In regards to Obama's comments at the National Prayer Breakfast, and other commentary

[TemplarKormac]

I'll cut to the chase. In a classic attempt at moral relativism, Obama made a comment that as ISIS commits atrocities in the name of Allah today, the Crusaders/Inquisition did the same in the name of Christ. Stop. Stop right there.

1) The Spanish Inquisition for example: in a 450 year time span a sum total of 2200 people died, roughly 5 per year. In less than 2 hours on 9/11/01, Islamic terrorists killed 3000 people. Do the math.

2) During the Crusades, nearly 1 million people died because of Christian campaigns against Muslims over 200 years. Hitler killed 6 million Jews in the name of what he believed to be Christ (and he admired Islam, more on that in a minute). So, roughly 7 million from those two things alone. That will lead one to say that Christianity has caused a great deal more death in the name of Christ than Islam ever did (and before someone starts, I am not denying that any atrocities were committed in the name of the Christ. So lets get this out of the way right now).

3) Now, the Islamic genocides of the Hindus between 1000 (Conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 AD (the end of the Delhi Sultanate) have been estimated according to Professor K.S. Lal to have caused the population of the country to decrease by 80 million over a 525 year period. The number isn't exact, and more research is needed to cement it, however; but the fact that the number is even in that statistical range should scare you. Lets put it another way, a prominent historian Will Durant observed:

The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.

Another famous and renowned Belgian historian Koenraad Elst wrote in his book Negationism In India - Concealing The Record Of Islam

The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.

As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention Prof. K.S.Lal's estimates about the population figures in medieval India (Growth of Muslim Population in India). According to his calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate). More research is needed before we can settle for a quantitatively accurate evaluation of Muslim rule in India, but at least we know for sure that the term crime against humanity is not exaggerated.

But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. What some call the Muslim period in Indian history, was in reality a continuous war of occupiers against resisters, in which the Muslim rulers were finally defeated in the 18th century. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible. Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them. Normally the zimmi status was only open to Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other religions have not. On these conditions some of the higher Hindu castes could be found willing to collaborate, so that a more or less stable polity could be set up. Even then, the collaboration of the Rajputs with the Moghul rulers, or of the Kayasthas with the Nawab dynasty, one became a smooth arrangement when enlightened rulers like Akbar (whom orthodox Muslims consider an apostate) cancelled these humiliating conditions and the jizya tax.

Negationism in India, Chapter 2, Negations in India

4) Now about Hitler. He admired Islam as a 'fighting religion.' No wonder, since people like Haj Amin al Hussaini assisted Hitler in slaughtering millions of Jews. He was noted as saying:

You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?

- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, pg. 115

5) Now we change gears to racism and slavery. I often hear about how poorly the African Americans were treated in the South before and during the Civil war, during the Jim Crow era, and the Civil Rights era. They were enslaved, hung, discriminated against and terrorized by white supremacists (who coincidentally used the name of Christ to justify their actions).

6) But this is where Islam comes in: In the Muslim slave trade (yes you heard me, slave trade), they captured and held at least 28 million Africans, but 80 percent were calculated to have died before making it to their destinations. In 1400 years, a total of 140 million (estimated) people died.

a minimum of 28 Million Africans were enslaved in the Muslim Middle East. Since, at least, 80 percent of those captured by Muslim slave traders were calculated to have died before reaching the slave market, it is believed that the death toll from 1400 years of Arab and Muslim slave raids into Africa could have been as high as 112 Millions. When added to the number of those sold in the slave markets, the total number of African victims of the trans-Saharan and East African slave trade could be significantly higher than 140 Million people.

-- John Allembillah Azumah, author of The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa: A Quest for Inter-religious Dialogue

6) The Muslim slave trades eclipsed anything that could have occurred during the Civil War era south, by quantum leaps and bounds, most notably with the Barbary Pirates between the 16th and 18th Centuries.

7) So, lets total just these two instances together, if they happen to be confirmed. We're talking 220 million people killed by members of Islam over 1400 years of history. That would equal roughly the entire US population in 1977 alone, and even exceed that of the most infamous totalitarians of the 20th Century.

So, in summation, members of Islam have more than likely committed far greater atrocities in the name of their deity (and still are) than the Crusaders or the Conquistadors ever could have hoped for in their time in Jesus' name. If Obama only knew how wrong he was.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Obama's a sissy, yes? Who more than they hate Christianity?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[hortysir]

But.......




Obama



I mean Booooooosshhhh


Well put Temp

 

[Vigilante]

They were praying........????

 

[S.J.]

He is a living nightmare.

 

[Pogo]

I'll cut to the chase. In a classic attempt at moral relativism, Obama made a comment that as ISIS commits atrocities in the name of Allah today, the Crusaders/Inquisition did the same in the name of Christ. Stop. Stop right there.

1) The Spanish Inquisition for example: in a 450 year time span a sum total of 2200 people died roughly 5 per year. In less than 2 hours on 9/11/01, Islamic terrorists killed 3000 people. Do the math.

2) During the Crusades, nearly 1 million people died because of Christian campaigns against muslims over 200 years. Hitler killed 6 million Jews in the name of what he believed to be Christ (and he admired Islam, more on that in a minute). So, roughly 7 million from those two things alone. That will lead one to say that Christianity has caused a great deal more death in the name of Christ than Islam ever did (and before someone starts, I am not denying that any atrocities were committed in the name of the Christ. So lets get this out of the way right now).

3) Now, the Islamic genocides of the Hindus between 1000 (Conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 AD (the end of the Delhi Sultanate) have been estimated according to Professor K.S. Lal to have caused the population of the country to decrease by 80 million over a 525 year period. The number isn't exact, and more research is needed to cement it, however; but the fact that the number is even in that statistical range should scare you. Lets put it another way, a prominent historian Will Durant observed:

The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.

Another famous and renowned Belgian historian Koenraad Elst wrote in his book Negationism In India - Concealing The Record Of Islam

The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.

As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention Prof. K.S.Lal's estimates about the population figures in medieval India (Growth of Muslim Population in India). According to his calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate). More research is needed before we can settle for a quantitatively accurate evaluation of Muslim rule in India, but at least we know for sure that the term crime against humanity is not exaggerated.

But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. What some call the Muslim period in Indian history, was in reality a continuous war of occupiers against resisters, in which the Muslim rulers were finally defeated in the 18th century. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible. Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them. Normally the zimmi status was only open to Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other religions have not. On these conditions some of the higher Hindu castes could be found willing to collaborate, so that a more or less stable polity could be set up. Even then, the collaboration of the Rajputs with the Moghul rulers, or of the Kayasthas with the Nawab dynasty, one became a smooth arrangement when enlightened rulers like Akbar (whom orthodox Muslims consider an apostate) cancelled these humiliating conditions and the jizya tax.

Negationism in India, Chapter 2, Negations in India

4) Now about Hitler. He admired Islam as a 'fighting religion.' No wonder, since people like Haj Amin al Hussaini assisted Hitler in slaughtering millions of Jews. He was noted as saying:

You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?

- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, pg. 115

5) Now we change gears to racism and slavery. I often hear about how poorly the African Americans were treated in the South before and during the Civil war, during the Jim Crow era, and the Civil Rights era. They were enslaved, hung, discriminated against and terrorized by white supremacists (who coincidentally used the name of Christ to justify their actions).

6) But this is where Islam comes in: In the Muslim slave trade (yes you heard me, slave trade), they captured and held at least 28 million Africans, but 80 percent were calculated to have died before making it to their destinations. In 1400 years, at total of 140 million (estimated) people died.

a minimum of 28 Million Africans were enslaved in the Muslim Middle East. Since, at least, 80 percent of those captured by Muslim slave traders were calculated to have died before reaching the slave market, it is believed that the death toll from 1400 years of Arab and Muslim slave raids into Africa could have been as high as 112 Millions. When added to the number of those sold in the slave markets, the total number of African victims of the trans-Saharan and East African slave trade could be significantly higher than 140 Million people.

-- John Allembillah Azumah, author of The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa: A Quest for Inter-religious Dialogue

6) The Muslim slave trades eclipsed anything that could have occurred during the Civil War era south, by quantum leaps and bounds, most notably with the Barbary Pirates between the 16th and 18th Centuries.

7) So, lets total just these two instances together, if they happen to be confirmed. We're talking 220 million people killed by members of Islam over 1400 years of history. That would equal roughly the entire US population in 1977 alone, and even exceed that of the most infamous totalitarians of the 20th Century.

So, in summation, members of Islam have more than likely committed far greater atrocities in the name of their deity (and still are) than the Crusaders or the Conquistadors ever could have hoped for in their time in Jesus' name. If Obama only knew how wrong he was.

YET ANOTHER thread that can't link the source material.

Guess I'll just wait for the next one. Like a bus.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'll cut to the chase. In a classic attempt at moral relativism, Obama made a comment that as ISIS commits atrocities in the name of Allah today, the Crusaders/Inquisition did the same in the name of Christ. Stop. Stop right there.

1) The Spanish Inquisition for example: in a 450 year time span a sum total of 2200 people died roughly 5 per year. In less than 2 hours on 9/11/01, Islamic terrorists killed 3000 people. Do the math.

2) During the Crusades, nearly 1 million people died because of Christian campaigns against muslims over 200 years. Hitler killed 6 million Jews in the name of what he believed to be Christ (and he admired Islam, more on that in a minute). So, roughly 7 million from those two things alone. That will lead one to say that Christianity has caused a great deal more death in the name of Christ than Islam ever did (and before someone starts, I am not denying that any atrocities were committed in the name of the Christ. So lets get this out of the way right now).

3) Now, the Islamic genocides of the Hindus between 1000 (Conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 AD (the end of the Delhi Sultanate) have been estimated according to Professor K.S. Lal to have caused the population of the country to decrease by 80 million over a 525 year period. The number isn't exact, and more research is needed to cement it, however; but the fact that the number is even in that statistical range should scare you. Lets put it another way, a prominent historian Will Durant observed:

The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.

Another famous and renowned Belgian historian Koenraad Elst wrote in his book Negationism In India - Concealing The Record Of Islam

The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.

As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention Prof. K.S.Lal's estimates about the population figures in medieval India (Growth of Muslim Population in India). According to his calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate). More research is needed before we can settle for a quantitatively accurate evaluation of Muslim rule in India, but at least we know for sure that the term crime against humanity is not exaggerated.

But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. What some call the Muslim period in Indian history, was in reality a continuous war of occupiers against resisters, in which the Muslim rulers were finally defeated in the 18th century. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible. Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them. Normally the zimmi status was only open to Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other religions have not. On these conditions some of the higher Hindu castes could be found willing to collaborate, so that a more or less stable polity could be set up. Even then, the collaboration of the Rajputs with the Moghul rulers, or of the Kayasthas with the Nawab dynasty, one became a smooth arrangement when enlightened rulers like Akbar (whom orthodox Muslims consider an apostate) cancelled these humiliating conditions and the jizya tax.

Negationism in India, Chapter 2, Negations in India

4) Now about Hitler. He admired Islam as a 'fighting religion.' No wonder, since people like Haj Amin al Hussaini assisted Hitler in slaughtering millions of Jews. He was noted as saying:

You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?

- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, pg. 115

5) Now we change gears to racism and slavery. I often hear about how poorly the African Americans were treated in the South before and during the Civil war, during the Jim Crow era, and the Civil Rights era. They were enslaved, hung, discriminated against and terrorized by white supremacists (who coincidentally used the name of Christ to justify their actions).

6) But this is where Islam comes in: In the Muslim slave trade (yes you heard me, slave trade), they captured and held at least 28 million Africans, but 80 percent were calculated to have died before making it to their destinations. In 1400 years, at total of 140 million (estimated) people died.

a minimum of 28 Million Africans were enslaved in the Muslim Middle East. Since, at least, 80 percent of those captured by Muslim slave traders were calculated to have died before reaching the slave market, it is believed that the death toll from 1400 years of Arab and Muslim slave raids into Africa could have been as high as 112 Millions. When added to the number of those sold in the slave markets, the total number of African victims of the trans-Saharan and East African slave trade could be significantly higher than 140 Million people.

-- John Allembillah Azumah, author of The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa: A Quest for Inter-religious Dialogue

6) The Muslim slave trades eclipsed anything that could have occurred during the Civil War era south, by quantum leaps and bounds, most notably with the Barbary Pirates between the 16th and 18th Centuries.

7) So, lets total just these two instances together, if they happen to be confirmed. We're talking 220 million people killed by members of Islam over 1400 years of history. That would equal roughly the entire US population in 1977 alone, and even exceed that of the most infamous totalitarians of the 20th Century.

So, in summation, members of Islam have more than likely committed far greater atrocities in the name of their deity (and still are) than the Crusaders or the Conquistadors ever could have hoped for in their time in Jesus' name. If Obama only knew how wrong he was.

YET ANOTHER thread that can't link the source material.

Guess I'll just wait for the next one. Like a bus.

(Guffaws)

Says a known plagiarist!

Aha! Aha! Aha!

Seriously, though, it doesn't take a genius (or a liberal like you) to understand how murderous Islam can be. And as I just demonstrated, Christianity by far has been far less... genocidal... than Islam over the centuries. Obama got his history all wrong, and requesting AUMF against ISIS is his concession of that fact.

 

[Pogo]

I'll cut to the chase. In a classic attempt at moral relativism, Obama made a comment that as ISIS commits atrocities in the name of Allah today, the Crusaders/Inquisition did the same in the name of Christ. Stop. Stop right there.

1) The Spanish Inquisition for example: in a 450 year time span a sum total of 2200 people died roughly 5 per year. In less than 2 hours on 9/11/01, Islamic terrorists killed 3000 people. Do the math.

2) During the Crusades, nearly 1 million people died because of Christian campaigns against muslims over 200 years. Hitler killed 6 million Jews in the name of what he believed to be Christ (and he admired Islam, more on that in a minute). So, roughly 7 million from those two things alone. That will lead one to say that Christianity has caused a great deal more death in the name of Christ than Islam ever did (and before someone starts, I am not denying that any atrocities were committed in the name of the Christ. So lets get this out of the way right now).

3) Now, the Islamic genocides of the Hindus between 1000 (Conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 AD (the end of the Delhi Sultanate) have been estimated according to Professor K.S. Lal to have caused the population of the country to decrease by 80 million over a 525 year period. The number isn't exact, and more research is needed to cement it, however; but the fact that the number is even in that statistical range should scare you. Lets put it another way, a prominent historian Will Durant observed:

The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.

Another famous and renowned Belgian historian Koenraad Elst wrote in his book Negationism In India - Concealing The Record Of Islam

The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.

As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention Prof. K.S.Lal's estimates about the population figures in medieval India (Growth of Muslim Population in India). According to his calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate). More research is needed before we can settle for a quantitatively accurate evaluation of Muslim rule in India, but at least we know for sure that the term crime against humanity is not exaggerated.

But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. What some call the Muslim period in Indian history, was in reality a continuous war of occupiers against resisters, in which the Muslim rulers were finally defeated in the 18th century. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible. Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them. Normally the zimmi status was only open to Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other religions have not. On these conditions some of the higher Hindu castes could be found willing to collaborate, so that a more or less stable polity could be set up. Even then, the collaboration of the Rajputs with the Moghul rulers, or of the Kayasthas with the Nawab dynasty, one became a smooth arrangement when enlightened rulers like Akbar (whom orthodox Muslims consider an apostate) cancelled these humiliating conditions and the jizya tax.

Negationism in India, Chapter 2, Negations in India

4) Now about Hitler. He admired Islam as a 'fighting religion.' No wonder, since people like Haj Amin al Hussaini assisted Hitler in slaughtering millions of Jews. He was noted as saying:

You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?

- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, pg. 115

5) Now we change gears to racism and slavery. I often hear about how poorly the African Americans were treated in the South before and during the Civil war, during the Jim Crow era, and the Civil Rights era. They were enslaved, hung, discriminated against and terrorized by white supremacists (who coincidentally used the name of Christ to justify their actions).

6) But this is where Islam comes in: In the Muslim slave trade (yes you heard me, slave trade), they captured and held at least 28 million Africans, but 80 percent were calculated to have died before making it to their destinations. In 1400 years, at total of 140 million (estimated) people died.

a minimum of 28 Million Africans were enslaved in the Muslim Middle East. Since, at least, 80 percent of those captured by Muslim slave traders were calculated to have died before reaching the slave market, it is believed that the death toll from 1400 years of Arab and Muslim slave raids into Africa could have been as high as 112 Millions. When added to the number of those sold in the slave markets, the total number of African victims of the trans-Saharan and East African slave trade could be significantly higher than 140 Million people.

-- John Allembillah Azumah, author of The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa: A Quest for Inter-religious Dialogue

6) The Muslim slave trades eclipsed anything that could have occurred during the Civil War era south, by quantum leaps and bounds, most notably with the Barbary Pirates between the 16th and 18th Centuries.

7) So, lets total just these two instances together, if they happen to be confirmed. We're talking 220 million people killed by members of Islam over 1400 years of history. That would equal roughly the entire US population in 1977 alone, and even exceed that of the most infamous totalitarians of the 20th Century.

So, in summation, members of Islam have more than likely committed far greater atrocities in the name of their deity (and still are) than the Crusaders or the Conquistadors ever could have hoped for in their time in Jesus' name. If Obama only knew how wrong he was.

YET ANOTHER thread that can't link the source material.

Guess I'll just wait for the next one. Like a bus.

That coming from a known plagiarist. Have a seat.

Go fuck yourself asshole.

You said at the beginning, "Obama made a comment that as ISIS commits atrocities in the name of Allah today, the Crusaders/Inquisition did the same in the name of Christ. Stop. Stop right there."

YOU SEE A LINK IN THAT?? ::click:: ::click::
I see a strawman.

Maybe YOU need to learn to read, asshole.

Obviously since you present no point of departure you're uninterested in anything but your own wanking.

so

 

[hortysir]

I'll cut to the chase. In a classic attempt at moral relativism, Obama made a comment that as ISIS commits atrocities in the name of Allah today, the Crusaders/Inquisition did the same in the name of Christ. Stop. Stop right there.

1) The Spanish Inquisition for example: in a 450 year time span a sum total of 2200 people died roughly 5 per year. In less than 2 hours on 9/11/01, Islamic terrorists killed 3000 people. Do the math.

2) During the Crusades, nearly 1 million people died because of Christian campaigns against muslims over 200 years. Hitler killed 6 million Jews in the name of what he believed to be Christ (and he admired Islam, more on that in a minute). So, roughly 7 million from those two things alone. That will lead one to say that Christianity has caused a great deal more death in the name of Christ than Islam ever did (and before someone starts, I am not denying that any atrocities were committed in the name of the Christ. So lets get this out of the way right now).

3) Now, the Islamic genocides of the Hindus between 1000 (Conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 AD (the end of the Delhi Sultanate) have been estimated according to Professor K.S. Lal to have caused the population of the country to decrease by 80 million over a 525 year period. The number isn't exact, and more research is needed to cement it, however; but the fact that the number is even in that statistical range should scare you. Lets put it another way, a prominent historian Will Durant observed:

The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.

Another famous and renowned Belgian historian Koenraad Elst wrote in his book Negationism In India - Concealing The Record Of Islam

The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.

As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention Prof. K.S.Lal's estimates about the population figures in medieval India (Growth of Muslim Population in India). According to his calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate). More research is needed before we can settle for a quantitatively accurate evaluation of Muslim rule in India, but at least we know for sure that the term crime against humanity is not exaggerated.

But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. What some call the Muslim period in Indian history, was in reality a continuous war of occupiers against resisters, in which the Muslim rulers were finally defeated in the 18th century. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible. Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them. Normally the zimmi status was only open to Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other religions have not. On these conditions some of the higher Hindu castes could be found willing to collaborate, so that a more or less stable polity could be set up. Even then, the collaboration of the Rajputs with the Moghul rulers, or of the Kayasthas with the Nawab dynasty, one became a smooth arrangement when enlightened rulers like Akbar (whom orthodox Muslims consider an apostate) cancelled these humiliating conditions and the jizya tax.

Negationism in India, Chapter 2, Negations in India

4) Now about Hitler. He admired Islam as a 'fighting religion.' No wonder, since people like Haj Amin al Hussaini assisted Hitler in slaughtering millions of Jews. He was noted as saying:

You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?

- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, pg. 115

5) Now we change gears to racism and slavery. I often hear about how poorly the African Americans were treated in the South before and during the Civil war, during the Jim Crow era, and the Civil Rights era. They were enslaved, hung, discriminated against and terrorized by white supremacists (who coincidentally used the name of Christ to justify their actions).

6) But this is where Islam comes in: In the Muslim slave trade (yes you heard me, slave trade), they captured and held at least 28 million Africans, but 80 percent were calculated to have died before making it to their destinations. In 1400 years, at total of 140 million (estimated) people died.

a minimum of 28 Million Africans were enslaved in the Muslim Middle East. Since, at least, 80 percent of those captured by Muslim slave traders were calculated to have died before reaching the slave market, it is believed that the death toll from 1400 years of Arab and Muslim slave raids into Africa could have been as high as 112 Millions. When added to the number of those sold in the slave markets, the total number of African victims of the trans-Saharan and East African slave trade could be significantly higher than 140 Million people.

-- John Allembillah Azumah, author of The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa: A Quest for Inter-religious Dialogue

6) The Muslim slave trades eclipsed anything that could have occurred during the Civil War era south, by quantum leaps and bounds, most notably with the Barbary Pirates between the 16th and 18th Centuries.

7) So, lets total just these two instances together, if they happen to be confirmed. We're talking 220 million people killed by members of Islam over 1400 years of history. That would equal roughly the entire US population in 1977 alone, and even exceed that of the most infamous totalitarians of the 20th Century.

So, in summation, members of Islam have more than likely committed far greater atrocities in the name of their deity (and still are) than the Crusaders or the Conquistadors ever could have hoped for in their time in Jesus' name. If Obama only knew how wrong he was.

YET ANOTHER thread that can't link the source material.

Guess I'll just wait for the next one. Like a bus.

You're always more than welcome to link us to something that disproves the OP

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'll cut to the chase. In a classic attempt at moral relativism, Obama made a comment that as ISIS commits atrocities in the name of Allah today, the Crusaders/Inquisition did the same in the name of Christ. Stop. Stop right there.

1) The Spanish Inquisition for example: in a 450 year time span a sum total of 2200 people died roughly 5 per year. In less than 2 hours on 9/11/01, Islamic terrorists killed 3000 people. Do the math.

2) During the Crusades, nearly 1 million people died because of Christian campaigns against muslims over 200 years. Hitler killed 6 million Jews in the name of what he believed to be Christ (and he admired Islam, more on that in a minute). So, roughly 7 million from those two things alone. That will lead one to say that Christianity has caused a great deal more death in the name of Christ than Islam ever did (and before someone starts, I am not denying that any atrocities were committed in the name of the Christ. So lets get this out of the way right now).

3) Now, the Islamic genocides of the Hindus between 1000 (Conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 AD (the end of the Delhi Sultanate) have been estimated according to Professor K.S. Lal to have caused the population of the country to decrease by 80 million over a 525 year period. The number isn't exact, and more research is needed to cement it, however; but the fact that the number is even in that statistical range should scare you. Lets put it another way, a prominent historian Will Durant observed:

The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.

Another famous and renowned Belgian historian Koenraad Elst wrote in his book Negationism In India - Concealing The Record Of Islam

The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.

As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention Prof. K.S.Lal's estimates about the population figures in medieval India (Growth of Muslim Population in India). According to his calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate). More research is needed before we can settle for a quantitatively accurate evaluation of Muslim rule in India, but at least we know for sure that the term crime against humanity is not exaggerated.

But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. What some call the Muslim period in Indian history, was in reality a continuous war of occupiers against resisters, in which the Muslim rulers were finally defeated in the 18th century. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible. Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them. Normally the zimmi status was only open to Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other religions have not. On these conditions some of the higher Hindu castes could be found willing to collaborate, so that a more or less stable polity could be set up. Even then, the collaboration of the Rajputs with the Moghul rulers, or of the Kayasthas with the Nawab dynasty, one became a smooth arrangement when enlightened rulers like Akbar (whom orthodox Muslims consider an apostate) cancelled these humiliating conditions and the jizya tax.

Negationism in India, Chapter 2, Negations in India

4) Now about Hitler. He admired Islam as a 'fighting religion.' No wonder, since people like Haj Amin al Hussaini assisted Hitler in slaughtering millions of Jews. He was noted as saying:

You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?

- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, pg. 115

5) Now we change gears to racism and slavery. I often hear about how poorly the African Americans were treated in the South before and during the Civil war, during the Jim Crow era, and the Civil Rights era. They were enslaved, hung, discriminated against and terrorized by white supremacists (who coincidentally used the name of Christ to justify their actions).

6) But this is where Islam comes in: In the Muslim slave trade (yes you heard me, slave trade), they captured and held at least 28 million Africans, but 80 percent were calculated to have died before making it to their destinations. In 1400 years, at total of 140 million (estimated) people died.

a minimum of 28 Million Africans were enslaved in the Muslim Middle East. Since, at least, 80 percent of those captured by Muslim slave traders were calculated to have died before reaching the slave market, it is believed that the death toll from 1400 years of Arab and Muslim slave raids into Africa could have been as high as 112 Millions. When added to the number of those sold in the slave markets, the total number of African victims of the trans-Saharan and East African slave trade could be significantly higher than 140 Million people.

-- John Allembillah Azumah, author of The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa: A Quest for Inter-religious Dialogue

6) The Muslim slave trades eclipsed anything that could have occurred during the Civil War era south, by quantum leaps and bounds, most notably with the Barbary Pirates between the 16th and 18th Centuries.

7) So, lets total just these two instances together, if they happen to be confirmed. We're talking 220 million people killed by members of Islam over 1400 years of history. That would equal roughly the entire US population in 1977 alone, and even exceed that of the most infamous totalitarians of the 20th Century.

So, in summation, members of Islam have more than likely committed far greater atrocities in the name of their deity (and still are) than the Crusaders or the Conquistadors ever could have hoped for in their time in Jesus' name. If Obama only knew how wrong he was.

YET ANOTHER thread that can't link the source material.

Guess I'll just wait for the next one. Like a bus.

You're always more than welcome to link us to something that disproves the OP

Yep, when all talking points fail...

 

[ScienceRocks]

Truth is if we allow these people to become a large percentage of our population = our culture and freeedoms will go bye, bye.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I literally, simply could not believe it when I heard about what Obama said at the National Prayer Breakfast. It really makes you wonder and think back to all that evidence about Obama associating with radical Muslims and/or radical anti-Americans in his early adult years (Rasheed Khalidi, Ed Said, Ali Abuminah, Bill Ayers, Bernandine Dohrn, etc., etc.)

It would be like getting up two days after 9/11 and saying "Well, America did some bad things too during World War II and Vietnam."

And, for Obama's information, nowhere in the New Testament are Christians authorized to kill non-Christians, except in self-defense. Not one verse in the New Testament even implies anything resembling jihad. But the Koran and Hadith, Islam's holy books, both give express permission to kill non-Muslims/infidels who won't convert and both endorse jihad.

 

[gipper]

I'll cut to the chase. In a classic attempt at moral relativism, Obama made a comment that as ISIS commits atrocities in the name of Allah today, the Crusaders/Inquisition did the same in the name of Christ. Stop. Stop right there.

1) The Spanish Inquisition for example: in a 450 year time span a sum total of 2200 people died roughly 5 per year. In less than 2 hours on 9/11/01, Islamic terrorists killed 3000 people. Do the math.

2) During the Crusades, nearly 1 million people died because of Christian campaigns against muslims over 200 years. Hitler killed 6 million Jews in the name of what he believed to be Christ (and he admired Islam, more on that in a minute). So, roughly 7 million from those two things alone. That will lead one to say that Christianity has caused a great deal more death in the name of Christ than Islam ever did (and before someone starts, I am not denying that any atrocities were committed in the name of the Christ. So lets get this out of the way right now).

3) Now, the Islamic genocides of the Hindus between 1000 (Conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 AD (the end of the Delhi Sultanate) have been estimated according to Professor K.S. Lal to have caused the population of the country to decrease by 80 million over a 525 year period. The number isn't exact, and more research is needed to cement it, however; but the fact that the number is even in that statistical range should scare you. Lets put it another way, a prominent historian Will Durant observed:

The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.

Another famous and renowned Belgian historian Koenraad Elst wrote in his book Negationism In India - Concealing The Record Of Islam

The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.

As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention Prof. K.S.Lal's estimates about the population figures in medieval India (Growth of Muslim Population in India). According to his calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate). More research is needed before we can settle for a quantitatively accurate evaluation of Muslim rule in India, but at least we know for sure that the term crime against humanity is not exaggerated.

But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. What some call the Muslim period in Indian history, was in reality a continuous war of occupiers against resisters, in which the Muslim rulers were finally defeated in the 18th century. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible. Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them. Normally the zimmi status was only open to Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other religions have not. On these conditions some of the higher Hindu castes could be found willing to collaborate, so that a more or less stable polity could be set up. Even then, the collaboration of the Rajputs with the Moghul rulers, or of the Kayasthas with the Nawab dynasty, one became a smooth arrangement when enlightened rulers like Akbar (whom orthodox Muslims consider an apostate) cancelled these humiliating conditions and the jizya tax.

Negationism in India, Chapter 2, Negations in India

4) Now about Hitler. He admired Islam as a 'fighting religion.' No wonder, since people like Haj Amin al Hussaini assisted Hitler in slaughtering millions of Jews. He was noted as saying:

You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?

- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, pg. 115

5) Now we change gears to racism and slavery. I often hear about how poorly the African Americans were treated in the South before and during the Civil war, during the Jim Crow era, and the Civil Rights era. They were enslaved, hung, discriminated against and terrorized by white supremacists (who coincidentally used the name of Christ to justify their actions).

6) But this is where Islam comes in: In the Muslim slave trade (yes you heard me, slave trade), they captured and held at least 28 million Africans, but 80 percent were calculated to have died before making it to their destinations. In 1400 years, at total of 140 million (estimated) people died.

a minimum of 28 Million Africans were enslaved in the Muslim Middle East. Since, at least, 80 percent of those captured by Muslim slave traders were calculated to have died before reaching the slave market, it is believed that the death toll from 1400 years of Arab and Muslim slave raids into Africa could have been as high as 112 Millions. When added to the number of those sold in the slave markets, the total number of African victims of the trans-Saharan and East African slave trade could be significantly higher than 140 Million people.

-- John Allembillah Azumah, author of The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa: A Quest for Inter-religious Dialogue

6) The Muslim slave trades eclipsed anything that could have occurred during the Civil War era south, by quantum leaps and bounds, most notably with the Barbary Pirates between the 16th and 18th Centuries.

7) So, lets total just these two instances together, if they happen to be confirmed. We're talking 220 million people killed by members of Islam over 1400 years of history. That would equal roughly the entire US population in 1977 alone, and even exceed that of the most infamous totalitarians of the 20th Century.

So, in summation, members of Islam have more than likely committed far greater atrocities in the name of their deity (and still are) than the Crusaders or the Conquistadors ever could have hoped for in their time in Jesus' name. If Obama only knew how wrong he was.

YET ANOTHER thread that can't link the source material.

Guess I'll just wait for the next one. Like a bus.

Really?

If you are unaware of Islam's murderous past, you are not uninformed.

I doubt BO is unaware, which makes him a fool and a liar. Moral relativism is embedded in radical leftists. His statements once again make some think he marches with the Fifth Column.

TIP:
All you need do to confirm the information posted without a link, is highlight the words, right click and a window comes up allowing you to use your search engine to find where it came from.

 

[irosie91]

1) The Spanish Inquisition for example: in a 450 year time span a sum total of 2200 people died, roughly 5 per year. In less than 2 hours on 9/11/01, Islamic terrorists killed 3000 people. Do the math. <<<<< what are you calling "died" from the Inquisition? -----you got that "sum total" way off It
probably refers to the number of people who underwent trial
and were sentenced to death by the Inquisition. Most people
who died as a result of the Inquisition were not "tried"----A trial
by the Inquisition required that the Christian so tried be proven
to have rejected Christianity----somehow----or defied something
considered absolutely true by the roman catholic church. I would consider the death of MONTEZUMA to be an
Inquisition death------Isabella's friend HERNAN wanted
the gold

 

[irosie91]

I literally, simply could not believe it when I heard about what Obama said at the National Prayer Breakfast. It really makes you wonder and think back to all that evidence about Obama associating with radical Muslims and/or radical anti-Americans in his early adult years (Rasheed Khalidi, Ed Said, Ali Abuminah, Bill Ayers, Bernandine Dohrn, etc., etc.)

It would be like getting up two days after 9/11 and saying "Well, America did some bad things too during World War II and Vietnam."
QUOTE]

lots of people did say that-----where were you while the mossad was bombing the towers?

 

[Ravi]

1) The Spanish Inquisition for example: in a 450 year time span a sum total of 2200 people died, roughly 5 per year. In less than 2 hours on 9/11/01, Islamic terrorists killed 3000 people. Do the math. <<<<< what are you calling "died" from the Inquisition? -----you got that "sum total" way off It
probably refers to the number of people who underwent trial
and were sentenced to death by the Inquisition. Most people
who died as a result of the Inquisition were not "tried"----A trial
by the Inquisition required that the Christian so tried be proven
to have rejected Christianity----somehow----or defied something
considered absolutely true by the roman catholic church. I would consider the death of MONTEZUMA to be an
Inquisition death------Isabella's friend HERNAN wanted
the gold

The deaths of indigenous peeps in the Americas won't count to the OP.

 

[irosie91]

1) The Spanish Inquisition for example: in a 450 year time span a sum total of 2200 people died, roughly 5 per year. In less than 2 hours on 9/11/01, Islamic terrorists killed 3000 people. Do the math. <<<<< what are you calling "died" from the Inquisition? -----you got that "sum total" way off It
probably refers to the number of people who underwent trial
and were sentenced to death by the Inquisition. Most people
who died as a result of the Inquisition were not "tried"----A trial
by the Inquisition required that the Christian so tried be proven
to have rejected Christianity----somehow----or defied something
considered absolutely true by the roman catholic church. I would consider the death of MONTEZUMA to be an
Inquisition death------Isabella's friend HERNAN wanted
the gold

The deaths of indigenous peeps in the Americas won't count to the OP.

It was all a big dose of unrefined CANON LAW----as elaborated by CONSTANTINE------that mess needed lots
of fixing and he should take his rightful place in history-----
in the trinity of the cesspit CONSTANTINE, MUHUMMAD, ADOLF
(with minor players like ----genghis khan, pol pot, stalin, al husseini, etc etc some thing like the apostles
of the cosmic cesspit)

 

[occupied]

If religion is used as an excuse for killing, one person is too many. Just because Islam may or may not have killed more it does not absolve organized Christianity from it's own murders in the name of God. Obama spoke the unpopular truth, it is written that the truth will set you free.