Muslims, how can this be proper?

[caleb83]

Yeah it is modern Muslims who trump up the Crusades. While the Crusades were formative for Europe they were in some ways marginal for Islamic civilization, compared to say the Mongolian conquest.

The Crusades leave a taste of white-European-Christian-missionary discust, but that really takes shape latter, with modern Salafiya-fundamentalists who weave the whole thing together and frame up history as a ‘Clash of Culture’ or whatever, playing into the hands of fundamentalists on the other side who say the same thing.

The real Crusades were just a case of barbarians at the gates. The real issue is modern Western imperialism and that whole story. Religion is always their to justify war and make for identity. Imagine if you couldn’t help but judge Christianity (which has an obvious and essential evangelical direction) with the dispicable actions of some missionaries and the consequences.

It is true that Jihad is inherently connected to armed self-defence of one’s people and nation and culture, and that is what everyone says they are doing when they fight. The Crusades were an anomoly, “forceful spread of the gospel” but what is seen is what is similar: “spread”

A culture that is threatened by evil clerics going around and teaching young people that they can get into heaven if they go kill an unbeliever and defend the faith – such a people can, I think, have sympathy with another people who have been threatened with the same thing.

 

[R_not]

Yeah it is modern Muslims who trump up the Crusades. While the Crusades were formative for Europe they were in some ways marginal for Islamic civilization, compared to say the Mongolian conquest.

The Crusades leave a taste of white-European-Christian-missionary discust, but that really takes shape latter, with modern Salafiya-fundamentalists who weave the whole thing together and frame up history as a ‘Clash of Culture’ or whatever, playing into the hands of fundamentalists on the other side who say the same thing.

The real Crusades were just a case of barbarians at the gates. The real issue is modern Western imperialism and that whole story. Religion is always their to justify war and make for identity. Imagine if you couldn’t help but judge Christianity (which has an obvious and essential evangelical direction) with the dispicable actions of some missionaries and the consequences.

It is true that Jihad is inherently connected to armed self-defence of one’s people and nation and culture, and that is what everyone says they are doing when they fight. The Crusades were an anomoly, “forceful spread of the gospel” but what is seen is what is similar: “spread”

A culture that is threatened by evil clerics going around and teaching young people that they can get into heaven if they go kill an unbeliever and defend the faith – such a people can, I think, have sympathy with another people who have been threatened with the same thing.

You need a history course and a reality check.

Go back and reread, or read, the post I just posted in response to you about the Crusades. When you read it then come back and claim victimhood. Take note of the dates of the Crusades. And how long the muslims were slaughtering people in the Middle East - a Middle East that didn’t start that sort of thing until AFTER mohammed thought up his religion.

Well, instead of answering the question as to what this thread poses - you deflect, blame others, go back into centuries of old history, and ignore.

 

[caleb83]

I didn’t say anything about the dates because I am not sure what their significance is supposed to be. That the response was after a while, does that mean it was less aggressive? If it is so long after does that not mean it is just fresh aggression? If it is retalitory I don’t see the significance of a long time between (except that in that interval there is peace and this uneventful state gets looked over when you have battles to define history)

As for the Crusaders not being as hostile as Muslims, that they ONLY wanted the Holy Land, well, who would believe that? When people don’t believe that modern Islamic jihadists (keeping in mind that is not one thing) really mean what they say, that they want freedom of their holy land and for the Palestinians. No, they want to destroy all other civilization!

What if you were to judge Crusaders as all the same, and judge the whole thing by the worst ones? No good

As for a history lessen, I wonder how that history would be framed. Eurocentric? Such that Islamic civilization is not recognized as the heir of Western (Greek) civilization, without which Europe would not be what it is? That Baghdad and Corboba were not the most advanced centers of civilization? With the perenial exception of China (they are always exceptional) Islamic civilization almost counts as the only one to speak of, by the standards the West uses to congradulate itself. Will one find that the Europeans were NOT uneducated barbarians who at that point were the heirs only of Rome’s Fall?

As for victumhood, I had no idea anything of the kind was implied, or at least I didn’t mean it that way. I intended to minimize the importance of the whole Crusade episode to Islam, while it is vitally important to the birth of European consciousness and identity. As for victumhood, I am so very very far from being alone in the criticism of Western Christian nations and races in regards to imperialism. As for victumhood, one should be far from proud and insensitive of the spreading of the gospel when you look how it is done in the last five hundred years.

One would hope that associating missions with empire is not unavoidable. One would hope that everyone can see that. Then the people of the Middle East and Islam might see that what is good about the West is good because it is Islamic, and that that word does not mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, like some want it to mean ‘Evil’ and ‘Other’ and ‘Threat’. But none of this will happen without history lessons. And it won’t happen unless one can be precise enough to distinguish one group from another and not just call it all ‘muslim’ and ‘christian’. Because I don’t think I have done that, I don’t expect anyone to think my statements refer to the ‘true meaning’ of Christianity and this is some type of accusation. Although it would be embarrassing if someone thought they were defending Christianity by defending acts of conquest and imperialism (and thinking that condemns OTHER peoples aggression on top of it all!)

For your dates, you should specify the names of the groups of people involved. I can’t imagine any christian would want to be confused together with anyone and everyone who shared their confession, lest they be expected to confess to their crimes. Adding up to find out who is worse is impossible and foolish, but everything that happened should be seen exactly as it is. This yields no justification for blaming people today, or stealing up ones own preexisting prejudices. I think the whole matter should be examined a hell of a lot more thoroughly.

 

[R_not]

I didn’t say anything about the dates because I am not sure what their significance is supposed to be. That the response was after a while, does that mean it was less aggressive? If it is so long after does that not mean it is just fresh aggression? If it is retalitory I don’t see the significance of a long time between (except that in that interval there is peace and this uneventful state gets looked over when you have battles to define history)

As for the Crusaders not being as hostile as Muslims, that they ONLY wanted the Holy Land, well, who would believe that? When people don’t believe that modern Islamic jihadists (keeping in mind that is not one thing) really mean what they say, that they want freedom of their holy land and for the Palestinians. No, they want to destroy all other civilization!

What if you were to judge Crusaders as all the same, and judge the whole thing by the worst ones? No good

As for a history lessen, I wonder how that history would be framed. Eurocentric? Such that Islamic civilization is not recognized as the heir of Western (Greek) civilization, without which Europe would not be what it is? That Baghdad and Corboba were not the most advanced centers of civilization? With the perenial exception of China (they are always exceptional) Islamic civilization almost counts as the only one to speak of, by the standards the West uses to congradulate itself. Will one find that the Europeans were NOT uneducated barbarians who at that point were the heirs only of Rome’s Fall?

As for victumhood, I had no idea anything of the kind was implied, or at least I didn’t mean it that way. I intended to minimize the importance of the whole Crusade episode to Islam, while it is vitally important to the birth of European consciousness and identity. As for victumhood, I am so very very far from being alone in the criticism of Western Christian nations and races in regards to imperialism. As for victumhood, one should be far from proud and insensitive of the spreading of the gospel when you look how it is done in the last five hundred years.

One would hope that associating missions with empire is not unavoidable. One would hope that everyone can see that. Then the people of the Middle East and Islam might see that what is good about the West is good because it is Islamic, and that that word does not mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, like some want it to mean ‘Evil’ and ‘Other’ and ‘Threat’. But none of this will happen without history lessons. And it won’t happen unless one can be precise enough to distinguish one group from another and not just call it all ‘muslim’ and ‘christian’. Because I don’t think I have done that, I don’t expect anyone to think my statements refer to the ‘true meaning’ of Christianity and this is some type of accusation. Although it would be embarrassing if someone thought they were defending Christianity by defending acts of conquest and imperialism (and thinking that condemns OTHER peoples aggression on top of it all!)

For your dates, you should specify the names of the groups of people involved. I can’t imagine any christian would want to be confused together with anyone and everyone who shared their confession, lest they be expected to confess to their crimes. Adding up to find out who is worse is impossible and foolish, but everything that happened should be seen exactly as it is. This yields no justification for blaming people today, or stealing up ones own preexisting prejudices. I think the whole matter should be examined a hell of a lot more thoroughly.

Dates are very significant. After several centuries of muslims slaughtering non-muslims and the Crusades were called. And even then they did not fight all the time - as did the muslims.

As for examining it more thoroughly - you do that. Unfortunately, you look at it through a logic/mind that looks at no infidels as being innocent, as muslim aggression as being your right and and honor since muslims do it for allah, and if infidels fight back - they are the problem, not the muslims.

sorry, but your whole thesis would require me to take off my scalp, take a mixer on my brain for a good while and then review it with you. If you even read the first post I posted on this subject - it doesn’t even say all the Crusaders were the same. But, like I said - every single time anything islamic is talked about - it always reverts into this same thing. You want us to lie about history, to distort your prophet into something that he was not - meaning that he was peaceful - and say that the koran is some sort of an enlightened book directly from God.

Well, like I have repeated so often whenever you start - we just look at the koran, your history and even your behavior - and find that nothing about islam is peaceful. About 3% of the koran could be considered peaceful that is why we are able to show about 200-1 the number of surahs that are not peaceful. It is YOUR own koran, YOUR own prophet and the HISTORY of islam that doesn’t pan out as to what you are trying to convey.

And instead of acknowledging any of it we see the same exact thing. Eventually this thread will be shut down for the same reasons.

I was thinking that islam, mohammed and all of this shouldn’t be allowed to be discussed - but then I thought better of it. The more people are at least made aware of what is real vs da’wa - the better. they might argue with us and take your side on some things but unfortunately, the evidence abounds to counter all of what you say.

The first posts of this thread about deception that are sanctioned in the koran just points to your attempts to muddy the waters here too.

I would say that every country that muslims have migrated to the people have wanted to be open and peaceful. If you want to go back into history - look at how India first opened itself to muslims and then its first jihad in India brought India, its advanced civilization, its art and its people to its knees. And that wasn’t the end of it - there were more jihads after that (3 main jihads against India) and late last year a 4th one was proclaimed against them.

The same thing happened in the land of the Buddhist monks. And now Buddhist monks ride bicycles and are killed by muslims in their own lands. School girls are beheaded, raped, kidnapped and forced to marry muslim males and convert to never see their families again. It is also happening in India, Africa, and Europe. And you worry about the Crusades and your version of it.

I know, I know - this will also be ignored by you and you will obsess about infidels finally fighting back after years/decades/centuries of slaughter and you think they are the problem.

Some little known facts. Columbus went to find a new trade route to India because going through muslim lands was just becoming too dangerous. Oops, that religion of peace at it back then. The Barbary pirates were muslims on a jihad. Thomas Jefferson figured it out and that is why we didn’t lose to many to them. Vlad Dracula was fighting muslims and one of the things he found out was that impaling them kept new hordes from attacking his people. He is still a hero in his land to this day.

 

[R_not]

Well, here is an interesting article from an ex-muslim.

frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=CBA566EA-A36C-470D-9DD6-88D752FA5A4B

He is just another guy who is stating what many ex-muslims have said about us infidels - and other things.

Here is a quote from the article:

*Kasem: Those who have not read the Qur’an in detail have very little idea about the unremitting hatred Allah has for the non-Muslims. One striking aspect of Islam’s unbound rage and hatred for the unbelievers is that Allah is obsessed with tagging the unbelievers with animals—various types, such as dogs, camels, cows, pigs, apes, goat and so on. *

And the article goes into the surahs and hadiths that back this up.

Here is some more - be prepared - the verses are not nice. And take note - they are not only hadiths, but also in the koran. The hadiths are so extensive that it is hard to remember all the disturbing parts and I am reminded of them when I read this:

*FP: What are some of the most disturbing verses in terms of all of this?

Kasem: Qur’an 7:176-177 will profoundly disturb many non-Muslims. In verse 7:176 Allah says those who reject faith are like panting dogs; preaching to them is a waste of time. Maulana Maududi writes (commentary number 7/139):

…This is followed by a statement in which God likens the person in question to a dog. A dog’s protruding tongue and the unceasing flow of saliva from his mouth symbolize unquenchable greed and avarice. The reason for likening the human character described above to a dog is because of his excessive worldliness… This metaphor of the dog highlights the fate of the worldly man who breaks loose from his faith and knowledge, who entrusts his reins to blind lust and who ends up as one wholly devoted to gratifying his own appetite.

What Maududi is says is quite clear: those who do not accept Islam are greedy dogs.

Further, in verse 7:177 Allah says: Those who reject the Qur’an, wrong themselves; they are evil. According to ibn Abbas, their example is that of a dog.

FP: After killing unbelievers, what does one do with their corpses?

Kasem: Unbelievers’ corpses are to be fed to dogs.

Since Allah likens the non-Muslims to dogs, it is just fair that their corpses be fed to the dogs. Thus in Ash Shifa (Ash –Shifa of Qadi ‘Iyad. Translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley. Madinah Press, P.O. Box 5531. Inverness, IV5 7YA, Scotland, U.K. 2004. ISBN: 1 874216262. p.411) we read:

If a Jew or a Christian reviles Muhammad he is beheaded.

In an An Nawadir (footnote 1: A book by Ibn Abi Zayd, author of the Risala) from the version of Sahnum from Malik, we find that any Jew or Christian who reviles the Prophet in any other than normal way by which the Jews and Christians reject him is beheaded unless he becomes a Muslim*.

continued

 

[planten]

R_not, you people had many Crusades, i.e. violent attack on the poor Muslims. The first crusades were in the old times to reclaim the holy lands. But the recent crusades of your christian western countries for the last three hundred years, you people practically invaded every country in Asia and Africa and far east and occupied it. Do you see your crusades? Because the padres (The Dajjal) were not far behind. They followed with their bibles to conquer the world for christianity.

They (christian missionaries) succeeded too in bagging many people of weak faith. It was a big effort on the part of the missionaries which brought them some success. But that was only until 1910. After that people became awake and after reading the bible, people came to know of the falsehood. Then the conversion almost stopped.

I do not know what can be proper.

 

[R_not]

R_not, you people had many Crusades, i.e. violent attack on the poor Muslims. The first crusades were in the old times to reclaim the holy lands. But the recent crusades of your christian western countries for the last three hundred years, you people practically invaded every country in Asia and Africa and far east and occupied it. Do you see your crusades? Because the padres (The Dajjal) were not far behind. They followed with their bibles to conquer the world for christianity.

They (christian missionaries) succeeded too in bagging many people of weak faith. It was a big effort on the part of the missionaries which brought them some success. But that was only until 1910. After that people became awake and after reading the bible, people came to know of the falsehood. Then the conversion almost stopped.

I do not know what can be proper.

Same junk - different day. And this is from a guy who has been on different threads when this has all been discussed. Read my posts starting from #59. Stop repeating the same things on the same thread since you are unable to stop repeating it on different threads.

Go to the basic teachings and one is chock full of violence - and one is not. As I stated in previous posts - you will continue to ignore this, muddy the waters with posts full of twisted history, etc.

Why you guys are unable to deal with your own violence that CONTINUES TO THIS VERY DAY, is the most telling.

Here is an article on muslims not able to deal with the truth and the lack of decency:
jihadwatch.org/archives/021615.php

I hear that Geert Wilders is going to film a sequel to his first film. I guess we can prepare for even more violence - over and above the daily ration that we hear about all the time.

jihadwatch.org/archives/021599.php

We read in just the last couple of days that hezbollah is training jihadists in Iraq, we just captured about 30 al qaeda recruiters in Morocco, 9 jihadist captured in Indonesia with a bomb cache - oh, I guess that since Indonesia isn’t fully islamacized yet - that this is just a day’s work for muslim to kill the rest of the Christian, Buddhists and others who are not muslim - but that is not violence to you muslims - that is just a day’s work and an honor.

With the problem muslims have been having with making sure their dhimmi are unarmed - our latest 2nd amendment being upheld by the court system must have really irked you all. This makes it so much easier for jihadists to kill others while ensuring no one strikes them back, right?

jihadwatch.org/archives/021605.php

 

[planten]

** I do not need to read any of your articles. I had explained the truth to you about your old and new crusades. You could not deny them. That is true.
The recent onslought of the christians with their weapons and bibles on the countries of Asia and Africa is not to be ignored. Please come to that side of your crusades. How you worked hard under the political covers for the last three hundred years !!**

 

[dolphinlove]

I do not need to read any of your articles. I had explained the truth to you about your old and new crusades. You could not deny them. That is true.

What is true about the crusades over the centuries is they were started because of Muslims slaughtering and killing Christians to begin with.

The recent onslought of the christians with their weapons and bibles on the countries of Asia and Africa is not to be ignored. Please come to that side of your crusades. How you worked hard under the political covers for the last three hundred years !!

Weapons??? what weapons??? The only way we spread the gospel is with the bible and evangelizing. Not forcing and killing people if they dont submit like some other religions do.
Christianity is spreading very fast in Asia/Africa and its not with force, its the true word of God reaching their hearts. They realize that Islam is false and Christianity is true, thats why the convert to Christianity, not because they are being forced too.

 

[planten]

What is true about the crusades over the centuries is they were started because of Muslims slaughtering and killing Christians to begin with.

Weapons??? what weapons??? The only way we spread the gospel is with the bible and evangelizing. Not forcing and killing people if they dont submit like some other religions do.
Christianity is spreading very fast in Asia/Africa and its not with force, its the true word of God reaching their hearts. They realize that Islam is false and Christianity is true, thats why the convert to Christianity, not because they are being forced too.

How did the christian western countries capture the land in Asia and Africa. Did they do it with bible? No. They did it with weapons. Then the evangelists went into action with their bibles and trapped many poor people into the church system.

I thought my writing was clear about the above. But you had not understood the recent crusades. The old crusades were not with the bible. The recent crusades were also not with the bible. They were with the bullet. But then the Padres followed into those occupied countries with their bibles. I hope you understand now.

 

[Angelos]

How did the christian western countries capture the land in Asia and Africa. Did they do it with bible? No. They did it with weapons. Then the evangelists went into action with their bibles and trapped many poor people into the church system.

I thought my writing was clear about the above. But you had not understood the recent crusades. The old crusades were not with the bible. The recent crusades were also not with the bible. They were with the bullet. But then the Padres followed into those occupied countries with their bibles. I hope you understand now.

dear planten,

I would like you to remember that Christians had been persecuted until the fourth century A.D. because they preached the Good News to pagans and converted many to Christ’s truth. If you compare how apostles took the Bible to the entire world with how early Muslims spread their faith, you will see that your false analogies will not work.

 

[planten]

You had no reply to my mention of your latest crusades. You have avoided the issue completely.

 

[Angelos]

You had no reply to my mention of your latest crusades. You have avoided the issue completely.

I can understand why you insist on ignoring the early period of Christianity and Islam for a sound comparison!

 

[R_not]

** I do not need to read any of your articles. I had explained the truth to you about your old and new crusades. You could not deny them. That is true.
The recent onslought of the christians with their weapons and bibles on the countries of Asia and Africa is not to be ignored. Please come to that side of your crusades. How you worked hard under the political covers for the last three hundred years !!**

Well, it doesn’t take a genius to know none of the muslims read any of the articles proving that #1. islam is fashioned after a very, bad guy, #2. that muslims around this world are doing very, bad things in the name of their prophet, #3. that those who seem peaceful, or moderate, either support them through muslim charities and/or via deceiving us via da’wa and #4. that those who seem peaceful, or moderate, around this globe do nothing to stop their own from doing the bad things but are instead only worried about their image.

Muslims, how can this be proper?

Well, it looks like the Europeans are not only sick of the muslims carting in their slaves into their lands, but they are sick of the muslims carting off their citizens to either be slaves, or kidnapped for some marriages against the will of the women.

sheikyermami.com/2008/07/04/arabs-take-slavery-to-the-heart-of-europe/

 

[R_not]

You had no reply to my mention of your latest crusades. You have avoided the issue completely.

Why should people respond to you when you don’t address what our concerns are with islam, muslims, the koran, etc? There have been so many threads opened and closed - and never do any of you address the concerns over these very, same issues.

Instead we are given only untruths about what the koran says, what your prophet has done and said, and what muslims do worldwide while no mass of ‘moderate’ muslims do anything to curb such actions. I mean some of the posts are fairy tales of what is, and had, gone on in islam!

 

[R_not]

Muslims, how can this be proper?

How come no masses of ‘moderates’ are rioting over this?

We already know it is happening in the palestinian areas, but this seems to be more of a wider problem (gee, go figure!) - the recruitment of children to be jihadists:
jihadwatch.org/archives/021632.php

And what I write of all the time - that the so called masses of ‘moderates’ are indeed waging jihad, just in different forms using different tactics:
jihadwatch.org/archives/021635.php

There are a few books out on the subject too - ‘A Never Ending War’, and a new one by Mr. Spencer,
“Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs”

All one really has to do is read the koran and pay attention to the news (not the mainstream media’s news - but alternate news sources such as jihadwatch) know what is happening.

 

[R_not]

How did the christian western countries capture the land in Asia and Africa. Did they do it with bible? No. They did it with weapons. Then the evangelists went into action with their bibles and trapped many poor people into the church system.

I thought my writing was clear about the above. But you had not understood the recent crusades. The old crusades were not with the bible. The recent crusades were also not with the bible. They were with the bullet. But then the Padres followed into those occupied countries with their bibles. I hope you understand now.

Most of Africa has a problem due to not only communists, but also the muslims who are the ones slaughtering them. That has been going on for centuries too. Way back to the Barbary pirates (muslims on a jihad) and beyond. In fact, they would raid whole town in Europe and the UK and kidnap and enslave the people.

I guess you think that food and Bibles are equal to bullets. Yeah, right. Nice try.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Planten:

The Bishop of Pakistan was executed by order of the Government of Pakistan for violation of the Laws against Blaspheming the Prophet and Islam.

The Janjaweed Militia are given logistical and military support from the Government of Sudan, which bombs villages and military forces which oppose the Janjaweed and insures that the UN will not interfere with this dastardly genocide.

Theo van Gogh was murdered for creating a film which was offensive to Musiims - His murder was in response to a FATWA - a religious ruling calling for his death on the grounds of blasphemy.

I should know about Fatwas, because I have one against myself… According to the Hamas Iman who issued it, you have a religious obligation to kill me on sight, and the terrorist to kill me instead of his initial target if he sees me…

Please don’t tell me what is and isn’t Islamic, because it sounds and looks too much like a smoke screen…

Quite a big one way list. If the Pakistan people killed any padre for converting some one to christianity then it was unislamic. It was a great sin.
Things like that happen. The Jews are not following the teachings of Moses a.s. The christians are not doing anything good as taught by Jesus. Same is the case with Muslims. They do have very bad ideas, nothing to do with real Islam.

So please do not blame the religion in these matters. That christian preacher was innocent and he could convert hundreds of persons in pakistan without being punished. That would be if Islam was there in pakistan.

… Just tell me when you and the rest of the world’s Muslims plan to listen to the calls of many for It-jihad and to self-reflect and ask: Why it is that, of all of the major points of conflict in the world today, almost all are between Muslims and Non-Muslims? Why when Islam takes over a land or country, do all non-Muslims immediately become al-Dhimma (Resident Aliens with few rights Muslims are obliged to recognize) or Infidels (Illegal Aliens with no rights at all)? and, Why does Islam divide the world into Dar al-Islam (World of Submission) and the Dar al-Harb (World of the Sword)? …

And, Why are “Mainstream, Moderate Muslims” so silent or mild in their denunciations of terrorists attacks against the innocent, when Muslims are the perpetrators and the innocent are non-Muslims, and esp. Jews?

Unlike Christianity, Islam is primarily a Political Ideology, an attempt to remake society and government in God’s image. Why is that?

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

You need a history course and a reality check.

Go back and reread, or read, the post I just posted in response to you about the Crusades. When you read it then come back and claim victimhood. Take note of the dates of the Crusades. And how long the muslims were slaughtering people in the Middle East - a Middle East that didn’t start that sort of thing until AFTER mohammed thought up his religion.

Well, instead of answering the question as to what this thread poses - you deflect, blame others, go back into centuries of old history, and ignore.

R_Not:

Problem with dates - They don’t support the pro-Islamic victim of Western Christianity Thesis. I mean after the Death of Mohammed:
Jerusalem - 638
Egypt - 641-646
Tunisia - 670
Carthage - 693
Bagdad - 661 (destroyed by Mongols 1258)
Spain - 712-715 (Except for the Pyrenees)
Muslim expansion in Europe Stopped October 10, 732 at the Battle of Tours, 4-5 days ride from Paris.

And speaking of the Crusades, after 1076, Muslims effectively closed Jerusalem and the Holy Land to Pilgrimages by Christians, at the same time, Muslim armies threated the Byzantine Empire and Constantinople. Against that backdrop, Pope Urban II called the 1st Crusade in 1095.

And before we get too far into this, I believe what the Pasha Ahmed did to these men who refused to submit to Islam should be admitted to any record that includes complaints about the Crusades:

EIGHT HUNDRED MEN AND MARTYRS OF OTRANTO
Men who knew how to die well — and so saved Rome
theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Hst/Otranto800Mrtyrs.htm

The Pope’s challenge to Islam
theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/31JdXn/Christnty/Denom/PopeVsIslmTxt.htm

Here’s a link to the type of self-reflection I’m talking about:
Reflections on Islam
members.chello.nl/a.wichmann/islam.html#JIHAD

When Muslims refuse to reform Islam, when you refuse to deal with stuff like the questions in my previous post, you force those you attack to “take out your garbage”, and then create a situation where you’re bound to complain about it have it used by evil men on both sides as excuses for real attrocites.

I’m begging Muslims to do better, because right now, the problem with the coexist sticker is the crescent shaped moon, and that’s a terrible thing. If what they want is want is coexistence and not submission, they need to show it.

Jews being able to walk through Paris while wearing the Star of David and the Kippa and Christians living in Saudi Arabia carrying Bibles and wearing crosses would be a good start.

We allow the Saudis to build Mosques here - I don’t see why Catholics can’t say Mass in Saudi Arabia or Jews can’t even visit many Arab Muslim countries.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[R_not]

R_Not:

Problem with dates - They don’t support the pro-Islamic victim of Western Christianity Thesis. I mean after the Death of Mohammed:
Jerusalem - 638
Egypt - 641-646
Tunisia - 670
Carthage - 693
Bagdad - 661 (destroyed by Mongols 1258)
Spain - 712-715 (Except for the Pyrenees)
Muslim expansion in Europe Stopped October 10, 732 at the Battle of Tours, 4-5 days ride from Paris.

And speaking of the Crusades, after 1076, Muslims effectively closed Jerusalem and the Holy Land to Pilgrimages by Christians, at the same time, Muslim armies threated the Byzantine Empire and Constantinople. Against that backdrop, Pope Urban II called the 1st Crusade in 1095.

And before we get too far into this, I believe what the Pasha Ahmed did to these men who refused to submit to Islam should be admitted to any record that includes complaints about the Crusades:

EIGHT HUNDRED MEN AND MARTYRS OF OTRANTO
Men who knew how to die well — and so saved Rome
theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Hst/Otranto800Mrtyrs.htm

The Pope’s challenge to Islam
theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/31JdXn/Christnty/Denom/PopeVsIslmTxt.htm

Here’s a link to the type of self-reflection I’m talking about:
Reflections on Islam
members.chello.nl/a.wichmann/islam.html#JIHAD

When Muslims refuse to reform Islam, when you refuse to deal with stuff like the questions in my previous post, you force those you attack to “take out your garbage”, and then create a situation where you’re bound to complain about it have it used by evil men on both sides as excuses for real attrocites.

I’m begging Muslims to do better, because right now, the problem with the coexist sticker is the crescent shaped moon, and that’s a terrible thing. If what they want is want is coexistence and not submission, they need to show it.

Jews being able to walk through Paris while wearing the Star of David and the Kippa and Christians living in Saudi Arabia carrying Bibles and wearing crosses would be a good start.

We allow the Saudis to build Mosques here - I don’t see why Catholics can’t say Mass in Saudi Arabia or Jews can’t even visit many Arab Muslim countries.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

thanks for the info!