France has become institutionally RACIST

If France will become religious closed state, then YES, they have the right to ban Islam...but since they claim to be SECULAR, FREE, LIBERAL ,then they should shut the fuck up and stop persecuting Muslims.
Click to expand...

Just your opinion, do you think it is better for a “state” to be a religious closed state or a secular, free liberal state?


Indeed it is moronic to be ignorant of Islam's history, most of these indigenous were living under the Roman or the Persian tyranny, the muslim armies crushed the two most powerful empires in their era COMBINDED and liberated those oppressed indigenous...go to History books and find out why the BISHOP of Jerusalem wanted to hand over the key of jerusalem to the second Muslim Khalifa in person, go to history books and read why the same bishop wanted Omar ibn Al khatab ( the secon khalifa ) to pray in the famous holy church in Jerusalem !!! if the Muslim armies were involved in killing the indigenous, will they get such MAJESTIC invitation from the head of the christian church in Jerusalem ???
Click to expand...
Persia was ruled by Persians. So what business is it of the Arabs to invade Persia and set up a new rule? By what right do they have to do this?

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/islamic_conquest/islamic_conquest.php

The big difference is that the indigenous people,The persians, welcomed the Muslims, the Iraqis DID NOT welcome you, instead they are sending suicide martyers ( in fact, today in this morning, another 3 american soldiers killed in Iraq ),.....did you see the difference now ??
Click to expand...
You’re sort of right. However, don’t try to paint the entire canvas in one brush stroke. The Kurdish were VERY happy to see American’s invade Iraq. I think we can both agree that if you and I both get our wish, it may not be a pretty sight for the Arabic in the North of Iraq. And although I do feel sorry for all involved – that is probably the one and only reason I would accept the USA remaining in power for a little while longer. You see you seem to keep forgetting about the indigenous people in the north.

Funny that, I mean according to you the peaceful Arab “economic migration” is always welcomed opened armed – everywhere. Hmmm for some reason that “peaceful Arab economic migration” doesn’t seem to make the people all that happy up there? Weird huh? Oh, but I’m sure that the Coptic Egyptian and Orientalist Historians and Persian Hisotrians (with their penis envy insecurity of Arabs) got it all wrong about Persia, Egypt and North Africa – that was different They just couldn’t wait to be conquered!! Much like we see in northern Iraq. You see the Kurds really can’t wait to give up their right to self determination and will just love to have the Ayatollah. It’s just the Jew news conspiracy that’s making it appear that the Kurds aren’t happy about the “peaceful Arab economic migration”. In actuality the Kurds will just love to have their self determination removed.

And this is one instance where in the next year or so (maybe as soon a June) we'll look back and just see for ourselves.

After All, in most American and western schools, they teach kids FALSELY that evolution is the only true explanation for life, does that make evolution fact ?? NEVER....
Click to expand...
:) I know and they keep teaching people the world is round when anyone can see it’s a flat as a pancake!
 
What I can't stand, here, is the intolerance (from any group) and the inability to distinguish the difference between the individual and the leadership. This indiscriminate hate against the West, and its people, is dangerous on all sides. I didn't vote for Bush. l am against the principle of this war, I believe in religious freedom and expression, and I contribute to international charities in the sum of hundreds a year; BUT where does that leave me, and my "pagan" self? Apparently it doesn't matter what I believe, or what I do in life (or how little I actually care about Judeo-Christian-Muslim internal politics). To many fundamentalist Muslims, I am a Westerner, nothing more...and therefore an enemy. If I were to be visiting The Holy Land, the Ruins of some ancient Ziggurat, or just working in my office on the 50th floor of the WTC...a martyr to be would have no problem ending my life for his skewed beliefs, regardless of the person I AM. I am lumped in with the actions of the government in power, and the actions of other western countries. Overall, we are a tolerant society...but how much tolerance should be given to the intolerant in a tolerant society?!? Am I pissed off? Yeah...just a bit.



No one was born to be my enemy...If I have any enemies in this life, it is because they have chosen to be.
 
everneo said:
Horrible and unjustifiable self-infliction. But this way they are mourning the death of Imam Hussein for centuries. The righteous Hussein was brutally & cowardly murdered and his head was cut and put on top of a lancer and paraded by the thugs of the then 'Kalifa' (?) who called himself muslim. Why the then arab muslims did not come to the resque of Hussein (grandson of the Prophet) or did not wage jihad immediately after the murder of Hussein against the kingly kalifa.? That could have prevented Shia - Sunni division in Islam.
Click to expand...

First Imam Hussain was not murdered by the Kalifa, he was murdered by someone else, ironiclly, by one of the shias themselves.

Second, Imam Hussain was adviced not to leave Meccam but he insisted on going after the kalifa to gain his place...this was his tragic mistake, he knew he could not face the kalifa army...but anyway...this is now history, let history rest in peace.
 
Proud_Muslim said:
First Imam Hussain was not murdered by the Kalifa, he was murdered by someone else, ironiclly, by one of the shias themselves.
Click to expand...
Kalifa 'king' Yazid the usurper sent his army with specific orders either force Imam Hussein to give allegiance to Yazid OR finish the Imam. The cruelty and unscrupulousness with which his army carried out the murder of Hussein in Karbala battle must be shocking to anyone who calls himself muslim. Yazid received the head of Hussein with glee and you must be knowing well all this shameful history. Why do you still try to defend the culprit.?

Second, Imam Hussain was adviced not to leave Meccam but he insisted on going after the kalifa to gain his place...this was his tragic mistake, he knew he could not face the kalifa army...but anyway...this is now history, let history rest in peace.
Click to expand...
Was the Imam supposed to keep quiet like rest of indifferent ummah to oppose a mighty king who had no right or qualification or character (Yazid had every thing on the negetive side in fact).? Hussein knew very well he was facing an unjust monster yet he stood fast for upholding islamic values that are fast vanishing in his time. Come on PM, the significance of Hussein's martyrdom is not in his trying to get his rightful title (Kalifa) but in opposing the injustice and decadence that started setting in and continue still today. I don't understand why are you trying to protect 'Kalifa' Yazid and put the blame on Hussein. Be a just muslim whether you are sunni or shia.
 
You are talking from Shia perspective, I dont want to get into shia debate, I would rather save my energy to refute lies and clear misinformation about Islam.
 
Its bad that you equate appreciation of Ali & Hussein with Shia perspective. A lot of sunni sources that are not hateful of these great men are rightfully speaking good of them. In fact i find several misconceptions among shias as a sect. But the orginal issue of injustice done long back and refusal to accept the collective guilt with a deafening silence or simple side stepping by some of the sunni muslims, when it comes to Ali and Hussein, is looking hypocritical to me as non-muslim. I still don't understand why you don't condemn the Ummayad blunders that was plaguing Muslim world over centuries.
 
The ummayed are the ones who created the GOLDERN AGE of Islam...go read little bit more history...maybe MUSLIM SPAIN is good start.... :rolleyes:
 
That is the point. nothing succeeds like success. Whoever is successful and powerful commanded the islamic world. Those fallen heroes with high idealism forgotten immediately for they are of no use to islam then and now. When i was talking of the moral blunders of those who started umayyad dynasty under the disguise of khalifate you point out their successors' territorial and artistic achievements. again nothing succeeds like success. but that often had little depth.
 
For one to understand and appreciate the plight of the Shia, one would have to be capable of relating to the historically outnumbered, oppressed and victimized peoples of the world. Some are simply not capable of doing this.

Let's face it. The Shia simply weren't violent enough to compete in the early days of Islam. It rose out of one of the most violent tribal cultures the world has ever seen, and attempted to bring peace to the tribes. The Shia were idealistic enough to believe that all Muslim's of that time were serious about the teachings of Muhammed, and the peaceful discourse might win out over "might makes right". They were naive. They were slaughtered. Violence won the day, and the majority. A little over 1,300 years, and not a whole lot has changed with regards to being idealistic, huh.

The myth in the West, largely due to the perception of the Iranian Revolution, is that it's the Shia that are the Muslims to be feared, the Shia are the violent hotheads, blinded by bloodlust and hatred of all things non-Islamic, and that the Sunni are the peaceful, rational Muslims.

It was a myth then, it's a myth now. Both sects of Islam use jihad to whatever means suits them. Both have corrupted the words to suit political aims. They are no different than any other religion in that sense.

FWIW, I think we ought to work with Sistani. I don't see how his hatred of the West will necessarily be any greater than that of the Saud family, and we've been sleeping with those enemies for decades. Just part of the cost of doing business over there.
 
right, PM, you keep on telling people that everyone that the muslims conquered welcomed them, and that they kicked the romans and persians. They say history is written by the victors, thats often wrong, its written by the people who actually know how to write and for people who can read. The muslims had a much larger percentage of literate population in that time.
 
Sure Alian, but when you are faced with 2 very different accounts of History, the first one coming from Christian missionaries and BIASED Orientalists and the second one is coming from Islamic sources and UNBIASED western historians, which one will you take ?
 
unbiased? against muslims? why did they westerners fight the crusades agaisnt you if they were indifferent (unbiased) to you? I do admit that Whatever anyone wrote is biased, so its best to find sources from each side and average them, somewhere between heros and monsters maybe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top