White Girl Beaten In England

[Regular_Gonzalez]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:

oh man this thread is ugly

Sorry. It started out poorly, hopefully to be redeemed by an off-topic history discussion. As usual, we have to contend with the lies and obfuscation of a certain Arabist on this forum…

Somehow I get the impression that you don’t understand what the word Arabist actually means.

What do you think it means? I understand the term the same way Abd al-Walid did:

Al-Walid I

It was also al-Walid that coupled islamicization with arabicization. Conversion was not forced on conquered peoples; however, since non-believers had to pay an extra tax and were not technically citizens, many people did convert for religious and non-religious reasons. This created several problems, particularly since Islam was so closely connected with being Arab�??being Arab, of course, was more than an ethnic identity, it was a tribal identity based on kinship and descent. As more and more Muslims were non-Arabs, the status of Arabs and their culture became threatened. In particular, large numbers of Coptic-speaking (Egypt) and Persian-speaking Muslims threatened the primacy of the very language that Islam is based on. In part to alleviate that threat, al-Walid instituted Arabic as the only official language of the empire. He decreed that all administration was to be done only in Arabic. It was this move that would cement the primacy of Arabic language and culture in the Islamic world.

Which is still true today of those who are Islamized, which is why you see Central Asians, Somalis, and Malays with ridiculous Arab names dressing and acting like wannabe 7th century Arabs, praying to Arabia and its fallen space rock in covered in the Kabbah in Mecca, and following an Arab prophet, and asking, “How high?” whenever the Arabs say, “JUMP!”. [/quote]

Where is that term even mentioned in that article?

I was under the impression that an Arabist is a scholar who studies arab culture and the arabic language.

[PRCalDude]

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:

oh man this thread is ugly

Sorry. It started out poorly, hopefully to be redeemed by an off-topic history discussion. As usual, we have to contend with the lies and obfuscation of a certain Arabist on this forum…

Somehow I get the impression that you don’t understand what the word Arabist actually means.

What do you think it means? I understand the term the same way Abd al-Walid did:

Al-Walid I

It was also al-Walid that coupled islamicization with arabicization. Conversion was not forced on conquered peoples; however, since non-believers had to pay an extra tax and were not technically citizens, many people did convert for religious and non-religious reasons. This created several problems, particularly since Islam was so closely connected with being Arab�??being Arab, of course, was more than an ethnic identity, it was a tribal identity based on kinship and descent. As more and more Muslims were non-Arabs, the status of Arabs and their culture became threatened. In particular, large numbers of Coptic-speaking (Egypt) and Persian-speaking Muslims threatened the primacy of the very language that Islam is based on. In part to alleviate that threat, al-Walid instituted Arabic as the only official language of the empire. He decreed that all administration was to be done only in Arabic. It was this move that would cement the primacy of Arabic language and culture in the Islamic world.

Which is still true today of those who are Islamized, which is why you see Central Asians, Somalis, and Malays with ridiculous Arab names dressing and acting like wannabe 7th century Arabs, praying to Arabia and its fallen space rock in covered in the Kabbah in Mecca, and following an Arab prophet, and asking, “How high?” whenever the Arabs say, “JUMP!”.

Where is that term even mentioned in that article?

I was under the impression that an Arabist is a scholar who studies arab culture and the arabic language.

[/quote]

No, you’re thinking of an Orientalist like Bernard Lewis. An Arabist is an Arab supremacist or lackey to their cause, like lixy.

http://www.north-of-africa.com/article.php3?id_article=403

[Regular_Gonzalez]

[quote]Qaash wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Hell, after 9/11, many Indians were targeted directly so where are you getting this point of view?

WTF did people really attack Indians after 911?

Most of the hijackers were Saudi, with a few more from UAE, Egypt and Lebanon. Targeting Indians in response to 911 would make about as much sense as targeting Chinese.

Muslims are a minority in India anyway.

edit - Just read the post by PRCalDude about the Sikh guy getting targeted.

It just shows the cultural ignorance that’s prevalent here in the U.S. A lot of people don’t know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims. Security had to be increased in certain neighborhoods in NYC to protect the residents from retaliation, even though they were not Muslims but looked middle eastern enough to warrant assaults.
[/quote]

Very true, although I doubt the US is much worse than anywhere else in the world in that regard.

Maybe I was just ignorant of how stupid many people are.

[Regular_Gonzalez]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:

Where is that term even mentioned in that article?

I was under the impression that an Arabist is a scholar who studies arab culture and the arabic language.

No, you’re thinking of an Orientalist like Bernard Lewis. An Arabist is an Arab supremacist or lackey to their cause, like lixy.

http://www.north-of-africa.com/article.php3?id_article=403[/quote]

Sorry to be pedantic here but a Pan-Arabist is not the same as an Arabist.

My initial defenition was correct.

I have only read a few of Lixys posts so maybe I have missed something, but I find it hard to believe that he is an arab supremacist.

[PRCalDude]

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:

Where is that term even mentioned in that article?

I was under the impression that an Arabist is a scholar who studies arab culture and the arabic language.

No, you’re thinking of an Orientalist like Bernard Lewis. An Arabist is an Arab supremacist or lackey to their cause, like lixy.

http://www.north-of-africa.com/article.php3?id_article=403

Sorry to be pedantic here but a Pan-Arabist is not the same as an Arabist.

My initial defenition was correct.

I have only read a few of Lixys posts so maybe I have missed something, but I find it hard to believe that he is an arab supremacist.

[/quote]

Or perhaps there are multiple definitions of the same word, like in the dictionary. When I use the term, I use it the same way the Berbers use it. Robert Kaplan’s use of the term also fits.

[Qaash]

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Qaash wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Hell, after 9/11, many Indians were targeted directly so where are you getting this point of view?

WTF did people really attack Indians after 911?

Most of the hijackers were Saudi, with a few more from UAE, Egypt and Lebanon. Targeting Indians in response to 911 would make about as much sense as targeting Chinese.

Muslims are a minority in India anyway.

edit - Just read the post by PRCalDude about the Sikh guy getting targeted.

It just shows the cultural ignorance that’s prevalent here in the U.S. A lot of people don’t know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims. Security had to be increased in certain neighborhoods in NYC to protect the residents from retaliation, even though they were not Muslims but looked middle eastern enough to warrant assaults.

Very true, although I doubt the US is much worse than anywhere else in the world in that regard.

Maybe I was just ignorant of how stupid many people are.

[/quote]

Well the internet has opened the door for me and my short time here in the forums has been an eye opener to say the least…

[Professor_X]

[quote]Qaash wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Qaash wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Hell, after 9/11, many Indians were targeted directly so where are you getting this point of view?

WTF did people really attack Indians after 911?

Most of the hijackers were Saudi, with a few more from UAE, Egypt and Lebanon. Targeting Indians in response to 911 would make about as much sense as targeting Chinese.

Muslims are a minority in India anyway.

edit - Just read the post by PRCalDude about the Sikh guy getting targeted.

It just shows the cultural ignorance that’s prevalent here in the U.S. A lot of people don’t know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims. Security had to be increased in certain neighborhoods in NYC to protect the residents from retaliation, even though they were not Muslims but looked middle eastern enough to warrant assaults.

Very true, although I doubt the US is much worse than anywhere else in the world in that regard.

Maybe I was just ignorant of how stupid many people are.

Well the internet has opened the door for me and my short time here in the forums has been an eye opener to say the least…[/quote]

I can’t say the same. I haven’t read anything yet that has surprised me…including the belief that any claims of hate crimes against Indians and Muslims were completely fabricated.

[PRCalDude]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Qaash wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Qaash wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Hell, after 9/11, many Indians were targeted directly so where are you getting this point of view?

WTF did people really attack Indians after 911?

Most of the hijackers were Saudi, with a few more from UAE, Egypt and Lebanon. Targeting Indians in response to 911 would make about as much sense as targeting Chinese.

Muslims are a minority in India anyway.

edit - Just read the post by PRCalDude about the Sikh guy getting targeted.

It just shows the cultural ignorance that’s prevalent here in the U.S. A lot of people don’t know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims. Security had to be increased in certain neighborhoods in NYC to protect the residents from retaliation, even though they were not Muslims but looked middle eastern enough to warrant assaults.

Very true, although I doubt the US is much worse than anywhere else in the world in that regard.

Maybe I was just ignorant of how stupid many people are.

Well the internet has opened the door for me and my short time here in the forums has been an eye opener to say the least…

I can’t say the same. I haven’t read anything yet that has surprised me…including the belief that any claims of hate crimes against Indians and Muslims were completely fabricated.[/quote]

Definitely not completely, but mostly.

Still, no one here wants to talk about the actual hate preached by Imams and contained in Islamic doctrine itself, or whether or not we have anything to genuinely fear from Muslims, or whether the acts of 9/11 were a valid expression of enjoinders to wage jihad contained in Islamic jurisprudence. No, it’s just, “Anti-Muslim hate crimes, anti-Muslim hate crimes…” Does anyone care to explain why that is? Does anyone care to know what Al-Azhar University in Cairo actually teaches regarding jihad? Does anyone care whether Osama Bin Laden was a genuine mujahid, or are we just going to sit here and pine over a small number of hate-crimes against Muslims and those mistaken for Muslims after Muslims killed 3,000 of our countrymen?

[will_to_power]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
As the Sudanese blacks could probably tell you, there’s nothing quite like living under the heel of the Arabs.[/quote]

They’re all blacks. That’s why it’s called ‘the Sudan’.

That’s the president pictured for those who aren’t familiar.

[Qaash]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Qaash wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Qaash wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Hell, after 9/11, many Indians were targeted directly so where are you getting this point of view?

WTF did people really attack Indians after 911?

Most of the hijackers were Saudi, with a few more from UAE, Egypt and Lebanon. Targeting Indians in response to 911 would make about as much sense as targeting Chinese.

Muslims are a minority in India anyway.

edit - Just read the post by PRCalDude about the Sikh guy getting targeted.

It just shows the cultural ignorance that’s prevalent here in the U.S. A lot of people don’t know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims. Security had to be increased in certain neighborhoods in NYC to protect the residents from retaliation, even though they were not Muslims but looked middle eastern enough to warrant assaults.

Very true, although I doubt the US is much worse than anywhere else in the world in that regard.

Maybe I was just ignorant of how stupid many people are.

Well the internet has opened the door for me and my short time here in the forums has been an eye opener to say the least…

I can’t say the same. I haven’t read anything yet that has surprised me…including the belief that any claims of hate crimes against Indians and Muslims were completely fabricated.[/quote]

I’ve been surprised. People are a lot more open with the anonymity the web provides to speak their minds, whether I agree with those thoughts or not. It’s amazing how PC we’ve gotten that people just won’t speak their truths anymore so you don’t really know where they stand.

[Qaash]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

Still, no one here wants to talk about the actual hate preached by Imams and contained in Islamic doctrine itself, or whether or not we have anything to genuinely fear from Muslims, or whether the acts of 9/11 were a valid expression of enjoinders to wage jihad contained in Islamic jurisprudence. No, it’s just, “Anti-Muslim hate crimes, anti-Muslim hate crimes…” Does anyone care to explain why that is? Does anyone care to know what Al-Azhar University in Cairo actually teaches regarding jihad? Does anyone care whether Osama Bin Laden was a genuine mujahid, or are we just going to sit here and pine over a small number of hate-crimes against Muslims and those mistaken for Muslims after Muslims killed 3,000 of our countrymen?[/quote]

And what exactly are you proposing? Blood for blood? There are no standing army’s to fight. It is not cut and dried. Even the bible advocates the use of violence but not everyone follows it to the letter…they pick and choose what they want that suits their agendas…so you can have Imams that preach the violence but what do you do with the 1,000s more that don’t and their followers?

[lixy]

[quote]Qaash wrote:
And what exactly are you proposing? [/quote]

That’s the crucial point, Qaash.

Sifu proposed to pack Muslims on boats and send them where they (or their ancestors) are from. The ones who can’t leave (think a John Smith who recently converted), should according to him be put in concentration camps.

In general, the Islamophobes around here keep repeating that change must come instantly and spontaneously from within the Muslim community. It’s a slightly more reasonable position albeit one that’s neither proactive nor practical.

And of course, we have HH’s “nuke the cockroaches” approach. I think he’s paraphrasing Ann Coulter…

[Qaash]

[quote]lixy wrote:
The ones who can’t leave (think a John Smith who recently converted), should according to him be put in concentration camps.[/quote]

It wouldn’t be the first time they did that…Japanese Americans got a taste of that during WW II. I often wondered what would have happened if the hijackers were Sudanese or were “Black” Muslims.

[Professor_X]

[quote]Qaash wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Qaash wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Qaash wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Hell, after 9/11, many Indians were targeted directly so where are you getting this point of view?

WTF did people really attack Indians after 911?

Most of the hijackers were Saudi, with a few more from UAE, Egypt and Lebanon. Targeting Indians in response to 911 would make about as much sense as targeting Chinese.

Muslims are a minority in India anyway.

edit - Just read the post by PRCalDude about the Sikh guy getting targeted.

It just shows the cultural ignorance that’s prevalent here in the U.S. A lot of people don’t know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims. Security had to be increased in certain neighborhoods in NYC to protect the residents from retaliation, even though they were not Muslims but looked middle eastern enough to warrant assaults.

Very true, although I doubt the US is much worse than anywhere else in the world in that regard.

Maybe I was just ignorant of how stupid many people are.

Well the internet has opened the door for me and my short time here in the forums has been an eye opener to say the least…

I can’t say the same. I haven’t read anything yet that has surprised me…including the belief that any claims of hate crimes against Indians and Muslims were completely fabricated.

I’ve been surprised. People are a lot more open with the anonymity the web provides to speak their minds, whether I agree with those thoughts or not. It’s amazing how PC we’ve gotten that people just won’t speak their truths anymore so you don’t really know where they stand. [/quote]

I think on that one, I was closer to a lot of Indians during the time many of those actions were at their peak. That was who I hung around in school, mostly because we shared the same taste in music and outside activities (weight lifting). My best friend at the time was Indian. It was weird going out with them after 9/11. You could see the looks on some people’s faces. I guess that was why I was more sympathetic towards the situation. One thing that stood out, however, that I never saw in our own culture, was how well they all stuck together. I used to make jokes that every Indian in Texas must know each other.

[PRCalDude]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Qaash wrote:
And what exactly are you proposing?

That’s the crucial point, Qaash.

Sifu proposed to pack Muslims on boats and send them where they (or their ancestors) are from. The ones who can’t leave (think a John Smith who recently converted), should according to him be put in concentration camps.

In general, the Islamophobes around here keep repeating that change must come instantly and spontaneously from within the Muslim community. It’s a slightly more reasonable position albeit one that’s neither proactive nor practical.

And of course, we have HH’s “nuke the cockroaches” approach. I think he’s paraphrasing Ann Coulter…[/quote]

According to you, Islam is not in need of reform. According to Mohammed Tantawi, it’s not either. You never address any of our concerns about Islam, you just call us names, or start talking about Israel, the US, or Christianity. When we bring up specific Islamic texts that support open-ended violence against unbelievers, such as Surahs 9:5 and 9:29, you run away or change the subject.

You’re a liar, and an egregious one.

[PRCalDude]

[quote]Qaash wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

Still, no one here wants to talk about the actual hate preached by Imams and contained in Islamic doctrine itself, or whether or not we have anything to genuinely fear from Muslims, or whether the acts of 9/11 were a valid expression of enjoinders to wage jihad contained in Islamic jurisprudence. No, it’s just, “Anti-Muslim hate crimes, anti-Muslim hate crimes…” Does anyone care to explain why that is? Does anyone care to know what Al-Azhar University in Cairo actually teaches regarding jihad? Does anyone care whether Osama Bin Laden was a genuine mujahid, or are we just going to sit here and pine over a small number of hate-crimes against Muslims and those mistaken for Muslims after Muslims killed 3,000 of our countrymen?

And what exactly are you proposing? Blood for blood? There are no standing army’s to fight. It is not cut and dried. Even the bible advocates the use of violence but not everyone follows it to the letter…they pick and choose what they want that suits their agendas…so you can have Imams that preach the violence but what do you do with the 1,000s more that don’t and their followers?[/quote]

People immediately start talking about the Bible when Islam is mentioned. It’s a non sequitur. Christianity may be the most violent religion in the world, and it still has nothing to do with Islam. But you’ve just demonstrated you probably don’t care what Islam actually teaches and aren’t interested to learn.

[PRCalDude]

[quote]Qaash wrote:
lixy wrote:
The ones who can’t leave (think a John Smith who recently converted), should according to him be put in concentration camps.

It wouldn’t be the first time they did that…Japanese Americans got a taste of that during WW II. I often wondered what would have happened if the hijackers were Sudanese or were “Black” Muslims.[/quote]

Evil whitey must be at it again with the Muslims, right?

Did you read, “In Defense of Internment?”

[Qaash]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Qaash wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

Still, no one here wants to talk about the actual hate preached by Imams and contained in Islamic doctrine itself, or whether or not we have anything to genuinely fear from Muslims, or whether the acts of 9/11 were a valid expression of enjoinders to wage jihad contained in Islamic jurisprudence. No, it’s just, “Anti-Muslim hate crimes, anti-Muslim hate crimes…” Does anyone care to explain why that is? Does anyone care to know what Al-Azhar University in Cairo actually teaches regarding jihad? Does anyone care whether Osama Bin Laden was a genuine mujahid, or are we just going to sit here and pine over a small number of hate-crimes against Muslims and those mistaken for Muslims after Muslims killed 3,000 of our countrymen?

And what exactly are you proposing? Blood for blood? There are no standing army’s to fight. It is not cut and dried. Even the bible advocates the use of violence but not everyone follows it to the letter…they pick and choose what they want that suits their agendas…so you can have Imams that preach the violence but what do you do with the 1,000s more that don’t and their followers?

People immediately start talking about the Bible when Islam is mentioned. It’s a non sequitur. Christianity may be the most violent religion in the world, and it still has nothing to do with Islam. But you’ve just demonstrated you probably don’t care what Islam actually teaches and aren’t interested to learn. [/quote]

How does it not…you are basing your the argument on the actions of the few, relative to the Muslims of the world, because of what’s written in their sacred text. The western worlds sacred text has calls for violence as well…we just don’t blindly follow it. I’m not going to debate theology, it wasn’t my subject in school. I’m simply stating that I won’t condemn all for the actions of the few…I’ve gotten enough of that in my own life.

[Qaash]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Qaash wrote:
lixy wrote:
The ones who can’t leave (think a John Smith who recently converted), should according to him be put in concentration camps.

It wouldn’t be the first time they did that…Japanese Americans got a taste of that during WW II. I often wondered what would have happened if the hijackers were Sudanese or were “Black” Muslims.

Evil whitey must be at it again with the Muslims, right?

Did you read, “In Defense of Internment?”[/quote]

No I didn’t, and no one said anything about “whitey”.

[PRCalDude]

[quote]Qaash wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Qaash wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

Still, no one here wants to talk about the actual hate preached by Imams and contained in Islamic doctrine itself, or whether or not we have anything to genuinely fear from Muslims, or whether the acts of 9/11 were a valid expression of enjoinders to wage jihad contained in Islamic jurisprudence. No, it’s just, “Anti-Muslim hate crimes, anti-Muslim hate crimes…” Does anyone care to explain why that is? Does anyone care to know what Al-Azhar University in Cairo actually teaches regarding jihad? Does anyone care whether Osama Bin Laden was a genuine mujahid, or are we just going to sit here and pine over a small number of hate-crimes against Muslims and those mistaken for Muslims after Muslims killed 3,000 of our countrymen?

And what exactly are you proposing? Blood for blood? There are no standing army’s to fight. It is not cut and dried. Even the bible advocates the use of violence but not everyone follows it to the letter…they pick and choose what they want that suits their agendas…so you can have Imams that preach the violence but what do you do with the 1,000s more that don’t and their followers?

People immediately start talking about the Bible when Islam is mentioned. It’s a non sequitur. Christianity may be the most violent religion in the world, and it still has nothing to do with Islam. But you’ve just demonstrated you probably don’t care what Islam actually teaches and aren’t interested to learn.

How does it not…you are basing your the argument on the actions of the few, relative to the Muslims of the world, because of what’s written in their sacred text. The western worlds sacred text has calls for violence as well…we just don’t blindly follow it. I’m not going to debate theology, it wasn’t my subject in school. I’m simply stating that I won’t condemn all for the actions of the few…I’ve gotten enough of that in my own life. [/quote]

You don’t want to debate theology, but do want to debate theology. If Muslim sacred texts are understood to support open ended violence against unbelievers who don’t pay jizyah when it’s demanded of them, then perhaps we actually have something to fear from them. The 'Umdat al-Salik is an authoritative explanation of how Muslims understand jihad. Perhaps you ought to investigate it before you make common cause with them:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0915957728/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link