Prepare for the Next Attack

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oh - it must be nice to live in the fantasy land of rainbows and unicorns and lollipops - the cold hard reality of life is that we have to deal with the real world and not your fantasy version of history.

What options do you propose for dealing with Hussein’s rise to power all of those decades ago? Overthrow him? LOL - you are so talking out your a$$

The Shah of Iran - obvioulsy you are either misinformed or very young to have completely missed the fierce and raging debates in this country about the best course of action in that regard going well back into the 1960’s - there again, though, you offer no analysis of the actual situation nor do you propose any viable alternatives . . .

And yes, the US would still be hated as the West has ALWAYS been hated by the muslim - are you even aware that muslims were already attacking Europe UNPROVOKED in the 8th century? - you are so blind to the whol epicture it staggers the imagination to conceive of what your tiny concept of history must be confined to . . .

You miss completely the fact that our governments actions are made by people - people who do care, who do give a damn, who weep over the decisions that they have to make, who spend hours and hours agonizing over their actions, who desperately try to acheive the best possible results that they can and to sit here and read your stupid little diatribes denegrating their selflessness, sacrfice and honor is absolutely abhorrent to me - you cannnot name a single person who behaves in the manner you describe because you simply are using sweeping generalization based in your opinions of the the way things ought to be in some dreamy fantasy and while completely ignoring the harsh reality of having to make these types of decisions on a daily basis - your arrogance is only superceded by your ignorance![/quote]

I used to think as you do. But then, I woke up. Enough is enough.

Our foreign policy is absolutely ridiculous. Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace. That is essentially what you are saying. Draining the treasury on useless, destructive wars while our own economy crumbles. Perfect symptoms of empire decline.

And no. Our politicians could give a fucking shit about everyday Americans. The only thing they agonize over is how they can get reelected.

[/quote]

Not defending the politicians - I am defending our public servants - couldn;t give a hoot and a holler for mos tpoliticians.

Foriegn policy as a general discussion is way too lengthy for this thread.

again - politicians are maybe worth a dime a dozen and I would want change back . . .

42

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
LMAO - Me? a hardcore statist? not hardly - you will not find a more vehement opponent to centralized federal authority anywhere else . . . but what do you know about me anyway . .
[/quote]

You don’t seemed to care what that centralized federal authority does in your name to innocent people all over the world.

Saddam is what the CIA calls “blowback”. We propped him up, funded him, gave him gasp! WMD’s. It was all good until he tried to get a piece of the pie (Kuwait) and the American government changed its tune and throws Saddam under the bus for being such a “bad man”. My point is that Saddam is a CIA “product” that was a total bastard, but was BFF’s with the West as long as he played by the rules. It didn’t matter if he was killing other Iraqis or not.

More of the government, comprised of compassionate, weepy men, not caring about people, but instead, their own interests.

The Iranian government nationalized its own energy resources? How dare they?

[quote]
Haven’t you ever read history? What do you think muslims were doing from 700 AD through 1800 AD? are you that ignorant of history? [/quote]

Trying to take over the world!?! Because they all hate the west!?! Right?

GTFO! You have to joking? Their years of dedicated service?

I have officially seen it all in the PWI forum. I’m sure these criminals appreciate your support.

43

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oh - it must be nice to live in the fantasy land of rainbows and unicorns and lollipops - the cold hard reality of life is that we have to deal with the real world and not your fantasy version of history.

What options do you propose for dealing with Hussein’s rise to power all of those decades ago? Overthrow him? LOL - you are so talking out your a$$

The Shah of Iran - obvioulsy you are either misinformed or very young to have completely missed the fierce and raging debates in this country about the best course of action in that regard going well back into the 1960’s - there again, though, you offer no analysis of the actual situation nor do you propose any viable alternatives . . .

And yes, the US would still be hated as the West has ALWAYS been hated by the muslim - are you even aware that muslims were already attacking Europe UNPROVOKED in the 8th century? - you are so blind to the whol epicture it staggers the imagination to conceive of what your tiny concept of history must be confined to . . .

You miss completely the fact that our governments actions are made by people - people who do care, who do give a damn, who weep over the decisions that they have to make, who spend hours and hours agonizing over their actions, who desperately try to acheive the best possible results that they can and to sit here and read your stupid little diatribes denegrating their selflessness, sacrfice and honor is absolutely abhorrent to me - you cannnot name a single person who behaves in the manner you describe because you simply are using sweeping generalization based in your opinions of the the way things ought to be in some dreamy fantasy and while completely ignoring the harsh reality of having to make these types of decisions on a daily basis - your arrogance is only superceded by your ignorance![/quote]

I used to think as you do. But then, I woke up. Enough is enough.

Our foreign policy is absolutely ridiculous. Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace. That is essentially what you are saying. Draining the treasury on useless, destructive wars while our own economy crumbles. Perfect symptoms of empire decline.

And no. Our politicians could give a fucking shit about everyday Americans. The only thing they agonize over is how they can get reelected.

[/quote]

Not defending the politicians - I am defending our public servants - couldn;t give a hoot and a holler for mos tpoliticians.

Foriegn policy as a general discussion is way too lengthy for this thread.

again - politicians are maybe worth a dime a dozen and I would want change back . . .[/quote]

This is not what you were insinuating. Public servants? Who are/were you talking about?

44

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
LOL - and you prove my point - - “this round” - - perennial excuses for starting yet another jihad against the West - as muslims have done for centuries now . . . .[/quote]

???

I think you are ill informed.

Besides, it has been going back and forth since time immemorial.

It’s time for both sides to grow up and quit playing little boy fantasy games.

45

[quote]florelius wrote:
sorry but you are wrong.

islams did not start out as a ideology with world domination as its goal. the religion came about in the same period the arab people in the arabian dessert expanded to bysants and persia. In the same period the ME colonies of bysants was week, so it fell to the arabs without much struggle. [/quote]

If they did not start out as an ideology with world domination as it’s goal, they sure changed into one in a hurry. In your own paragraph, you state how they were into empire building.

And if they did not care about Europe, then why invade Spain. What had 8th Century Spain done to the Muslims?

They clearly attacked Europe first in the Middle Ages.

46

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
sorry but you are wrong.

islams did not start out as a ideology with world domination as its goal. the religion came about in the same period the arab people in the arabian dessert expanded to bysants and persia. In the same period the ME colonies of bysants was week, so it fell to the arabs without much struggle. [/quote]

If they did not start out as an ideology with world domination as it’s goal, they sure changed into one in a hurry. In your own paragraph, you state how they were into empire building.

And if they did not care about Europe, then why invade Spain. What had 8th Century Spain done to the Muslims?

They clearly attacked Europe first in the Middle Ages.[/quote]

Islam in itself does not have a grudge against europa, and the early muslim did not have a grudge against europa. yes muslims took spain, they did even get as far as france, but it had nothing to do with a hatred towards europa. thats was my point.

in the middle ages europa and the arab world was attacked by turks and mongols, the mongols destroyed bagdad. the turks became the new ruling people in the middle east. Why does not arab muslims make jihad against turks today.

my point is that the jihadist movement of today is not based on a 1500 year old hatred towards the west.

47

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
sorry but you are wrong.

islams did not start out as a ideology with world domination as its goal. the religion came about in the same period the arab people in the arabian dessert expanded to bysants and persia. In the same period the ME colonies of bysants was week, so it fell to the arabs without much struggle. [/quote]

If they did not start out as an ideology with world domination as it’s goal, they sure changed into one in a hurry. In your own paragraph, you state how they were into empire building.

And if they did not care about Europe, then why invade Spain. What had 8th Century Spain done to the Muslims?

They clearly attacked Europe first in the Middle Ages.[/quote]

Islam in itself does not have a grudge against europa, and the early muslim did not have a grudge against europa. yes muslims took spain, they did even get as far as france, but it had nothing to do with a hatred towards europa. thats was my point.

in the middle ages europa and the arab world was attacked by turks and mongols, the mongols destroyed bagdad. the turks became the new ruling people in the middle east. Why does not arab muslims make jihad against turks today.

my point is that the jihadist movement of today is not based on a 1500 year old hatred towards the west.

[/quote]

Again, have you ever even read primary historical records?

and what, the muslims attacked Europe because they loved and respected them and wanted to live in peace with them?

and yes it is - the common thread of muslim interaction with the West has been one of hate and war since the inception of the religion. its about time you went back and did some real research.

48

1,I dont know what primary history records are in norwegian?

2,I have been a history student for 2 years know, I think my knowledge of history is better than average.

3, I think the arabs invaded spain because they as other people where seeking power and wealth, not because they hated europa. do america attack iraq because they hate arabs?

4, instead of just saying that I dont know history, why dont you point out where I am wrong.

49

[quote]K2000 wrote:
What I meant to say is GREAT THREAD BRO!!!

YES, GET READY FOR THE NEXT ATTACK!!![/quote]

LOL

50

Who would have thought, eventually one will do it “right” and we will be left wondering why we where attacked again.

51

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
LOL - and you prove my point - - “this round” - - perennial excuses for starting yet another jihad against the West - as muslims have done for centuries now . . . .[/quote]

Excuses?

It’s like the bully that constantly picks on a kid and then one day, after all the abuse, the kid fights back and busts the bully in the nose.

Afterward, the bully cries foul and claims to be the victim.

Americans need to take off their red, white, and blue glasses and see what the government does in their name.[/quote]

Riiight, all of the hatred towards the West and the US is based solely off of the trillions of dollars we have paid into the ME, the humanitarian aid we have always provided, the weapons we have sold to ME nations that allow them to defend themselves, the goods and services we have continued to provide, and on and on - we’ve been just merciless in our goodwill - we should stop . . .

Yep - we’ve been the big bad ugly bully . . .whatever . . .
[/quote]

Please edumacate yourself.

No, absolutely no reason to hate us.

This isn’t even taking into account the governments constant fellatio of the Saudi Kingdom and Israel.

If you are simply an American Statist and don’t care what the government does, then fine. Just say that, but don’t ignore the last 70 years or so of the U.S government’s constant meddling in the ME and say the U.S does nothing wrong.[/quote]

Educate yourself - regardless of the current rationale for violence against the west (it make sno difference which western nation is the target) - the basic premise underlying the entire jihadist movement is one of islamic domination over all other forms of government. The “submission” of the globe to Allah’s reign. Individual reasons for taking up arms are based in causalities that occur regulary on all sides of the issue. For every “wrong” the US commits there is a corresponding “wrong” committed by the other side.

The underlying intention of the West has never been to harm, maim or kill anyone in the ME. Do people get harmed maimed killed? Yes. It has never been the intention of the West to subjugate, enslave or reign over anyone in the ME. Has the US (and the West at large) supported governments that do this things? Yes - has that been wrong? If you call it wrong, then for each instance you cite, you must define the right action in those situations - can you do that? What would have been your choice in Afghanistan as the Soviets invaded? What would have been your choice in choosing whom to deal with in the ME as the British pulled out - what tribe would you have selected as a trading partner? What would have been your choice in Iran - which rebel faction would you have supported in opposition to the Shah?

People like you try to make it seem so simple to show how the West has wronged the ME without actually understanding ANY of the underlying tribal, cultural, national and international ramifications affecting each and every decision along the way - - - And all of this still is based on a centuries old ideology that demands that anything not islamic be subdued or destroyed.

Say what you will, in the end, either you will have to fight islam or submit to it[/quote]

Let’s not get into a shit throwing fight, but one thing I want to point out is, that I am not sure who you call “we,” but last time I checked individuals make deals with other individuals, not American makes a deal with Iraq, etc.

53

[quote]florelius wrote:
1,I dont know what primary history records are in norwegian?

2,I have been a history student for 2 years know, I think my knowledge of history is better than average.

3, I think the arabs invaded spain because they as other people where seeking power and wealth, not because they hated europa. do america attack iraq because they hate arabs?

4, instead of just saying that I dont know history, why dont you point out where I am wrong.

[/quote]

Can’t find original sources? Think the Muslims invading Europe was unrelated to their faith?

Fine - here’s a primary historical source for you:

Tarik was the Muslim leader who lead the conquest of Spain.

Tarik’s Address to His Soldiers, 711 CE

When Tarik had been informed of the approach of the enemy, he rose in the midst of his companions and, after having glorified God in the highest, he spoke to his soldiers thus:

"Oh my warriors, whither would you flee? Behind you is the sea, before you, the enemy. You have left now only the hope of your courage and your constancy. Remember that in this country you are more unfortunate than the orphan seated at the table of the avaricious master. Your enemy is before you, protected by an innumerable army; he has men in abundance, but vou, as your only aid, have your own swords, and, as your only chance for life, such chance as you can snatch from the hands of your enemy. If the absolute want to which you are reduced is prolonged ever so little, if you delay to seize immediate success, your good fortune will vanish, and your enemies, whom your very presence has filled with fear, will take courage. Put far from you the disgrace from which you flee in dreams, and attack this monarch who has left his strongly fortified city to meet you. Here is a splendid opportunity to defeat him, if you will consent to expose yourselves freelv to death. Do not believe that I desire to incite you to face dangers which I shall refuse to share with you. In the attack I myself will be in the fore, where the chance of life is always least.

"Remember that if you suffer a few moments in patience, you will afterward enjoy supreme delight. Do not imagine that your fate can be separated from mine, and rest assured that if you fall, I shall perish with you, or avenge you. You have heard that in this country there are a large number of ravishingly beautiful Greek maidens, their graceful forms are draped in sumptuous gowns on which gleam pearls, coral, and purest gold, and they live in the palaces of royal kings. The Commander of True Believers, Alwalid, son of Abdalmelik, has chosen you for this attack from among all his Arab warriors; and he promises that you shall become his comrades and shall hold the rank of kings in this country. Such is his confidence in your intrepidity. The one fruit which he desires to obtain from your bravery is that the word of God shall be exalted in this country, and that the true religion shall be established here. The spoils will belong to yourselves.

“Remember that I place myself in the front of this glorious charge which I exhort you to make. At the moment when the two armies meet hand to hand, you will see me, never doubt it, seeking out this Roderick, tyrant of his people, challenging him to combat, if God is willing. If I perish after this, I will have had at least the satisfaction of delivering you, and you will easily find among you an experienced hero, to whom you can confidently give the task of directing you. But should I fall before I reach to Roderick, redouble your ardor, force yourselves to the attack and achieve the conquest of this country, in depriving him of life. With him dead, his soldiers will no longer defy you.”

Hmmm - sacrifice yourself in the service of Allah fighting the Christians and you will have an eternity of supreme delight . . . couldn’t possibly be talking about Jihad against the West. Establishing the true religion, the word of God be exalted here - couldn’t possibly be talking about Islamic domination and the rule of Sharia over all mankind . . .

Do some research, my friend, your are swallowing a bunch of hogwash being fed to you by apologists for the Islamic faith rather than truly studying the history and facts about the western culture you have been very fortunate to have inherited and apparently do not value.

54

ah know I get your primary sources talk. you meen first hand soursces. in norwegian= foerstehaands kilder.

but how do I know if this is a primary sources or not. would you give me your source?

you say that this text “tariks speech” is a evidence for that the muslims hated the christians and wanted to
crush them and make them muslims.

well the problem is that they did not. Maybe they wanted to, but in the muslim empire christians and jews where majority. It was not practical to force all non-muslims to become muslims. Actually when the arabs got to India, they started to label hindus “people of the book”. because if they had tried to force the hindus to become muslim, the hindu majority would have rebelled.

The other thing is this: A source in it self its just a peach of old organic material, like a arrow point or a old pergament. It becomes a source when a historian examins it. and what he makes out of it is dependent of his creativity, his ability to put whatever info the source gives in a context etc. Tarecs speech is only one source and you can not make a conclusion about how muslims where in 700`s with just this source. This source can tell many things. It can give a idea of how muslims gave speeches, on how they looked at greec womans ( this source gives the impression that arab men found greec woman to be beatiful ) etc.

btw sharia was not set in stone in the 700s, that process lasted to the 900s

my sources are offcourse just a schoolbook for university students, but I can show you the sources it is built on.

here they are:

w.montgomery watt: muhammad, prophet and statesman. oxford 1961.

maxime rodinson: mohammad. harmondsworth 1973.

harald motzki: the biography of muhammad: the issue of the sources. leiden 2000.

patricia crone and martin hinds: gods caliph. religious authority in the first centuries of islam. cambridge 1986.

moshe sharon: black banners from the east: the establishment of the abbasid state: incubation of a revolt. jerusalem 1983.

m.a. shaban: the abbasid revolution: cambridge 1970.

g.e. von grunebaum: classical islam. a history 600-1258. london 1963, 1970.

this is just some of the sources the author of my history book have used for the first chapters.

55

Be happy to provide you with my source: Al Maggari from “The Breath of Perfumes” wriiten in 711 CE, From: Charles F. Horne, ed., The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East, (New York: Parke, Austin, & Lipscomb, 1917), Vol. VI: Medieval Arabia, pp. 241-242.

And for your further edification - you take all of the primary source documents along woith the historical records of battles and conquests - and voila! Islam from its inception has been a violent faith built upon the submission or slaughter of its enemies to expand its power and control.

This includes Muhamed’s attacks on Mecca and Medina - FROM DAY ONE - violence to achieve power and control in the name of his newfound religion

56

For your further education:

Here’s the list of battles within the first years of the existence of this newfound religion

Battle of Badr - 623 AD
Battle of Uhud - 623 AD
Battle of Medina - 627 AD
Battle of Mecca - 632 AD

57

[quote]…

well the problem is that they did not. Maybe they wanted to, but in the muslim empire christians and jews where majority. It was not practical to force all non-muslims to become muslims. Actually when the arabs got to India, they started to label hindus “people of the book”. because if they had tried to force the hindus to become muslim, the hindu majority would have rebelled.
…
[/quote]

This is true. As conquerors irrespective of their faith try to coerce the conquered as a political ploy and to further their chances of ruling over an empire. There’s a primary difference between conquering and ruling. While the conquest initiates and incites all forms of bigotry available culturally ,an excuse for violence is chosen because its the shortest and most abused path to unite people against another population which is not the perpetrator but the defender. Bloodshed is easy, however the greatest challenge lies in how they fare after the conquest has been done and a kingdom is being established. When the period of rule begins and the conquered people need to be assimilated and made part of the administration there lies the true test of a ruler.
So initially all accounts of Islamic conquest in India are barbaric and destructive where they see the Hindu symbols including places of worship as the enemy and destroy it. But once they started settling in after a century or so the Islamic rulers gathered themselves and started learning about the Hindu faith appreciated it , translated their works into Arabic and started to see them as collaborators in running a system. In fact this opened them up so much they started marrying out of their own faith as a gesture of friendship with the locals and much to the chagrin of the hard-liners and bigots of their own faith. These medieval Islamic rulers started realising the importance of co-existence amongst all faiths. Most economic policies treated people of both faith equally (like both the HIndu and Islamic pilgrims enjoyed the same tax benefits ) , so was true with administration & public works as well as education. WIth this even the priest class and Islam underwent a substantial transformation where Hinduism was studied by them.Temples were reconstructed by them. So in retrospect there was a time when Islam’ists’ started respecting another religion when the political situation was convenient and at other times of ‘crisis’ chose not to.
There were always different strains of Islam , if people knew a bit about SUfism they wouldn’t make blanket statements about the whole faith of Islam.
Radical Islam emerged from Wahabism in Saudi Arabia and emerged only as late as the 18th century. Consider the modern post WW-2 Islamic terror phenomenon as a political (another ‘crisis’ for them, in reality an excuse) piggy backing on the Wahabist Islam which doesn’t even recognise any other cult of Islam as legitimate practitioners other than their own (leave alone any other religion). Violent Islam being an offshoot of SAudi , the finances (only after they became rich from oil recently in the last century) , the weapons control all other poor foot soldiering Islamic states. Now you can do your math as to why the Islamic situation is how it is as perceived by the ‘radical’ unemployed , poor and brainwashed Muslim youth and also as perceived by people who tend to think of Islam as purely violent and only coercive.
Its wholly political and none of the stakeholders are helping the situation , because its best in some people’s interest to let this cycle continue. Of course those people on both sides are damn powerful.

58

Here’s another one for you:

Al-Baladhuri: The Conquest of Alexandria

"Amr kept his way until he arrived in Alexandria whose inhabitants he found ready to resist him, but the Copts in it preferred peace. Al-Mukaukis communicated with 'Amr and asked him for peace and a truce for a time; but 'Amr refused. Al-Mukaukis then ordered that the women stand on the wall with their faces turned towards the city, and that the men stand armed, with their faces towards the Moslems, thus hoping to scare them. 'Amr sent word, saying, “We see what you have done. It was not by mere numbers that we conquered those we have conquered. We have met your king Heraclius, and there befell him what has befallen him.” Hearing this, al-Mukaukis said to his followers, “These people are telling the truth. They have chased our king from his kingdom as far as Constantinople. It is much more preferable, therefore, that we submit.” His followers, however, spoke harshly to him and insisted on fighting. The Moslems fought fiercely against them and invested them for three months. At last, 'Amr reduced the city by the sword and plundered all that was in it, sparing its inhabitants of whom none was killed or taken captive. He reduced them to the position of dhimmis like the people of Alyunah. He communicated the news of the victory to 'Umar through Mu’awiyah ibn-Hudaij al-Kindi (later as-Sakuni) and sent with him the fifth.

The Greeks wrote to Constantine, son of Heraclius, who was their king at that time, telling him how few the Moslems in Alexandria were, and how humiliating the Greeks’ condition was, and how they had to pay poll-tax. Constantine sent one of his men, called Manuwil, with three hundred ships full of fighters. Manuwil entered Alexandria and killed all the guard that was in it, with the exception of a few who by the use of subtle means took to flight and escaped. This took place in the year 25. Hearing the news, 'Amr set out at the head of 15,000 men and found the Greek fighters doing mischief in the Egyptian villages next to Alexandria. The Moslems met them and for one hour were subjected to a shower of arrows, during which they were covered by their shields. They then advanced boldly and the battle raged with great ferocity until the polytheists were routed; and nothing could divert or stop them before they reached Alexandria. Here they fortified themselves and set mangonels. 'Amr made a heavy assault, set the ballistae, and destroyed the walls of the city. He pressed the fight so hard until he entered the city by assault, killed the fathers and carried away the children as captives. Some of its Greek inhabitants left to join the Greeks somewhere else; and Allah’s enemy, Manuwil, was killed. 'Amr and the Moslems destroyed the wall of Alexandria in pursuance of a vow that 'Amr had made to that effect, in case he reduced the city…'Amr ibn-al-Asi conquered Alexandria, and some Moslems took up their abode in it as a cavalry guard."

Source: From: Sawirus ibn al-Muqaffa, History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria, trans. Basil Evetts, (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1904), pt. I, ch. 1, from Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. I, pp. 489-497, reprinted in Deno John Geanakoplos, Byzantium: Church, Society, and Civilization Seen Through Contemporary Eyes, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), pp. 336-338;

Think you can do some of your own actual research now?

59

[quote]xydharth wrote:

[quote]…

well the problem is that they did not. Maybe they wanted to, but in the muslim empire christians and jews where majority. It was not practical to force all non-muslims to become muslims. Actually when the arabs got to India, they started to label hindus “people of the book”. because if they had tried to force the hindus to become muslim, the hindu majority would have rebelled.
…
[/quote]

This is true. As conquerors irrespective of their faith try to coerce the conquered as a political ploy and to further their chances of ruling over an empire. There’s a primary difference between conquering and ruling. While the conquest initiates and incites all forms of bigotry available culturally ,an excuse for violence is chosen because its the shortest and most abused path to unite people against another population which is not the perpetrator but the defender. Bloodshed is easy, however the greatest challenge lies in how they fare after the conquest has been done and a kingdom is being established. When the period of rule begins and the conquered people need to be assimilated and made part of the administration there lies the true test of a ruler.
So initially all accounts of Islamic conquest in India are barbaric and destructive where they see the Hindu symbols including places of worship as the enemy and destroy it. But once they started settling in after a century or so the Islamic rulers gathered themselves and started learning about the Hindu faith appreciated it , translated their works into Arabic and started to see them as collaborators in running a system. In fact this opened them up so much they started marrying out of their own faith as a gesture of friendship with the locals and much to the chagrin of the hard-liners and bigots of their own faith. These medieval Islamic rulers started realising the importance of co-existence amongst all faiths. Most economic policies treated people of both faith equally (like both the HIndu and Islamic pilgrims enjoyed the same tax benefits ) , so was true with administration & public works as well as education. WIth this even the priest class and Islam underwent a substantial transformation where Hinduism was studied by them.Temples were reconstructed by them. So in retrospect there was a time when Islam’ists’ started respecting another religion when the political situation was convenient and at other times of ‘crisis’ chose not to.
There were always different strains of Islam , if people knew a bit about SUfism they wouldn’t make blanket statements about the whole faith of Islam.
Radical Islam emerged from Wahabism in Saudi Arabia and emerged only as late as the 18th century. Consider the modern post WW-2 Islamic terror phenomenon as a political (another ‘crisis’ for them, in reality an excuse) piggy backing on the Wahabist Islam which doesn’t even recognise any other cult of Islam as legitimate practitioners other than their own (leave alone any other religion). Violent Islam being an offshoot of SAudi , the finances (only after they became rich from oil recently in the last century) , the weapons control all other poor foot soldiering Islamic states. Now you can do your math as to why the Islamic situation is how it is as perceived by the ‘radical’ unemployed , poor and brainwashed Muslim youth and also as perceived by people who tend to think of Islam as purely violent and only coercive.
Its wholly political and none of the stakeholders are helping the situation , because its best in some people’s interest to let this cycle continue. Of course those people on both sides are damn powerful.
[/quote]

epic fail . . . you people really need to study the actual history of Islam rather than the watered down pablum the apologists have been spoon feeding you . . .

60

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Be happy to provide you with my source: Al Maggari from “The Breath of Perfumes” wriiten in 711 CE, From: Charles F. Horne, ed., The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East, (New York: Parke, Austin, & Lipscomb, 1917), Vol. VI: Medieval Arabia, pp. 241-242.

And for your further edification - you take all of the primary source documents along woith the historical records of battles and conquests - and voila! Islam from its inception has been a violent faith built upon the submission or slaughter of its enemies to expand its power and control.

This includes Muhamed’s attacks on Mecca and Medina - FROM DAY ONE - violence to achieve power and control in the name of his newfound religion[/quote]

thank you, I check if my school library have it.

but your version of early islamic history contradicts with what I have learned at school, so I am not taking your stand, but I am open for it.

just one thing, you say that islam was a violent religion from day one. after what I have read. muhammad preach about his revelation in mekka for some years and made himself a group. after some years the elite in mekka kicked him out. He then vent to medina an established the first muslim society with the tribes living there ( some of them jewish ). over the years the dispute between mekka and median becomes more violent and the they fight against eachother. some of the jewish tribes takes suddenly side with mekka, and muhammad kills them because of there betrayel not because they where jewish. This do however mark as a change in the practice of islam. instead of praying towards jerusalem, they start to pray towards mekka. instead of celebrating yom kippur, they celebrate rammadan. you can say they made islam more arab after the jewish insident. after muhammads death the arabs expands to the levant, north africa, persia and spain. here is the question a historian must ask, why did they expand. was it because of islam or was it because other things. One thing is clear, the possibility for expansion was made before islam. arabs had been settling in the levant since 400 after christ. so there was a large arab minority in the levant. so its possible the arabs so knew this and took the chance when they had it and that islam was there legitimation of the expansion. this is in history an old debate, is it ideas ( like islam ) who creates changes or does change derives from the social and economic circumstances. thats why you have dialektic idealisme ( hegel ) and dialektic materialisme ( marx ).

any way nice talking to you irishsteel. ps are your parents christian or muslim syrians?