Why should Australians fear from Musl...

Why should Australians fear from Muslims?

There are 46810 comments on the Scoop story from Dec 23, 2007, titled Why should Australians fear from Muslims?. In it, Scoop reports that:

About 800 people gathered in Camden, NSW and raised their voice against the plan for an Islamic School to be built in the area.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Scoop.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#39279 May 10, 2013
MUQ keep reading what Islam did 1400 odd years ago.
-
The Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine began with a battle, the August 20, 636, battle of Yarmk (it is believed that 75,000 soldiers took part -- hardly bloodless). With the help of the local Jews who welcomed the Muslims as liberators, the Muslims had subjugated the remainder of Palestine but had not been able to capture Jerusalem. Beginning in July 637, the Muslims began a siege of Jerusalem which lasted for five (hardly bloodless) months before Jerusalem fell in February 638. Arabs did not sack the city, and the Arab soldiers were apparently kept in tight control by their leaders. No destruction was permitted. This was indeed a triumph of civilized control, if imperialism, colonization, and bloody conquest can ever be said to be "civilized." It was at this conquest that many significant hallmarks of Muslim colonialism began. The conquered Christian and Jewish people were made to pay a tribute to the colonialist Muslims. In addition, Baghdad used the imperialist, colonialist, bloody wars of conquest throughout the life of its empire to provide the Caliphate with a steady stream of slaves, many of whom were made eunuchs.

The Muslim conquest of (Christian) North Africa went relatively easily until the native peoples of North Africa (most importantly the Berbers) were encountered west of Egypt. The North African people fought so strongly against the Muslims that the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest in the west was brought to an almost complete stop between Tripoli and Carthage for more than a quarter century. The Muslims broke through in a series of bloody battles followed by bloody (revenge) massacres of the Muslim's (largely Christian) opponents. This Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest continued through North Africa and through what is now Spain, Portugal, and southern France, until they were stopped at the battle of Poiters (hardly bloodless) in the middle of France.

I believe that if I had the time, I could show that the Muslims, in their western imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquests, killed two to three times as many Christians as the Christians killed Muslims in all of the Crusades combined.

But let us return to Jerusalem.

Jerusalem

The U.S. News article states that after Saladin conquered Jerusalem, "the victorious Saladin forbade acts of vengeance. There were no more deaths, no violence." True, as far as it goes. The article goes on to say, "most Muslims [will] tell you about Saladin and his generosity in the face of Christian aggression and hatred." Thus, the PC people and the Muslims ignore 450 years of prior Muslim aggression and approach the Crusades as being Christian or Western aggression against Islam, beginning out of the blue, without any prior history. Let us go back to the Muslim colonialist occupation of Jerusalem.

MUQ keep on reading and educate your self.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#39280 May 10, 2013
MUQ I do realise you will not answer me for you are aware I am much more educated and more intelligent than you are and you will lose in any debate we have.
-
MUQ I am not trying to make you into Christian, for they are the same as Muslims, they also killed million.
-
MUQ may I suggest you read every thing I post just trying to educate you.
-

When we left our truthful history of Jerusalem, the Muslims, headquartered in Arabia, had just captured Jerusalem. For approximately 100 years, chiefly under the Umayyads, Jerusalem prospered under Muslim rule. Under the succeeding Abbasids, Jerusalem began to decline -- beginning at approximately 725 A.D. The occasion, among other things, was the decline of the central Muslim government, the breaking away from Arabia of far-flung provinces, the growth of warlike revolutionary groups, the growth of extremist Muslim sects, and, perhaps most important, the decision (relatively new) that Muslims had an obligation to convert all Christians and Jews (and "other pagans") to Islam. Thereafter, the true colonial nature of Jerusalem became more apparent. The Abbasids drained wealth from Jerusalem to Baghdad for the benefit of the caliphs, and Jerusalem declined economically. The language of the government became Arabic, and forcible conversion to Islam became the Muslim policy.

In approximately 750, the Caliph destroyed the walls of Jerusalem, leaving it defenseless (they were later rebuilt, in time to defend against the Crusaders). The history of the following three hundred years is too complex and too tangled to describe in a single paragraph. Jerusalem and its Christian and Jewish majority suffered greatly during alternating periods of peace and war. Among the happenings were repeated Muslim destruction of the countryside of Israel (970-983, and 1024-1077) of Jerusalem; the wholesale destruction by the Muslims of Christian churches -- sometimes at the direct order of the Caliph, as in 1003, and sometimes by Muslim mobs; the total destruction of Jerusalem by the Caliph of Cairo in the early 1020s; building small mosques on the top of Christian churches; enforcing the Muslim laws limiting the height of Christian churches; attacking and robbing Christian pilgrims from Europe; attacking Christian processions in the streets of Jerusalem; etc.

Why the change after nearly 100 years of mostly peaceful Muslim rule? From what I read, there is a general view among the historians that the caliphs had begun to add a religious importance to their conquests, setting conversion to Islam as an important priority; their later caliphs had no first-hand remembrance of Mohammed; the vast distances of the empire led to independent rulers being established in Spain, North Africa, Cairo, Asia Minor, etc.; and the instability of the caliphates and resulting civil wars.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#39281 May 10, 2013
MUQ only a few more for you to read:
-
The point about conversion to Islam I find particularly interesting. Many historians believe that the first one hundred years of Muslim conquest were imperialist and colonialist only with little significant forced conversion content. With respect to Jerusalem, there was a particular problem in the fact that generally the Christians and their churches (and to a lesser degree, the Jews) were significantly wealthier than the Muslims. This was largely because beginning in the early 800s with Charlemaigne, Europe adopted a sort of prototype "foreign aid" program for the churches located at the holy places in Jerusalem, where, to the embarrassment of the Muslims, Christian churches and monasteries outshone their Muslim rivals. Many of these churches and monasteries were run by western religious orders reporting directly to Rome under western leaders appointed by Rome (more were subject to Constantinople). Literally thousands of European Christian pilgrims made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem from such places as Germany, France, and Hungary (particularly in the years 1000, 1033, 1064, and 1099). Finally, Muslim rulers and European rulers frequently sought to enter into treaties of support with each other. As a result, Christian churches became the target of Muslims when enemies of those with whom there were European ties were victorious in a civil war. From time to time, Christian churches were rebuilt with Muslim funds when pro-western rulers came to power.

So much for the PC, U.S. News, Muslim outright lie that begins with the statement, "During the Crusades, East and West first met," and that later in the article called the Crusades, "the first major clash between Islam and Western Christendom." What about the long, prior conquest by Islam of Spain and Portugal? What about the battle of Portiers?

The following is just an aside, which I cannot prove, but I have noticed that PC and Muslim statements frequently cut off history when it is not in their favor. Thus, the article gives credence to the widespread belief in Islam that east-west history began with the Crusades. See also as an example of this tendency to begin history where it is convenient, today's Muslim description of the current Israeli occupation of the West Bank without mentioning the fact that the current occupation was caused by the widespread cold-blooded murder of Israeli civilians by Muslims.

But let us move on to the Crusades themselves.

The Crusades

First, a word about my personal view of the Crusades. I believe that the murderous and pillaging acts of the Crusaders when they entered Jerusalem were barbaric, unchristian, and evil. This is particularly so as those barbaric, unchristian, and evil acts were carried on in the name of a religion of peace, love, and forgiveness. I believe that the vast bulk of thinking Christians agree with me. I cite as evidence the large numbers of Christians who have recently taken long pilgrimages in the footsteps of the Crusaders, repenting for the Crusader's acts, seeking for forgiveness, and giving penance for the Crusader's barbaric, unchristian, and evil acts.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#39282 May 10, 2013
MUQ after reading all this, maybe you will stop posting your stupid entries:
-
A question occurs to me here. How many Muslim groups have taken long pilgrimages in the footsteps of the Muslim conquest repenting, seeking for forgiveness, and giving penance for the Muslims imperialist, colonialist, and bloody conquest of Palestine, Egypt, Syria, North Africa, and Spain? This is particularly important as the U.S. News article claims, "For [Muslims] imperialism is a dirty word" Where is Muslim repentance for its imperialism, geographically the largest in all of history, which permits Muslims to call Western imperialism a dirty word?

Let us rewrite the beginning of the U.S. News article as follows: "In 1095, after suffering from the murderous invasions of Muslim conquerors who killed tens of thousands of Christians through four-and-one-half centuries of Muslim imperialist, colonialist conquest, made slaves and eunuchs of Christians for the pleasure of the caliphs, burned down or sacked the holiest churches in Christendom, robbed and killed thousands of Christians on holy pilgrimage, brutally sacked and pillaged Jerusalem, and pillaged the countryside of Israel, western Europe, under the leadership of the Pope, decided to free the people of the Holy Land from their brutal masters and reclaim Christianity's holiest places for free Christian worship."

Now, I fully realize that the previous paragraph is one-sided, that the six centuries of Muslim colonial, imperialist occupation were more complex than are shown in the previous paragraphs, and that the Christians were not always blameless, little babes. However, the previous paragraph has the benefit of not being an outright lie, which is more than I can say for the U.S. News article.

To beat the dog one more time, you may have noted that I stated above that Muslim imperialism has continued until the present. Muslim imperialism has continued without any let-up from ten years before Mohammed's death until today.

Consider the Ottoman invasion of Christian Eastern Europe in which the Ottoman Empire invaded the west and conquered and colonized Greece, all of the Balkans, Romania, Bessarabia, and Hungary, and was stopped only at the outskirts of Vienna in 1529. Consider also the Muhgal conquest of Northern India in the early 1600s. But today? Of course! In the 20th century alone:

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#39283 May 10, 2013
MUQ this is the most important part of the postings I submitted:
-
1. Muslim Turkey has expelled approximately 1,500,000 Greeks from its empire in the east and replaced them with Turks. They have massacred approximately 2 million Armenians and replaced them with Turks in the west.

2. Muslim Turkey has invaded and occupied northern Cyprus, displacing the Greeks living there.

3. Muslim northern Sudan has conquered much of southern Sudan, literally enslaving its Christian and pagan population.

4. Indonesian imperialism has occupied all of non-Islamic western New Guinea and incorporated into Indonesia.

5. Muslim Indonesia has invaded and conquered Christian East Timor with horrible loss of life.

6. This very day, Muslim Indonesia is attempting to destroy Christianity in what used to be called the Celebes.

7. A half-dozen Arab countries have fought two to four wars (depending how you count) in an attempt to destroy Israel and occupy its territory, and is currently continuing the attempt this very day with the publicly voted consent of 55 of the world's 57 Islamic nations.

8. For no good reason, Muslim Libya has blown up western aircraft, killing many civilians.

9. Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist war of aggression, invaded and occupied Muslim Kuwait.

10. Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist act of aggression, invaded Muslim Iran with a resulting (some estimates say) death of 2 million people.

11. Muslim Albania, this very minute, is attempting to enlarge its borders at Christian Macedonia's expense.

12. Muslim Northern Nigeria has been (and is currently) an aggressor against the Christian south.

13. Muslims expelled approximately 800,000 Jews from their homelands between 1947 and 1955.

14. During Jordan's occupation of the West Bank, the kingdom undertook an unsuccessful attempt to make Jerusalem a Muslim city by forcing out approximately 10,000 Christian inhabitants.

Yes, I know that the reverse has been true. For example, Christian Serbia entered and massacred Bosnian Muslims. The western response was instructive. The west sent troops to protect the Muslims. Serbia gave up its leader to be tried for the crime by an international panel. Will Indonesia do the same with respect to Timor? Or Sudan with respect to southern Sudan?

Question: What is the title of the shortest book in the world? Answer: "The list of Muslim nations who have risked the lives of their soldiers to protect (as with the U.S. protection of Muslims in Kuwait) Christian or Jewish citizens from Muslim imperialism."

Yes, I also know that in the 20th century the west fought two of the bloodiest wars in history. But in the past more than 55 years, the west has developed methods that have led to peace among the west, and all but totally ended western imperialism and colonialism. With former colonies having a large majority in the UN, and the example of the west before it, Islam has continued its imperialist, colonial, bloody wars unabated.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#39284 May 10, 2013
MUQ read the percentage of Palestinians living in Israel in 1992.
-
MUQ this is the Link to the postings I made:
Just incase you wondered if it is all lies.
-
http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/onlinediscip...
-
One final point. Muslims base their claim to the city of Jerusalem upon the belief that Jerusalem has been a Muslim city for centuries. It may be that Muslims were never a majority in Jerusalem. We cannot prove this for all time periods, but we know that Muslims were a minority in the first several centuries after the Muslim imperialist conquest and during the century of Christian occupation during the Crusades. And we know that in the Middle Ages, Jerusalem was not considered important to the Muslims, but it was to the Christians and Jews. The Muslims made cities other than Jerusalem the capital of their Palestinian colony. Many Caliphs never even visited Jerusalem. Therefore, there was a steady stream of Jewish and Christian (but not Muslim) immigrants into Jerusalem throughout the Middle Ages, including a major immigration of Karaite Jews in the late eighth and early ninth centuries, and a steady stream of Armenians for hundreds of years, until there were so many Armenians that an Armenian Quarter was established in Jerusalem. Finally, we know that for at least more than the last 160 years, Muslims were a clear minority in Jerusalem. The Muslim Ottomans, and then the British and Israelis, kept careful census record showing the following percentages of Muslim population in Jerusalem:

1844 -- 33%

1896 -- 19%

1910 -- 13%

1922 -- 22%

1931 -- 22%

1948 -- 24%

1967 -- 21%

1972 -- 23%

1992 -- 25%

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#39285 May 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
When Muslims invaded any country, they did not "exterminate" the people living there as White Europeans did in South and North America and in Australia and New Zealand.
Muslims did not make any nations as their "colony" just to exploit there economic and raw materials and make them "selling markets" for their products.
Muslims "adopted" every country they went into. Gave the same right to any one who accepted Islam and left those who did not accept Islam by paying a "token money for getting state protection".
How can you compare What Muslims did in Egypt with what Christians did it there in 300 years?
Please do not teach us "how to treat other nations and how to rule foreign people".
Our record is much better than any other nation on the face of this earth.
Earliest Muslims were "as perfect specimen" of truth and honesty as humanly possible.
The world has not seen the likes of him and never shall be.
They were "disciples and coached by the Last and Final Prophet, they were passout of his school"!!
No other prophet got so many dedicated followers as our prophet and no prophet was as successful as our prophet. This is fact!!
-
MUQ read what Islam did when they invaded a country.
-
http://www.historytoday.com/eamonn-gearon/ara...
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#39286 May 10, 2013
Rohit Arya wrote:
<quoted text>
Who was Aurangzeb?? Now Tell Me
You got the answer from Brother Taslim.

Now what is your question?
Tod

Australia

#39287 May 10, 2013
MUQ, it must time for a Good Old Muslim Child Killing, you know the Ol Blood splattering, blowing the arms and legs down the street then ascending to paradise for the Holiest of all MURDERS.

We all know how peaceful muslims live with muslims in the joyous religion of PEACE.
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#39288 May 10, 2013
-

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...

The Method to the Post 9/11 Madness

By David Swanson



World domination means controlling nations like Iraq and Libya, and placing bases and pipelines in places like Afghanistan, where they could benefit the West but hurt Russia, China, and Iran. It also means expanding Europe, NATO, and the European Union, to control the entire Mediterranean (which is how Lebanon and Syria become key targets). It means controlling the Arctic with Canada’s help. It means weaponizing outerspace. It means dominating Africa. It means surrounding Russia and China with missiles, bases, and ships, prepared to cut off their trade. It means imposing as much suffering as possible on the Iranian people. It means redefining sociopathic acts as rational inevitabilities.

Obama’s turn toward Asia, and all the new bases and troops popping up in Australia, Guam, South Korea, and Japan, began before and will continue after Obama. It is part of a strategy to surround China. It is driving a new arms race and new tensions. While China’s military spending is still only about a tenth of the U.S.’s, it has grown four-fold in recent years. The arms race has carried over to the Middle East as well, with the United States tripling its sales of weapons to foreign dictatorships last year. All of which is great for weapons makers. It’s also part of the madness of the method behind our militarism.

Which is not to say that everything goes as planned. Military operations accurately label themselves with the term “SNAFU”, and pockets of resistance have been known to spring up and grow rapidly. Ecuador and other Latin American nations, as well as Uzbekistan and other Central Asian nations, have found the strength to tell NATO to head on back to the North Atlantic. The Non-Aligned Nations representing the majority of the people on earth just met in Iran and proposed, among other things, plans for total nuclear disarmament. Perhaps the aligned nations should join the non-aligned nations in more ways than one. Perhaps the institution of NATO should join nuclear weaponry on the pile of bad ideas whose time has come and gone.

http://davidswanson.org
Tod

Australia

#39289 May 10, 2013
The Method to the Post 9/11 Madness

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/06/30213...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/afr...

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-...

Terror, abduction and a fall: Turbulent run-up to Pakistan polls, 100 killed over an election.

I have to agree with you , absolute madness don't you muslims learn from past mistakes ?
Tod

Australia

#39290 May 10, 2013
MUQ,

http://rt.com/files/news/1e/e9/10/00/sana-2.j...

http://en.rian.ru/images/17677/03/176770383.j...

http://www.montrealgazette.com/cms/binary/804...

http://m.wsj.net/video/20121019/101912hubpmbe...

I think you should have a good look at your own culture before pointing the finger at others culture.

There's a word for that. Hypocrite maybe ?
pointy pune poster

Pune, India

#39291 May 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Hindus in India did not live for 1000 years in mortal fear of their lives.
This was all a British Propaganda to create divide between Hindus and Muslims, so they can perpetuate their rule in India.
After initial political fights (which were very common in Indian history), Hindus and Muslims settled down to have a peaceful co-existence in India.
Hindus were as rich and as prosperous as Muslims.
Did Muslims reduced Hindus ....there would not be a single Hindu left in India.
So do not get carried away by those who speak in rhetoric language and present 1000 years Muslim rule in India in blackest of color.
Muslim rulers were no angels, but they were also not devils. For their throne, they could and did kill Muslims as well as any Hindu who will come in their path.
There never was a general massacre or destruction of whole city and state as was common when other nations attacked their enemies.
What did Alauddin Khilji do to Nalanda? Whole of India is full of such evidences.

Dear which great temple's walls and artwork were broken down and placed under the entry steps of which Mosque (Jama Masjid) so all old and fresh muslim converts would have to walk over them a sign of humiliation for hindus, reminder to fresh converts, and victory prize to gloat over for the muslims of the invading creed? Did the British do that.

Dear, the reason India remained Hindu was simply because the principles of hindu or indic cultures namely pluralism, rationalism evolution etc remained solid in the minds of the few wise who escaped the muslim sword, while most hindu did regress into blind ritualism under muslim rule as the wise leaders of hindus were systematically eliminated or forced into hiding.

Now the brits were great friends of ours back then, they came to do business and found a rich but divided and defenseless land to exploit. But did they destroy so many of the temples of India and disfigure the rest of the artwork faces on the walls. Just visit Qutub Minar and you can see still the old hindu structures with the disfigured faces of figurines carved on the walls. You built a Mosque and a cremation ground atop a hindu place of worship.

That is what Islam did to India. But the good news for us is we are now free and openly reject and denounce islam and most of its barbaric ways and principles. Even many of the more educated indian muslims are giving up islam and taking up new age non religions like rationalism and atheism humanism etc. Even the many bangladeshi educated bengali are rejecting regressive islamic ways. The hardliner islamists are of course threatening them with violence.

The bad news for you is you still toil under islamic tyranny and still not able to break free from its evil brainwashing done to you early on in your childhood, You never had a chance to form your own independent opinion.

Islam for me today is not something to hate, but a matter of deep sadness, because so many of my fellow humans still waste away their lives under it.

Just look at Japan, Korea, China a whole host of countries doing so much better than all islamic countries. Does that not tell you that there do exist other cultures and ways of living far superior than islam? Also note the less islamic the islamic country is (moderate, does not implement most or some islamic laws, looks the other way, never implemented etc), more they are progressive and peaceful and happy. Compare Malaysia to Saudi Arabia, inspite of all of saudi oil.

Islam was always forced on others, spread by invading armies, not by peaceful conversation without use of threat or fear? Like Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) who added the after life concept to many ideas of hinduism like ahimsa (non violence) and Dharma (rule of rational laws of man for human well being).

I was a Muslim, I would not feel shame cause I was simply born in it, had no choice in the matter. But I WOULD quietly GIVE IT UP FOR SOMETHING BETTER, like rationalism
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#39292 May 10, 2013
pointy pune poster wrote:
<quoted text>
What did Alauddin Khilji do to Nalanda? Whole of India is full of such evidences.
Dear which great temple's walls and artwork were broken down and placed under the entry steps of which Mosque (Jama Masjid) so all old and fresh muslim converts would have to walk over them a sign of humiliation for hindus, reminder to fresh converts, and victory prize to gloat over for the muslims of the invading creed? Did the British do that.
Dear, the reason India remained Hindu was simply because the principles of hindu or indic cultures namely pluralism, rationalism evolution etc remained solid in the minds of the few wise who escaped the muslim sword, while most hindu did regress into blind ritualism under muslim rule as the wise leaders of hindus were systematically eliminated or forced into hiding.
Now the brits were great friends of ours back then, they came to do business and found a rich but divided and defenseless land to exploit. But did they destroy so many of the temples of India and disfigure the rest of the artwork faces on the walls. Just visit Qutub Minar and you can see still the old hindu structures with the disfigured faces of figurines carved on the walls. You built a Mosque and a cremation ground atop a hindu place of worship.
That is what Islam did to India. But the good news for us is we are now free and openly reject and denounce islam and most of its barbaric ways and principles. Even many of the more educated indian muslims are giving up islam and taking up new age non religions like rationalism and atheism humanism etc. Even the many bangladeshi educated bengali are rejecting regressive islamic ways. The hardliner islamists are of course threatening them with violence.
The bad news for you is you still toil under islamic tyranny and still not able to break free from its evil brainwashing done to you early on in your childhood, You never had a chance to form your own independent opinion.
Islam for me today is not something to hate, but a matter of deep sadness, because so many of my fellow humans still waste away their lives under it.
Just look at Japan, Korea, China a whole host of countries doing so much better than all islamic countries. Does that not tell you that there do exist other cultures and ways of living far superior than islam? Also note the less islamic the islamic country is (moderate, does not implement most or some islamic laws, looks the other way, never implemented etc), more they are progressive and peaceful and happy. Compare Malaysia to Saudi Arabia, inspite of all of saudi oil.
Islam was always forced on others, spread by invading armies, not by peaceful conversation without use of threat or fear? Like Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) who added the after life concept to many ideas of hinduism like ahimsa (non violence) and Dharma (rule of rational laws of man for human well being).
I was a Muslim, I would not feel shame cause I was simply born in it, had no choice in the matter. But I WOULD quietly GIVE IT UP FOR SOMETHING BETTER, like rationalism
Are you in the business of :manufacturing history"?

Show me any book written by any Hindu prior to 1857 in which these charges are laid?

It were british who wrote History of India based on "folklore" and tried to create wedge between Hindus and Muslims.

It is "always easy" for any community to be projected as underdogs and being persecuted.

So Hardliner Hindus took these writings as Absolute Truth and took the bait of British.

And this hate has already caused one partition of India, if people have still not learned the lesson, it may bode ill for India.
pointy from pune

Pune, India

#39294 May 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
And this hate has already caused one partition of India, if people have still not learned the lesson, it may bode ill for India.
I told you I do not hate. But that is apparent in the eyes of any staunch islamist who still think islam is superior to hindu, yes they do. Some hindu too are like this. But do not worry India is not doomed as education levels are rising among muslims too now, many of whom have realized that modern education is better than Madarsa Brainwashing of their children. And educated people leave islam or other such stupid religions unless they are subjected to fear of death or persecution.

And if you do not like british historians, and please ignore hindu historians too, you will find many muslim accounts too, all gloating how they defeated the kafirs.

And yeah I reject Islam, has nothing to do with past muslim invaders. I find the basic tenets of islam to be very irrational and unfit for human society. They are extremely regressive and the solutions to human problems by islam go against every idea of justice or even sanity. We can do far better.

Now finally can you think calmly and realize that no one will accept islam except the few rejects of society who are not convinced of islam itself, are not even informed properly about it, but merely need a way out or escape oppression in their own societies. That is a point against their existing religion, not a point in favour of islam, and certainly does nothing to validate islamic principles, if you care for critical thought. Or the deviants in India who convert to islam so they can marry another (younger) bride.

So the only way for the world to come together is a new religion that is neither yours nor theirs nor mine (since pride and ego is an issue among most people). For world unity and peace and universal brotherhood and sisterhood (modest and immodest women equally), you need to give up the NAME and SYMBOLS of islam, as do we all.

I suggest agnostic rationalism, where god is optional, but logical reasoning and hard evidence are not. And always leave a little door open for change, improvement and evolution, cause we humans are not perfect, but do have the ability to learn, even from our mistakes and improve. Accepting our imperfection allows us to strive to improve, is only change is an option.
Trucker

Australia

#39295 May 10, 2013
Winston wrote:
Must be about time for some Muslims to attack and murder each others children.
it is happening every minute of everyday in some retarded backward Muslim country somewhere in their unevolved dog eat dog shit spaced out world.
Trucker

Australia

#39296 May 10, 2013
Baron44 . That's an A !
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#39297 May 10, 2013
pointy from pune wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you I do not hate. But that is apparent in the eyes of any staunch islamist who still think islam is superior to hindu, yes they do. Some hindu too are like this. But do not worry India is not doomed as education levels are rising among muslims too now, many of whom have realized that modern education is better than Madarsa Brainwashing of their children. And educated people leave islam or other such stupid religions unless they are subjected to fear of death or persecution.
And if you do not like british historians, and please ignore hindu historians too, you will find many muslim accounts too, all gloating how they defeated the kafirs.
And yeah I reject Islam, has nothing to do with past muslim invaders. I find the basic tenets of islam to be very irrational and unfit for human society. They are extremely regressive and the solutions to human problems by islam go against every idea of justice or even sanity. We can do far better.
Now finally can you think calmly and realize that no one will accept islam except the few rejects of society who are not convinced of islam itself, are not even informed properly about it, but merely need a way out or escape oppression in their own societies. That is a point against their existing religion, not a point in favour of islam, and certainly does nothing to validate islamic principles, if you care for critical thought. Or the deviants in India who convert to islam so they can marry another (younger) bride.
So the only way for the world to come together is a new religion that is neither yours nor theirs nor mine (since pride and ego is an issue among most people). For world unity and peace and universal brotherhood and sisterhood (modest and immodest women equally), you need to give up the NAME and SYMBOLS of islam, as do we all.
I suggest agnostic rationalism, where god is optional, but logical reasoning and hard evidence are not. And always leave a little door open for change, improvement and evolution, cause we humans are not perfect, but do have the ability to learn, even from our mistakes and improve. Accepting our imperfection allows us to strive to improve, is only change is an option.
Number of new entrants into Islam are much more than who accept Hinduism.

So that is my answer to your "No same person will accept Islam".

Perhaps it is the sour grape for you.

The more they try to demonize Islam and Muslims, the faster it will grow.

We have no apology to offer for our rules in India. But seeing the Hindu rule in India for past 65 years, we can only see how benevolent were Muslims towards Hindus.
Bung Nee Sor

Adelaide, Australia

#39298 May 11, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
You got the answer from Brother Taslim.
Now what is your question?
why do you promote that our Australian Christian society is no good.When in one of the major Muslim country's has an election, over a hundred people are killed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asi...

We don't have killing when we have an election, we change the people if we are not happy with there performance. You should look and learn from us.
pointy from pune

Pune, India

#39299 May 11, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Number of new entrants into Islam are much more than who accept Hinduism.
LOL none of that is true Dear. The term hindu is not that important. Names and symbols are only important to egotists and barbarians living in closed tribes. You are just too blinded by your bias to see reality. While people around the world might never even heard of the word 'hindu' but they are subscribing to its principles increasingly, without a single bullet fired or sword drawn (if swords are more your thing).

Good ideas do not need an army of armed men to spread them. Those who are confident their ideas is valid, will feel no need to enforce with violence. Rational debate is all that is required. So watch on as nearly the whole world now follows (h.i.n.d.u) principles of AHIMSA- non violence even in the face of disagreement, but only in defense, DHARMA- rationalized laws for men by men, with logic the barrier threshold for change and lastly VEd (the method to get all the knowledge of our universe).
So that is my answer to your "No same person will accept Islam".
Perhaps it is the sour grape for you.
The more they try to demonize Islam and Muslims, the faster it will grow.
We have no apology to offer for our rules in India. But seeing the Hindu rule in India for past 65 years, we can only see how benevolent were Muslims towards Hindus.
Now how does the rest of your post / answer look like now?

As for demonizing islam, muslims are doing the most of it, no, I do not mean terrorism, but how Muslims live. And the principles of islam are a clear turn off too, to someone who is free to choose with out duress, fear or in plight or oppression. Ask someone in S Korea if they would like to convert, to know the real answer, not persecuted minorities like Dalits of India (even they are refusing islam btw and taking up buddism, yeah).

Just thinking that I might have been a muslim by accident of birth, in a place like Iran or worse- Saudi Arabia, makes me shudder and breathing gets difficult, fortunate I am indeed that I was not born into that gloomy stuff. For all the ills of India, I will still be OK, and free.

And I have my grief with many of independent India's rulers too, we call them elected governments here BTW. Congress Party's anti communal stance is the only reason I kept voting for them and not BJP.

BUT Their near communist take on economic policies till 1991 is the main reason why India is so poor still.

Anyway the scum politicians know this well and still they continue their anti poor policies while calling pro poor all the while, the cheeky ba$tards, anti people scum who'd do anything to line their pockets even as 400-500 million indians sleep homeless.

And yeah some muslim Rulers were OK. Akbar was great and tolerant to all religions. He was also very impressed with the atheist Jains, and a few other lesser known hindu atheists schools of thought. So much so that he gave up islam. LOL that is what a good education can do to you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Terrorism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News We'll murder police, says Real IRA (Apr '11) 53 min Lawrence James co... 235
News Ukraine Posts Video Of Captured 'Russian Soldie... 22 hr 5200 RUSSIAN FOOLS 7
News The radicalization of John Maguire (Feb '15) 23 hr Syrian Refugee Re... 5
News Russia says Syria's Bashar al-Assad ready to sh... Fri Cassandra_ 2
News Islamic State 'worse than Nazis': PM Wed Lawrence James co... 1
News Irish president warns of extremism Sep 2 Lawrence James co... 2
News Obama expands ISIL fight into Syria; Canada won... (Sep '14) Sep 1 Swedenforever 18
More from around the web