[Abd_von_Mumit]

I'll stick on facts. It would be probably very interesting to join the discussion, but I'm affraid it's not possible because of my too poor English. There is enough misunerstanding in this thread, I'm not going to add language issues as another source of it.

But I''ve read whole the thread and found many bull**ts (pig**ts?) here.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Stop having wellmeaning and self-deceiving illusions about Islam. Look at the status it led Islamic societies to over the last 14 centuries. If Islam is so right and wonderful, why did it lead Arabic societies to social stagnation, and loosing the educatioinal and scientific superiority Arabia had over Europe in the Medieval - before Muhammed appeared?

Arabia had none superiority over anyone before Muhammad appeared. They were a big bunch of tribes fighting each other, hearding their camels, enjoying sunny weather, worshipping stones and mountains and writing unbelievably good poetry. In the Medieval 'Arabia', as you call it, id est the Arab-Muslim Empire (as historians call it nowadays), however they reached an extremely high level of civilisation (under Islamic rule, take a note): literature, social and healthcare, medicine, philosophy, mathematics and so on. Much higher than in Europe. There are uncountable reasons of fall down of the Empire, as usually. One of them is time (no empire lasts forever), devastating Mongol invasions, alienation of the rulers etc. etc. But all the best achievements of Arab-Muslim civilisation (BUT poetry) were gained only after Muhammad founded Islam.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Why is a man who intimidated others, forced their surrender by violence, gave orders for assassination, blackmailed protection money, massacred whole tribes and murdered even male children of even the yolungest ages while leading all females into slavery and sexual exploitation, who started and ordered 60-70 wars and predatory raids, and whose only idea to defend himself against criticism was to throw critics into prisons, murder them and claim that he was acting in the name of some god - why is such a Mafiosi and mass-murderer still accepted as a holy man, a preacher of peace and freedom - when all he had to show in his deeds was submitting others, act with aggression, teach hate and intolerance against all who refused his authority and power, rob others, and wade in blood thoughout the better part of his life...???

Probably for the same reasons, as Moses, Jozue and Israelites (you can found the story in the Bible), who murdered whole cities and wiped quite a few civilisations. Religion is a strange thing, man, and takes one's reason away...

Take a note: Muhammad is NOT treated as a 'holy man' in Islam, it would be a heresy to call him that. Learn more about Islam, it's always good to know more than know less, even if Islam is your enemy.

Also refrain from using the term "Muhammedans", which is highly offensive to Muslims, as they don't worship Muhammad, but the God, Allah.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Judge Islam - not by our standards, but by it's own standard. Learn to differ between what you want it to be (with the intention to make it something that you can deal with according to your own standards and instruments), and what it really is. Stop being a fool. Start to be a realist. Stop reading the Quran. Read history books. And then try to find parrallels to the teachings of humanistic philosphers of the West, Buddha or Jesus. You will fail. Islam is the anti-thesis to it all. It is not the victim, but the perpetrator. where it is violant, it does not violate it's teachings, but fulfills them.

Islam is like any other religion or ideology. It evolves. Christianism had to go through its 2k years history full of blood, hatred and suffering before it became a (quite) peacefull religion. Even Bhuddism has blood on its hands. As almost every ideology does. But that doesn't mean that "Islam is evil". If it's so, that means any human ideology or thought is evil. Democracy is evil too, as thousands of people die now in Iraq, because Americans want to plant it on Iraqi ground with their military power.

Never forget, that there are hundreds of millions muslims in the world. And the so called Al-Qaida is run probably by no more than like 1k men, if that many. Whole the rest of the Muslims wish rather to stay home, live their own lives, earn money, grow children, watch TV and play computer games. The fundamentalists are dangerous regardless of their religion or ideology. Are they communists, Islamic, Jewish or Christian fanatics, nazis or greens...

When you discuss the reasons of the actual terrorist issue, never forget King David Hotel in Jerusalem. NEVER forget that. Islam is not the very origin of the terror. The Palestine is. If not the Palestine problem, there would not be any Hamas, Hizbullah, PLO, IJ. And in the Palestinian conflict neither side is clean, nor the international community is. There is no black and white, there are only flavours of grey, my friends.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Islam says that all what is is it's own sooner or later, and that it has the obligation to help that fate to become fulfilled.

Remember the infamous Treaty of Tordesillas? If too long, look for the word 'pope' in the text.

Originally Posted by Skybird

You bettter start to take that serious. the history of the Nazi'S rise shows that you do need only a gang of five or ten determined thugs taking on their black gloves to intimidate and make stopping to maove and make turning around a demonstration column of hundreds.

History of manking and Christianity tells me, that you do need only one Empire that takes christianity as it's religion to dip the world in a never ending crusade. Sounds similar? It would be better to skip using such a propagandist language.

Originally Posted by August

In 614 the country fell to the Persians. The conquest of Jerusalem was a bloody affair in which thousands of inhabitants were massacred. Many churches, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, were destroyed and others were damaged. The sacred cross upon which Jesus was crucified was looted. Fifteen years later, in 620, the Emperor Heraclius restored Byzantine rule and returned the cross to its place. But within a decade, in 638, Jerusalem surrendered again, this time to the forces of a rising power on the stage of history -- the Muslim Arabs.

The bolded massacre was done by the Persians - what does it have in common with then rising Muslim empire?

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Your reply is historically extremely inaccurate. There were no such things as Muslims or Islam before some 1400 years ago. Had you asked Haggar and Yishmael if they were Muslims, they would have responded "whah?" (pronounce like Tim Allen responding to Wilson in "Home Improvement"). It is only Islam that claims its own 6th century invention goes back to Adam and Eve (double "whah?"). So unless you're a Muslim, Hagar and Islam have nothing to do with each other. Besides, Islam claims Abraham was a good Muslim, too ("whah?"), and you'll never see Islam hating in any which way patriarch Ibrahim - nosiree!

That's not true. Islam doesn't refer to any of the 'patriarches' as "Muslim". They were "righteous worshippers of the [one] God", no more, no less. Abraham, Moses, Jesus and so on were NOT Muslims, as one could become Muslim only after foundation of Islam itself.

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

In addition, historically, there was a tremendous amount of population mixes 2500 years ago in the entire region, courtesy of the Babylonians. Claiming that Arabs are purebred descendents of Yishmael is simply false.

Same applies to any 'nation'. In these times there was not such a name as "Arab", nor was it one people, nation or anything. Various tribes dwelled in the Arabian peninsula, speaking different languages, with different cultures. The same applies to Israelites - you can't say they were "sons of Abraham and Sarah", as historians seem to prove that they were a union of some semitic tribes (related extremely closely the what we call 'Arabic tribes').

The Peninsula was never under Babylonian rule, by the way.


PS To the guys who have "Lan astaslam" (لن أستسلم) phrase in their sig: you are using a wrong word. The verb 'astaslama' means "to surrender, to capitulate", but has no connection to Islam. Other word derivated from this verb are: 'istislam' - 'capitulation'; 'istislami' - 'capitulant [the one who capitulates']. If you'd like to express surrending AND taking Islam, you should use other verb, the very one that word 'Islam' comes from: 'aslama' (to submit, to take Islam). Words 'Islam', 'Muslim', 'Islami' all come from the verb 'aslama' (NOT 'astaslama'). So, if you want to express the idea of 'not surrending to Islam', you should use the correct phrase: Lan aslam (لن أسلم). :rotfl:

And remember to shoot you propaganda guy. He hasn't done well.