prrriiide
Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 202
- Reaction score
- 97
- Location
- Knoxvega$, TN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Thats always the case
Care to clarify that?
Thats always the case
Care to clarify that?
9/11 wasn't even done in the name of Islam. Osama said it was retaliation for American involvement in Lebanon in the 80s so why are we holding Muslims accountable for 9/11?
Not to mention, Muslims still practice slavery.
21% of Americans consider themselves to be Liberal, too. Hmmmmm!!!
Everyones looking at this wrong.
This is a good thing.
It shows LESS of America is stupid then it previously was.
Previously 1 in 4 Americans thought the government had a hand in 9/11.
See, now the crazies are only 1 in 5.
We're reducing the number of crazies!
9/11 wasn't even done in the name of Islam. Osama said it was retaliation for American involvement in Lebanon in the 80s so why are we holding Muslims accountable for 9/11?
The facts are that religious tolerance was expressed more in a Muslim country than it was in Christian countries of that time.
Your choice, to live as a Dhimmi (with all the same or similar rights as a regular citizen) or be killed, expelled, treated as a second class citizen (comparatively speaking)?
The fact is you are simply wrong all throughout this time period the Muslims were busy perpetrating the largest genocide the world would see until Hitler against the Buddhists and the Hindus on the Indian Subcontinent.
The Dhimmi were in fact 3rd class citizens (women being the 2nd class citizens), they did not have the same rights as Muslims that is an out and out lie. Likewise Christians and Jews were routinely killed during Muslim pogroms the same as Jews in Europe, this whole age of the tolerant Islam is a complete historical fabrication.
Do you realize that the reason we live in this country is because the colonists wiped out Native Americans,
claiming that they were barbarians who hadn't accepted Christ? And Christopher Columbus did the exact same thing when he came over from Europe. The colonization of both North and South America was based on Christians killing in the name of divine right.
9/11 was not done for religious reasons. It was done for political reasons.
They hate America because America occupies the Arabian peninsula,
interferes with their politics, inserts puppet dictators
Cite specific examples.
and steals their oil.
And by steal you mean found, developed, didn't do anything when they renigged on the agreed upon PSA's, and now continues to purchase.
Moderate Muslims condemn acts of terror, but when you have a whole region destroyed by war and poverty, extremism is going to manifest itself there and it cannot be completely stopped.
The first Muslim extremist was Mohammad. Islam has been expanding through the sword since its very founding and long long long before the U.S. came onto the scene, so your assertions simply hold no water. And Islam has itself destroyed or nearly destroyed entire peoples and their religions through a vast systematic policy of cultural genocide from the India Subcontinent to North Africa.
It's amazing to me how ignorant Americans still are. Do you think the Muslim world likes Barack Obama? Let me tell you, they don't. They like him better than Bush, but they don't agree with his policies at all. Not that facts are going to persuade you, but I thought at least one or two people here could get something out of the truth.
You know the policies that I don't agree with? The fact that all five mainstream branches of Islam still call for capital and/or corporal punishment for the non-crimes of apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, and/or premarital sex.
9/11 wasn't even done in the name of Islam. Osama said it was retaliation for American involvement in Lebanon in the 80s so why are we holding Muslims accountable for 9/11?
Ok, we are talking about it in comparison to Christianity.
I'd like to see links proving this though.
Dhimmi's could own property and could, largely, practice their religion freely.
Was it perfect, of course not.
I'd also like to see links with further information on this.
In comparison to Christian Europe, they were free to practice.
Oh I see only monotheistic religions counts when we're talking about religious tolerance.
Anyways wiki will give you a nice base line from which to start:
Persecution of Hindus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Could not testify against Muslims, could be killed by Muslims outright with only a tribute of blood money to be payed, could not in fact practice their religion in public or prosteltyze to Muslims in any way and suffered immense state and non-state sponsored persecution and numerous pogroms.
Fellows of the book were allowed to practice, this was not the case for the Pagans and it depends when exactly we're talking about in Christian Europe, eg when the Christian religion was first adopted by the Roman empire they were very tolerant of other religions in the territories under their control and that would include the peoples who still practiced Paganism.
Yep, you're moving the goal posts.
We are talking about the comparison to Europe and Christianity at that time.
I'll withhold comment on your first point until you provide proof.
You're using subjective measures of good and bad here.
Could not practice in public, how?
They were allowed their own communities and places of worship.
Muslims didn't proselytize either, it's not part of their religion to do so.
Life isn't perfect and never claimed that it was.
Compared to European states, which only allowed 1 religion, they were light years ahead.
We are talking about the Ottomans compared to their contemporaries.
For a long time the Roman empire killed Christians.
Thankyou Ward Churchill, they're are more Native Americans living in North America than there when the evil Europeans started taking censuses.
I wasn't aware that the Conquistodores were the ones who settled what is today the United States. :roll:
No it was done for religious reasons the trouble is the Islamist does not distinquish between the religious and the political.
And by occupies you mean has since left after the threat of Saddam was removed, and by occupied you mean was there upon invitation of their sovereign government to defend the Kingdom.
Cite specific examples.
And by steal you mean found, developed, didn't do anything when they renigged on the agreed upon PSA's, and now continues to purchase.
The first Muslim extremist was Mohammad. Islam has been expanding through the sword since its very founding and long long long before the U.S. came onto the scene, so your assertions simply hold no water. And Islam has itself destroyed or nearly destroyed entire peoples and their religions through a vast systematic policy of cultural genocide from the India Subcontinent to North Africa.
You know the policies that I don't agree with? The fact that all five mainstream branches of Islam still call for capital and/or corporal punishment for the non-crimes of apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, and/or premarital sex.
Native American population in the pre-Columbian era: about 12 million people, estimated as high as 18 million. Native American population according to the 2003 US Census: under 3 million. When you're making a long list of accusations, it's not good to start out with blatent misinformation, but you managed to do just that. And did you see the sentence that followed the one about Columbus -- "North and South America," you think I just threw in South America as a non sequitor? Both continents were taken by Christians who believed that God wanted them to have the land that they desired for wealth and power, just as Muslims believe that God supports their politically motivated terrorist tactics against western targets.
You want examples of United States puppet dictators? How about Hamid Karzai? How about Ilham Aliyev? Look at all we've done to help Musharaff. There is a huge list of incredibly horrible, powerful people in the Middle East that our government assists for tactical reasons.
I'm not interested in arguing about Islam with you. It's just like any other religion: it can be used to justify violence or it can motivate great acts of charity. I don't agree with theocracy and I don't agree with suppressing women's rights or homosexual rights. I have no interest in defending those things.
And the Muslims were perpetrating mass democide and cultural genocide on the Indian Subcontinent at that time.
They could not wear crosses on the outside of their clothing, they, could not advocate their faith to others, and they could not pray in public either.
lol, it's an integral part of their religion, I'm begining to think you know very little about what you're commenting on.
Dawah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So there were no non-Christians living in Christianized Europe? Sure thing.
Which contemporaries? Europe was not a monolithic entity like the Ottoman Empire.
And for a longtime they didn't.
Native American population in the pre-Columbian era: about 12 million people, estimated as high as 18 million.
Native American population according to the 2003 US Census: under 3 million. When you're making a long list of accusations, it's not good to start out with blatent misinformation, but you managed to do just that.
And did you see the sentence that followed the one about Columbus -- "North and South America," you think I just threw in South America as a non sequitor? Both continents were taken by Christians who believed that God wanted them to have the land that they desired for wealth and power, just as Muslims believe that God supports their politically motivated terrorist tactics against western targets.
You want examples of United States puppet dictators? How about Hamid Karzai?
How about Ilham Aliyev?
Look at all we've done to help Musharaff.
There is a huge list of incredibly horrible, powerful people in the Middle East that our government assists for tactical reasons.
FOXNews.com - Nearly 1 in 5 Americans Thinks Obama Is Muslim, Survey Shows
Stupid Fundamentalist Christians making America look bad.
Was reading that link as well.
It said that the time of Mughal control was marked by times of tolerance and times of brutality.
Although that doesn't excuse the brutality at all.
Just seems like it's not all or nothing, like you implied.
Dude, did you even read the link?
"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.[122]"
You know, comparatively, that's not a big deal at all.
At least they got to practice, largely, how they wanted to.
Be that as it may, Islam does not proselytize like Christianity does with missionaries.
That link provided very little information.
There were, of course they were persecuted and had limited privileges compared to their peers living in the Ottoman Empire.
Each state had a (more or less) state religion.
Germany, France, Spain, Britain, etc.
By and large, the Ottoman state was more tolerate of different religious faiths, than Europe was.
You're just derailing the discussion with this because you have, at best, flimsy evidence to counter me.
Nothing except the largest genocide until Hitler, more than 13 million Hindus were systematically killed during the Islamic conquests of the Indian Subcontinent.
1 out of 5 aint bad huh? And you fail to take into account the systematic legal discrimination, the article, also, points out that Christian testimony against a Muslim was seen as worthless, so it would be very difficult to prove crimes perpetrated by Muslims against Christians in the first place.
Compared to who?
Islamic Dawa is exactly the same thing as Christian prostelytizing.
They even have their own missionaries:
Islamic Missionary Activity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prove it.
And now prove that each of these states acted in the same way towards non-Christians.
The Ottoman Empire encompassed a long time period, the status of Dhimmi's depended upon the rulers of the specific time as was the case in Europe as well.
The point is you're pointing to the Ottoman Empire which had different policies towards Dhimmi's throughout its history, the same is true in relation to Christianized Europe, different states had different policies at different times.a