Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 09:23 AM

New Britain
October 02, 2025, 02:33 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
October 02, 2025, 12:48 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
October 02, 2025, 12:03 PM

الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
September 24, 2025, 11:55 AM

What's happened to the fo...
September 23, 2025, 12:54 AM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
September 20, 2025, 07:39 PM

Jesus mythicism
by zeca
September 13, 2025, 10:59 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
September 12, 2025, 10:09 PM

Orientalism - Edward Said
by zeca
August 22, 2025, 07:41 AM

News From Syria
by zeca
August 09, 2025, 10:33 PM

Gaza assault
July 25, 2025, 05:18 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal

 (Read 19120 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #30 - April 17, 2009, 12:52 PM

    Quote from: Arab-Wannabe
    The personalities you mentioned are crucial

    Thank you for proving my point.  Afro

    Quote from: Arab-Wannabe
    (I added Zionist because Im an anti-semite who likes Hitler)

    Thank you for exposing yourself.  Roll Eyes

    Quote from: Arab-Wannabe
    While there were persecutions and massacres in the Islamic world, I dont see those as having any bearing on the rise of Islamist (true Islam) groups in the 20th century and their progressive radicalization.

    Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with Islam, which is a completely peaceful and perfect religion regurgitated by Mohammad, the role model of all humanity for all times. The historical genocides carried out by Islamic conquerors and contemporary oppression under Islam have nothing at all in common. They certainly were not following the teachings of the same genocidal pedophile bandit.

    How come you always introduce some strawman into the debate? Was there any mention of Zionism at all? And even if the USA supported some Islamic groups during the Cold War phase, what has this got to do with Zionism?


    I think Islamic empires behaved like any other empire throughout history.

    it has as much to do with Zionism as your unbelievably dumb and typical mischaracterization of my comments on the cold war as an "american conspiracy"

    "By the One in Whose Hand my soul is, were you not to commit sins, Allah would replace you with a people who would commit sins and then seek forgiveness from Allah; and Allah would forgive them." [Saheeh Muslim]

    "Wherever you are, death will find you, Even in the looming tower."
    - Quran 4:78
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #31 - April 17, 2009, 02:39 PM

    Quote from: Arab-Wannabe
    it has as much to do with Zionism as your unbelievably dumb and typical mischaracterization of my comments on the cold war as an "american conspiracy"

    Like your inane characterisations?

    Quote
    then yes its an evil american-ZIONIST conspiracy (I added Zionist because Im an anti-semite who likes Hitler)

    Quote
    Or else.... rape, genocide, pedo, blood, bloodthirsty, headbutt, decapitation, cross-dressing, warlord, evil, dripping, super pedo, bloodcult.


    I especially like the second, it's pure stupidity. I merely question why Allah will torment innocent infidels forever in Jahannam, and this inane reply is all that you can come up with. Your unbelievably dumb and typical mischaracterisation of the Council's critique of Islam is just that: verbal diarrhea. 

    Islam: where idiots meet terrorists.
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #32 - April 17, 2009, 03:30 PM

    I think Islamic empires behaved like any other empire throughout history.
    it has as much to do with Zionism as your unbelievably dumb and typical mischaracterization of my comments on the cold war as an "american conspiracy"


    Nope, they didn't, even in places which had empires before Islam overran them, previous empires were often much more enlightened, for instance King Cyrus's empire in Iran was far more tolerant of all races & nationalities, than post Islamic Persia, where a Zoroastrian convert to Islam was often given the property of his entire family.

    http://www.farsinet.com/cyrus/

    Since human nature is always the same, regardless of religion, we can always expect some people to act in inhuman ways, regardless of religion, but that certainly doesn't condone inhuman religious teachings, Islamic rulers & Empires, when they were charging jizya from People of the Book or slaughtering polytheists, were walking in Muhammad's footsteps, while those who refrained from doing so were violating Muhammad's teachings.

    The same simply can't be said of Jesus' teachings, Buddha's teachings or other faiths' founders, which was what Zaephon said.

    Perhaps thats' the reason Islam seems to have so much trouble either apologising for its past wrongdoings, or making amends, because whatever atrocities it committed & is still commiting is mostly in accordance with Muhammad's teachings & actions. mysmilie_977

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #33 - April 17, 2009, 03:35 PM

    Quote from: Arab-Wannabe
    it has as much to do with Zionism as your unbelievably dumb and typical mischaracterization of my comments on the cold war as an "american conspiracy"

    Like your inane characterisations?

    Quote
    then yes its an evil american-ZIONIST conspiracy (I added Zionist because Im an anti-semite who likes Hitler)

    Quote
    Or else.... rape, genocide, pedo, blood, bloodthirsty, headbutt, decapitation, cross-dressing, warlord, evil, dripping, super pedo, bloodcult.


    I especially like the second, it's pure stupidity. I merely question why Allah will torment innocent infidels forever in Jahannam, and this inane reply is all that you can come up with. Your unbelievably dumb and typical mischaracterisation of the Council's critique of Islam is just that: verbal diarrhea. 


    Its not the council's critique you moron, its you, its your constant need to say pedo, genocide etc.. every time you ask me a fucking question.


    "By the One in Whose Hand my soul is, were you not to commit sins, Allah would replace you with a people who would commit sins and then seek forgiveness from Allah; and Allah would forgive them." [Saheeh Muslim]

    "Wherever you are, death will find you, Even in the looming tower."
    - Quran 4:78
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #34 - April 17, 2009, 03:53 PM

    I think Islamic empires behaved like any other empire throughout history.
    it has as much to do with Zionism as your unbelievably dumb and typical mischaracterization of my comments on the cold war as an "american conspiracy"


    Nope, they didn't, even in places which had empires before Islam overran them, previous empires were often much more enlightened, for instance King Cyrus's empire in Iran was far more tolerant of all races & nationalities, than post Islamic Persia, where a Zoroastrian convert to Islam was often given the property of his entire family.

    http://www.farsinet.com/cyrus/

    Since human nature is always the same, regardless of religion, we can always expect some people to act in inhuman ways, regardless of religion, but that certainly doesn't condone inhuman religious teachings, Islamic rulers & Empires, when they were charging jizya from People of the Book or slaughtering polytheists, were walking in Muhammad's footsteps, while those who refrained from doing so were violating Muhammad's teachings.

    The same simply can't be said of Jesus' teachings, Buddha's teachings or other faiths' founders, which was what Zaephon said.



    Conquest is bloody and violent, just how do you think Cyrus built an empire? by killing many, many people on the battlefield, people who didnt ask him to conquer their land. Cyrus was a conquered and...conquered. So he allowed a degree of religious freedom just like some Muslim rulers or some greek rulers or some Christian rulers. Good for him, but he still behaved as a conqueror (or the equivalent reserved for Muslim conquerors, "genocidal war mongers") and invaded other people's lands.

    Any other examples? Im sorry but conquest is bloody, its how empires consolidated. To single out Islamic empires as somehow more "bloody"or "genocidal" is moronic (which is what Zaephon is doing).

    We are ascribing present day standards to societies (actually only society apparently) who viewed war and warcraft as something honorable and "good"

    "By the One in Whose Hand my soul is, were you not to commit sins, Allah would replace you with a people who would commit sins and then seek forgiveness from Allah; and Allah would forgive them." [Saheeh Muslim]

    "Wherever you are, death will find you, Even in the looming tower."
    - Quran 4:78
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #35 - April 17, 2009, 04:16 PM

    Conquest is bloody and violent, just how do you think Cyrus built an empire? by killing many, many people on the battlefield, people who didnt ask him to conquer their land. Cyrus was a conquered and...conquered. So he allowed a degree of religious freedom just like some Muslim rulers or some greek rulers or some Christian rulers. Good for him, but he still behaved as a conqueror (or the equivalent reserved for Muslim conquerors, "genocidal war mongers") and invaded other people's lands.

    Any other examples? Im sorry but conquest is bloody, its how empires consolidated. To single out Islamic empires as somehow more "bloody"or "genocidal" is moronic (which is what Zaephon is doing).

    We are ascribing present day standards to societies (actually only society apparently) who viewed war and warcraft as something honorable and "good"



    Of course, Islamic Empires were more genocidal, & even after conquest, remained genocidal & brutal, towards polytheists, idolaters & even People of the Book were compelled to pay extra taxes, there was utter contempt for the polytheists, idolaters & non Peoples of the Book they conquered & ruled over for millennia, & subservient status of even Peoples of the Book, & most of it was a direct consequence of Muhammad's teachings.

    The Quran teaches that Muslims are the "Best of Peoples" (3:110) while unbelievers are the "worst of creatures" (98.6) & even after Islamic Conquests & the establishment of Muslim rule, the "best of peoples" Muslims did treat unbelievers as any "worst creatures" are treated.

    We aren't ascribing modern standards to past societies at all, conquests have always happened, but conquests by a religious group which viewed their faith as Allah's favorite, & which was founded by a Prophet who converted idolaters to his faith by idol smashing & threatening to slaughter them if they resisted, & who killed off an entire jewish tribe because they refused to acccept him or pay jizya taxes was different.

    Such a conquest ensured that the conquered people were treated poorly not only as "conquered" but as "unbelievers" as the Quran teaches believers to despise unbelievers-thus millennia after conquests, the conquered were bled of their wealth via jizya taxes, idolaters witnessed their idols smashed like Muhammad had done, & every attempt was made to keep them suppressed & subservient until they accepted Islam, which most of them in many countries eventually did. This is extremely different from Cyrus' conquests.

    While Christians have often behaved likewise, their conduct was a frank violation of Christ's actions who never personally forced others to accept him or pay taxes. Muslims were however, acting exactly as their "insaan i kamil" Muhammad had done, & are still acting likewise wherever they get the opportunity.


    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #36 - April 17, 2009, 04:30 PM

    Conquest is bloody and violent, just how do you think Cyrus built an empire? by killing many, many people on the battlefield, people who didnt ask him to conquer their land. Cyrus was a conquered and...conquered. So he allowed a degree of religious freedom just like some Muslim rulers or some greek rulers or some Christian rulers. Good for him, but he still behaved as a conqueror (or the equivalent reserved for Muslim conquerors, "genocidal war mongers") and invaded other people's lands.

    Any other examples? Im sorry but conquest is bloody, its how empires consolidated. To single out Islamic empires as somehow more "bloody"or "genocidal" is moronic (which is what Zaephon is doing).

    We are ascribing present day standards to societies (actually only society apparently) who viewed war and warcraft as something honorable and "good"



    Of course, Islamic Empires were more genocidal, & even after conquest, remained genocidal & brutal, towards polytheists, idolaters & even People of the Book were compelled to pay extra taxes, there was utter contempt for the polytheists, idolaters & non Peoples of the Book they conquered & ruled over for millennia, & subservient status of even Peoples of the Book, & most of it was a direct consequence of Muhammad's teachings.




    Can you show me how Islamic empires were more genocidal?

    and are you familiar with the history of the ancient world or are you getting your history from Jwatch?

    "By the One in Whose Hand my soul is, were you not to commit sins, Allah would replace you with a people who would commit sins and then seek forgiveness from Allah; and Allah would forgive them." [Saheeh Muslim]

    "Wherever you are, death will find you, Even in the looming tower."
    - Quran 4:78
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #37 - April 17, 2009, 04:45 PM

    Can you show me how Islamic empires were more genocidal?
    and are you familiar with the history of the ancient world or are you getting your history from Jwatch?



    Nope, its you who's getting your whitewashed history from those North African friends you whine about.  Tongue

    As for Islamic empires being genocidal, unfortuantely, many Muslim historians of the past have written in glowing terms of their genocide & iconoclasm, without any shred of remorse, that makes things easier for JWatch or FFI, they don't need to go out of their way to demonize Islam, Muslims of the past have given details, JWatch simply reproduces those.  Roll Eyes

    Here's a list of worship places & cultures destroyed by Muslims, Islam was especially brutal on the idolaters & polytheists, exactly as Muhammad was.

    Like Prophet, like followers.

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=4715.0

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #38 - April 17, 2009, 04:57 PM

    Can you show me how Islamic empires were more genocidal?
    and are you familiar with the history of the ancient world or are you getting your history from Jwatch?



    Nope, its you who's getting your whitewashed history from those North African friends you whine about.  Tongue



    No Im reading books and articles written by established authors. My idea of research isn't a tally of destroyed buildings to confirm my own prejudices.

    What does your list mean? That when Muslims conquered, things were destroyed (which is standard operating procedure in the ancient world)? and what is the difference with other conquerors? what makes them more bloody, more genocidal than those who destroyed Appolo's temple to build a church?


    "By the One in Whose Hand my soul is, were you not to commit sins, Allah would replace you with a people who would commit sins and then seek forgiveness from Allah; and Allah would forgive them." [Saheeh Muslim]

    "Wherever you are, death will find you, Even in the looming tower."
    - Quran 4:78
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #39 - April 17, 2009, 05:00 PM

    Can you show me how Islamic empires were more genocidal?
    and are you familiar with the history of the ancient world or are you getting your history from Jwatch?



    Nope, its you who's getting your whitewashed history from those North African friends you whine about.  Tongue

    As for Islamic empires being genocidal, unfortuantely, many Muslim historians of the past have written in glowing terms of their genocide & iconoclasm, without any shred of remorse, that makes things easier for JWatch or FFI, they don't need to go out of their way to demonize Islam, Muslims of the past have given details, JWatch simply reproduces those.  Roll Eyes

    Here's a list of worship places & cultures destroyed by Muslims, Islam was especially brutal on the idolaters & polytheists, exactly as Muhammad was.

    Like Prophet, like followers.

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=4715.0


    Why dont you show us how the muslims were the most genocidal and evil of all conquerors instead of showing me a list on wikipedia which shows nothing?


    "By the One in Whose Hand my soul is, were you not to commit sins, Allah would replace you with a people who would commit sins and then seek forgiveness from Allah; and Allah would forgive them." [Saheeh Muslim]

    "Wherever you are, death will find you, Even in the looming tower."
    - Quran 4:78
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #40 - April 17, 2009, 05:16 PM


    No Im reading books and articles written by established authors. My idea of research isn't a tally of destroyed buildings to confirm my own prejudices.




    Many of those "established" authors shy away from any debate with JWatch's author Robert Spencer.

    Like Karen Armstrong, her hagiography of Muhammad claims that he never compelled anyone to accept his faith, & tries to justify the Banu Quraiza massacre with very atrocious apologetics, she's been invited infinite times by Robert Spencer for a debate, but turns him down each time.

    Here's the link: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016230.php

    Or like you & BMZ, you keep telling us that Mo wasn't a pedo, but when a thread was created specifically for you to prove otherwise, you chose to stay away.

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=4640.0

    Or like BMZ, who keeps insisting that the Holocaust didn't happen, he too decided not to prove his statements via a debate.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=4796.0

    I know that you & BMZ aren't "established" authors, but even in internet forums, this is the attitude of Islamist apologists, they'll make vague statements without backing them up with any proof or debate.

    Look  it doesn't matter who's criticising, but what he\she is claiming. Even if its a anti Muslim site, if they back up their statements with citations, I will accept, ditto for Islamophile authors, but if its someone like Karen Armstrong, who makes vague statements but refuses to appear for debates, I'll not take their word for anything.

    what makes them more bloody, more genocidal than those who destroyed Appolo's temple to build a church?


    How many temples did Jesus demolish? How many idols did he & his apostles smash(while he lived) & how many idolaters did he threaten to kill if they came out to protect their idols? How many people did Jesus ask to pay jizya equivalent taxes, if they refused to accept him?

    Muslim bloody, genocidal conquests were exactly in accordance with Muhammad's actions!

    Thats' why, they still neither apologise for past misdeeds, nor have they given up their violent ways.



    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #41 - April 17, 2009, 05:18 PM

    Quote from: Arab-Wannabe
    We are ascribing present day standards to societies (actually only society apparently) who viewed war and warcraft as something honorable and "good"

    Cultural relativists are disgusting. vomit

    Quote from: Arab-Wannabe
    its your constant need to say pedo, genocide etc.. every time you ask me a fucking question.

    What's wrong with saying the truth as I perceive it? Aren't you doing the same? If you are so averse to my using the term "pedophile" for Mohammad, argue against it. I created a thread just as you asked, but being an intellectual coward, you abstained from posting there.

    You are simply unable to defend your arguments. You just appear every now and then to complain about anti-Muslim bigotry and when called to account for the bigotry of Islam, you always whine and flee. This is no longer amusing. Now, unless you are a moral vacuum which I suspect you are, how can you justify Allah tormenting innocent Infidels forever in Hell?

    Islam: where idiots meet terrorists.
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #42 - April 17, 2009, 05:19 PM

    Quote
    How many temples did Jesus demolish? How many idols did he & his apostles smash(while he lived) & how many idolaters did he threaten to kill if they came out to protect their idols? How many people did Jesus ask to pay jizya equivalent taxes, if they refused to accept him?


    But Rashna, Jesus didn't have the power to do any of that, he was living in a society under the thumb of the Roman Empire.  If you look at the earliest parts of the Qur'an when Mohammed was in a similarly powerless position to Jesus, you also find a peaceful person - no compulsion in religion and all that. 

    Power corrupts, Mohammed lived long enough to get powerful and it went to his head, Jesus didn't. 

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #43 - April 17, 2009, 05:25 PM

    Power corrupts, Mohammed lived long enough to get powerful and it went to his head, Jesus didn't. 


    I know that, but its difficult to blame someone without proof. If someone didn't murder, its really unfair & difficult to equate him with a murderer & claim that he would've murdered under similar circumstances. I'm not denying it might've happened that way in the future, but till Jesus lived, he didn't do anything of the sort.

    As a result, we simply see a life & teachings which are different.

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #44 - April 17, 2009, 05:29 PM

    Power corrupts, Mohammed lived long enough to get powerful and it went to his head, Jesus didn't. 


    I know that, but its difficult to blame someone without proof. If someone didn't murder, its really unfair & difficult to equate him with a murderer & claim that he would've murdered under similar circumstances. I'm not denying it might've happened that way in the future, but till Jesus lived, he didn't do anything of the sort.

    As a result, we simply see a life & teachings which are different.


    Very true.  However, the point of my post was not to attack Jesus, but to give a more human explanation of how Mohammed ended up like he did.  I'm not wildly attracted to the theory of Mohammed = evil incarnate vs.  "gentle Jesus, meek and mild."  They were both just men IMO, and nobody is ever 100% evil or 100% good.

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #45 - April 17, 2009, 05:33 PM

    Quote from: Arab-Wannabe
    Very interesting, this seems to have happened in most arab countries as well which indicates that the rise of Islamism (or the real, true Islam as some of our friends call it) is directly attributable to political decisions influenced by the cold war and not (as our esteemed friends think) to someone reading this or that hadith.

    Yes, it's all an evil American conspiracy, isn't it? Mohammad was definitely not a pedophile warlord, was he now?

    Was Islam created by the West? Was there Islamic persecutions and genocides before the Cold War, or not? And finally, even if we are to accept Western collaboration, how would the rise of true Islam be possible without intellectual vacuums like Necmettin Erbakan, Hasan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, and their bloodthirsty minions? If the Quran never called for violence against the House of War, would such a global, oppressive movement ever arise?

    After all, all the Islamists had to do was to return to the primitive teachings of a genocidal pedophile bandit.



    Woo, sorry, that was not at all what I implying.

    For one, I dont buy into conspiracy stuff. I spent several years in us army special operations command....Trust me, conspiracy theories are stupid.
    For one, we suck at keeping secrets and for two we are not actually that smart about that stuff. The incident I refered to was when several CIA operatives got caught red handed delivering weapons to anti communist militias in Sumatra.
    That and giving lip service support to Suharto, is about the extent of any involvement.

    All I meant was that during the cold war the US did a really lousy job of supporting progressive elements in these societies, and in some cases under minded them, during a time (end of ww1 to end of cold war) when they had an oppertunity to make major influences to the cultures.

    I really think this was a major mistake in hindsight.  (In fact, I still have an old Soldier of Fortune magazines from the 80s, with adds in the back saying "Support the Mujahadeen freedom fighters"). Did people do this in some twisted conspiracy to give power to islamist movements, No, not at all. Did it help contribute to it? A bit, probably.
    However, the largest contributions came from themselves. Obviously, without the religion and its influence, things would have turned out much different.

    The religious fanatics, the people they brainwash, and their fellow travelers, would of course hold the real accountability.

    The foundation of superstition is ignorance, the
    superstructure is faith and the dome is a vain hope. Superstition
    is the child of ignorance and the mother of misery.
    -Robert G. Ingersoll (1898)

     "Do time ninjas have this ability?" "Yeah. Only they stay silent and aren't douchebags."  -Ibl
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #46 - April 17, 2009, 06:13 PM

    Very true.  However, the point of my post was not to attack Jesus, but to give a more human explanation of how Mohammed ended up like he did.  I'm not wildly attracted to the theory of Mohammed = evil incarnate vs.  "gentle Jesus, meek and mild."  They were both just men IMO, and nobody is ever 100% evil or 100% good.


    True say!  Afro

    We know Buddha didn't force anyone because he was born a prince, had he wanted he could've gathered an army & coerced people to accepting his teachings, at least he could've coerced people in his kingdom, he didn't do that, I'm not claiming that Buddha's 100% good, just that we know he never forced anyone.

    Jesus is a puzzle, he never married according to what we know, but why? Huh? He could've taken a 12 year old bride, that would've been acceptable to his people & that would give Muslims opportunity to use the tu quoque arguments when Muhammad-Ayesha was brought up, & he could've taken plural wives, he remained celibate according to the accounts of his life.

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #47 - April 17, 2009, 07:19 PM

    Dear Homer,

    I know you have a valid point. However, it is childish to claim --like AW did-- that there would be no global Islamist movement if the anti-communist purges of the Cold War did not happen.

    Quote from: Homer
    However, the largest contributions came from themselves. Obviously, without the religion and its influence, things would have turned out much different.

    Absolutely.  Afro

    Islam: where idiots meet terrorists.
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #48 - April 17, 2009, 09:34 PM

    An interesting question would be...what long term effects does this have on islam?
    Cultures seem to swing like pendulums sometimes. There are many examples of religion taking over leading to a backlash against religion.....

    While I am sure I would be naive and optimistic, If the Taliban took over Pakistan, would it bring people to be more religious or to resent and eventually hate religion?

    Especially if they see it pretty much destroy their society, Id imagine a point would
    come where the "blinders" would be smacked off your face, even if you did not want to take them off.

    The foundation of superstition is ignorance, the
    superstructure is faith and the dome is a vain hope. Superstition
    is the child of ignorance and the mother of misery.
    -Robert G. Ingersoll (1898)

     "Do time ninjas have this ability?" "Yeah. Only they stay silent and aren't douchebags."  -Ibl
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #49 - April 17, 2009, 09:50 PM

    Dear Homer,

    I know you have a valid point. However, it is childish to claim --like AW did-- that there would be no global Islamist movement if the anti-communist purges of the Cold War did not happen.

    Quote from: Homer
    However, the largest contributions came from themselves. Obviously, without the religion and its influence, things would have turned out much different.

    Absolutely.  Afro



    Ya, Like I said, the effect did NOT create such people, it simply harmed the more progressive elements who would be needed to combat them.

    I do get a laugh at the conspiracy theory types or apologists who say things like "The CIA and MI6 created the taliban". That is nonsense. At most they gave guys missles to shoot at Russians, they didnt invent the idiology. Putting aside pretty much everything known about these movements and the  history and ideology behind them....you would still be smart enough to say;
    Heck, if we were clever enough to trick religious fanatics into going against their religion...we would trick them into liking us

    The foundation of superstition is ignorance, the
    superstructure is faith and the dome is a vain hope. Superstition
    is the child of ignorance and the mother of misery.
    -Robert G. Ingersoll (1898)

     "Do time ninjas have this ability?" "Yeah. Only they stay silent and aren't douchebags."  -Ibl
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #50 - April 18, 2009, 11:56 AM


    No Im reading books and articles written by established authors. My idea of research isn't a tally of destroyed buildings to confirm my own prejudices.




    Many of those "established" authors shy away from any debate with JWatch's author Robert Spencer.

    Like Karen Armstrong, her hagiography of Muhammad claims that he never compelled anyone to accept his faith, & tries to justify the Banu Quraiza massacre with very atrocious apologetics, she's been invited infinite times by Robert Spencer for a debate, but turns him down each time.

    Here's the link: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016230.php

    Or like you & BMZ, you keep telling us that Mo wasn't a pedo, but when a thread was created specifically for you to prove otherwise, you chose to stay away.

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=4640.0

    Or like BMZ, who keeps insisting that the Holocaust didn't happen, he too decided not to prove his statements via a debate.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=4796.0

    I know that you & BMZ aren't "established" authors, but even in internet forums, this is the attitude of Islamist apologists, they'll make vague statements without backing them up with any proof or debate.

    Look  it doesn't matter who's criticising, but what he\she is claiming. Even if its a anti Muslim site, if they back up their statements with citations, I will accept, ditto for Islamophile authors, but if its someone like Karen Armstrong, who makes vague statements but refuses to appear for debates, I'll not take their word for anything.

    what makes them more bloody, more genocidal than those who destroyed Appolo's temple to build a church?


    How many temples did Jesus demolish? How many idols did he & his apostles smash(while he lived) & how many idolaters did he threaten to kill if they came out to protect their idols? How many people did Jesus ask to pay jizya equivalent taxes, if they refused to accept him?

    Muslim bloody, genocidal conquests were exactly in accordance with Muhammad's actions!

    Thats' why, they still neither apologise for past misdeeds, nor have they given up their violent ways.



    We're not talking about Jesus or Mohammad, we're talking about your assertion that Muslim empires were more genocidal, more bloody and more evil than other empires and there's no empirical evidence to prove that, quite the contrary.

    Whether or not, every bad thing done by a Muslim throughout history is inspired by Mohammad is irrelevant, please do not sidetrack.

    Prove your assertion.

    "By the One in Whose Hand my soul is, were you not to commit sins, Allah would replace you with a people who would commit sins and then seek forgiveness from Allah; and Allah would forgive them." [Saheeh Muslim]

    "Wherever you are, death will find you, Even in the looming tower."
    - Quran 4:78
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #51 - April 18, 2009, 11:58 AM

    Quote from: Arab-Wannabe
    We are ascribing present day standards to societies (actually only society apparently) who viewed war and warcraft as something honorable and "good"

    Cultural relativists are disgusting. vomit



    LOL 

    "By the One in Whose Hand my soul is, were you not to commit sins, Allah would replace you with a people who would commit sins and then seek forgiveness from Allah; and Allah would forgive them." [Saheeh Muslim]

    "Wherever you are, death will find you, Even in the looming tower."
    - Quran 4:78
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #52 - April 18, 2009, 12:02 PM

    Dear Homer,

    I know you have a valid point. However, it is childish to claim --like AW did-- that there would be no global Islamist movement if the anti-communist purges of the Cold War did not happen.



    Thats not what I said, you fucking liar.

    "The personalities you mentioned are crucial but so are the events that led to the spread of their ideas (such as petro-dollar funded wahhabism/super true Islam being spread to the rest of the Islamic world and the west). We also previously mentioned the crushing of socialist progressive groups across the Muslim world and the support by short sighted politicians (such as Sadat) to Islamists."

    Thats what I said

    "By the One in Whose Hand my soul is, were you not to commit sins, Allah would replace you with a people who would commit sins and then seek forgiveness from Allah; and Allah would forgive them." [Saheeh Muslim]

    "Wherever you are, death will find you, Even in the looming tower."
    - Quran 4:78
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #53 - April 18, 2009, 02:01 PM

    I think Islamic empires behaved like any other empire throughout history.
    it has as much to do with Zionism as your unbelievably dumb and typical mischaracterization of my comments on the cold war as an "american conspiracy"


    Nope, they didn't, even in places which had empires before Islam overran them, previous empires were often much more enlightened, for instance King Cyrus's empire in Iran was far more tolerant of all races & nationalities, than post Islamic Persia, where a Zoroastrian convert to Islam was often given the property of his entire family.

    http://www.farsinet.com/cyrus/

    Since human nature is always the same, regardless of religion, we can always expect some people to act in inhuman ways, regardless of religion, but that certainly doesn't condone inhuman religious teachings, Islamic rulers & Empires, when they were charging jizya from People of the Book or slaughtering polytheists, were walking in Muhammad's footsteps, while those who refrained from doing so were violating Muhammad's teachings.



    It seems every single christian king/army/soldier in history had it wrong then and despite having the most pacifist, loving and cuddly religion, they still took up arms and waged war (both defensive and offensive warfare are anti-christian Im sure you'll agree) killing, raping and enslaving millions upon millions of people throughout the world.

    by the way, religious tolerance is not an indicator of anything. Ghenkis Khan and the monghols were quite tolerant of other religions but that didnt stop them from destroying everything in their path.  The romans were quite tolerant of other religions but they slew millions on their way to consolidating an empire.

    "By the One in Whose Hand my soul is, were you not to commit sins, Allah would replace you with a people who would commit sins and then seek forgiveness from Allah; and Allah would forgive them." [Saheeh Muslim]

    "Wherever you are, death will find you, Even in the looming tower."
    - Quran 4:78
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #54 - April 18, 2009, 02:14 PM


    Thats not what I said, you fucking liar.


    Mind your language, AW!

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #55 - April 18, 2009, 02:20 PM

    by the way, religious tolerance is not an indicator of anything. Ghenkis Khan and the monghols were quite tolerant of other religions but that didnt stop them from destroying everything in their path.  The romans were quite tolerant of other religions but they slew millions on their way to consolidating an empire.


    Religious tolerance is  an indicator of the fact that the converted peoples don't suffer emotional trauma for centuries or millennia after the conquests, by watching their co religionists forcibly converted to the conqueror's faith after a military defeat, aren't bled economically via higher taxes through jizya for millennia, which are strong inducements to adopt the conqueror's faith, that the converted people are repeatedly told that they are the "vilest of creatures"(98.6) & their conquerors are the "best of peoples" (3:110) because the conqueror's religious texts say so.

    This doesn't happen in every conquest, in case of Islam the conquests created a tyrannized unconverted people  & a converted people who had freedom from all restrictions simply by adopting the conqueror's faith.

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #56 - April 18, 2009, 02:21 PM


    Thats not what I said, you fucking liar.


    Mind your language, AW!


    NO, Im tired of having this liar deform and miscontrue everything I say.

    "By the One in Whose Hand my soul is, were you not to commit sins, Allah would replace you with a people who would commit sins and then seek forgiveness from Allah; and Allah would forgive them." [Saheeh Muslim]

    "Wherever you are, death will find you, Even in the looming tower."
    - Quran 4:78
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #57 - April 18, 2009, 02:28 PM

    I think Islamic empires behaved like any other empire throughout history.
    it has as much to do with Zionism as your unbelievably dumb and typical mischaracterization of my comments on the cold war as an "american conspiracy"


    Nope, they didn't, even in places which had empires before Islam overran them, previous empires were often much more enlightened, for instance King Cyrus's empire in Iran was far more tolerant of all races & nationalities, than post Islamic Persia, where a Zoroastrian convert to Islam was often given the property of his entire family.

    http://www.farsinet.com/cyrus/

    Since human nature is always the same, regardless of religion, we can always expect some people to act in inhuman ways, regardless of religion, but that certainly doesn't condone inhuman religious teachings, Islamic rulers & Empires, when they were charging jizya from People of the Book or slaughtering polytheists, were walking in Muhammad's footsteps, while those who refrained from doing so were violating Muhammad's teachings.



    It seems every single christian king/army/soldier in history had it wrong then and despite having the most pacifist, loving and cuddly religion, they still took up arms and waged war (both defensive and offensive warfare are anti-christian Im sure you'll agree) killing, raping and enslaving millions upon millions of people throughout the world.

    by the way, religious tolerance is not an indicator of anything. Ghenkis Khan and the monghols were quite tolerant of other religions but that didnt stop them from destroying everything in their path.  The romans were quite tolerant of other religions but they slew millions on their way to consolidating an empire.


    Are you defending islamic teachings by TU QUOQUE here? I thought islam and Muhhamad came to save the world and guide the ignorant. IF Islam taught the same things that these men have been doing since ages like raping, enslaving etc  then what is the difference between these evil men and Muhhamad?

    Shouldnt be there any difference between muhhamad and these men who committed all the evil acts? People who did these acts throughout the history were not final prophets of GOD like Muhhamad. IF muhhamad followed the same set of evils of the society then he becomes an ordinary man and not any messenger of GOD. This is where exactly he should stand out and be differentiated from ordinary men.Sadly for you he fails .
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #58 - April 18, 2009, 02:31 PM

    by the way, religious tolerance is not an indicator of anything. Ghenkis Khan and the monghols were quite tolerant of other religions but that didnt stop them from destroying everything in their path.  The romans were quite tolerant of other religions but they slew millions on their way to consolidating an empire.


    Religious tolerance is  an indicator of the fact that the converted peoples don't suffer emotional trauma for centuries or millennia after the conquests, by watching their co religionists forcibly converted to the conqueror's faith after a military defeat, aren't bled economically via higher taxes through jizya for millennia, which are strong inducements to adopt the conqueror's faith, that the converted people are repeatedly told that they are the "vilest of creatures"(98.6) & their conquerors are the "best of peoples" (3:110) because the conqueror's religious texts say so.

    This doesn't happen in every conquest, in case of Islam the conquests created a tyrannized unconverted people  & a converted people who had freedom from all restrictions simply by adopting the conqueror's faith.


    You would think that since it's the bloodiest and most genocidal empire in all of history, there wouldnt be anyone non-muslim left after all those "millennia" (by the way millennia is the plural form of millenium but Islam hasnt been around that long).

    The higher taxes and the "trauma"(apparently non-existent in other cuddlier empires like.....?) are irrelevant to your assertion that the Muslim empires were the bloodiest and most "genocidal"

    "By the One in Whose Hand my soul is, were you not to commit sins, Allah would replace you with a people who would commit sins and then seek forgiveness from Allah; and Allah would forgive them." [Saheeh Muslim]

    "Wherever you are, death will find you, Even in the looming tower."
    - Quran 4:78
  • Re: Pakistan - Taliban - Shariah Deal
     Reply #59 - April 18, 2009, 02:41 PM

    The higher taxes and the "trauma"(apparently non-existent in other cuddlier empires like.....?) are irrelevant to your assertion that the Muslim empires were the bloodiest and most "genocidal"


    They were non existent in Cyrus' empire, most other empires, they didn't discriminate on the basis of religion, infact most often the conqueror adopted the faith of those conquered, & the distinction between the conqueror & the conquered blurred over time in many conquests.

    I don't think that its compulsory to adopt the faith of the conquered, many empires didn't do that-but Islamic conquests had a calamitous effect on the native populations of nations in that the non Islamic inhabitants were bled financially & in other ways until they adopted Islam, & in the case of idolators\polytheists, but often in case of the People of the Book as well, there was utter contempt for the faith of those conquered & there were repeated & forcible attempts & vandalizations to lead them to adopt Islam.

    All this was exactly as Prophet Muhammad had done in his life, his followers were emulating his example to the letter-if such a Prophet makes you comfortable...

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »