Paris terrorists not Practicing Muslims at all

[Lyndon]

Sorry but you're supporting ISIS with that statement, If ISIS did take over that territory they would be no better than Hitler.

 

[Shad]

And this is somehow worse or different from the Christian invasion of the Americas and much of the world.

Tu quoque fallacy. The acts of others does not make the acts of others acceptable. Beside I never said anything about the Crusades thus you are projecting a view you created for me as if I expressed this view. I never supported the Crusades, I understand why each started but this does not mean I accept the reason. Try again son.

Yours is a stupid approach, the point is that if they succeeded and were able to liberate Jerusalem from the Zionists and
if no power were able to stop them from establishing the Caliphate then that means the prophecy were fulfilled.

So it's because of the prophecy and not because of their success.

You are still making a mistake. Success proves prophecy. So if IS, which you deny is legitimate and even Islamic, conquers Rome you and every Muslim posters that is against IS is the wrong type of Muslim following the wrong type of Islam. Your own hypothetical views has turned against your own views. Hilarious..... You are also just repeating typical Islamic fatalism thus rendering free will mood.

 

[YmirGF]

The Arab raids into southern Levant were unprovoked thus Muslims attacked Byzantium first. The invasion of Constantinople was unprovoked as the Osman were vassals of Byzantium which later rebelled to form their own empire. Further more Osman were Turks thus not native to Byzantium but of Central Asia. The Turks were never attacked by Byzantium as it was a migration/invasion period much like the modern Franks and other Germanic of Europe before the fall of the Western Roman Empire. They left Central Asia due to the Mongols not the Byzantines. Mehmud set out to restore the Ottoman's empire due to its collapse by the Mongols not the Byzantium. The invasion of Northern India was not due to any attack by nations of the area but due to the ambitions of Muslim rulers. An invasion which was granted by the figurehead Caliph, which was the puppet of the Seljuk Turks. Visigoth Spain never threatened invasion of any Muslim lands yet it was conquered without any casus belli, laughable as the term was in those eras. You repeat religious dogma not history.

Another minor point that is noteworthy is that the vast majority of historical records from these conquests come from Muslims sources. The sources are inherently biased. In another example the initial conquest of the Iberian peninsula has virtually no commentary from Muslim sources and what we do have appeared roughly a thousand years after the fact.

From Wiki...

Precisely what happened in Iberia in the early 8th century is uncertain. There is one contemporary Christian source, the Chronicle of 754 (which ends on that date), regarded as reliable but often vague.[1] There are no contemporary Muslim accounts. What Muslim information there is comes from later compilations subject to contemporary ideological influence.[2] The most prominent such compilation is that of Al-Maqqari, which dates from the 17th century. This paucity of sources means that any specific or detailed claims need to be regarded with caution.[3]

The manner of King Roderic's ascent to the throne is unclear; there are accounts of dispute with Achila II, son of his predecessor Wittiza,[4] and accounts that Wittiza's family fled to Tangier and solicited help from there.[citation needed] Numismatic evidence suggests a division of royal authority, with several coinages being struck, and Achila II remaining king on the Tarraconsense (the Ebro basin) and Septimania until circa 713.[5]

There is also a story of one Julian, count of Ceuta, whose wife or daughter was raped by Roderic and who also sought help from Tangier.[6] However, these stories are not included in the earliest accounts of the conquest.[7]

As to the initial nature of the expedition, historical opinion takes four directions:[citation needed] (1) that a force was sent to aid one side in a civil war in the hope of plunder and a future alliance; (2) that it was a reconnaissance force sent to test the military strength of the Visigothic kingdom; (3) that it was the first wave of a full–scale invasion; (4) that it was an unusually large raiding expedition with no direct strategic intentions.

The point is when you read the Muslim accounts, written long after the events, that were written from the sanitized standpoint of the noble concerned neighbor who undertook a campaign to help an oppressed underdog furthering the narrative of peaceful aggression.

 

[Augustus]

But we would not be allowed to go and fight unless those who are oppressed call us for help. This happened with many wars that were fought either directly by our Prophet or immediately after his death. It was the case of almost all Arab clans and tribes in the north of the Arabian Peninsula who were either under Roman or Persian rule.

Err, the Roman Army was comprised of large numbers of Arabs and numerous Arab tribes who weren't part of the official army fought along side them. Much of the Arab conquests were Arabs fighting Arabs.

Arab raids on the Roman Empire started long before Muhammed, and he was just one of many tribal leader who attacked the Roman Empire.

Many of those who joined in the Arab conquests were those who switched over from the Roman/Persian side when they saw their weakness and combined Arab nationalism with a chance for plunder and enrichment. How many of them were actually "Muslims" is very open to debate as the word appears in the historical record quite late. There is certainly evidence that, at the very least, the armies of conquest contained many Christians and Jews also.

The idea the they were answering a 'call for help' is very wishful thinking.

 

[Shad]

Another minor point that is noteworthy is that the vast majority of historical records from these conquests come from Muslims sources. The sources are inherently biased. Take for example the initial conquest of the Iberian peninsula.

It is just post hoc rationalization in order to create a positive images and to provide acceptable grounds for war. Every nation has done this. Besides even your cited article shows that it was never self-defense. It shows that a foreign political body interfered with another nation's internal politics. Which is ironic considering the number of Muslim posters whining about Western interference in Muslim nations. It is a blatant double standard.

The point is when you read the Muslim accounts, written long after the events, were written from the sanitized standpoint of the noble concerned neighbor who undertook a campaign to help an oppressed underdog furthering the narrative of peaceful aggression.

I think the whole idea that governments go out of their way to help people of other nations based on pure ideals without any invested interest in the results is naive.

 

[YmirGF]

The idea the they were answering a 'call for help' is very wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking is putting it mildly. It's like all some Muslim leader needed was a handful of people grumbling to authorize a show of force on the flimsiest evidence.

 

[Shad]

Err, the Roman Army was comprised of large numbers of Arabs and numerous Arab tribes who weren't part of the official army fought along side them. Much of the Arab conquests were Arabs fighting Arabs.

Arab raids on the Roman Empire started long before Muhammed, and he was just one of many tribal leader who attacked the Roman Empire.

Many of those who joined in the Arab conquests were those who switched over from the Roman/Persian side when they saw their weakness and combined Arab nationalism with a chance for plunder and enrichment. How many of them were actually "Muslims" is very open to debate as the word appears in the historical record quite late. There is certainly evidence that, at the very least, the armies of conquest contained many Christians and Jews also.

The idea the they were answering a 'call for help' is very wishful thinking.

Also consider the Ridda Wars following Mo's death. That alone is evidence that the "Muslim community" is a facade for the tribal oligarchy which followed his death. There is the series of client/vassal status of Arabian tribes and kingdoms on both sides of the Byzantium/Persian wars. This also shows that Arabia and it's people were not innocent bystanders in these wars but often active participants in these wars.

 

[FearGod]

So you don't care about the atrocities ISIS has committed, as long as they win a war, you will follow them???

Of course not, but i'll believe the prophecy and not the media.
I know nothing except of hearing the news, everything is ambiguous,
Some say the ISIS is a western invention, some say they're kind of Mafia,
but if in a case that they liberated Jerusalem then that means they weren't
a western invention and also means they're fulfilling the prophecy.

I wrote a thread about what evidences we have that the ISIS is existing,
we don't know other than getting the news from the media.

Do you think the media always trustworthy ?

 

[Augustus]

I wrote a thread about what evidences we have that the ISIS is existing, we don't know other than getting the news from the media.

The media also arranged for millions of refugees to travel to other countries and terrorist attacks on Lebanon, Turkey, France, etc.

 

[YmirGF]

The media also arranged for millions of refugees to travel to other countries and terrorist attacks on Lebanon, Turkey, France, etc.

Well, you know who controls the media.......

 

[FearGod]

The media also arranged for millions of refugees to travel to other countries and terrorist attacks on Lebanon, Turkey, France, etc.

Do you think the media knows the truth behind the scene ?

Does the media know who put the bomb in the Russian airplane that exploded in Sinai ?

 

[FearGod]

You are still making a mistake. Success proves prophecy. So if IS, which you deny is legitimate and even Islamic, conquers Rome you and every Muslim posters that is against IS is the wrong type of Muslim following the wrong type of Islam. Your own hypothetical views has turned against your own views. Hilarious..... You are also just repeating typical Islamic fatalism thus rendering free will mood.

I said the MEDIA, I hope it's clear.

 

[FearGod]

Well, you know who controls the media.......

Your Mum

 

[Augustus]

Do you think the media knows the truth behind the scene ?

Does the media know who put the bomb in the Russian airplane that exploded in Sinai ?

Do you think that the media knows there is a big war in Syria and Iraq which has caused thousands of deaths and millions of refugees? Do you think they know there is a group called IS? Do you think they know that thousands of people have gone to join them? Do you think that there is massive coverage on social media including photos and video? Do you think that dozens of countries are affected by this and discuss it frequently?

Basically, either IS exists or there is a conspiracy involving millions of people and dozens of governments, including many governments who are enemies but have suddenly decided to cooperate to produce the biggest hoax in history.



Strangely enough, you exhibit unbelievable scepticism on this, but massive credulity about anything else that matches your ideological assumptions.

 

[Shad]

I said the MEDIA, I hope it's clear.

You never mentioned the media once to me. You mentioned it to someone else. Your point is irrelevant. The media is not claiming prophecy nor that Rome was conquered. Try to keep track of who you are talking to and what they have said.

 

[FearGod]

Sorry but you're supporting ISIS with that statement, If ISIS did take over that territory they would be no better than Hitler.

I don't discuss the morality behind it but about the prophecy.
Do you think it's moral that the west is bombing Syria for whatever the reason is ?

 

[Shad]

I don't discuss the morality behind it but about the prophecy.
Do you think it's moral that the west is bombing Syria for whatever the reason is ?

So the end justify the means? If IS does fulfill prophecy all their immoral acts are excused? You can not ignore the moral/immoral actions which are directly involved in fulfillment of the prophecy. Allah must be one piece of work if IS does win... There is that Islamic fatalism again which invalidates free will and turns the immoral into moral. Hilarious.

 

[FearGod]

You never mentioned the media once to me. You mentioned it to someone else. Your point is irrelevant. The media is not claiming prophecy nor that Rome was conquered. Try to keep track of who you are talking to and what they have said.

It isn't my problem if you don't see what i'm talking about, it isn't a one to one debate.

 

[FearGod]

Do you think that the media knows there is a big war in Syria and Iraq which has caused thousands of deaths and millions of refugees? Do you think they know there is a group called IS? Do you think they know that thousands of people have gone to join them? Do you think that there is massive coverage on social media including photos and video? Do you think that dozens of countries are affected by this and discuss it frequently?

Basically, either IS exists or there is a conspiracy involving millions of people and dozens of governments, including many governments who are enemies but have suddenly decided to cooperate to produce the biggest hoax in history.



Strangely enough, you exhibit unbelievable scepticism on this, but massive credulity about anything else that matches your ideological assumptions.

The media don't tell you the truth behind the scenes, maybe it is hard for you to understand my point.
Who is fighting who ?

For example the US doesn't' want Bashar whereas Russia wants Bashar, the ISIS is fighting Bashar.
There were no terrorist groups living in Syria or Iraq before the US intervention in Iraq and Syria,
so what did you understand from the media ?

 

[Shusha]

No, i won't think in that way, but i'll believe that the media was lying.
You know that reaching Rome isn't a joke, God said that no power in this world
can stop the caliphate from being established and to capture Rome, i think it'll
be stupid not to believe if it really happened.

Do I understand you correctly? You will support ISIS if it fulfills the conditions of "reaching Rome".

And you are just waiting to see if it happens. If it does, will you adopt their particular brand of Islam? Will that particular brand of Islam become "correct" in your eyes?