Paris terrorists not Practicing Muslims at all

[Gharib]

I almost almost spat coffee all over my keyboard when I read Gharibs' comment. It's a whole lot worse then I thought if such views are typical amongst Muslims.

Yes your refutation is astonishing.

 

[Glaurung]

Yes your refutation is astonishing.

You're entitled to practice whatever religion you wish, but you're not entitled to spew utter crap and be taken seriously. Give me a few days and I can give you a history of the bloody, murderous trail of conquest that the followers of your prophet are responsible for.

 

[Gharib]

You're entitled to practice whatever religion you wish, but you're not entitled to spew utter crap and be taken seriously. Give me a few days and I can give you a history of the bloody, murderous trail of conquest that the followers of your prophet are responsible for.

War has always been bloody. And Muslims did win more battles than they lost. I know about almost all the major wars, no need to waste your time. The point of my post was that it was not for oppression, it was either for liberation or for defense.

If you have arguments that counter these points then please post them I'd like to see it.

As for my beliefs, I do not need to impress you or anyone else. I have no expectations that you or anyone else like you would accept my views. But I do stand to defend my beliefs from falsehood and biased claims.

 

[Glaurung]

War has always been bloody. And Muslims did win more battles than they lost. I know about almost all the major wars, no need to waste your time. The point of my post was that it was not for oppression, it was either for liberation or for defense.

Get off it, empire exists for one reason and one reason alone, the stolen enrichment of the conquerors. Rampaging around North Africa and the endless incursions into Europe had nothing to do with self-defence. The utter slaughter of the Indian subcontinent, 80 million dead within five-hundred years had nothing to do with their liberation. I'm sure Mehmed II was thinking about civil service when he conquered Constantinople and large swaths of the Balkans.

I'm not saying the Muslim world was particularly evil, but the fact is you're not the innocent victims of history. The Muslim powers were as imperialistic and ruthless as any other imperial force and to pretend otherwise is the delusion of religious fanaticism.

 

[FearGod]

I almost almost spat coffee all over my keyboard when I read Gharib's comment. It's a whole lot worse then I thought if such views are typical amongst Muslims.

I advise you not drink coffee anymore as it was discovered by the Muslims and they taught Europe what coffee
is and how to make a good drink out of it's beans, you should think seriously to hate coffee starting from today,
its origin is Muslims.

 

[YmirGF]

Do you have evidence of the contrary?

You could try reading some history books.

 

[YmirGF]

I have no expectations that you or anyone else like you would accept my views. But I do stand to defend my beliefs from falsehood and biased claims.

As is usual, here is where we run into a Mexican standoff. You will not accept my views nor any of my historical references. To be fair, you did say, Islamic history, so without a doubt you are probably basing your thinking on a Muslim narrative, rather than on that of non-Muslim portrayal of events. That said, you must, at the very least, admit that your own claims are also inherently biased.

 

[Gharib]

Get off it, empire exists for one reason and one reason alone, the stolen enrichment of the conquerors. Rampaging around North Africa and the endless incursions into Europe had nothing to do with self-defence. The utter slaughter of the Indian subcontinent, 80 million dead within five-hundred years had nothing to do with their liberation. I'm sure Mehmed II was thinking about civil service when he conquered Constantinople and large swaths of the Balkans.

I'm not saying the Muslim world was particularly evil, but the fact is you're not the innocent victims of history. The Muslim powers were as imperialistic and ruthless as any other imperial force and to pretend otherwise is the delusion of religious fanaticism.

Hahaha, that video was very amusing. Full of inconsistencies, contradictions and falsehood, but still amusing.

Explain to me in your own words why Muslims invaded Europe. What was in Europe, why didn't they go the other way towards what we now know as Russia (based on the map in the video.

 

[Glaurung]

I advise you not drink coffee anymore as it was discovered by the Muslims and they taught Europe what coffee
is and how to make a good drink out of it's beans, you should think seriously to hate coffee starting from today,
it's origin is Muslims.

Espresso is an Italian invention, and I never said that anything and everything originating from the Islamic world is bad. What I actually said, and pay attention, is that the Islamic empires were forged by blood and conquest, like all other empires before and after it.

Spoiler: This had nothing to do with "liberation"

 

[Glaurung]

Explain to me in your own words why Muslims invaded Europe. What was in Europe, why didn't they go the other way towards what we now know as Russia (based on the map in the video.

The same reason they invaded everything else. The same reason for all conquests. Glorious empire!

Slaves, money, plunder and land. What more in the way of motives do you need?

 

[YmirGF]

Get off it, empire exists for one reason and one reason alone, the stolen enrichment of the conquerors. Rampaging around North Africa and the endless incursions into Europe had nothing to do with self-defence.

I just thought that if you consider that Muslim armies and leaders saw all non-Muslims as a threat to the Muslim way of life and the continued growth of Islam, you could pretend that launching an offensive against those groups was "defensive", as in "defending" the faith, as it were. A bit of a weird stretch, but it makes sense in a warped way.

 

[Gharib]

You could try reading some history books.

Name the history books where you have found such evidence and I will read them.

 

[FearGod]

Espresso is an Italian invention, and I never said that anything and everything originating from the Islamic world is bad. What I actually said, and pay attention, is that the Islamic empires were forged by blood and conquest, like all other empires before and after it.

Spoiler: This had nothing to do with "liberation"

You should thank God that they did and reached Europe.

 

[Sees]

I advise you not drink coffee anymore as it was discovered by the Muslims and they taught Europe what coffee
is and how to make a good drink out of it's beans, you should think seriously to hate coffee starting from today,
it's origin is Muslims.

Why would people hate things discovered, popularized, or invented by Muslims?

 

[YmirGF]

Name the history books where you have found such evidence and I will read them.

Are you familiar with the works of Prof. Bernard Lewis? He is perhaps the foremost authority on Islam alive today. He has written numerous books. If you start now, we can talk in a few months. Happy reading.

 

[Gharib]

The same reason they invaded everything else. The same reason for all conquests. Glorious empire!

Slaves, money, plunder and land. What more in the way of motives do you need?

Muslims are bound by the laws of Islam. We are not permitted to just invade because we want wealth and slaves. If you argue that Muslims of today do not follow many laws of Islam properly, there won't be much for me to argue. But to say that they didn't follow them is very ignorant. And all you seem to know is that it was an empire and the only reason it sought to fight wars was to gain what you have listed above. You my friend don't seem to know anything about Islam or the history of that time period. Nada, nothing at all. And did I say that video was pathetic if that was your evidence.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Not at all. If you look at Islamic history and how vast lands fell under Islamic rule you will understand that we never invaded or attacked someone other than to defend ourselves or the innocent people who were being oppressed by their leaders.

Sorry but I find that entirely unconvincing. Again there is that strong sense of denial, an unwillingness to self-examine, a need to blame others for the failings of Islam.

 

[Gharib]

Are you familiar with the works of Prof. Bernard Lewis? He is perhaps the foremost authority on Islam alive today. He has written numerous books. If you start now, we can talk in a few months. Happy reading.

He's already said enough with the following quotes from Wikipedia:

Lewis presents some of his conclusions about Islamic culture, Shari'a law, jihad, and the modern day phenomenon of terrorism in his text, Islam: The Religion and the People.[40]He writes of jihad as a distinct "religious obligation", but suggests that "it is a pity" that people engaging in terrorist activities are not more aware of their own religion:

Muslim fighters are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged unless they attack first; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities or their resumption after a truce; and to honor agreements. ... At no time did the classical jurists offer any approval or legitimacy to what we nowadays call terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism as it is practiced nowadays."[41]

In Lewis' view, the "by now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century" with "no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition."[42] He further comments that "the fanatical warrior offering his victims the choice of the Koran or the sword is not only untrue, it is impossible" and that "generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century."

 

[FearGod]

He's already said enough with the following quotes from Wikipedia:

Lewis presents some of his conclusions about Islamic culture, Shari'a law, jihad, and the modern day phenomenon of terrorism in his text, Islam: The Religion and the People.[40]He writes of jihad as a distinct "religious obligation", but suggests that "it is a pity" that people engaging in terrorist activities are not more aware of their own religion:

Muslim fighters are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged unless they attack first; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities or their resumption after a truce; and to honor agreements. ... At no time did the classical jurists offer any approval or legitimacy to what we nowadays call terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism as it is practiced nowadays."[41]

In Lewis' view, the "by now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century" with "no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition."[42] He further comments that "the fanatical warrior offering his victims the choice of the Koran or the sword is not only untrue, it is impossible" and that "generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century."

Better for him if he chose another writer.

 

[Gharib]

I just thought that if you consider that Muslim armies and leaders saw all non-Muslims as a threat to the Muslim way of life and the continued growth of Islam, you could pretend that launching an offensive against those groups was "defensive", as in "defending" the faith, as it were. A bit of a weird stretch, but it makes sense in a warped way.

Ymir, although the video Tlaloc posted was pathetic, if you look at how the Islamic empire spread, which is the only correct thing in that video, it was towards the Empires that threatened Islam with war. They fought Persia (the land east of the Arabian peninsula), the fought the Romans (the land north and north west, ie south western Asia (Turkey) and southern Europe) and they fought the a few other empires in Africa with whom Muslims had fought before due to a messenger which our Prophet sent to them being murdered as a result the battle of Mutah happened.