Page 17 of 20 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 193

Thread: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

  1. #161
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

    1. 613 Persians capture Damascus and Antioch

    2. 614 Persians sack Jerusalem

    3. 633 Muslims conquer Syria and Iraq

    4. 635 Muslims begin the conquest of Persia and Syria

    5. 635 Arab Muslims capture the city of Damascus

    6. 636-637 Arab domination of Syria

    7. 637 Arabs occupy Ctesiphon

    8. 637 Jerusalem falls to Muslim forces

    9. 638 Caliph Umar I enters Jerusalem

    10. 639 Muslims conquer Egypt and Persia

    11. 641 Islam spreads into Egypt

    12. 641 Muslims conquer Alexandria

    13. 649 Muawiya I leads raid against Cyprus sacking the capital Salamis-Constantia

    14. 652 Sicily is attacked by Muslims

    15. 653 Muawiya I leads raid against Rhodes

    16. 654 Muawiya I conquers Cyprus

    17. 655 Battle of the Masts

    18. 661-680 Mu�awiya moves capital from Mecca to Damascus

    19. 662 Egypt falls to the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates

    20. 667 Sicily is attacked by Muslims

    21. 668 First siege of Constantinople

    22. 669 Muslim conquest reaches Morocco

    23. 672 Muslims capture the island of Rhodes

    24. 674 Arab conquest reaches Indus River

    25. 698 Muslims capture Carthage

    26. 700 Muslims raid Island of Sicily

    27. 711 Muslims conquest of Sindh in Afghanistan

    28. 711 Battle of Guadalate

    29. 712 Conquest of Andulusia

    30. 715 Muslim conquest of Spain

    31. 716 Muslims captured Lisbon

    32. 717 Cordova becomes capital of Andalusia (Spain)

    33. 719 Muslims attack Septimania in Southern France

    34. 721 Muslims cross the Pyrenees

    35. 722 Battle of Covadonga First defeat of Muslims by Christians

    36. 724 Muslims raid southern France and capture Carcassone and Nimes

    37. 725 Muslim forces occupy Nimes, France

    38. 730 Muslim forces occupy Narbonne and Avignon

    39. 732 Battle of Tours (Christian Victory)

    40. 735 Muslim invaders capture Arles

    41. 750 Abbasids move capital to Baghdad

    42. 756 The Emirate of Cordova is established

    43. 759 Pippin III ends Muslim incursions in France

    44. 792 Hisham I calls for a Jihad Thousands heed his call to cross the Pyrenees to subjugate France. Many cities are destroyed

    45. 813 Muslims attack the Civi Vecchia near Rome

    46. 816 The Moors support the Basques against the Franks

    47. 827 Sicily is invaded by Muslims

    48. 831 Muslims capture Palermo and make it their capital

    49. 838 Muslim raiders sack Marseille

    50. 841 Muslim forces capture Bari (in Italy)

    51. 846 Muslim raiders attack areas near Ostia and Rome. Some enter Rome and damage the Churches of St. Peter and St. Paul. The Leonine Wall is built to discourage further Attacks.

    52. 849 Battle of Ostia (Christian Victory)

    53. 850 Perfectus, a Christian priest in Muslim Cordova is executed � one of the first of Many

    54. 85111 young Christians are executed for insulting the Prophet Muhammed

    55. 858 Muslim raiders attack Constantinople

    56. 859 Muslim invaders capture Castrogiovanni slaughtering several thousand

    57. 869 Arabs capture the island of Malta

    58. 870 Muslim invaders capture Syracuse

    59. 876 Muslims pillage Campagna in Italy

    60. 879 The Seljuk Empire unites Mesapotamia and a large portion of Persia

    61. 884 Muslims invading Italy burn the monastery of Monte Cassino to the ground

    62. 900 The Fatimid Dynasty assumes control of Egypt

    63. 902 The Muslim conquest of Sicily is completed when the Christian city of Toorminia is captured

    64. 909 Sicily comes under control of the Fatimids

    65. 909 The fatimid Dynasty assumes control of Egypt

    66. 909 Muslims control all the passes in the Alps between France and Italy � cutting off passage between the two countries

    67. 920 Muslim forces cross the Pyrenees, enter Gascony and reach as far as the gates of Toulouse

    68. 972 The Fatimids of Egypt conquer North Africa

    69. 981 Ramiro III, king of Leon, is defeated at Rueda

    70. 985 Al-Mansur Ibn Abi Aamir sacks Barcelona

    71. 994 The monastery of Monte Cassino is destrpyed a second time by Arabs

    72. 997 Under the leadership of Almanzar, Muslim forces march out of the city of Cordova and head north to capture Christian lands.

    73. 997 Muslim forces burn Compostela to the ground

    74. 1004 Arab raiders sack the Italian city of Pisa

    75. 1009 The Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is destroyed by Muslim armies

    76. 1009 Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah orders the the Holy Sepulcher and all Christian buildings in Jerusalem be destroyed

    77. 1012 Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah orders the destruction of all Christian and Jewish houses of worship in his lands

    78. 1012 Berber forces capture Cordova and order that half the population be executed

    79. 1015 Arab Muslim forces conquer Sardinia

    80. 1064 The Seljuk Turks conquer Christian Armenia

    81. 1070 Seljuk Turks capture Jerusalem and begin persecuting Christian Pilgrims

    82. 1071-1085 Seljuk Turks conquer most of Syria and Palestine

    83. 1071 Battle of Manzikert

    84. 1073 Seljuk Turks conquer Ankara

    85. 1078 Seljuk Turks capture Nicaea

    86. 1084 Seljuk Turks conquer Antioch

    67. 1086 Battle of Zallaca

    68. 1088 Patzinak Turks begin forming settlements between the Danube and the Balkans

    69. 1090 Granada captured by Yusuf Ibn Tashfin

    70. 1091 Cordova is captured by the Almoravids
    Your response is tangential to my point.

    There was no Muslim Pope or Muslim Church. The Muslim Pope and Muslim Church did not collect taxes or exercise authority (via excommunication) over Muslim nobles and "kings", because they did not exist. Imams, who were scholars and interpreters, were the closest thing to an Islamic Clergy. Caliphs, depending on the size of their domain and personal finances were roughly analagous to European kings and dukes, and they or their vassals were the ones who paid Imams, so I guess they were the closest thing to a "Head of Church." Therefore, reducing these conquests to "Muslims" is a strawman; regardless of their religious sympathies, you can count on aristocrats to conduct their wars according to (1) national security and (2) profit. Your use of the term "Muslims" implies a unity that does not exist, and a motivation which had a comparatively peripheral existence before the Crusades and the invention of the Jihad concept.

    The Moors (Africa), the Turks (Asia Minor), and the Arabs (Egypt) were economically and politically disunited entities with their own interests and policies. Generally, they fought wars for the same reason the English and French aristocracies fought wars; to increase their territory and revenues. Usually, they fought against each other.

    The Moors had halted their advance into Iberia (aka, Portugal, Spain, and Aragon) several centuries previously, after Charlemegne drove them back. Whether the Christian Iberian nobles had still had a right to drive into Africa after such a long period is questionable (do the Native Americans have the right to drive everybody else out of the Americas?). Sicily was a possession of the Byzantine Emperors; Moors were invited to take it in exchange for aid during a minor Byzantine Civil War. Later, the Arabs conquered it from the Moors, not from Christians.

    The Turks were attacking the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire. However, Western Europeans were attacking the the Empire's western frontier prior to the Crusades and seized territory over the course of their Crusades (indeed, many leaders in the Crusading movement were investors in the effort of Western Europeans to conquer Byzantine's western lands). So, calling "foul" on the Turks is a little overbearing.

    The Arabs had minimal relations with the Europeans.

    And now, far as the period of rapid advancement prior to encroachments into Europe, those were Pagan territories, not European or Christian ones, and Christians have a similar history of expansion against Pagans in the lands they later came to dominate. Furthermore, the "Muslim conquests" were more like hostile take overs; Islam spread quickly and held fast because it had a more appealing vision of life than the prevailing Pagan religions, so most populations were receptive to conversion attempts and it was comparatively easy to form new Islamic nations out of the old Pagan kingdoms of the Middle East.

    Not to mention the frequent Muslim attacks on pilgrims to Israel.
    Almost certainly bandits exploiting the defenselessness of people far from home, maybe the Turks suspicious of aliens passing through their lands. The Arab-Egyptian Caliphate could not obtain significant material resources from raiding tourists and was reputed for exercising religious tolerance toward Jews and Christians.

    In sum:

    A religious war against the Moors wasn't really justifiable. They weren't advancing into Europe and hadn't for several hundred years.

    A religious war against the Turks was potentially justifiable, although their were a great many hypocrisies and ironies in the execution.

    A religious war against the Arabs was not justifiable.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 04-11-10 at 11:12 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  2. #162
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    Nice display of ignorance of history.

    "Live as 3rd class dhimmi half slaves".

    The only thing the "dhimmis" had to do was a pay a jizya (poll tax) which exempted them from military service and was significantly cheaper than the zakat that all Muslims are obligated to pay.
    lol your knowledge of Sharia is astounding, gee where should I begin, as a 3rd class Dhimmi (Islamic women were and are the 2nd class citizens within dar al-Islam) could be killed outright on the spot by a Muslim and all which would be need to be done was to pay a blood tax, they could not testify against Muslims in court, they could not pray openly or prostelytize, and again this is if they were not outright enslaved as the Islamic conquerors engaged in the greatest slave trade in history in the lands which they conquered, mainly in fact from Western Asia and North Africa.

    And Islamic invaders were welcomed, as I already provided this evidence earlier in the thread. Who's boats did the Muslims use to get to Hispania? Exactly, remain ignorant of relevant history while spouting bull**** rhetoric.

    Also FYI, Mao Zedong will disagree with your pathetic genocide argument.
    Yes yes I'm quite sure those 20 million or so Hindu's and Buddhists on the Indian subcontintent welcomed being systematically exterminated. I bet that every single Jewish tribe on the Arabian peninsula just loved the ethnic cleansing and outright genocide that Mohammad himself commanded against the Banu. I bet that they Jews and Christians just loved the burning of all churches and synagogues by Caliph Omar in 637, or when Caliph Muawiya engaged in massacre during the sack of Cyprus, or in 705 Caliph Walid gathered together the nobles in churches then burned them alive, crucifying other, and enslaving their women and children. I bet they loved the burning of monasteries in Egypt by Caliph Marwan between 744 and 750.

    There's many many more examples of the "peaceful" conquest of dar al-Harab.

    Furthermore; I said (up until Stalin). Reading is fundamental.

  3. #163
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    Stalin was before Mao, I said "up until Stalin" reading is fundamental.

  4. #164
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

    lol your knowledge of Sharia is astounding, gee where should I begin, as a 3rd class Dhimmi (Islamic women were and are the 2nd class citizens within dar al-Islam) could be killed outright on the spot by a Muslim and all which would be need to be done was to pay a blood tax, they could not testify against Muslims in court, they could not pray openly or prostelytize, and again this is if they were not outright enslaved as the Islamic conquerors engaged in the greatest slave trade in history in the lands which they conquered, mainly in fact from Western Asia and North Africa.
    "sigh" Come on, people. Quit sensationalizing history.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi#...er_of_a_dhimmi

    The Hanafi school, which represents the vast majority of Muslims, believes that the murder of a dhimmi must be punishable by death, citing a hadith according to which Muhammad ordered the execution of a Muslim who killed a dhimmi. In other schools of Islamic jurisprudence the maximum punishment for the murder of a dhimmi, if perpetrated by a Muslim, was the payment of blood money; no death penalty was possible. For Maliki and Hanbali schools of jurisprudence, the value of a dhimmi's life was one-half the value of a Muslim's life; in the Shafi'i school, Jews and Christians were worth one-third of a Muslim and Zoroastrians were worth just one-fifteenth.[86][87]

    A peculiar practice developed in Yemen, where Arab tribes collected jizya from Jews, offering them protection. If a Muslim from one tribe killed a Jew protected by another tribe, then the other tribe could retaliate by killing a Jew protected by the tribe of the murderer. As a result, two Jews were murdered, while no direct sanctions were imposed on the Muslims.[88]
    Imams developed radically different outlooks on dhimmi status. Which interpretation was practiced in a legal district depended on their Caliph. Usually, treatment of Jews and Christians was equitable, because Jews and Christians had useful functions and keeping them happy was an imperative. Certainly, the Jews that fought alongside Arabs to defend Jereusulam during the First Crusade felt their society was worth fighting for.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 04-11-10 at 11:28 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  5. #165
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Your response is tangential to my point.

    There was no Muslim Pope or Muslim Church. The Muslim Pope and Muslim Church did not collect taxes or exercise authority (via excommunication) over Muslim nobles and "kings", because they did not exist. Imams, who were scholars and interpreters, were the closest thing to an Islamic Clergy. Caliphs, depending on the size of their domain and personal finances were roughly analagous to European kings and dukes, and they or their vassals were the ones who paid Imams, so I guess they were the closest thing to a "Head of Church." Therefore, reducing these conquests to "Muslims" is a strawman; regardless of their religious sympathies, you can count on aristocrats to conduct their wars according to (1) national security and (2) profit. Your use of the term "Muslims" implies a unity that does not exist, and a motivation which had a comparatively peripheral existence before the Crusades and the invention of the Jihad concept.

    The Moors (Africa), the Turks (Asia Minor), and the Arabs (Egypt)
    The Caliph was the head of the Ummah and as such was both head of state and the head of the church, he was the exact equivalent of the pope not the "closest thing" as you say. To say that the Ummayyad, Abbassid, Fatimid, or Ottoman caliphates weren't united would be like saying that the Byzantine or Western empires weren't united.

    were economically and politically disunited entities with their own interests and policies. Generally, they fought wars for the same reason the English and French aristocracies fought wars; to increase their territory and revenues. Usually, they fought against each other.

    The Moors had halted their advance into Iberia (aka, Portugal, Spain, and Aragon) several centuries previously, after Charlemegne drove them back. Whether the Christian Iberian nobles had still had a right to drive into Africa after such a long period is questionable (do the Native Americans have the right to drive everybody else out of the Americas?). Sicily was a possession of the Byzantine Emperors; Moors were invited to take it in exchange for aid during a minor Byzantine Civil War. Later, the Arabs conquered it from the Moors, not from Christians.

    The Turks were attacking the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire. However, Western Europeans were attacking the the Empire's western frontier prior to the Crusades and seized territory over the course of their Crusades (indeed, many leaders in the Crusading movement were investors in the effort of Western Europeans to conquer Byzantine's western lands). So, calling "foul" on the Turks is a little overbearing.

    The Arabs had minimal relations with the Europeans.

    And now, far as the period of rapid advancement prior to encroachments into Europe, those were Pagan territories, not European or Christian ones, and Christians have a similar history of expansion against Pagans in the lands they later came to dominate. Furthermore, the "Muslim conquests" were more like hostile take overs; Islam spread quickly and held fast because it had a more appealing vision of life than the prevailing Pagan religions, so most populations were receptive to conversion attempts and it was comparatively easy to form new Islamic nations out of the old Pagan kingdoms of the Middle East.
    FTW? Ya I bet those 20 or so million Zoroastrian of the Sassanid empire and the Hindu and Buddhists of the Indian subcontintent who were systematically exterminated were just wide open to conversion. I'm sure they just loved being slaughtered, having their churches and libraries burned, their surrendered POWs loved being decapitated to the man, they were I'm sure quite wide open to the thousands, and I'm sure they were just thrilled by the whole enslavement thing.

  6. #166
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

    The Caliph was the head of the Ummah and as such was both head of state and the head of the church, he was the exact equivalent of the pope not the "closest thing" as you say. To say that the Ummayyad, Abbassid, Fatimid, or Ottoman caliphates weren't united would be like saying that the Byzantine or Western empires weren't united.
    ... the Byzantine and Western empires weren't united. Before the Crusade, aristocrats from all over Europe were investing in military expeditions to carve out holdings out of the failing Byzantire Empire while the Turks occupied its intentions on the eastern fronteir. Successors to Emperor Manuel regretted their ancestor's initiative, because Crusading nobles were orchestrating land grabs all the way across the Empire while on their way to Jereusulam.

    Saying the Caliphates were united is like saying France and England were united, or that the Holy Roman Empire (Germany) and Poland were united. Indeed, the relationship between the Turks and Arabs rather pretty close to the relationship of England and France.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 04-11-10 at 11:58 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  7. #167
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    "sigh" Come on, people. Quit sensationalizing history.

    Dhimmi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    From C.E.Bosworth:

    "The legal testimony of a dhimmi was not admissible in a judicial suit where a Muslim was one of the parties, because it was felt that infidelity, the obstinate failure to recognize the true light of Islam, was proof of defective morality and a consequent incapability of bearing legal witness. In the words of the Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi (d. 483/1090), "the word of a dishonest Muslim is more valuable than that of a honest dhimmi." On the other hand, the deposition of a Muslim against a dhimmi was perfectly valid in law. It was further held by almost all schools of Islamic law (with the exception of the Hanafi one) that the diya or blood money payable on the killing of a dhimmi was only two-thirds or a half of that of a free Muslim."

    It is the Maliki school which is predominant North Africa, West Africa, and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf.


    Imams developed radically different outlooks on dhimmi status. Which interpretation was practiced in a legal district depended on their Caliph. Usually, treatment of Jews and Christians was equitable, because Jews and Christians had useful functions and keeping them happy was an imperative. Certainly, the Jews that fought alongside Arabs to defend Jereusulam during the First Crusade felt their society was worth fighting for.
    What do you mean by "depended on their Caliph"? The Caliph headed the Caliphate. It depended upon which Caliph was ruling at the time perhaps or maybe which governor who ultimately answered to the Caliph but you act as if there was no Islamic Imperial dynasties, the Caliph was nearly the exact counterpart to the pope, he was both head of church and head of state.
    Last edited by Agent Ferris; 04-12-10 at 12:05 AM.

  8. #168
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

    er Sharia law?


    From C.E.Bosworth:

    "The legal testimony of a dhimmi was not admissible in a judicial suit where a Muslim was one of the parties, because it was felt that infidelity, the obstinate failure to recognize the true light of Islam, was proof of defective morality and a consequent incapability of bearing legal witness. In the words of the Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi (d. 483/1090), "the word of a dishonest Muslim is more valuable than that of a honest dhimmi." On the other hand, the deposition of a Muslim against a dhimmi was perfectly valid in law. It was further held by almost all schools of Islamic law (with the exception of the Hanafi one) that the diya or blood money payable on the killing of a dhimmi was only two-thirds or a half of that of a free Muslim."
    Want to take a look at Western Europe's High Justice and its protocol for dealing with non-Christians?

    Furthermore:

    Various restrictions and legal disabilities were placed on Dhimmis, such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims.[14] Most of these disabilities had a social and symbolic rather than a tangible and practical character.[15] Although persecution in the form of violent and active repression was rare and atypical,[16] the limitations on the rights of dhimmis made them vulnerable to the whims of rulers and the violence of mobs.
    Also, "blood taxes" were universal punishment for murder; Muslims could pay a blood tax for killing Muslims. Incarceration was not practical in medieval times, and the death penalty was not always preferred in Muslim society. It isn't equitable that the life of a Jew or Christian was worth less money than that of a Muslim, but comparing to European High Justice, its not the worst deal.

    Remember, "Sharia Law" is a theory, not a practice. How theories work out in practice tends to be different from their wording.


    What do you mean by "depended on their Caliph"? The Caliph headed the Caliphate. It depended upon which Caliph was ruling at the time perhaps or maybe which governor who ultimately answered to the Caliph but you act as if there was no Islamic Imperial dynasties, the Caliph was nearly the exact counterpart to the pope, he was both head of church and head of state.
    In a medieval context, a Pope is a person who exercises limited organizing power over secular authorities. In practice, he shares authority with kings, because if they don't obey his wishes, he can excommunicate them and order those loyal to the Church to attack and nobles in his country to rebel.

    A Caliph is religious and secular authority streamlined into one person. He only has authority over his own nation. He does not share authority with a Pope-type figure along with fellow Caliphs.

    There is no Muslim Pope because there is no Muslim who presides over all Muslim kingdoms.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 04-12-10 at 12:14 AM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  9. #169
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    RCC Revisionism hard at work.
    Historical ignorance at work. You do know that Pope Urban called for the firt Crusade as a DIRECT result of a plea made to him by the emperor of the Roman Empire in Constantinople to help against the advances of the Seljuq Empire through Anatolia, right?
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  10. #170
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Want to take a look at Western Europe's High Justice and its protocol for dealing with non-Christians?
    It was far better than the treatment of non-Muslims on the Indian subcontinent. But go right ahead.

    Furthermore:


    Also, "blood taxes" were universal punishment for murder; Muslims could pay a blood tax for killing Muslims. Incarceration was not practical in medieval times, and the death penalty was not always preferred in Muslim society. It isn't equitable that the life of a Jew or Christian was worth less money than that of a Muslim, but comparing to European High Justice, its not the worst deal.
    I'm an atheist, however, I would much prefer Canon Law over Sharia Law any day of the week.

    Remember, "Sharia Law" is a theory, not a practice. How theories work out in practice tends to be different from their wording.
    The maximum punishment for the murder of a Dhimmi was always the blood payment. And can you please show me which school of Fiqh provides anything but the death penalty for the murder of a Muslim?


    In a medieval context, a Pope is a person who exercises limited organizing power over secular authorities. In practice, he shares authority with kings, because if they don't obey his wishes, he can excommunicate them and order those loyal to the Church to attack and nobles in his country to rebel.

    A Caliph is religious and secular authority streamlined into one person. He only has authority over his own nation. He does not share authority with a Pope-type figure along with fellow Caliphs.

    There is no Muslim Pope because there is no Muslim who presides over all Muslim kingdoms.
    Then what the hell would you call the Ummayad, Abbassid, Fatimad, and Ottoman Caliphate dynasties then exactly?

Page 17 of 20 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •