Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon

[Michael]

Arsalan, you completely ignored my question.

Just as Jews, Christians, Muslims, Romans and Perians were completely loyal to the Muslim empire during the Caliphs. They fought with the Muslims and died with them. They ate with them and lived with them. Ofcourse, you wont happen to know anything of that

Yes, I am sure that was the case with some people and also some Jews, Christians, and Muslims Romans and Perians were not loyal to the "Muslim" empire during the Caliphs.

If I remember correct some people thought that the descendants of Ali shoudl run the "Muslim" empire.

During the first Caliphate there was a LOT of KILLING going on. Come on Arsalan. Are you trying to parody the stereotypical Muslim?

When Muslims conquored lands it was only defensive and have nothing to do with taking lands and the actual wars were completely peaceful and everyone just tossed down their arms and became happy servants to their new rulers and everyone lived on a continental size sugar cone with ice cream and a cherry on top. But when evil Europeans came and reconquered lands that had been in their possession for 1000 years that was a big fat bloody bath and those evil Christian Crusades were wrong wrong wrong and they knocked the cherry off the top and the Holy ice cream melted blah blah blah

so in summary
Muslim Crusades were peaceful and everyone ate lolly pops.
Christian Crusades were evil and eveyone lost their lolly pops.

 

[Michael]

I find it odd that something as important as .. ooo I don't know .. killing people, wouldn't be made crystal clear in the what you two both consider to be a "perfect" book.

The book has been around in it's current form for at least 1000 years surely someone would have settled this a LONG LONG time ago.

(whatever perfect means).

 

[Arsalan]

Arsalan, you completely ignored my question.
Yes, I am sure that was the case with some people and also some Jews, Christians, and Muslims Romans and Perians were not loyal to the "Muslim" empire during the Caliphs.

Ehh, they were. Whole towns helped the Muslims to get rid of their Roman masters. Romans joined the Muslims when they were fighting against the Romans who wanted to conquer them.

If I remember correct some people thought that the descendants of Ali shoudl run the "Muslim" empire.

Yes, that was a part of the Muslim community, not the non-Muslims.

During the first Caliphate there was a LOT of KILLING going on. Come on Arsalan. Are you trying to parody the stereotypical Muslim?

When Muslims conquored lands it was only defensive and have nothing to do with taking lands and the actual wars were completely peaceful and everyone just tossed down their arms and became happy servants to their new rulers and everyone lived on a continental size sugar cone with ice cream and a cherry on top. But when evil Europeans came and reconquered lands that had been in their possession for 1000 years that was a big fat bloody bath and those evil Christian Crusades were wrong wrong wrong and they knocked the cherry off the top and the Holy ice cream melted blah blah blah

so in summary
Muslim Crusades were peaceful and everyone ate lolly pops.
Christian Crusades were evil and eveyone lost their lolly pops.

A lot of killing going on? You mean the wars instigated by the Persians and the Romans? One side wanted to kill the Muslims, as they had already done with several tribes in their lands, and one side wanted to conquer more land. And the Muslims did not sit back and let these people kill them. Unfortunately, these victories over the people who actually started these hostilies have now been dubbed "conquests" and are seen as synonymous to the spread of Islam. Which is wrong.

 

[Arsalan]

I find it odd that something as important as .. ooo I don't know .. killing people, wouldn't be made crystal clear in the what you two both consider to be a "perfect" book.

The book has been around in it's current form for at least 1000 years surely someone would have settled this a LONG LONG time ago.

(whatever perfect means).

What do you mean killing people?

 

[S.A.M.]

What do you mean killing people?

he's unfamiliar with the concept of blood feud, so he does not know that killing people wasn't as casual as it is today.

 

[Michael]

You mean the wars instigated by the Persians and the Romans? One side wanted to kill the Muslims, as they had already done with several tribes in their lands, and one side wanted to conquer more land. And the Muslims did not sit back and let these people kill them. Unfortunately, these victories over the people who actually started these hostilies have now been dubbed "conquests" and are seen as synonymous to the spread of Islam. Which is wrong.

Let me get this straight.

The Persians wanted to conqueror Arab cities? It was the Persians fault? Is that your position?

The Egyptians, who also deserved to be conquered?

Oh, and the North Africans, they somehow also deserved to be conquered?

Oh and the Sicilians - they somehow was going to what? Come to Arabia and occupy a mud village in the middle of no where?? Is that what you are saying here Arsalan?!?!?!

The Island of Cete did what? They were going to occupy Arabs? From where - their little Island???:bugeye:

Please tell me you don't think that!

The Vandals - they were gonna come and git them poor Arabs cause they really really really like that there purdy moon rock ... come on...


Yup, Muslims I see now.

Muslim crusades = defense and liberty and lolly pops and invention of zero while...
Christian crusades = evil bloody blood bath blood blood.

Yup, wow, it's all soooo clear to me now.

Thanks Arsalan,

Michael


Khalid ibn al-Walid
Do you not see the wealth of the land of the Persians? Do you not remember the poverty of the land of the Arabs? Do you not see how the crops in this land cover the earth? If the holy war were not enjoined by Allah, we should still come and conquer this rich land and exchange the hunger of our deserts for the abundant eating which is now ours
Annals of the Early Caliphate (p. 75)



Yup purely a defensive liberation.
Please Arsalan - you don't still think Muslim's invented Ballet do you???
:roflmao:


HEY, I know we're not supposed to show images of The Last New Prophet BUT.....

The New Holy Qur'an

US troops are "greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known"

Geeze GW Bush even sounds like a Muslim Prophet - I guess He is a Direct Descendant!!!! Hahahahahaaa LOL

It;'s all making sense now. The USA is liberating them poor Iraqis I mean look at how many Muslim are working with USA. Yes, pure lollys and candy Its a new Caliphate with GW as The Prophet...

 

[Arsalan]

Let me get this straight.

The Persians wanted to conqueror Arab cities? It was the Persians fault? Is that your position?

The Egyptians, who also deserved to be conquered?

Oh, and the North Africans, they somehow also deserved to be conquered?

Oh and the Sicilians - they somehow was going to what? Come to Arabia and occupy a mud village in the middle of no where?? Is that what you are saying here Arsalan?!?!?!

The Island of Cete did what? They were going to occupy Arabs? From where - their little Island???

Please tell me you don't think that!

The Vandals - they were gonna come and git them poor Arabs cause they really really really like that there purdy moon rock ... come on...


Yup, Muslims I see now.

Muslim crusades = defense and liberty and lolly pops and invention of zero while...
Christian crusades = evil bloody blood bath blood blood.

Yup, wow, it's all soooo clear to me now.

Thanks Arsalan,

Michael


Khalid ibn al-Walid
Do you not see the wealth of the land of the Persians? Do you not remember the poverty of the land of the Arabs? Do you not see how the crops in this land cover the earth? If the holy war were not enjoined by Allah, we should still come and conquer this rich land and exchange the hunger of our deserts for the abundant eating which is now ours
Annals of the Early Caliphate (p. 75)

Im surprised that someone who loves Wiki that much failed to read the following regarding the Muslim "conquests" of North Africa:

Before the accounts below are read, it should be realised that there are virtually no contemporary records of the conquest, and particularly of events outside Egypt.

:roflmao: Yes, thats some darn good academic material right there!

As you probably know now, and if you dont you should, the Romans wanted to control a lot of places and they were afraid of the Muslims in the religious sense and that it was spreading and therefore other countries were joining this new "empire". So they started hostilities trying to take these Muslim countries. On the other side, the Persians were getting all crazy after the Prophet passed away and thought the religion was over and started slaughtering Muslims. It was in response to these threats and attacks from both sides that they were fought by Khalid bin Walid, one of the most successful generals in the history of mankind. And then you take a quote attributed to him on wiki supposedly from a William Muir book, a quote which is nowhere to be found in ANY hadith or record, and which, as the wiki page claims, was nothing but a morale boosting quote and not the reason behind the fighting, and then you try to paint the Muslim "conquests" off as some kind of aggressive holy war to get control of some resources. It is indeed utterly absurd Michael

Yup purely a defensive liberation.
Please Arsalan - you don't still think Muslim's invented Ballet do you???

Dunno bout ballet, but the first working camera obscura was in Egypt and the first flying man was a Muslim.

HEY, I know we're not supposed to show images of The Last New Prophet BUT.....

The New Holy Qur'an

US troops are "greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known"

Geeze GW Bush even sounds like a Muslim Prophet - I guess He is a Direct Descendant!!!! Hahahahahaaa LOL

It;'s all making sense now. The USA is liberating them poor Iraqis I mean look at how many Muslim are working with USA. Yes, pure lollys and candy Its a new Caliphate with GW as The Prophet...

Ok then let me get rid of this obsession you seem to have with Bush being a descendent of the Prophet. Your source was probably this place which features the following images:

Now, the original article I posted was this where it states that the blood of the Prophet passed into the Royals of England in the 15th century. Now, as we can see from the above images, De Clare's bloodline splits at around the start of the 14th century with one bloodline leading to Lovering who was the ancestor of Bush and the other bloodline leading to Elizabeth II. If the Prophets bloodline passed into the Royals of England, it would have to have passed into it during the time of or inbetween Anne Wells and Mary Elizabeth Carpenter and therefore the Prophet was not the ancestor of Bush. Understand now?

 

[Kadark]

let me put it this way. We fought for 200 years, there were many extremists, insurgents, terrorists etc. But all that did was to make the British retaliate against the citizens (the Jalianwala Bagh massacre is only one example)

But what did win us independence was claiming the higher moral ground. It was the likes of Nehru and Gandhi who showed the British that we were perfectly capable of managing our own country and they could leave us TYVM.

If the Iranians had not been distracted by the war immediately after the revolution, they would have escaped the fundamentalists in power now.

I have my reasons for believing in the things I do. Agree to disagree?

I find it odd that something as important as .. ooo I don't know .. killing people, wouldn't be made crystal clear in the what you two both consider to be a "perfect" book.

The book has been around in it's current form for at least 1000 years surely someone would have settled this a LONG LONG time ago.

(whatever perfect means).

There's only one true interpretation, but thousands of different opinions. We're representing two of them.

Just friendly discourse.

 

[Michael]

Arsalan,

You're doing it again.

Muslim war of Aggression = Lolly's and Candy
Christian war of Aggression = Bloody Blood Soaked Blood

War of Aggression is always what it is.
Bloody Blood Soaked Blood

There is only one reason for conquering other peoples land and if you can not figure it out take a look at the modern day liberation of Iraq and how 9/11 was used to justify it. Arabs wanted a peace of pie and ended up taking the whole thing. No different than what the Mongolians or English or Romans of Greeks or etc...

RE: William Muir one would have to get the book.

As to the GW Bush Jr's genealogy sorry but he is a direct descendant of Margaret De Clare - 22 generation to be precise That makes him a Direct Descendant of Mohammad.

Whose you're daddy

lol

 

[Michael]

There's only one true interpretation, but thousands of different opinions.

So whose is true?

How does one find out what the "true" interpretation is? (should it be just truth - full stop?

Also, it seems rather silly that something as important as killing wouldn't be settling as to what is exactly "true" - you know, given that people have been reading The "Perfect" Qur'anic-entanglement for Ooooo about 1000+ years...

funny that - I mean, being a "perfect" book an all...

Michael

 

[Kadark]

So whose is true?

Whose argument do you find more appealing?

How does one find out what the "true" interpretation is? (should it be just truth - full stop?

Research.

funny that - I mean, being a "perfect" book an all...

The book is perfect. The followers, however, are not.

 

[Arsalan]

Arsalan,

You're doing it again.

Muslim war of Aggression = Lolly's and Candy
Christian war of Aggression = Bloody Blood Soaked Blood

War of Aggression is always what it is.
Bloody Blood Soaked Blood

Fortunately, thats not what happened and your evidence for it has been disproven. And I have not mentioned the Crusades yet...

There is only one reason for conquering other peoples land and if you can not figure it out take a look at the modern day liberation of Iraq and how 9/11 was used to justify it. Arabs wanted a peace of pie and ended up taking the whole thing. No different than what the Mongolians or English or Romans of Greeks or etc...

It couldnt possibly be that they were being attacked "Theyre Arabs, they must be at fault!"

As to the GW Bush Jr's genealogy sorry but he is a direct descendant of Margaret De Clare - 22 generation to be precise That makes him a Direct Descendant of Mohammad.

Whose you're daddy

lol

He cannot be a direct descendent as ive shown already. The Prophets bloodline entered King Edwards bloodline in the 15th century whereas the bloodline that was going to lead to Bush split at the start of the 14th century. The bloodline where the PRophets blood passed into through the Royals was a long long way off from de Clare and therefore there is no direct descendency.

 

[Arsalan]

So whose is true?

How does one find out what the "true" interpretation is? (should it be just truth - full stop?

Also, it seems rather silly that something as important as killing wouldn't be settling as to what is exactly "true" - you know, given that people have been reading The "Perfect" Qur'anic-entanglement for Ooooo about 1000+ years...

funny that - I mean, being a "perfect" book an all...

Michael

What kind of killing are you talking about exactly?

 

[Michael]

Fortunately, thats not what happened and your evidence for it has been disproven.

Evidence for what? For people dieing when at war?!?!

What exactly is your position, that Muslims conquered Persia, Egypt, Syria, Spain, Crete, Sicily, etc... and no body was killed?

That's asinine.

Arsalan is it your opinion that during the Muslim Crusades into Persia, Egypt, Byzantine, Syria and Spain that many many many people died or not? If not then explain how war of aggression can occur without many many people dieing. Magic?

Michael


RE Bush
Sadly you seem to be correct in that our beloved Dweedle Dumb New Prophet Bush may not be related - BUT, as that bastard is related to soo many f*cking royals all over Europe I'm sure I could turn up something if I had the time.

 

[Michael]

What kind of killing are you talking about exactly?

Any kind of killing.

 

[tresbien]

MICHAEL
Although I studied deeply the Amercan and English civilisation , i believe that it is not good to speak about the mistakes that the christain man committed and blood shed in the name of religion.But as u keep on charging islam with barbarity, agression , violence .
I am asking u to just to comment on slavery and the westward movement or the manifest destiny.

 

[John99]

Arsalan, Since you brought up the Crusades, check your facts. I looked it up, tell me what you think.

And I have not mentioned the Crusades yet...

As you probably know now, and if you dont you should, the Romans wanted to control a lot of places and they were afraid of the Muslims in the religious sense and that it was spreading and therefore other countries were joining this new "empire". So they started hostilities trying to take these Muslim countries.

Take a look at this:

1. 613 Persians capture Damascus and Antioch

2. 614 Persians sack Jerusalem

3. 633 Muslims conquer Syria and Iraq

4. 635 Muslims begin the conquest of Persia and Syria

5. 635 Arab Muslims capture the city of Damascus

6. 636-637 Arab domination of Syria

7. 637 Arabs occupy Ctesiphon

8. 637 Jerusalem falls to Muslim forces

9. 638 Caliph Umar I enters Jerusalem

10. 639 Muslims conquer Egypt and Persia

11. 641 Islam spreads into Egypt

12. 641 Muslims conquer Alexandria

13. 649 Muawiya I leads raid against Cyprus sacking the capital Salamis-Constantia

14. 652 Sicily is attacked by Muslims

15. 653 Muawiya I leads raid against Rhodes

16. 654 Muawiya I conquers Cyprus

17. 655 Battle of the Masts

18. 661-680 Mu�awiya moves capital from Mecca to Damascus

19. 662 Egypt falls to the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates

20. 667 Sicily is attacked by Muslims

21. 668 First siege of Constantinople

22. 669 Muslim conquest reaches Morocco

23. 672 Muslims capture the island of Rhodes

24. 674 Arab conquest reaches Indus River

25. 698 Muslims capture Carthage

26. 700 Muslims raid Island of Sicily

27. 711 Muslims conquest of Sindh in Afghanistan

28. 711 Battle of Guadalate

29. 712 Conquest of Andulusia

30. 715 Muslim conquest of Spain

31. 716 Muslims captured Lisbon

32. 717 Cordova becomes capital of Andalusia (Spain)

33. 719 Muslims attack Septimania in Southern France

34. 721 Muslims cross the Pyrenees

35. 722 Battle of Covadonga First defeat of Muslims by Christians

36. 724 Muslims raid southern France and capture Carcassone and Nimes

37. 725 Muslim forces occupy Nimes, France

38. 730 Muslim forces occupy Narbonne and Avignon

39. 732 Battle of Tours (Christian Victory)

40. 735 Muslim invaders capture Arles

41. 750 Abbasids move capital to Baghdad

42. 756 The Emirate of Cordova is established

43. 759 Pippin III ends Muslim incursions in France

44. 792 Hisham I calls for a Jihad Thousands heed his call to cross the Pyrenees to subjugate France. Many cities are destroyed

45. 813 Muslims attack the Civi Vecchia near Rome

46. 816 The Moors support the Basques against the Franks

47. 827 Sicily is invaded by Muslims

48. 831 Muslims capture Palermo and make it their capital

49. 838 Muslim raiders sack Marseille

50. 841 Muslim forces capture Bari (in Italy)

51. 846 Muslim raiders attack areas near Ostia and Rome. Some enter Rome and damage the Churches of St. Peter and St. Paul. The Leonine Wall is built to discourage further Attacks.

52. 849 Battle of Ostia (Christian Victory)

53. 850 Perfectus, a Christian priest in Muslim Cordova is executed � one of the first of Many

54. 85111 young Christians are executed for insulting the Prophet Muhammed

55. 858 Muslim raiders attack Constantinople

56. 859 Muslim invaders capture Castrogiovanni slaughtering several thousand

57. 869 Arabs capture the island of Malta

58. 870 Muslim invaders capture Syracuse

59. 876 Muslims pillage Campagna in Italy

60. 879 The Seljuk Empire unites Mesapotamia and a large portion of Persia

61. 884 Muslims invading Italy burn the monastery of Monte Cassino to the ground

62. 900 The Fatimid Dynasty assumes control of Egypt

63. 902 The Muslim conquest of Sicily is completed when the Christian city of Toorminia is captured

64. 909 Sicily comes under control of the Fatimids

65. 909 The fatimid Dynasty assumes control of Egypt

66. 909 Muslims control all the passes in the Alps between France and Italy � cutting off passage between the two countries

67. 920 Muslim forces cross the Pyrenees, enter Gascony and reach as far as the gates of Toulouse

68. 972 The Fatimids of Egypt conquer North Africa

69. 981 Ramiro III, king of Leon, is defeated at Rueda

70. 985 Al-Mansur Ibn Abi Aamir sacks Barcelona

71. 994 The monastery of Monte Cassino is destrpyed a second time by Arabs

72. 997 Under the leadership of Almanzar, Muslim forces march out of the city of Cordova and head north to capture Christian lands.

73. 997 Muslim forces burn Compostela to the ground

74. 1004 Arab raiders sack the Italian city of Pisa

75. 1009 The Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is destroyed by Muslim armies

76. 1009 Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah orders the the Holy Sepulcher and all Christian buildings in Jerusalem be destroyed

77. 1012 Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah orders the destruction of all Christian and Jewish houses of worship in his lands

78. 1012 Berber forces capture Cordova and order that half the population be executed

79. 1015 Arab Muslim forces conquer Sardinia

80. 1064 The Seljuk Turks conquer Christian Armenia

81. 1070 Seljuk Turks capture Jerusalem and begin persecuting Christian Pilgrims

82. 1071-1085 Seljuk Turks conquer most of Syria and Palestine

83. 1071 Battle of Manzikert

84. 1073 Seljuk Turks conquer Ankara

85. 1078 Seljuk Turks capture Nicaea

86. 1084 Seljuk Turks conquer Antioch

67. 1086 Battle of Zallaca

68. 1088 Patzinak Turks begin forming settlements between the Danube and the Balkans

69. 1090 Granada captured by Yusuf Ibn Tashfin

70. 1091 Cordova is captured by the Almoravids

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam_in_southern_Italy


The First Crusade was launched in 1095

Its quite possible that a lot of intermingling was going on.

 

[S.A.M.]

Let me get this straight.

The Persians wanted to conqueror Arab cities? It was the Persians fault? Is that your position?

The Egyptians, who also deserved to be conquered?

Oh, and the North Africans, they somehow also deserved to be conquered?

Oh and the Sicilians - they somehow was going to what? Come to Arabia and occupy a mud village in the middle of no where?? Is that what you are saying here Arsalan?!?!?!

The Island of Cete did what? They were going to occupy Arabs? From where - their little Island???:bugeye:

Please tell me you don't think that!

Whats with all these notions about Arabs?

Now, the original article I posted was this where it states that the blood of the Prophet passed into the Royals of England in the 15th century. Now, as we can see from the above images, De Clare's bloodline splits at around the start of the 14th century with one bloodline leading to Lovering who was the ancestor of Bush and the other bloodline leading to Elizabeth II. If the Prophets bloodline passed into the Royals of England, it would have to have passed into it during the time of or inbetween Anne Wells and Mary Elizabeth Carpenter and therefore the Prophet was not the ancestor of Bush. Understand now?

This may sound incredibly funny, but Michael actually works in a lab.

 

[Enmos]

Theres a difference between the empire that expanded and the spread of the religion. That is my point

The "Muslim" Empire moved from the Arabs to the Persians to the Mongols to the Turks (Ottomans).

At the end of a century of Arab rule, most of the Muslims were still in Arabia (rest of the Empire had less than 10% Muslims The Arabs discouraged conversion as they were afraid it would dilute their status. It was only later that Islamisation occured, once the latter Umayyads built schools to teach Arabic, and because of the organised development of the society under the Persians (who initially adopted Sunni Islam) and then the Mongols (one of whom adopted Shia Islam and as the administrator of Persia, encouraged Shia Islam, leading to teh present day Iran). It was the Turks who built madrasas and standardised religious education.

Fine, but obviously these Muslims went to those countries/areas to conquer them. It is inevitable that because of that Islam got some foothold in those areas. Simply by just being there the locals would have come in contact with the new religion and some of them must have converted, encouraged or not.

Also, it was a Muslim empire.. that in itself says enough.

 

[S.A.M.]

Fine, but obviously these Muslims went to those countries/areas to conquer them. It is inevitable that because of that Islam got some foothold in those areas. Simply by just being there the locals would have come in contact with the new religion and some of them must have converted, encouraged or not.

Also, it was a Muslim empire.. that in itself says enough.

Sure but the aim of the Empire was not conversion. And we only call it Muslim Empire because most people here are black and white thinkers.

I don't think the Mongols who conquered the Persians and Arabs had a desire to spread or undermine religion, do you?