American_Jihad

Flaming Libs/Koranimals
May 1, 2012
11,534
3,720
350
Gulf of Mex 26.609, -82.220
Obama, story telling again...
Apologists For Islam And History
Once again, Obama skips over a few important details.
March 24, 2016
Hugh Fitzgerald
la_rendicion_de_granada_-_pradilla.jpg


Apologists for Islam are a varied bunch – some reveal ignorance, others deploy deliberate taqiyya – but all play fast and loose with history.

Here are three examples:

Karen Armstrong on the Expulsion of the Moors

In 1492, the year that is often said to inaugurate the modern era, three very important events happened in Spain. In January, the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella conquered the city of Granada, the last Muslim stronghold in Europe; later, Muslims were given the choice of conversion to Christianity or exile. In March, the Jews of Spain were also forced to choose between baptism and deportation. Finally, in August, Christopher Columbus, a Jewish convert to Catholicism and a protégé of Ferdinand and Isabella, crossed the Atlantic and discovered the West Indies. One of his objectives had been to find a new route to India, where Christians could establish a military base for another crusade against Islam. As they sailed into the new world, western people carried a complex burden of prejudice that was central to their identity.

In 1492, “the Catholic monarchs conquered Granada, the last Muslim stronghold in Europe.” What then should we call all those lands in southern and eastern Europe that the Ottomans were at that very moment busy conquering and seizing, including Constantinople, the richest, most populous, most important city in all of Christendom for 800 years (taken by the Turks on a Tuesday – May 29, 1453), and the Balkans (including the then-vast Serbian lands)? And what are modern-day Albania, Greece, Rumania, Bulgaria? The Ottomans continued to press northward and westward, later seizing much of Hungary and threatening Vienna twice. Were these not parts of Europe, and was not a good deal of Europe, including what had been its most important city for a millennium, Constantinople, firmly in Muslim hands before Granada fell – and after?

But it would not do to remind readers that while the Muslim invaders and conquerors of Spain lost their last “stronghold” in Granada, other Muslim invaders and conquerors were busy at the other end of Europe, seizing lands and subjugating the native populations to the devshirme (the forced levy of Christian children) as well as to the jizya (the tax on non-Muslims) and all the other disabilities that, wherever Muslims conquered, were imposed, as part of a clearly elaborated system, and not merely the whim a ruler, on all non-Muslims.

...

Barack Obama on Jefferson’s “Iftar Dinner” and Muslims In America

“The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan — making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.” — Barack Obama, speaking on August 14, 2010, at the “Annual Iftar Dinner” at the White House

Really? Is that what happened? Was there a “first known Iftar at the White House” given by none other than President Thomas Jefferson for the “first Muslim ambassador to the United States”? That’s what Barack Obama and his dutiful speechwriters told the Muslims in attendance at what was billed as the “Annual Iftar Dinner,” knowing full well that the remarks would be published for all Americans to see. Apparently Obama, and those who helped write this speech for him, and others still who vetted it, found nothing wrong with attempting, as part of the administration’s policy of both trying to win Muslim hearts and Muslim minds and to convince Americans that Islam has always been part of America’s history, to misrepresent that history. For the dinner Jefferson gave was not intended to be an Iftar dinner, and his guest that evening was not “the first Muslim ambassador…. from Tunisia,” but in using such words, Obama was engaged in a little nunc pro tunc backdating, so that the Iftar dinner that he gave in 2010 could be presented as part of a supposed tradition of such presidential Iftar dinners, going all the way back to the time of Jefferson.

But before explaining what that “first Iftar dinner” really was, let’s go back to an earlier but even more egregious example of Obama’s rewriting: the speech he delivered in Cairo on June 4, 2009. In that speech, he described Islam and America sharing basic principles:

I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

And then for his Muslim guests he segued into a flattering lesson in History. First he described Western Civ., which, he said, owed so much of its development to Islam:

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities — (applause) — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

And Islam played — according to Obama — a significant role in American history, too:

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they’ve excelled in our sports arenas, they’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

We could go through those paragraphs accompanied by such keen students of history as Gibbon, John Quincy Adams, Jacob Burckhardt, and Winston Churchill, all of whom had occasion to study and comment upon Islam, their remarks rebutting proleptically Obama’s vaporings with their much more informed and sober take on the faith — but that is for another occasion. We can note, however, that when Obama in his Cairo speech talks about “the light of learning” being held aloft at places like Al-Azhar, he misstates: some Greek texts were translated into Arabic and thereby “kept alive” instead of being lost to history, but the translators were mostly Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews, not Muslims, and the work of translation went on not at Al-Azhar but at the courts of Cordoba and Baghdad. The word “algebra” is certainly Arab, but algebra itself was a product of Sanskrit mathematicians. The printing press was not a Muslim invention, and its use was accepted in the Muslim East only long after it had been in use in Western Christendom. Indeed, in Islam itself the very notion of innovation, or bida, is frowned upon, and not only, as some Muslim apologists have claimed, in theological matters. And so on.

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco.

The picture Obama paints by implication, of Muslims being deeply involved in the grand sweep of American history practically from the time of the Framers (at least he didn’t make the mistake of the State Department flunky who claimed Muslims accompanied Columbus on his voyages) is simply false. The first mosque in North America was a one-room affair in 1929; the second mosque was not built until 1934. The first Muslim to be elected to Congress was Keith Ellison, less than a decade ago. The Muslim appearance in America is very late. As for Morocco being the first country to recognize the United States in a treaty, Morocco also soon violated that very treaty and became the first country to go to war with the young Republic. That is something Obama’s advisers may not have told him.

... (Long article)

Apologists For Islam And History
 
The easiest way to not constantly look like a fool, is to check your facts:
Mellimelli was in Washington during Ramadan, a month-long period in which Muslims fast from sunrise to sunset. To accommodate his guest's religious obligation, Jefferson's invitation to the President's House on December 9 changed the time of dinner from the usual "half after three" to "precisely at sunset."

Tunisian Envoy | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

.
 
The easiest way to not constantly look like a fool, is to check your facts:
Mellimelli was in Washington during Ramadan, a month-long period in which Muslims fast from sunrise to sunset. To accommodate his guest's religious obligation, Jefferson's invitation to the President's House on December 9 changed the time of dinner from the usual "half after three" to "precisely at sunset."

Tunisian Envoy | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

.
I don't have time to check every article, your doing a good job and you can check all my posts, and if you want to argue email the author, carry on...
 
Another fun tidbit from the Monticello entry:

Mellimelli's request for "concubines" as a part of his accommodations was left to Secretary of State James Madison. Jefferson assured one senator that obtaining peace with the Barbary powers was important enough to "pass unnoticed the irregular conduct of their ministers."
 
Another fun tidbit from the Monticello entry:

Mellimelli's request for "concubines" as a part of his accommodations was left to Secretary of State James Madison. Jefferson assured one senator that obtaining peace with the Barbary powers was important enough to "pass unnoticed the irregular conduct of their ministers."
Auto correct for spelling has put you guys out of business so now your left with tidbits...
:crybaby:
 
Another fun tidbit from the Monticello entry:

Mellimelli's request for "concubines" as a part of his accommodations was left to Secretary of State James Madison. Jefferson assured one senator that obtaining peace with the Barbary powers was important enough to "pass unnoticed the irregular conduct of their ministers."
Auto correct for spelling has put you guys out of business so now your left with tidbits...
:crybaby:

I wonder where they found these concubines... :eusa_whistle:
 
Obama, story telling again...
Apologists For Islam And History
Once again, Obama skips over a few important details.
March 24, 2016
Hugh Fitzgerald
la_rendicion_de_granada_-_pradilla.jpg


Apologists for Islam are a varied bunch – some reveal ignorance, others deploy deliberate taqiyya – but all play fast and loose with history.

Here are three examples:

Karen Armstrong on the Expulsion of the Moors

In 1492, the year that is often said to inaugurate the modern era, three very important events happened in Spain. In January, the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella conquered the city of Granada, the last Muslim stronghold in Europe; later, Muslims were given the choice of conversion to Christianity or exile. In March, the Jews of Spain were also forced to choose between baptism and deportation. Finally, in August, Christopher Columbus, a Jewish convert to Catholicism and a protégé of Ferdinand and Isabella, crossed the Atlantic and discovered the West Indies. One of his objectives had been to find a new route to India, where Christians could establish a military base for another crusade against Islam. As they sailed into the new world, western people carried a complex burden of prejudice that was central to their identity.

In 1492, “the Catholic monarchs conquered Granada, the last Muslim stronghold in Europe.” What then should we call all those lands in southern and eastern Europe that the Ottomans were at that very moment busy conquering and seizing, including Constantinople, the richest, most populous, most important city in all of Christendom for 800 years (taken by the Turks on a Tuesday – May 29, 1453), and the Balkans (including the then-vast Serbian lands)? And what are modern-day Albania, Greece, Rumania, Bulgaria? The Ottomans continued to press northward and westward, later seizing much of Hungary and threatening Vienna twice. Were these not parts of Europe, and was not a good deal of Europe, including what had been its most important city for a millennium, Constantinople, firmly in Muslim hands before Granada fell – and after?

But it would not do to remind readers that while the Muslim invaders and conquerors of Spain lost their last “stronghold” in Granada, other Muslim invaders and conquerors were busy at the other end of Europe, seizing lands and subjugating the native populations to the devshirme (the forced levy of Christian children) as well as to the jizya (the tax on non-Muslims) and all the other disabilities that, wherever Muslims conquered, were imposed, as part of a clearly elaborated system, and not merely the whim a ruler, on all non-Muslims.

...

Barack Obama on Jefferson’s “Iftar Dinner” and Muslims In America

“The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan — making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.” — Barack Obama, speaking on August 14, 2010, at the “Annual Iftar Dinner” at the White House

Really? Is that what happened? Was there a “first known Iftar at the White House” given by none other than President Thomas Jefferson for the “first Muslim ambassador to the United States”? That’s what Barack Obama and his dutiful speechwriters told the Muslims in attendance at what was billed as the “Annual Iftar Dinner,” knowing full well that the remarks would be published for all Americans to see. Apparently Obama, and those who helped write this speech for him, and others still who vetted it, found nothing wrong with attempting, as part of the administration’s policy of both trying to win Muslim hearts and Muslim minds and to convince Americans that Islam has always been part of America’s history, to misrepresent that history. For the dinner Jefferson gave was not intended to be an Iftar dinner, and his guest that evening was not “the first Muslim ambassador…. from Tunisia,” but in using such words, Obama was engaged in a little nunc pro tunc backdating, so that the Iftar dinner that he gave in 2010 could be presented as part of a supposed tradition of such presidential Iftar dinners, going all the way back to the time of Jefferson.

But before explaining what that “first Iftar dinner” really was, let’s go back to an earlier but even more egregious example of Obama’s rewriting: the speech he delivered in Cairo on June 4, 2009. In that speech, he described Islam and America sharing basic principles:

I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

And then for his Muslim guests he segued into a flattering lesson in History. First he described Western Civ., which, he said, owed so much of its development to Islam:

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities — (applause) — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

And Islam played — according to Obama — a significant role in American history, too:

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they’ve excelled in our sports arenas, they’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

We could go through those paragraphs accompanied by such keen students of history as Gibbon, John Quincy Adams, Jacob Burckhardt, and Winston Churchill, all of whom had occasion to study and comment upon Islam, their remarks rebutting proleptically Obama’s vaporings with their much more informed and sober take on the faith — but that is for another occasion. We can note, however, that when Obama in his Cairo speech talks about “the light of learning” being held aloft at places like Al-Azhar, he misstates: some Greek texts were translated into Arabic and thereby “kept alive” instead of being lost to history, but the translators were mostly Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews, not Muslims, and the work of translation went on not at Al-Azhar but at the courts of Cordoba and Baghdad. The word “algebra” is certainly Arab, but algebra itself was a product of Sanskrit mathematicians. The printing press was not a Muslim invention, and its use was accepted in the Muslim East only long after it had been in use in Western Christendom. Indeed, in Islam itself the very notion of innovation, or bida, is frowned upon, and not only, as some Muslim apologists have claimed, in theological matters. And so on.

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco.

The picture Obama paints by implication, of Muslims being deeply involved in the grand sweep of American history practically from the time of the Framers (at least he didn’t make the mistake of the State Department flunky who claimed Muslims accompanied Columbus on his voyages) is simply false. The first mosque in North America was a one-room affair in 1929; the second mosque was not built until 1934. The first Muslim to be elected to Congress was Keith Ellison, less than a decade ago. The Muslim appearance in America is very late. As for Morocco being the first country to recognize the United States in a treaty, Morocco also soon violated that very treaty and became the first country to go to war with the young Republic. That is something Obama’s advisers may not have told him.

... (Long article)

Apologists For Islam And History

The problem is, there are people, many of them refuse to read text that is more than one or two sentences long, and then they go around accusing people of being apologists for Islam in the same way they called people Commies in the Cold War.

It's an attack, pure and simple.

I got called an apologist for Islam the other day, and it's not the first time.

Did I apologize for people attacking others? No, I didn't. So, how then is it possible that people call me this?

Simple, it's just another insult, a way of avoiding history and the truth about what Islam actually is.

yes, there are radical elements in Islam, just as there are in Christianity (and you bring up Christianity and they'll attack you again), but the vast majority of Muslims aren't radical, they aren't going to blow you up.

Saying this is somehow apologizing for those who did blow people up.

Kind of like seeing an Apple and calling it a Ghost.
 
Obama, story telling again...
Apologists For Islam And History
Once again, Obama skips over a few important details.
March 24, 2016
Hugh Fitzgerald
la_rendicion_de_granada_-_pradilla.jpg


Apologists for Islam are a varied bunch – some reveal ignorance, others deploy deliberate taqiyya – but all play fast and loose with history.

Here are three examples:

Karen Armstrong on the Expulsion of the Moors

In 1492, the year that is often said to inaugurate the modern era, three very important events happened in Spain. In January, the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella conquered the city of Granada, the last Muslim stronghold in Europe; later, Muslims were given the choice of conversion to Christianity or exile. In March, the Jews of Spain were also forced to choose between baptism and deportation. Finally, in August, Christopher Columbus, a Jewish convert to Catholicism and a protégé of Ferdinand and Isabella, crossed the Atlantic and discovered the West Indies. One of his objectives had been to find a new route to India, where Christians could establish a military base for another crusade against Islam. As they sailed into the new world, western people carried a complex burden of prejudice that was central to their identity.

In 1492, “the Catholic monarchs conquered Granada, the last Muslim stronghold in Europe.” What then should we call all those lands in southern and eastern Europe that the Ottomans were at that very moment busy conquering and seizing, including Constantinople, the richest, most populous, most important city in all of Christendom for 800 years (taken by the Turks on a Tuesday – May 29, 1453), and the Balkans (including the then-vast Serbian lands)? And what are modern-day Albania, Greece, Rumania, Bulgaria? The Ottomans continued to press northward and westward, later seizing much of Hungary and threatening Vienna twice. Were these not parts of Europe, and was not a good deal of Europe, including what had been its most important city for a millennium, Constantinople, firmly in Muslim hands before Granada fell – and after?

But it would not do to remind readers that while the Muslim invaders and conquerors of Spain lost their last “stronghold” in Granada, other Muslim invaders and conquerors were busy at the other end of Europe, seizing lands and subjugating the native populations to the devshirme (the forced levy of Christian children) as well as to the jizya (the tax on non-Muslims) and all the other disabilities that, wherever Muslims conquered, were imposed, as part of a clearly elaborated system, and not merely the whim a ruler, on all non-Muslims.

...

Barack Obama on Jefferson’s “Iftar Dinner” and Muslims In America

“The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan — making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.” — Barack Obama, speaking on August 14, 2010, at the “Annual Iftar Dinner” at the White House

Really? Is that what happened? Was there a “first known Iftar at the White House” given by none other than President Thomas Jefferson for the “first Muslim ambassador to the United States”? That’s what Barack Obama and his dutiful speechwriters told the Muslims in attendance at what was billed as the “Annual Iftar Dinner,” knowing full well that the remarks would be published for all Americans to see. Apparently Obama, and those who helped write this speech for him, and others still who vetted it, found nothing wrong with attempting, as part of the administration’s policy of both trying to win Muslim hearts and Muslim minds and to convince Americans that Islam has always been part of America’s history, to misrepresent that history. For the dinner Jefferson gave was not intended to be an Iftar dinner, and his guest that evening was not “the first Muslim ambassador…. from Tunisia,” but in using such words, Obama was engaged in a little nunc pro tunc backdating, so that the Iftar dinner that he gave in 2010 could be presented as part of a supposed tradition of such presidential Iftar dinners, going all the way back to the time of Jefferson.

But before explaining what that “first Iftar dinner” really was, let’s go back to an earlier but even more egregious example of Obama’s rewriting: the speech he delivered in Cairo on June 4, 2009. In that speech, he described Islam and America sharing basic principles:

I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

And then for his Muslim guests he segued into a flattering lesson in History. First he described Western Civ., which, he said, owed so much of its development to Islam:

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities — (applause) — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

And Islam played — according to Obama — a significant role in American history, too:

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they’ve excelled in our sports arenas, they’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

We could go through those paragraphs accompanied by such keen students of history as Gibbon, John Quincy Adams, Jacob Burckhardt, and Winston Churchill, all of whom had occasion to study and comment upon Islam, their remarks rebutting proleptically Obama’s vaporings with their much more informed and sober take on the faith — but that is for another occasion. We can note, however, that when Obama in his Cairo speech talks about “the light of learning” being held aloft at places like Al-Azhar, he misstates: some Greek texts were translated into Arabic and thereby “kept alive” instead of being lost to history, but the translators were mostly Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews, not Muslims, and the work of translation went on not at Al-Azhar but at the courts of Cordoba and Baghdad. The word “algebra” is certainly Arab, but algebra itself was a product of Sanskrit mathematicians. The printing press was not a Muslim invention, and its use was accepted in the Muslim East only long after it had been in use in Western Christendom. Indeed, in Islam itself the very notion of innovation, or bida, is frowned upon, and not only, as some Muslim apologists have claimed, in theological matters. And so on.

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco.

The picture Obama paints by implication, of Muslims being deeply involved in the grand sweep of American history practically from the time of the Framers (at least he didn’t make the mistake of the State Department flunky who claimed Muslims accompanied Columbus on his voyages) is simply false. The first mosque in North America was a one-room affair in 1929; the second mosque was not built until 1934. The first Muslim to be elected to Congress was Keith Ellison, less than a decade ago. The Muslim appearance in America is very late. As for Morocco being the first country to recognize the United States in a treaty, Morocco also soon violated that very treaty and became the first country to go to war with the young Republic. That is something Obama’s advisers may not have told him.

... (Long article)

Apologists For Islam And History

The problem is, there are people, many of them refuse to read text that is more than one or two sentences long, and then they go around accusing people of being apologists for Islam in the same way they called people Commies in the Cold War.

It's an attack, pure and simple.

I got called an apologist for Islam the other day, and it's not the first time.

Did I apologize for people attacking others? No, I didn't. So, how then is it possible that people call me this?

Simple, it's just another insult, a way of avoiding history and the truth about what Islam actually is.

yes, there are radical elements in Islam, just as there are in Christianity (and you bring up Christianity and they'll attack you again), but the vast majority of Muslims aren't radical, they aren't going to blow you up.

Saying this is somehow apologizing for those who did blow people up.

Kind of like seeing an Apple and calling it a Ghost.

the statement that the majority of muslims are not about to blow anyone up is
absolutely true just as it is true that the majority of people who supported Adolf
Hitler in the 1930s were not about to shove anyone into a gas chamber. It is also
true that if Adolf Hitler did not have popular support in Germany----he would not
have been successful in committing genocide. It is also true that if the majority of muslims opposed Shariah law and oppression of non muslims------muslims would not have been able to genocide hundreds of millions of people out of existence over the past 1400 years. Today----terrorism has sufficient support of VERY LARGE numbers of muslims in the world-----making it very possible. Adulation of terrorists and support of terrorism amongst muslims is no more a "RADICAL" idea than was chattel
slavery of blacks a "RADICAL" idea in pre civil war southern USA
 
the statement that the majority of muslims are not about to blow anyone up is
absolutely true just as it is true that the majority of people who supported Adolf
Hitler in the 1930s were not about to shove anyone into a gas chamber. It is also
true that if Adolf Hitler did not have popular support in Germany----he would not
have been successful in committing genocide. It is also true that if the majority of muslims opposed Shariah law and oppression of non muslims------muslims would not have been able to genocide hundreds of millions of people out of existence over the past 1400 years. Today----terrorism has sufficient support of VERY LARGE numbers of muslims in the world-----making it very possible. Adulation of terrorists and support of terrorism amongst muslims is no more a "RADICAL" idea than was chattel
slavery of blacks a "RADICAL" idea in pre civil war southern USA

So.. what's your point?

I could also point to truths about the US. The majority of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq, they support warmongering as a policy. They think it's great that they are "great" somehow thinking that warmongering makes a country great, it did under Genghis Khan, but in the modern world, some people think otherwise.

And where does that get us?

The point is, if you create fear and you create anger, then you will get fear and you will get anger. Anger leads to people killing each other, fear leads to people rolling over to allow rights to be taken away.
 
Obviously I'm not an apologist for any religion. That said, people of every religion are to be treated equally before the law in a constitutional society.

"our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry... it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order"
-- Thomas Jefferson; from The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1777)
 
the statement that the majority of muslims are not about to blow anyone up is
absolutely true just as it is true that the majority of people who supported Adolf
Hitler in the 1930s were not about to shove anyone into a gas chamber. It is also
true that if Adolf Hitler did not have popular support in Germany----he would not
have been successful in committing genocide. It is also true that if the majority of muslims opposed Shariah law and oppression of non muslims------muslims would not have been able to genocide hundreds of millions of people out of existence over the past 1400 years. Today----terrorism has sufficient support of VERY LARGE numbers of muslims in the world-----making it very possible. Adulation of terrorists and support of terrorism amongst muslims is no more a "RADICAL" idea than was chattel
slavery of blacks a "RADICAL" idea in pre civil war southern USA

So.. what's your point?

I could also point to truths about the US. The majority of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq, they support warmongering as a policy. They think it's great that they are "great" somehow thinking that warmongering makes a country great, it did under Genghis Khan, but in the modern world, some people think otherwise.

And where does that get us?

The point is, if you create fear and you create anger, then you will get fear and you will get anger. Anger leads to people killing each other, fear leads to people rolling over to allow rights to be taken away.
See you don't even know who your talking to, do ya weirdo...
 
the statement that the majority of muslims are not about to blow anyone up is
absolutely true just as it is true that the majority of people who supported Adolf
Hitler in the 1930s were not about to shove anyone into a gas chamber. It is also
true that if Adolf Hitler did not have popular support in Germany----he would not
have been successful in committing genocide. It is also true that if the majority of muslims opposed Shariah law and oppression of non muslims------muslims would not have been able to genocide hundreds of millions of people out of existence over the past 1400 years. Today----terrorism has sufficient support of VERY LARGE numbers of muslims in the world-----making it very possible. Adulation of terrorists and support of terrorism amongst muslims is no more a "RADICAL" idea than was chattel
slavery of blacks a "RADICAL" idea in pre civil war southern USA

So.. what's your point?

I could also point to truths about the US. The majority of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq, they support warmongering as a policy. They think it's great that they are "great" somehow thinking that warmongering makes a country great, it did under Genghis Khan, but in the modern world, some people think otherwise.

And where does that get us?

The point is, if you create fear and you create anger, then you will get fear and you will get anger. Anger leads to people killing each other, fear leads to people rolling over to allow rights to be taken away.
See you don't even know who your talking to, do ya weirdo...

Do you want to respond to my post, or do you just want to make stupid statements?
 
the statement that the majority of muslims are not about to blow anyone up is
absolutely true just as it is true that the majority of people who supported Adolf
Hitler in the 1930s were not about to shove anyone into a gas chamber. It is also
true that if Adolf Hitler did not have popular support in Germany----he would not
have been successful in committing genocide. It is also true that if the majority of muslims opposed Shariah law and oppression of non muslims------muslims would not have been able to genocide hundreds of millions of people out of existence over the past 1400 years. Today----terrorism has sufficient support of VERY LARGE numbers of muslims in the world-----making it very possible. Adulation of terrorists and support of terrorism amongst muslims is no more a "RADICAL" idea than was chattel
slavery of blacks a "RADICAL" idea in pre civil war southern USA

So.. what's your point?

I could also point to truths about the US. The majority of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq, they support warmongering as a policy. They think it's great that they are "great" somehow thinking that warmongering makes a country great, it did under Genghis Khan, but in the modern world, some people think otherwise.

And where does that get us?

The point is, if you create fear and you create anger, then you will get fear and you will get anger. Anger leads to people killing each other, fear leads to people rolling over to allow rights to be taken away.
See you don't even know who your talking to, do ya weirdo...

Do you want to respond to my post, or do you just want to make stupid statements?
It's not my quote you moron...
 
the statement that the majority of muslims are not about to blow anyone up is
absolutely true just as it is true that the majority of people who supported Adolf
Hitler in the 1930s were not about to shove anyone into a gas chamber. It is also
true that if Adolf Hitler did not have popular support in Germany----he would not
have been successful in committing genocide. It is also true that if the majority of muslims opposed Shariah law and oppression of non muslims------muslims would not have been able to genocide hundreds of millions of people out of existence over the past 1400 years. Today----terrorism has sufficient support of VERY LARGE numbers of muslims in the world-----making it very possible. Adulation of terrorists and support of terrorism amongst muslims is no more a "RADICAL" idea than was chattel
slavery of blacks a "RADICAL" idea in pre civil war southern USA

So.. what's your point?

I could also point to truths about the US. The majority of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq, they support warmongering as a policy. They think it's great that they are "great" somehow thinking that warmongering makes a country great, it did under Genghis Khan, but in the modern world, some people think otherwise.

And where does that get us?

The point is, if you create fear and you create anger, then you will get fear and you will get anger. Anger leads to people killing each other, fear leads to people rolling over to allow rights to be taken away.
See you don't even know who your talking to, do ya weirdo...

Do you want to respond to my post, or do you just want to make stupid statements?
It's not my quote you moron...

Oh, now it's onto insults. Well... you know what they say about people who insult, don't you...?
 
the statement that the majority of muslims are not about to blow anyone up is
absolutely true just as it is true that the majority of people who supported Adolf
Hitler in the 1930s were not about to shove anyone into a gas chamber. It is also
true that if Adolf Hitler did not have popular support in Germany----he would not
have been successful in committing genocide. It is also true that if the majority of muslims opposed Shariah law and oppression of non muslims------muslims would not have been able to genocide hundreds of millions of people out of existence over the past 1400 years. Today----terrorism has sufficient support of VERY LARGE numbers of muslims in the world-----making it very possible. Adulation of terrorists and support of terrorism amongst muslims is no more a "RADICAL" idea than was chattel
slavery of blacks a "RADICAL" idea in pre civil war southern USA

So.. what's your point?

I could also point to truths about the US. The majority of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq, they support warmongering as a policy. They think it's great that they are "great" somehow thinking that warmongering makes a country great, it did under Genghis Khan, but in the modern world, some people think otherwise.

And where does that get us?

The point is, if you create fear and you create anger, then you will get fear and you will get anger. Anger leads to people killing each other, fear leads to people rolling over to allow rights to be taken away.
See you don't even know who your talking to, do ya weirdo...

Do you want to respond to my post, or do you just want to make stupid statements?
It's not my quote you moron...

Oh, now it's onto insults. Well... you know what they say about people who insult, don't you...?
Ya salunsky calls them radicals, I like rules 5 & 6. Buy the way if you go back and look at that quote it's irosie91 not mine, weirdo...
 
So.. what's your point?

I could also point to truths about the US. The majority of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq, they support warmongering as a policy. They think it's great that they are "great" somehow thinking that warmongering makes a country great, it did under Genghis Khan, but in the modern world, some people think otherwise.

And where does that get us?

The point is, if you create fear and you create anger, then you will get fear and you will get anger. Anger leads to people killing each other, fear leads to people rolling over to allow rights to be taken away.
See you don't even know who your talking to, do ya weirdo...

Do you want to respond to my post, or do you just want to make stupid statements?
It's not my quote you moron...

Oh, now it's onto insults. Well... you know what they say about people who insult, don't you...?
Ya salunsky calls them radicals, I like rules 5 & 6. Buy the way if you go back and look at that quote it's irosie91 not mine, weirdo...

I don't care who wrote it. I replied to it. Do you want to respond or not? if you don't, then don't, I don't give a damn.

Just because quote ended up in your name doesn't mean anything. I responded to what was said.
 
See you don't even know who your talking to, do ya weirdo...

Do you want to respond to my post, or do you just want to make stupid statements?
It's not my quote you moron...

Oh, now it's onto insults. Well... you know what they say about people who insult, don't you...?
Ya salunsky calls them radicals, I like rules 5 & 6. Buy the way if you go back and look at that quote it's irosie91 not mine, weirdo...

I don't care who wrote it. I replied to it. Do you want to respond or not? if you don't, then don't, I don't give a damn.

Just because quote ended up in your name doesn't mean anything. I responded to what was said.
"doesn't mean anything" typical liberal
latest

...
 
Do you want to respond to my post, or do you just want to make stupid statements?
It's not my quote you moron...

Oh, now it's onto insults. Well... you know what they say about people who insult, don't you...?
Ya salunsky calls them radicals, I like rules 5 & 6. Buy the way if you go back and look at that quote it's irosie91 not mine, weirdo...

I don't care who wrote it. I replied to it. Do you want to respond or not? if you don't, then don't, I don't give a damn.

Just because quote ended up in your name doesn't mean anything. I responded to what was said.
"doesn't mean anything" typical liberal
latest

...

You insult, you waste time, ignore list for you.
 
It's not my quote you moron...

Oh, now it's onto insults. Well... you know what they say about people who insult, don't you...?
Ya salunsky calls them radicals, I like rules 5 & 6. Buy the way if you go back and look at that quote it's irosie91 not mine, weirdo...

I don't care who wrote it. I replied to it. Do you want to respond or not? if you don't, then don't, I don't give a damn.

Just because quote ended up in your name doesn't mean anything. I responded to what was said.
"doesn't mean anything" typical liberal
latest

...

You insult, you waste time, ignore list for you.
THAT'S wonderful, no more stupidity from a weirdo...:woohoo:
 
How Islam Erased Christianity from History
A lesson that should be familiar to the West.
April 26, 2016
Raymond Ibrahim
wer.jpg


Originally published by PJ Media.

While Christianity continues to be physically erased from the Middle East, lesser known is that its historical role and presence is also being expunged from memory.

Last month a video emerged showing Islamic State members tossing hundreds of Christian textbooks, many of them emblazoned with crosses, into a large bonfire. As one report put it, ISIS was “burning Christian textbooks in an attempt to erase all traces of” Christianity from the ancient region of Mosul, where Christianity once thrived for centuries before the rise of Islam.

As usual, ISIS is ultimately an extreme example of Islam’s normative approach. This was confirmed during a recent conference in Amman, Jordan hosted by the Jerusalem Center for Political Studies. While presenting, Dr. Hena al-Kaldani, a Christian, said that “there is a complete cancelation of Arab Christian history in the pre-Islamic era,” “many historical mistakes,” and “unjustifiable historic leaps in our Jordanian curriculum.” “Tenth grade textbooks omit any mention of any Christian or church history in the region.” Wherever Christianity is mentioned, omissions and mischaracterizations proliferate, including the portrayal of Christianity as a Western (that is, “foreign”) source of colonization, said al-Kaldani.

Of course, Christian minorities throughout the Middle East—not just in Jordan—have long maintained that the history taught in public classrooms habitually suppresses the region’s Christian heritage while magnifying (including by lying about) Islam.

“It sounds absurd, but Muslims more or less know nothing about Christians, even though they make up a large part of the population and are in fact the original Egyptians,” said Kamal Mougheeth, a retired teacher in Egypt: “Egypt was Christian for six or seven centuries [before the Muslim invasion around 640]. The sad thing is that for many years the history books skipped from Cleopatra to the Muslim conquest of Egypt. The Christian era was gone. Disappeared. An enormous black whole.”http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262629/how-islam-erased-christianity-history-raymond-ibrahim#_edn1

This agrees perfectly with what I recall my parents, Christians from Egypt, telling me of their classroom experiences from more than half a century ago: there was virtually no mention of Hellenism, Christianity, or the Coptic Church—one thousand years of Egypt’s pre-Islamic history. History began with the pharaohs before jumping to the seventh century when Arabian Muslims “opened” Egypt to Islam. (Wherever Muslims conquer non-Muslim territories, Islamic hagiography euphemistically refers to it as an “opening,” fath, never a “conquest.”)

...

How Islam Erased Christianity from History
 

Forum List

Back
Top