- Apr 23, 2017
- Reaction score
- New Mexico
Why are you yet again lying? Jerusalem was taken by the Muslims in a bloody conquest ending with the Siege of Jerusalem leading to it's fall.Wrong.
Jerusalem had been held by the Romans for centuries, until they finally abandoned it.
Then it slowly became populated by Muslims, without any fighting at all.
Mohammed was around 650 AD.
The first crusade was no until around 1100 AD, and had nothing at all to do with Muslims, who had peacefully occupied Jerusalem for over 500 years.
The Crusades were just totally greedy imperialism, without any justification of any kind.
The only use of force was by the illegal Crusaders.
I don't see anyone but yourself whining which tells me the others are bright enough to read for themselves without me cherry picking passages.You just put up a link, without any quote or comment, and others are supposed to figure out what you mean?
WRONG! The crusades were in response to the incursion of Muslims who were subjugating and killing those wo did not submit. Funny that when the shoe is on the other foot they cried victim...The Crusades were in illegal invasion by foreign Europeans, and had no ethical basis.
Lets make this easy for you to understand. SHARIA law is both a religion and a government. The US Constitution forbids this from becoming law in the US. Your religion can not be the state.
Murdering a person, in the US, due to their beliefs or nonbelief is not tolerated. Sharai Law does not allow "non-compliance". Take your first century garbage back to the middle east.
It hasn't been "voluntary" in any Muslim nation yet that has enacted it.Wrong.
Sharia is the part of the Islamic law that is voluntary, for domestic matters, and is not at all incompatible with US law.
Of course everyone in the US is using some religion or other as the basis for their ethical choices.
So that is no different at all from Sharia.
Murdering a person, due to their beliefs of nonbeliefs is not tolerated under Sharia law as well.
And when you claim Sharia law does no allow for "nonpcompliance", you are lying.
I do not like Islam, as I think it is way too strict, but you really know nothing at all about it.
The point is, he was not a declared Dhimmi. He didn't need to declare as such, as Egypt does not follow strict sharia law, in this respect. My quote/link clearly shows that a declared Dhimmi can enjoy the the Sharia protections of an actual Muslim. Which is equivalent to saying, in this specific space, that a Dhimmi is not inferior to a Muslim. So you just agreed with my post without realizing it. Slow down, you're rabid.The status of Dhimmi is NOT inferior to a Muslim
Well that's nonsense. Christianity is and always has been the majority religion in the US.
Incorrect ....Islam has been spread at the point of a sword since it's founding.