Agree with him 100 percent. He can be an asshole and very wrong, but he does call them like he sees them.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Agree with him 100 percent. He can be an asshole and very wrong, but he does call them like he sees them.[/quote]
Just watched the video again and it really is amazing. There is a rawness in the way they he just dismantles the guest that I have not recognized before.
Sorry for being a little video slut lately. I know these are some big mushy ideas, but given so many of you are strongly religious, I’m wondering if this makes any sense to you folks.
Granted, our children, grandchildren, great grandchildren etc. Are going to grow up in a world with religious diversity, like it or not…
Sitting here and bitching about Islam has accomplished nothing. Finding common ground, rational discourse with the youth seems like the proper way forward, does it not? Way things are going we are setting up our progeny to kill one another.
Probably the first thing I’ve agreed with Maher on since his left turn after getting fired.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Agree with him 100 percent. He can be an asshole and very wrong, but he does call them like he sees them.[/quote]
His assessment is correct in this case. The violence is way too common, it is way too frequent, and it is way too celebrated for this to be a problem of a fringe element of kooks. Now in the 21st century.
If anybody brings up the crusades, I may shit. Of course, were it not for the crusades we’d all be muslims. Christians don’t kill you if you renounce the faith.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Agree with him 100 percent. He can be an asshole and very wrong, but he does call them like he sees them.[/quote]
His assessment is correct in this case. The violence is way too common, it is way too frequent, and it is way too celebrated for this to be a problem of a fringe element of kooks. Now in the 21st century.
If anybody brings up the crusades, I may shit. Of course, were it not for the crusades we’d all be muslims. Christians don’t kill you if you renounce the faith.[/quote]
No, Arab conquests came to a squeaking halt at Constantinople in the East and somewhere in the middle of France Karl Martell hammered them back into Spain.
That was long before the crusades.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Agree with him 100 percent. He can be an asshole and very wrong, but he does call them like he sees them.[/quote]
His assessment is correct in this case. The violence is way too common, it is way too frequent, and it is way too celebrated for this to be a problem of a fringe element of kooks. Now in the 21st century.
If anybody brings up the crusades, I may shit. Of course, were it not for the crusades we’d all be muslims. Christians don’t kill you if you renounce the faith.[/quote]
No, Arab conquests came to a squeaking halt at Constantinople in the East and somewhere in the middle of France Karl Martell hammered them back into Spain.
That was long before the crusades. [/quote]
As an aside, the Byzantines may well have squashed Islam altogether had it not been for the first outbreak of Bubonic Plague in the middle of the sixth century. The disastrous outcome at Yarmouk may well have depended upon the demographic and financial depletion of the Empire by the plague.
But anyways, yes, the Crusades were as much about European politics and (initially) the Investiture Controversy as they were about the Holy Sepulchre or the beating back of the Muslims. And that’s not even getting into the debacle that was the Fourth.
But Maher is right–the difference between Christian barbarism and Muslim barbarism is that the former is by and large the purview of the historical monograph while the latter can be found in newspapers.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Agree with him 100 percent. He can be an asshole and very wrong, but he does call them like he sees them.[/quote]
His assessment is correct in this case. The violence is way too common, it is way too frequent, and it is way too celebrated for this to be a problem of a fringe element of kooks. Now in the 21st century.
If anybody brings up the crusades, I may shit. Of course, were it not for the crusades we’d all be muslims. Christians don’t kill you if you renounce the faith.[/quote]
No, Arab conquests came to a squeaking halt at Constantinople in the East and somewhere in the middle of France Karl Martell hammered them back into Spain.
That was long before the crusades. [/quote]
While this is completely true, the Crusades were very beneficial to Europe and Christendom in general. Although the Muslims “won” there was a significant transfer of technology and knowledge to the Christian kingdoms, particularly to Florence and the other Italian city states where they later moved Westwards. The fall of Constantinople also saw a shift in power base towards the West, with refugees bringing new knowledge and trade shifting towards the West, no longer dominated by the Byzantines. This knowledge later ignited the Renaissance period, which coincided with the beginning of the rise of Europe.
It could be argued that without the Crusades Europe may never have risen to become the power it was in the 15th Century onwards. In fact, without the Crusades, odds are that we all may be speaking Chinese now.
Maher nailed it perfectly, he has never been a fan of religion in general, but I think his assessment of different religions was accurate to a T.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Agree with him 100 percent. He can be an asshole and very wrong, but he does call them like he sees them.[/quote]
His assessment is correct in this case. The violence is way too common, it is way too frequent, and it is way too celebrated for this to be a problem of a fringe element of kooks. Now in the 21st century.
If anybody brings up the crusades, I may shit. Of course, were it not for the crusades we’d all be muslims. Christians don’t kill you if you renounce the faith.[/quote]
No, Arab conquests came to a squeaking halt at Constantinople in the East and somewhere in the middle of France Karl Martell hammered them back into Spain.
That was long before the crusades. [/quote]
That wasn’t the only attempt of invasion by the Moores. The Moors were finally expelled in 1492. While the main point was to expel the Moors from Jerusalem, it did also stop further conquests of Moorish invaders in to Europe and served to expel them permanently.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Agree with him 100 percent. He can be an asshole and very wrong, but he does call them like he sees them.[/quote]
His assessment is correct in this case. The violence is way too common, it is way too frequent, and it is way too celebrated for this to be a problem of a fringe element of kooks. Now in the 21st century.
If anybody brings up the crusades, I may shit. Of course, were it not for the crusades we’d all be muslims. Christians don’t kill you if you renounce the faith.[/quote]
No, Arab conquests came to a squeaking halt at Constantinople in the East and somewhere in the middle of France Karl Martell hammered them back into Spain.
That was long before the crusades. [/quote]
As an aside, the Byzantines may well have squashed Islam altogether had it not been for the first outbreak of Bubonic Plague in the middle of the sixth century. The disastrous outcome at Yarmouk may well have depended upon the demographic and financial depletion of the Empire by the plague.
But anyways, yes, the Crusades were as much about European politics and (initially) the Investiture Controversy as they were about the Holy Sepulchre or the beating back of the Muslims. And that’s not even getting into the debacle that was the Fourth.
But Maher is right–the difference between Christian barbarism and Muslim barbarism is that the former is by and large the purview of the historical monograph while the latter can be found in newspapers.[/quote]
The plague and the fact that the Byzantines and Persians had been bashing each others heads in for centuries now made sure that was started out as run of the mill nomad raids turned into conquests.
They simply expanded into a power vacuum.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Agree with him 100 percent. He can be an asshole and very wrong, but he does call them like he sees them.[/quote]
His assessment is correct in this case. The violence is way too common, it is way too frequent, and it is way too celebrated for this to be a problem of a fringe element of kooks. Now in the 21st century.
If anybody brings up the crusades, I may shit. Of course, were it not for the crusades we’d all be muslims. Christians don’t kill you if you renounce the faith.[/quote]
No, Arab conquests came to a squeaking halt at Constantinople in the East and somewhere in the middle of France Karl Martell hammered them back into Spain.
That was long before the crusades. [/quote]
That wasn’t the only attempt of invasion by the Moores. The Moors were finally expelled in 1492. While the main point was to expel the Moors from Jerusalem, it did also stop further conquests of Moorish invaders in to Europe and served to expel them permanently.
[/quote]
If you want to see it that way, the 15th century was actually a big succes for Islam, or rather, Mehmet II copnquered Constantinople and by extension much of Greece and the Balkans.
The whole Arab explosion, which is often threatheningly shown as a green menace that was rolled out over North Africa and Persia was not in the name of Islam.
It was religiously motivated, but because their leader tried to turn their inner religious and leadership conflicts (pretty much the same in Islam) outwards.
They were also not feared, but welcomed.
Not only did they leave common people alone, because they had made out like bandits on state and church property alone, they were not really interested in conversions and though non Muslim believers paid more taxes than Muslim ones, they still paid less than they ever had.
Of course they later reinterpreted their success as the guiding hand of Allah and whatnot and who knows, but in the beginning no one was more suprised as they themselves when what was basically meant to be border raids turned into an empire overnight.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Agree with him 100 percent. He can be an asshole and very wrong, but he does call them like he sees them.[/quote]
His assessment is correct in this case. The violence is way too common, it is way too frequent, and it is way too celebrated for this to be a problem of a fringe element of kooks. Now in the 21st century.
If anybody brings up the crusades, I may shit. Of course, were it not for the crusades we’d all be muslims. Christians don’t kill you if you renounce the faith.[/quote]
No, Arab conquests came to a squeaking halt at Constantinople in the East and somewhere in the middle of France Karl Martell hammered them back into Spain.
That was long before the crusades. [/quote]
As an aside, the Byzantines may well have squashed Islam altogether had it not been for the first outbreak of Bubonic Plague in the middle of the sixth century. The disastrous outcome at Yarmouk may well have depended upon the demographic and financial depletion of the Empire by the plague.
But anyways, yes, the Crusades were as much about European politics and (initially) the Investiture Controversy as they were about the Holy Sepulchre or the beating back of the Muslims. And that’s not even getting into the debacle that was the Fourth.
But Maher is right–the difference between Christian barbarism and Muslim barbarism is that the former is by and large the purview of the historical monograph while the latter can be found in newspapers.[/quote]
The plague and the fact that the Byzantines and Persians had been bashing each others heads in for centuries now made sure that was started out as run of the mill nomad raids turned into conquests.
They simply expanded into a power vacuum. [/quote]
Counterfactualism is a somewhat fatuous endeavor, but it’s interesting to think that, absent the plague, Justinian and Belisarius may actually have succeeded in reforming the traditional Roman Empire.
But of course the plague did come, and most of the Arabian Peninsula was spared because of its climate and the sparseness of its desert expanses.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Agree with him 100 percent. He can be an asshole and very wrong, but he does call them like he sees them.[/quote]
His assessment is correct in this case. The violence is way too common, it is way too frequent, and it is way too celebrated for this to be a problem of a fringe element of kooks. Now in the 21st century.
If anybody brings up the crusades, I may shit. Of course, were it not for the crusades we’d all be muslims. Christians don’t kill you if you renounce the faith.[/quote]
No, Arab conquests came to a squeaking halt at Constantinople in the East and somewhere in the middle of France Karl Martell hammered them back into Spain.
That was long before the crusades. [/quote]
As an aside, the Byzantines may well have squashed Islam altogether had it not been for the first outbreak of Bubonic Plague in the middle of the sixth century. The disastrous outcome at Yarmouk may well have depended upon the demographic and financial depletion of the Empire by the plague.
But anyways, yes, the Crusades were as much about European politics and (initially) the Investiture Controversy as they were about the Holy Sepulchre or the beating back of the Muslims. And that’s not even getting into the debacle that was the Fourth.
But Maher is right–the difference between Christian barbarism and Muslim barbarism is that the former is by and large the purview of the historical monograph while the latter can be found in newspapers.[/quote]
The plague and the fact that the Byzantines and Persians had been bashing each others heads in for centuries now made sure that was started out as run of the mill nomad raids turned into conquests.
They simply expanded into a power vacuum. [/quote]
Counterfactualism is a somewhat fatuous endeavor, but it’s interesting to think that, absent the plague, Justinian and Belisarius may actually have succeeded in reforming the traditional Roman Empire.
But of course the plague did come, and most of the Arabian Peninsula was spared because of its climate and the sparseness of its desert expanses.[/quote]
They almost succeeded, was looking good for a while.
Fertile North Africa was conquered in only two years.
Oh, well, the Romaoi served as a buffer as long as that was needed.
I agree , I agree with Maher about 1/2 the time but still appreciate his show this is another video about the same phenomenon
Anyone who digs a little deeper and learns the origins and similarities is aware.
Islam’s roots are in “Baal” Worship…most Christians don’t know that 'cause they don’t
read their Bibles…Yes, Islam WAS warned about in scripture, it just wasn’t called “Islam” back then.
Islam is repackaged polytheism.
Islam is paganism in monotheistic wrapping paper.
Islam is veiled neo-polytheism.
Islam and Baal worship have the same origin and same god Allah;
and both involves the worship of the moon god.
1.Moon worship has been practiced in Arabia since 2000 BC. The crescent moon is the most common symbol of this pagan moon worship as far back as 2000 BC.
2.In Mecca, there was a god named Hubal who was Lord of the Kabah.
3.This Hubal was a moon god.
One Muslim apologist confessed that the idol of moon god Hubal was placed upon the roof of the Kaba about 400 years before Muhammad. This may in fact be the origin of why the crescent moon is on top of every minaret at the Kaba today and the central symbol of Islam atop of every mosque throughout the world:
About four hundred years before the birth of Muhammad one Amr bin Lahyo ? a descendant of Qahtan and king of Hijaz, had put an idol called Hubal on the roof of the Kaba. This was one of the chief deities of the Quraish before Islam. (Muhammad The Holy Prophet, Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar (Pakistan), p 18-19, Muslim)
5.The moon god was also referred to as “al-ilah”. This is not a proper name of a single specific god, but a generic reference meaning ?the god?. Each local pagan Arab tribe would refer to their own local tribal pagan god as “al-ilah”.
6.?al-ilah? was later shortened to Allah before Muhammad began promoting his new religion in 610 AD.
7.There is evidence that Hubal was referred to as “Allah”.
8.When Muhammad came along, he dropped all references to the name “Hubal” but retained the generic “Allah”.
9.Muhammad retained almost all the pagan rituals of the Arabs at the Kaba and redefined them in monotheistic terms.
10.Regardless of the specifics of the facts, it is clear that Islam is derived from paganism that once worshiped a moon-god.
11.Although Islam is today a monotheist religion, its roots are in paganism.
Interestingly, not many Muslims want to accept that Allah was already being worshipped at the Ka?ba in Mecca by Arab pagans before Muhammad came. Some Muslims become angry when they are confronted with this fact. But history is not on their side. Pre-Islamic literature has proved this.? (Who Is This Allah?, G. J. O. Moshay, 1994, p 138)
?But history establishes beyond the shadow of doubt that even the pagan Arabs, before Muhammad?s time, knew their chief god by the name of Allah and even, in a sense, proclaimed his unity?Among the pagan Arabs this term denoted the chief god of their pantheon, the Kaaba, with its three hundred and sixty idols.? (The Moslem Doctrine of God, Samuel M. Zwemer 1905, p 24-25)
In fact, he did not at first intend to establish a new religion, but rather to reform the belief in Allah which already existed, and to show what this belief truly signified and rightfully demanded. (Mohammed: The man and his faith, Tor Andrae, 1936, Translated by Theophil Menzel, 1960, p13-30)
[quote]Karado wrote:
Anyone who digs a little deeper and learns the origins and similarities is aware.
Islam’s roots are in “Baal” Worship…most Christians don’t know that 'cause they don’t
read their Bibles…Yes, Islam WAS warned about in scripture, it just wasn’t called “Islam” back then.
Islam is repackaged polytheism.
Islam is paganism in monotheistic wrapping paper.
Islam is veiled neo-polytheism.
Islam and Baal worship have the same origin and same god Allah;
and both involves the worship of the moon god.
1.Moon worship has been practiced in Arabia since 2000 BC. The crescent moon is the most common symbol of this pagan moon worship as far back as 2000 BC.
2.In Mecca, there was a god named Hubal who was Lord of the Kabah.
3.This Hubal was a moon god.
One Muslim apologist confessed that the idol of moon god Hubal was placed upon the roof of the Kaba about 400 years before Muhammad. This may in fact be the origin of why the crescent moon is on top of every minaret at the Kaba today and the central symbol of Islam atop of every mosque throughout the world:
About four hundred years before the birth of Muhammad one Amr bin Lahyo ? a descendant of Qahtan and king of Hijaz, had put an idol called Hubal on the roof of the Kaba. This was one of the chief deities of the Quraish before Islam. (Muhammad The Holy Prophet, Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar (Pakistan), p 18-19, Muslim)
5.The moon god was also referred to as “al-ilah”. This is not a proper name of a single specific god, but a generic reference meaning ?the god?. Each local pagan Arab tribe would refer to their own local tribal pagan god as “al-ilah”.
6.?al-ilah? was later shortened to Allah before Muhammad began promoting his new religion in 610 AD.
7.There is evidence that Hubal was referred to as “Allah”.
8.When Muhammad came along, he dropped all references to the name “Hubal” but retained the generic “Allah”.
9.Muhammad retained almost all the pagan rituals of the Arabs at the Kaba and redefined them in monotheistic terms.
10.Regardless of the specifics of the facts, it is clear that Islam is derived from paganism that once worshiped a moon-god.
11.Although Islam is today a monotheist religion, its roots are in paganism.
Interestingly, not many Muslims want to accept that Allah was already being worshipped at the Ka?ba in Mecca by Arab pagans before Muhammad came. Some Muslims become angry when they are confronted with this fact. But history is not on their side. Pre-Islamic literature has proved this.? (Who Is This Allah?, G. J. O. Moshay, 1994, p 138)
?But history establishes beyond the shadow of doubt that even the pagan Arabs, before Muhammad?s time, knew their chief god by the name of Allah and even, in a sense, proclaimed his unity?Among the pagan Arabs this term denoted the chief god of their pantheon, the Kaaba, with its three hundred and sixty idols.? (The Moslem Doctrine of God, Samuel M. Zwemer 1905, p 24-25)
In fact, he did not at first intend to establish a new religion, but rather to reform the belief in Allah which already existed, and to show what this belief truly signified and rightfully demanded. (Mohammed: The man and his faith, Tor Andrae, 1936, Translated by Theophil Menzel, 1960, p13-30)
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-moon-god.htm
[/quote]
Pure bullshit!
Oh REALLY?
Prove it isn’t true.
April’s a hot month for this sort of thing…Another “Baal” connection below.
Ain’t no one gots a better explanation, and I defy anyone to refute it in detail other than a simple “pure bullshit”…SON!
You ain’t schooled me yet because my little nephew can say what YOU just said.
Wake up.
[quote]Karado wrote:
Anyone who digs a little deeper and learns the origins and similarities is aware.
Islam’s roots are in “Baal” Worship…most Christians don’t know that 'cause they don’t
read their Bibles…Yes, Islam WAS warned about in scripture, it just wasn’t called “Islam” back then.
Islam is repackaged polytheism.
Islam is paganism in monotheistic wrapping paper.
Islam is veiled neo-polytheism.
[/quote]
Coming from a presumed at least nominal Christian, thats rich.
Especially if you happened to be Catholic.
The Trinity, the saints, the whorship of Mary…