Islam Must Rule the World

[Sock puppet path]

"True, true." (Budweiser)
I agree. But we should look at things from a 360 degree angle...it seems like the more considerate thing to do...
Salams

Is generalizing like saying "atheists are hypocrites" (as in all) looking at things in a 360 degree angle or being hypocritical in relation to your admonition above.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes and when the caliphate was strong it did the exact same thing.

Where?

 

[Sock puppet path]

Where?

Where didn't it, from the invasion of the levant and egypt in the sixth century til the second siege of Vienna in the fifteenth which caliphates were not predatory entities. We have been thru this before SAM but you are immune to it it's like all your intelligence and fact finding ability goes out the window when it comes to the historical inequities of your favorite team.

 

[S.A.M.]

Where didn't it, from the invasion of the levant and egypt in the sixth century til the second siege of Vienna in the fifteenth which caliphates were not predatory entities. We have been thru this before SAM but you are immune to it it's like all your intelligence and fact finding ability goes out the window when it comes to the historical inequities of your favorite team.

As far as I know, every single civilisation that came under the Muslim rule, joined the trade routes of the time; trade laws were not inequitable, which is why the trade prospered from Morrocco to Indonesia, and contributed extensively to the arts, science and riches of all these countries, at the same time. There were individuals who inserted personal dogma here and there, but the policies on the whole did not lead to mass impoverishment and starvation in any country that I know of. Nothing compared to the 25 famines in India under the 250 years of the British for example, with more than 30 million dead, at a time when there was sufficient food in the country (equivalent to the Irish famines, when the British were exporting food while people were starving so close by). Nothing like the 27,000 children dying daily due to unfair trade practices. Individual instances of greed were present yes, but those are separate from a deliberate ideology of discrimination.

Nothing compares even remotely to this:

the U.S. wanted all references to “food as a human right” to be deleted

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty/Hunger/Solutions.asp

 

[Enmos]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad strikes me as the typical religious nut case, and one in power at that.

 

[S.A.M.]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad strikes me as the typical religious nut case, and one in power at that.

That makes you another one familiar with Western media.

Can you name one thing he has done, to corroborate this opinion you have?

 

[Enmos]

That makes you another one familiar with Western media.

Can you name one thing he has done, to corroborate this opinion you have?

Notice that I didn't say that he actually is a typical religious nut case, nor am I accusing any religious people of being nut cases in this instance.

The idea that ones own religion is the only thing that can 'save' the world is a very dubious one, and possibly a dangerous one. It could be perceived as a latent threat.

 

[S.A.M.]

Notice that I didn't say that he actually is a typical religious nut case, nor am I accusing any religious people of being nut cases in this instance.

The idea that ones own religion is the only thing that can 'save' the world is a very dubious one, and possibly a dangerous one. It could be perceived as a latent threat.

Still waiting to hear what he has done in this regard.

Or do you believe that no one is entitled to an opinion of their own if it goes against your opinion?

It's simply amazing to me, how people focus on words and completely ignore actions. Apparently, any deed is justifiable but no words are.

 

[Enmos]

Still waiting to hear what he has done in this regard.

Nothing, thats why I'm not sure that he indeed is the nut case i suspect he is.
I really cant do anything but be suspicious of what he said in the article.

Or do you believe that no one is entitled to an opinion of their own if it goes against your opinion?

Not at all.
It is MY opinion that he said something very dubious, that can be perceived by some people as some sort of 'latent' threat.

 

[S.A.M.]

Nothing, thats why I'm not sure that he indeed is the nut case i suspect he is.
I really cant do anything but be suspicious of what he said in the article.

That makes you paranoid and neurotic.:shrug:

 

[Enmos]

That makes you paranoid and neurotic.:shrug:

Why is that ? I couldn't care less if he said that or not..

 

[S.A.M.]

Why is that ? I couldn't care less if he said that or not..

Since you refer to what he says rather than what he does.

 

[Enmos]

Since you refer to what he says rather than what he does.

Yeah ? So ? That doesn't mean I care, just that I think its a stupid thing to say.

 

[Enmos]

"Enmos said here Tuesday that rule of atheism on mankind is the only way for salvation of human beings."
Do you think that is a stupid thing to say ? I do.

 

[Sock puppet path]

As far as I know, every single civilisation that came under the Muslim rule, joined the trade routes of the time; trade laws were not inequitable, which is why the trade prospered from Morrocco to Indonesia, and contributed extensively to the arts, science and riches of all these countries, at the same time. There were individuals who inserted personal dogma here and there, but the policies on the whole did not lead to mass impoverishment and starvation in any country that I know of. Nothing compared to the 25 famines in India under the 250 years of the British for example, with more than 30 million dead, at a time when there was sufficient food in the country (equivalent to the Irish famines, when the British were exporting food while people were starving so close by). Nothing like the 27,000 children dying daily due to unfair trade practices. Individual instances of greed were present yes, but those are separate from a deliberate ideology of discrimination.

Nothing compares even remotely to this:


http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty/Hunger/Solutions.asp

So systematically enslaving christian children or giving official second class citizenship to non-muslims or restricting non-muslims in what type of businesses they could run, etc etc wasn't a deliberate ideology of discrimination. And the invasion and conquest of soveriegn states wasn't akin to what you complain of.

 

[S.A.M.]

So systematically enslaving christian children or giving official second class citizenship to non-muslims or restricting non-muslims in what type of businesses they could run, etc etc wasn't a deliberate ideology of discrimination. And the invasion and conquest of soveriegn states wasn't akin to what you complain of.

Like I said, there was individual dogma, but it was not a practise of the ideology; even today, if you go to Egypt/Iran/Saudi Arabia, you can't tell the difference between a Muslim, Christian and Jew. They talk, look and behave the same way. Thats assimilation. It does not even matter about color (since many Saudis esp of the Taif region are very black in appearance).

I'm sure that as the Ottomans became richer, they developed the morals peculiar to the powerful. But even at the height of their power, their policies were multicultural and pluralistic. It is in fact, what they are most famous for. The same pattern was repeated with the Mughals; inspite of morons like Aurangzeb (who killed all his brothers and imprisoned his father for the throne), in 800 years you might find at the most 3-4 individuals who used their power to establish separate and distinct societies. But today, if you go to Delhi (the seat of the Mughal power) most people are still Hindus, though their Hindi is highly embellished with Islamic terms.

 

[GeoffP]

That makes you another one familiar with Western media.

Which, of course, makes one evil, in stark contrast to someone who only watches say al Manar.

Can you name one thing he has done, to corroborate this opinion you have?

"Israel should be wiped off the map", for starters. Also, isn't he a member of some doomsday islamic cult? Maybe he was just decrying the sorry state of Iranian geography books...which have Israel on them?

 

[S.A.M.]

Which, of course, makes one evil, in stark contrast to someone who only watches say al Manar.



"Israel should be wiped off the map", for starters. Also, isn't he a member of some doomsday islamic cult? Maybe he was just decrying the sorry state of Iranian geography books...which have Israel on them?

All that has been refuted amply; carry on with your whatchamacallit; as you will. :shrug:

Still waiting for what he has done.

 

[S.A.M.]

"Enmos said here Tuesday that rule of atheism on mankind is the only way for salvation of human beings."
Do you think that is a stupid thing to say ? I do.

Depends. Are you hoping to be re-elected by a primarily atheistic society? In that case, I might consider it a political speech.

 

[GeoffP]

All that has been refuted amply; carry on with your whatchamacallit; as you will. :shrug:

Also none of that supports what I asked.

Hehe - sure it has. He didn't mean all Joos, just ze evil vones...I mean 'ones'. Of course. And the not wearing ties thing and the arrest of thousands of women for inappropriate attire and hanging teenagers and so forth under the auspice of his government....well, he's like a prisoner, maybe. Not like Western leaders who are responsible for every evil in the world, both inside dar-al-islam and out of it. He's just an ordinary guy. Like you. Like me. Like Hitler.

...uh, oh, scratch that last one.