the history of others better,Such as you, say, of non-muslims. and even when you tell them that what they are saying is not true, they will keep arguing about it, It is not enough to "tell them that what they are saying is not true". You need to produce convincing evidence that it is not true. I know the Islamic history and the middle East history, and most of what you say path is wrong, about the slaves if you are an American you really should not talk about it, just remember Africa, it good for you, the Europeans of course were no better in that matter. It would be a very interesting thread to compare the various crimes of various civilisations. If you feel that strongly, Yazan, why don't you start it? Arab used to do it before Islam but not after, if bunch of guys (no matter, Kings, Sultans or normal people) did it, it does not mean Arab or Islam. Hold hard! If a bunch of arab, muslim kings, sultans or normal guys capture and imprison slaves and say that islam allows them to do, then it is a reasonable inference that they think islam allows them to do that. Slavery was officially abolished in Saudi Arabia in 1961- rather a long time after Mohammed.it is the same unbelievable story of every day, few crimes few bad actions committed by some Muslims and all the 1.3 billion Muslim all over the world would be accused.What if they say they are not crimes, and islam orders them to do it? Jews are killing civilians destroying whole villages and no body is mentioning them, American and the Europeans committed terrible crimes (like what they did to Africa) and nobody is mentioning Christianity. It’s really disgustingThen stop whining and start threads on those topics.

Such as you, say, of non-muslims.

of whom ecactly, Americans, according to my scale America is not old enough to hav history at the first place, Euorupe? I believe that I'm closer to the EUoropian bussnies although I'm not there at the time.
any way I did not claim that I know others history better, I know mine better.

It is not enough to "tell them that what they are saying is not true". You need to produce convincing evidence that it is not true.

I usually do

Hold hard! If a bunch of arab, muslim kings, sultans or normal guys capture and imprison slaves and say that islam allows them to do, then it is a reasonable inference that they think islam allows them to do that. Slavery was officially abolished in Saudi Arabia in 1961- rather a long time after Mohammed.

the first time I saw something similar to what used to be in KSA was in Oman (to the east of KSA). some of that was real slavery but again by a bunch of people who represents nothing, but most of that is not true, they still even until today, but they are not forced to serve, they serve for money not for free, they do it with their own choice, they are not and were not used to be called slaves they are servants not more, yes owned by some people but as I told you they get paid, they can go away when ever they want. I still don’t like it, but I just wanted to till you it is not like what you think, this is still far less then what the Americans and the Europeans did.

? Are you sure about the number of Muslims, or do you have evidence to support your assertion that there are that many?


sorry it was a typing mistake it is 1.3 although many say it is 2.0 and others even more. the CIA said they were 1.2 at the 70s.

of whom ecactly, Americans, according to my scale America is not old enough to hav history at the first place, Euorupe? I believe that I'm closer to the EUoropian bussnies although I'm not there at the time.EH?
any way I did not claim that I know others history better, I know mine better. Well,according to a palaeantologist, less that a million years is insignificant. Returning to your original posts, it is not your history, but your claim for the superiority of muslim rule that I question.
I usually do[produce evidence and citations]You have not produced one yet on this thread.



the first time I saw something similar to what used to be in KSA was in Oman (to the east of KSA). some of that was real slavery but again by a bunch of people who represents nothing, but most of that is not true, they still even until today, but they are not forced to serve, they serve for money not for free, they do it with their own choice, they are not and were not used to be called slaves they are servants not more, yes owned by some people but as I told you they get paid, they can go away when ever they want. I still don’t like it, but I just wanted to till you it is not like what you think, this is still far less then what the Americans and the Europeans did. Again, EH? Again, evidence?



I've removed my reference to your typing error: I suggest you correct it. Verb sap: ALWAYS, ALWAYS, read what you have written and amend your errors before you post it.

http://www.xmission.com:8000/~dderhak/index/moors.htm

path,
yes they do
prove it if you think they do not
Indians know pretty well what Muslims (Arab) did to them, they know who ended an extremely ugly period of Mongolian ruling, Indians know how to compare between the Arab (Muslims) and British (Christians). They know who gave more than what he took and they know who kept taking without giving a thing.

strange how some think that they know the history of others better, and even when you tell them that what they are saying is not true, they will keep arguing about it, I know the Islamic history and the middle East history, and most of what you say path is wrong, about the slaves if you are an American you really should not talk about it, just remember Africa, it good for you, the Europeans of course were no better in that matter.

Funny thing Yazan we have these miraculous little things called books written on all subjects by all sorts of people I can for example read a translation of any middle eastern or asian author I wish and gain knowledge of it. I can provide references to back up what I say and I can discuss whatever I wish


Arab used to do it before Islam but not after, if bunch of guys (no matter, Kings, Sultans or normal people) did it, it does not mean Arab or Islam.

You are either truly ignorant or lying here Yazan slavery is mentioned often in the quran hadith and sunnah as are examples of it from history. I do not try and excuse or deny the existence of slavery in the west and you shouldn't delude yourself either.

so far I saw people posting completely wrong explanation of some verses in the Holy Koran claiming that they took them from translated books. this is the funny thing. any way please post some of what Arab wrote and have been translated, something that shows them or Islam as the bad people.
this would be interesting.
You are either truly ignorant or lying here Yazan slavery is mentioned often in the quran hadith and sunnah as are examples of it from history. I do not try and excuse or deny the existence of slavery in the west and you shouldn't delude yourself either.
and who said that there were no, I said that this took place terribly before Islam, the prophet ended that, and there were some after his period (far after) but not like what I used to think depending on what the west says. I’m now in Oman and I know how this used to be, because it still until today, they look like slaves but they want it, I swear this is the real story, they get paid for their services, they are named (yes in a way that I don’t like) like this family serves the X family, but again this is what they want, it the way of getting their living the way that they are not forced to go through the way that they can get rid of whenever they want

Fraggle:
The only places where Jews as immigrants have been treated better were medieval China and the present-day U.S.A. Interestingly enough, the warm welcome in China led them to assimilate and intermarry at such a rate that as a separate ethnic group they vanished within a couple of centuries. Many Jewish leaders fear that the same thing will happen in this country.


?!

Chinky Jews? That's a sight.

I've never heard of a Jewish influx into China, and in medieval times for that matter. I was always under the impression that China up until fall of Manchuria had been something like a hostile vagina, Russian-like, but more regimented. I would go as far saying the Chinese are by far the 'cleansest' race on the planet.

The Jews would come a close second, but they are not a race.

path,
yes they do
prove it if you think they do not
Indians know pretty well what Muslims (Arab) did to them, they know who ended an extremely ugly period of Mongolian ruling, Indians know how to compare between the Arab (Muslims) and British (Christians). They know who gave more than what he took and they know who kept taking without giving a thing.

Yes and they are learning more all the time. You know when the Mongols came to India? When the mujahids came? You claim that the people in each country know their history best, well here have some Indian history from an indian. An indian compiled wrote this book but the following quote is from a muslim actually involved in the incident.

A Hundred Thousand Hindus slaughtered in One Day


“Next day, Friday the 3rd of the month. I left the fort of Loni and marched to a position opposite to Jahan-numa67 where I encamped… I now held a Court… At this Court Amir Jahan Shah and Amir Sulaiman Shah and other amirs of experience, brought to my notice that, from the time of entering Hindustan up to the present time, we had taken more than 100,000 infidels and Hindus prisoners, and that they were all in my camp. On the previous day, when the enemy’s forces made the attack upon us, the prisoners made signs of rejoicing, uttered imprecations against us, and were ready, as soon as they heard of the enemy’s success, to form themselves into a body, break their bonds, plunder our tents, and then to go and join the enemy, and so increase his numbers and strength. I asked their advice about the prisoners, and they said that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the [Islamic] rules of war to set these idolaters and foes of Islam at liberty. In fact, no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword. When I heard these words I found them in accordance with the rules of war, and I directly gave my command for the tawAchis68 to proclaim throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners was to put them to death and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghAzis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. 100,000 infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiru-d-din ‘Umar, a counsellor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus,69 who were his captives…70

Here is another tidbit

They sent their messengers, and craved for themselves and their families exemption from death and captivity. Muhammad Kasim granted them protection on their faithful promises, but put the soldiers to death, and took all their followers and dependents prisoners. All the captives, up to about thirty years of age, who were able to work, he made slaves, and put a price upon them

Sorry I was in a bit of a rush you can find this book online here (http://voi.org/books/tcqp/chi6.htm) You will notice that the narrator doesn't see anything wrong with what is happening according to him killing and enslaving filthy hindu's is all part of gods work

http://www.xmission.com:8000/~dderhak/index/moors.htm
Well, if that is the best you can come up with...Oddly enough, it was all Proud Muslim could say for himself before. See the thread on Muslim Spain that he started.

lol i think its the least religious country in the western world and I live here.
The only religion that is practiced here is the worship of the dollar and thats a religion that is practiced by all. He'll they even thought about deleting "under god" from the constitution to suit athiests and that is very non-religious. Money is the only god here thats adhered to most if not all of the religions are scams anyways.

The States has much higher rates of belief and church attendance than Western Europe.

Fraggle:


?!

Chinky Jews? That's a sight.

I've never heard of a Jewish influx into China, and in medieval times for that matter. I was always under the impression that China up until fall of Manchuria had been something like a hostile vagina, Russian-like, but more regimented. I would go as far saying the Chinese are by far the 'cleansest' race on the planet.

The Jews would come a close second, but they are not a race.

Probably Iceland, actually.

I mean, the word Russia comes from Swedes, the word Slav comes from Arabs, and the Russians have intermingled with Mongolians, Poles, Swedes, Germans, and Turks, among others.

One of my favorite plutonian principles is the one that says,
The right thing always contains a bad part, but it is called a good thing because most of it is good, and vice versa.
When I say that the Islamic influence on India was good, I believe that this is true. again the same problem, I don’t expect you to read Urdu, other wise I will give you wonderful articles and books written by Al kandhalwi an Indian who sees the greatness of Islam upon India, Jadu Nath Sarkar is a Hindu historianus, he is really a big deal, (although many Muslims disagree with many of what he says) wrote in some of his books that India had some of its best times under the Islamic rule. He feels India reached new heights of civilization during the Muslim rule. Some of the benefits of Muslim rule that he assesses include, internal peace over a long period of time, uniformity of administration, uniformity of social manner and dress irrespective of creed, common lingua franca, rise of vernacular literature, monotheistic religious revival, rise of mysticism (Sufism) and a general improvement in civilization.
If you accept Arabic, Islamic, Urdu, Persian sources it would be a pleasure to attach them

an important point in here is that many people explaining a specific event differently, so it is not fair to depend on sources of some sides neglecting all others.
some of what is written there are of what I like and some are not :)
http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/book01/southasiabk.htm
http://voi.org/books/tlmr/ch2.htm
http://www.boloji.com/architecture/00015.htm

When I say that the Islamic influence on India was good, I believe that this is true. again the same problem, I don’t expect you to read Urdu, other wise I will give you wonderful articles and books written by Al kandhalwi an Indian who sees the greatness of Islam upon India, Jadu Nath Sarkar is a Hindu historianus, he is really a big deal, (although many Muslims disagree with many of what he says) wrote in some of his books that India had some of its best times under the Islamic rule. He feels India reached new heights of civilization during the Muslim rule. Some of the benefits of Muslim rule that he assesses include, internal peace over a long period of time,Was there internal peace over a long period? Not if you think of fairly frequent persecutions of hindus and civil wars within the islamic ruling class. uniformity of administration, Is uniformity of an unjust administration a virtue? uniformity of social manner and dress irrespective of creed,Again, are these virtues? common lingua franca, rise of vernacular literature, What evidence is there that these came about as a result of muslim rule? monotheistic religious revival, rise of mysticism (Sufism) and a general improvement in civilization. Some of us think any kind of religious revival and mysticism are pretty good arguments against whatever caused them.

I could give you a horrible example of Russian under indirect muslim rule after the Tataro-Mongols converted. Basicly Russians were considered below slaves since they were "non-believers" and were treated horribly. Beforehand there was united actions against enemies and a general vassal / sovereign relationship. But as soon as the horde converted it lost judgement and common sense in its policies toward the Russian duchies. There was also a civil war within the horde that slaughtered about 1/3rd of the Tataro-Mongols who converted to orthodoxy or kept to the old ways. This triggered the close mindedness of islam prolifiration and the eventual downfall of the horde. Probably one of the worst periods in Russian history was the last 50 years of the Mongol Yoke right after the rulers converted to Islam.

In other parts of Asia and Europe, the conquered nations quickly opted for conversion to Islam rather than death. But in India, because of the staunch resistance of the 4000 year old Hindu faith, the Muslim conquests were for the Hindus a pure struggle between life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and their populations massacred. Each successive campaign brought hundreds of thousands of victims and similar numbers were deported as slaves. Every new invader made often literally his hill of Hindu skulls. Thus the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000, was followed by the annihilation of the entire Hindu population there; indeed, the region is still called Hindu Kush, 'Hindu slaughter'. The Bahmani sultans in central India, made it a rule to kill 100.000 Hindus a year. In 1399, Teimur killed 100.000 Hindus IN A SINGLE DAY, and many more on other occasions. Koenraad Elst quotes Professor K.S. Lal's "Growth of Muslim population in India", who writes that according to his calculations, the Hindu population decreased by 8O MILLION between the year 1000 and 1525. INDEED PROBABLY THE BIGGEST HOLOCAUST IN THE WHOLE WORLD HISTORY. (Negat.34)

Yazan don't fool yourself ANY wars of conquest are BAD for the conquered, and the conquerors ALWAYS spin myths about how wonderful things were after they came (any conqueror). The amount of property destroyed by jihadis in India is immeasurable. They destroyed temples that had stood for millenia and looted the treasures from them. I can go on and post pages of citations on this but is it really neccessary? How is having your cultural heritage destroyed while you are being robbed or killed in the name of god a good thing? Please don't tell me it was to bring them culture or religion because India already had plenty of both. Jihad in india was undoubtedly a wonderful thing for the early converts to islam suddenly someone from a lower caste could hold power over their former masters, they are your glorifiers of jihad in india.