Post by iris89 on Aug 9, 2010 9:44:10 GMT -5
False Religions on Earth:
INTRODUCTION:
Of course there are many false religions on earth. Some are violent and some of their religious leaders instruct them to lust for violence, hate, and greed; whereas, others are very peaceful such as most Buddhist. Also, there are some who have their violent moments.
SO CALLED CHRISTIAN GROUPS VARY FROM QUITE VIOLENT TO VERY PEACEABLE:
Take the Serbian Orthodox church where most of their members either acted violently or gave moral support to violent crimes against Muslims and Corinthians during the civil war in the former Yugoslavia. In evaluating this and other atrocities by so called Christians there appears to be something all seem to be overlooking. This will now explained by way of illustration using math as an example - the problem 4 + 4 = 8 has 8 as the only correct answer, but there are billions upon billions of wrong answers that can be given, i.e., the entire number system with the exception of 8, the correct answer.
Now there are over 33,000 so called Christian religions all claiming to be correct, but of course this can NOT be so just as any answer other than 8 for the math problem above is wrong. Now let's face it, the only correct one would be the one correctly following ALL the teachings of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ and NOT just some of them. Christ clearly said at Matthew 7:12-20, "Whatsoever things, therefore, ye would, that men be doing unto you, so, be, ye also, doing, unto them,––for, this, is the law and the prophets.
13 Enter ye in at, the narrow gate; because broad and roomy is the way that leadeth unto destruction,––and, many, are they who enter thereby:
14 Because, narrow, is the gate, and, confined, the way, that leadeth unto life,––and, few, are they who find, it.
15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, who come unto you in clothing of sheep,––while, within, they are ravening wolves.
16 By their fruits, shall ye find, them, out,––unless perhaps men gather––from thorns, grapes! or, from thistles, figs!
17 So, every good tree, fine fruit, produceth,––whereas, the worthless tree, evil fruit, produceth:
18 It is, impossible, for a, good tree, to be bearing, evil fruit, neither doth, a worthless tree, produce, fine fruit.
19 Every tree that beareth not fine fruit, is hewn down, and, into fire, is cast.
20 After all then, by their fruits, shall ye find, them, out." (Rotherham Bible; RB)
The fact is this reality shows the religion of most Serbs to be just as false as that of Islam, and would therefore not be partial for one over the other.
A VIOLENT RELIGION FROM ITS INCEPTION – ISLAM:
Since its inception Islam claims to be a peaceful religion, but in practice it has been anything but peaceful. In fact, it was responsible for among other things, bringing on or being the cause of the Crusades, but trying to throw the blame for them on others. Let's look at the facts, <<<" Throughout history Islam which claims to be a religion of peace has attacked apostate (counterfeit) Christians and has attempted to steal land and people from them, and then cried fowl when they struck back. How ridicules and hypocritical that is for any group; to wit, to initiate blood guilt and then yell when the other group defends itself and strikes back.
For example, Islam yells about the wrongs of the apostate (counterfeit) Christian Crusades that started in 1095 with the First Crusade under the directions of Pope Urban II, and ended with the Ninth Crusade in 1289. Of course, the apostate (counterfeit) Christians committed many atrocities such as their wrong doing against the Jews in Jerusalem by the Franks, one of the groups making up the Crusader forces. However, in reality, Islam was responsible for all that occurred as they lit-the-fuse that caused the crusades to take place with their blood guilty war like ways as we shall see in this article with facts that can be checked by all."[source - Religion of Peace That Loves War:, by Iris the Preacher, 2006]>>>. And, <<<" When members of Islam move to Australia, Canada, England, France, Spain, US, Denmark, etc. they want religious freedom, they demand it, but do they want to grant the same basic human right of conscience to others? NO, they definitely do not. This denial is shown to be the case from ancient times. In fact, this denial was actually the 'trigger' for the Crusades that Islam so blames the so called Christians for, but fail to state that they brought the Crusades on themselves by their actions. How so? Let's look at the facts from history." [source - Islam Is Against Freedom of Conscience Yet Wants It For Themselves: by Iris the Preacher, 2006]>>>. And an encyclopedia says, <<<" <<" A turning point in western attitudes towards the east came in the year 1009, when the Fatimid caliph of Cairo, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, had the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem destroyed. His successor permitted the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it under stringent circumstances, and pilgrimage was again permitted, but many stories began to be circulated in the West about the cruelty of Muslims toward Christian pilgrims; these stories then played an important role in the development of the crusades later in the century."[source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]>>>.
Today, many in Islam decry the temporary occupation of Iraq by a coalition that wants nothing better than to leave, but does not see how it can until members of Islam stop killing each other because they belong to different flavors of Islam - until the country is stabilized. Yet, these same members of Islam, many of which have been occupying other's lands for centuries see no wrong in so doing - what a corrupt double standard. For example, they wrongly occupy much of Palestine, but the entire Palestine was given not to the descendants of Abraham's son, Ishmael, from whom the Arabs descended, but to the descendants of Abraham's son, Isaac, by none other than the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob, creator of all there is, himself, as clearly recorded in Numbers 34:1-28, "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Command the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land of Canaan; (this is the land that shall fall unto you for an inheritance, even the land of Canaan with the coasts thereof:) 3 Then your south quarter shall be from the wilderness of Zin along by the coast of Edom, and your south border shall be the outmost coast of the salt sea eastward: 4 And your border shall turn from the south to the ascent of Akrabbim, and pass on to Zin: and the going forth thereof shall be from the south to Kadeshbarnea, and shall go on to Hazaraddar, and pass on to Azmon: 5 And the border shall fetch a compass from Azmon unto the river of Egypt, and the goings out of it shall be at the sea. 6 And as for the western border, ye shall even have the great sea for a border: this shall be your west border. 7 And this shall be your north border: from the great sea ye shall point out for you mount Hor: 8 From mount Hor ye shall point out your border unto the entrance of Hamath; and the goings forth of the border shall be to Zedad: 9 And the border shall go on to Ziphron, and the goings out of it shall be at Hazarenan: this shall be your north border. 10 And ye shall point out your east border from Hazarenan to Shepham: 11 And the coast shall go down from Shepham to Riblah, on the east side of Ain; and the border shall descend, and shall reach unto the side of the sea of Chinnereth eastward: 12 And the border shall go down to Jordan, and the goings out of it shall be at the salt sea: this shall be your land with the coasts thereof round about. 13 And Moses commanded the children of Israel, saying, This is the land which ye shall inherit by lot, which the LORD commanded to give unto the nine tribes, and to the half tribe: 14 For the tribe of the children of Reuben according to the house of their fathers, and the tribe of the children of Gad according to the house of their fathers, have received their inheritance; and half the tribe of Manasseh have received their inheritance: 15 The two tribes and the half tribe have received their inheritance on this side Jordan near Jericho eastward, toward the sunrising. 16 ¶ And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 17 These are the names of the men which shall divide the land unto you: Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun. 18 And ye shall take one prince of every tribe, to divide the land by inheritance. 19 And the names of the men are these: Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh. 20 And of the tribe of the children of Simeon, Shemuel the son of Ammihud.
21 Of the tribe of Benjamin, Elidad the son of Chislon. 22 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Dan, Bukki the son of Jogli. 23 The prince of the children of Joseph, for the tribe of the children of Manasseh, Hanniel the son of Ephod. 24 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Ephraim, Kemuel the son of Shiphtan. 25 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Zebulun, Elizaphan the son of Parnach. 26 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Issachar, Paltiel the son of Azzan. 27 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Asher, Ahihud the son of Shelomi. 28 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Naphtali, Pedahel the son of Ammihud.
29 These are they whom the LORD commanded to divide the inheritance unto the children of Israel in the land of Canaan." (Authorized King James Bible; AV).
This shows extreme greed and a lust for violence on the part of many of the descendants of Abraham's son Ishmael as they already control over 98% of the middle east, but do not even want the descendants of Abraham's son Isaac to have the less than 2% that was given to them.
Now we shall deal with how Islam was violent from the beginning and really represented Arab imperialism with a religious façade.
EARLY ARAB IMPERIALISM AND LUST FOR VIOLENCE:
First an overview of Arab Imperialism:
As one writer put it, <<<" Muslims from all over the world are feared as terrorists in the Western world. Is it a propaganda or misunderstanding? It is neither. Frankly stated, it is the truth.
Islam has divided humankind into two perpetually hostile groups, i.e. the Muslims and the non-Muslims. The former have the duty to hate their own fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and countrymen if they practise a different faith. The Muslims must force the infidels to embrace Islam, using any means including murder, rape, loot, arson, deception and treason.
Until a country has embraced Islam, it is legally considered a battlefield (Dar-ul-Harb) and the Muslims are obliged to betray their own motherland through civil and military action. Once it is converted to the Muslim ideology, it ranks as a Land of Peacxe (Dar-us-Salaam) but at a very high cost to one's national pride because then it exists as a spiritual and cultural satellite of Arabia. This is what makes Islam the subtle tool of Arab Imperialism.
Islamic ideology, which is based on intense hatred of the non-Muslims, is beginning to loom as Islamophobia in the West. The recent Osostlander Report on fundamentalism by the European Parliament has recognised this peril. Though it has been suppressed by the majority vote for the time being, its spectre shall rise again and again until the Muslims start respecting the human rights of free speech and action."[source - ISLAM: The Arab Imperialism, by Anwar Shaikh]>>>.
And another historian said, <<<" In the year 620 AD, the prophet sent Khaled-ebn-valid to the Bani Hares tribe to make them become moselms, and emphasized that should they refuse to become moslems, he should make war with them. Khaled (who was famous for his massacres of the tribes of Arabia) reminded the leaders of the Bani Hares tribe to "convert to islam in order to remain alive". The leaders of Bani Hares, fearing the lives of their people, converted to islam, and went with Khaled to see mohammad. Mohammad emphasized to the representatives of the Bani Hares tribe that "if khaled had not written that you have converted to islam, I would have rolled your heads beneath your feet"
source: History of Tabbari [arab historian]
volume 4, pages 1256-1258
The slogans and "there is no obligation in religion" did not stop the prophet mohammad to summarily behead followers of other religions ("people of the book" [ie, jews]) for not converting to islam, such that in the case of the Bani Quraizeh tribe, after they surrendred following a war [with mohammad's army], it was ordered [by mohammad] that 900 of their men and youth be beheaded, and their property was taken as war booty, their women and children as slaves, and devided among the moslems. (1) Tabbari [arab historian] reminds us that "the prophet ordered that holes [mass graves] be dug in the ground, and "imam" ali and zobeir cut off their heads in mohammad's presense." [see picture below] (2)
In such wars, the moslem arabs did not even refrain from sleaping with [having sex] the married wives of the captured men, but ofcourse this was also permitted in the qoran.(3)
references:
1) Nafaes-ol Fonoon by Shamseddin Mohammad Ameli, page 312; Montakheb-ol Tavarikh by Haj Mohammad Hashem Khorasani, page 54; Parto Eslam by Ahmad Amin, volume 1 page 117; Tarikh Tabbari, by Tabbari, volume 3 pages 1088-1091
2) Tarikhk Tabbari, volume 3 page 1093
3) qoran 4:24 [source - www.geocities.com/hammihanirani/articles/islamterror.html on 5/12/2007 and hammihan.20fr.com/ on 5/12/2007 under auspices of Free Iran Press].
And in a book review by Daniel Pipes of "The Arab Imperialism" By Anwar Shaikh, Sheikh noted that according to the Qur'an", <<<" Building on an earlier study with a similar title, Shaikh portrays Islam as a political movement which has conquered peoples around the world. Born a Muslim in India in 1928 and so fervent in his early faith that he killed three non-Muslim men in the riots of 1947, Shaikh has renounced Islam and become a leading spokesman against it. Shaikh sees Islam as a form of Arab imperialism, one he finds far more enduring than the British variant: if the latter required armies to be maintained, the former does not. Instead, it has become self-perpetuating by virtue of having conquered peoples' minds.
Like many anti-Islamic polemicists, Shaikh dwells on the career of the Prophet Muhammad, searching it out for inconsistencies (his attitude toward freedom of religion before and after reaching power) and unsavoriness (the Islamic portrayal of paradise shows that, in Islam, "sexual gratification is the ultimate goal of life"). Shaikh goes beyond other critiques in finding that the Qur'an portrays Muhammad to be God's superior and even "the only God"; from this he concludes that "Islam is Muhammadanism." The purpose of this religion, he finds, is "invented Islam to glorify Arabia." And the scheme worked, bringing "imperial dignity to the Arabs," subordinating huge numbers of non-Arab converts and their offspring to "Arab cultural hegemony," and making them permanent allies for the Arab cause. In his pungent words, every non-Arab Muslim has "turned into a moth, restless to cremate itself on the flame of Arab imperialism."
Shaikh has lived in Great Britain since 1956; he sees his writings, which have prompted some twenty edicts against his life, as his way to atone for the three murders a half century ago. Unlike Salman Rushdie, he lives openly ("Everyone is aware of my address") and, when asked if he expects to die violently, replies, "I want to die honourably."[source - Daniel Pipes & Middle East Quarterly June 1999; and references, Islam The Arab Imperialism By Anwar Shaikh] >>>. And in another book review of the same boo, Ibn al Rawandi, says, <<<" Shaikh attacks head on the muslim claim that Islam is a universal religion addressed by God to the whole of mankind, constituting the final revelation delivered by the final prophet. Far from this being the case, Shaikh sees Islam as the product of the genius of Muhammad, who masterfully exploited the ancient Middle Eastern notion of prophethood in pursuit of his own and his people's "dominance urge", which sounds very like Nietzsche's Will to Power.
Shaikh begins by pointing out the inherent absurdities in the concept of prophethood. How it in effect puts belief in prophets above belief in God, since the prophet is supposedly God's messenger and mouthpiece, implying that He is incapable of communicating with humans in any other way. The muslim idea that Muhammad is the final prophet, confirming and fulfilling all previous prophets, is seen as Muhammad's masterstroke, putting the kibosh on any change or innovation.
On the basis of the text of the Quran, underwritten by the traditional biography of the Prophet, Shaikh discerns a progress in Muhammad's expression of his prophetic role. In the beginning, when he was politically weak, he claimed to be a mortal and humble servant of Allah, but when he became strong, after his supposed move from Mecca to Medina: "he began changing his tone, until he was able to claim himself to be Allah's Superior". (75) The proof of this is Q.33:56 "Lo! Allah and his angels shower praises on the Prophet (Muhammad). O ye who believe also shower praises on him and salute him with a worthy salutation". Shaikh claims that the word translated "shower praises on him", really means worship and is usually applied to God.
According to Shaikh the arrogance of Muhammad is fully expressed in the arrogance of the religion he invented toward all nonArabs, especially the Jews. The notorious episode of the Jewish tribe of the Banu Quraiza, in which Muhammad is supposed to have overseen the slaughter of 800 Jewish men, is seen by Shaikh as: "a pathetic model of ethnic cleansing. The Jews suffered this fate when they refused to become Arabs. We cannot find an example of such extreme nationalism so early in history. Yet the muslims believe that Islam does not recognize nationalism. They insist that it is a message of international brotherhood". (1034) As regards history this is not quite true of course. It was routine in the ancient world that when a city was conquered the men were killed and the women and children sold into slavery. However that may be, Shaikh is undoubtedly right to emphasize the essentially Arab nature of Islam, and how that ethnic identity was imposed on those they conquered." [source - Review of Anwar Shaikh book, "The Arab Imperialism" published by The Principality Publishers, P.O. Box 918, Cardiff CF5 2NL (UK) by Ibn al Rawandi]>>>.
The MEMRI - The Middle East Media Research Institute, Special Dispatch Series - No. 1569 said, in quoting France's Berber Leader Belkacem Lounes, said, <<<"'There Is No Worse Colonialism Than That of the Pan-Arabist Clan that Wants to Dominate Our People' [Belkacem Lounes, president of the World Amazigh Congress, wrote an open letter to Libyan leader Mu'ammar Qaddafi in response to the latter's March 1 speech in which he denied the existence of a Berber or Amazigh people in North Africa. In his letter, dated April 10, Lounes protested Qaddafi's statements, saying that the 30 million Amazigh living today in North Africa cannot be ignored. He added that the Amazigh had played a central role in the fight against European colonialism, but that since independence they had been oppressed by the "internal colonialism" of pan-Arabism, which he labels an imperialist ideology. Lounes stated that it was archaic to consider diversity a danger, and calls on the North African governments to commit to democracy and human rights.]
"What Worse Offense to Elementary Rights is There Than Denying The Existence Of a People?"
"... I waited until April to respond to your speech, since it is during this month that the Amazigh people celebrates every year... a great moment in its history, known as the 'Tafsut Imazighen' ('Amazigh Spring'). For us, this is a celebration of our memory, of our spirit of resistance to all forms of imperialism, and of our love of liberty...
"The people of whom you spoke [in your speech] are women, men, and children who speak their Amazigh language daily. They are women, men, and children who live every day their Amazigh identity, which your words injured. What worse offense to elementary rights is there than denying the existence of a people?..."
"It is Difficult to Imagine That You Are Unaware of... 30 Million Amazigh Speakers" In North Africa
"You claim that Amazigh civilization disappeared due to 'a century of drought in North Africa'... It is difficult to imagine that you are unaware of the existence of 30 million Amazigh-speakers living today in all of the countries of Tamazgha [i.e. North Africa]...
"You let it be understood that the Amazigh are supposedly an invention of colonialism! What colonialism is capable of creating a people ex nihilo, with its language and traditions that go back several thousand years? How could colonialism have done this - given that when the first foreigner arrived on North African soil, he found that the Amazigh had already been there for a long time?...
"How to explain these contradictions and the brutal return to this desire to negate a tangible history and reality? You even denied the evidence, when you assured us that the Amazigh problem did not exist in Libya. But... the Libyan Amazigh, like Amazigh elsewhere, face ostracism, exclusion, and discrimination of all kinds..."
"Thinking That Diversity Is a Danger is an Archaic and Totalitarian Idea"
"You say that 'Libya is for the Libyans' and that you will not accept anyone's saying that they have this identity or that identity.
"So be it - but then [you] must immediately suppress any reference to Arab identity in all of the country's legislative texts, as well as in the names of political, economic, and cultural institutions, starting with the Arab Libyan Republic, Libyan Arab Airlines, the Union of the Arab Maghreb, etc. Then we will be entirely [favorably] disposed to speak of a 'Libyan Libya,' with its history, languages, and cultures. But if your conception of Libya is one of an exclusively Arab country, then for us, the fight for our identity continues...
"You menace the Amazigh, warning that whosoever asserts their identity will be considered a traitor in the service of colonialism... Thinking that diversity is a danger is an archaic and totalitarian idea that is contrary to all of the principles of universal rights.
"We Are a People... Determined To Live Free"
"In addition, I see it as my obligation to repeat here what I told you [face to face]: We are a people and we are determined to live free, whatever it costs us. We are generally peaceful and hospitable. Whoever offers us his hand, we take him into our arms. But whoever tries to keep us from living in dignity, we will fight him with all legitimate means." [source - The MEMRI - The Middle East Media Research Institute, Special Dispatch Series - No. 1569]>>>.
Imperialistic from the beginning:
The start of imperialism was with the plundering of a camel caravan as described, <<<" A general mistake that leads to a fallacious view of facts is the presumption that Badr was the first battle fought against the infidels. As a matter of fact several engagements had actually preceded it. 'Urwa Ibn Zubair wrote a letter to 'Abd al-Malik, the opening sentence of which was : "'Abu Sufyan Ibn Harb was coming from Syria with seventy riders all of whom were Quraish." This was reported to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his Copmpanions. Hostitlities had laready broken out between the two partiies, and a few persons from the other party including Ibn Hadrami had been slain and some taken prisoners ..... And this had been the event that had led to war between the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the Quraish. This had also been the first occasion when losses were mutually inflicted ; and this encounter had taken place before Abu Sufyan departed for Syria."
The best way to arrive at the truth is to see what the other side had to say. Such evidence is rarely found, but fortunately, it is available in this case. Hakim Ibn Hizam (a nephew of Khadija the wife of the propeht), who was still an unbeliever had come with the Quraish army. He was five years older than the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and had been friendly to him in the pre-ministry days and continued to be so even when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had entered upon his mission. However he did not embrace Islam till the conquest of Mecca. Ibn Hakim was a Quraish dignitary, held the office of Rifada, and owned and manged Dar al-Nadwa. He lived till the days of the caliph Marwan Ibn Hakam. Once he went to see Marwan, who received him with great honour. Marwan left his royal seat, sat by his side and asked him to relate the events of Badr. Having described te preliminary datails, he said, " When the Quraish had encamped, I went to 'Utba, and said to him, 'O' father of Walid, won't you like to win a life-long fame ?' 'How is it possible ?' asked 'Utba, and I answered, 'You see, the Quraish demand from Muhammad nothing more than blood for the blood of Hadrami, and he was your ally. Why don't you pay his blood-money yourself and let all your people march back home-ward. 'Utba like this proposal, but Abu Jahl did not consent to it. Abu Jahl called 'Amir Hadrami, the brother of the deceased Hadrami, and said that he should stand out and invoke the aid of the nation, for he had his chance of vengenace close at hand. According to Arab custom, 'Amir Hadrami cast off his clothes and cried, 'Oh 'Amr Hadrami, 'Amr Hadrami, Oh 'Amir Hadrami !"
The first man who came into the battle-field was this Amir Hadrami.
Hakim Ibn Hizam and 'Amir Hadrami wee both non-believers, when Badr was fought. 'Utba and Abu Jahl, the leading chiefs died infidels. When persons of consequence, such as these, regarded the battle of Badr as a revenge for Hadrami's blood, we need not care if others, born hundreds of years after the battle, believed that it had been the outcome of an intended plunder of the caravan." [source - This is a quote from an extract of the Second Volume of English Translation of Sirat-un-Nabi originally written in Urdu by the late 'Allama Shibli Nu'mani, a well-known Muslim historian who requires no commendation.]>>>.
Next, Islam stole Syria from its owner, the Roman Empire of the East/Byzantine Empire, and here is a partial account of this wrongful action, <<<" In the face of the Muslim expansion, the Byzantine emperor Heraclius gathered a large army which met the Muslim army at the Battle of the Yarmuk in Syria on 20 August 636. It was a crushing victory which gave Syria to the Muslims... A description of the battle. Heraclius gathered large bodies of Greeks, Syrians, Mesopotamians and Armenians numbering about 200,000. This army he put under the command of one of his choice men and sent as a vanguard Jabalah ibn-al-Aiham al-Ghassani at the bead of the "naturalized" Arabs [musta'ribah] of Syria of the tribes of Lakhm, Judham and others, resolving to fight the Moslems so that be might either win or withdraw to the land of the Greeks and live in Constantinople. The Muslims gathered together and the Greek army marched against them. The battle they fought at al-Yarmuk ,was of the fiercest and bloodiest kind. Al-Yarmuk [Hieromax] is a river. In this battle 24,000 Moslems took part. The Greeks and their followers in this battle tied themselves to each other by chains, so that no one might set his hope on flight. By Allah's help, some 70,000 of them were put to death, and their remnants took to flight, reaching as far as Palestine, Antioch, Aleppo, Mesopotamia and Armenia. In the battle of al-Yarmuk certain Moslem women took part and fought violently. Among them was Hind, daughter of 'Utbah and mother of Mu'awivah ibn-abi-Sufyan, who repeatedly exclaimed, "Cut the arms of these 'uncircumcised' , with your swords!" Her husband abu-Sufvan had come to Syria as a volunteer desiring to see his sons, and so he brought his wife with him. He then returned to al-Madinah where he died, year 31, at the age of 88. Others say he died in Syria. When the news of his death was carried to his daughter, umm-Habibah, she waited until the third day on which she ordered some yellow paint and covered with it her arms and face saving, "I would not have done that, had I not heard the Prophet say, 'A woman should not be in mourning for more than three days over anyone except her husband."' It is stated that she did likewise when she received the news of her brother Yazid's death. But Allah knows best." [source - Medieval Sourcebook: Al-Baladhuri: The Battle Of The Yarmuk (636) and After by Paul Halsall Jan 1996]>>>. As we can see, right from the beginning, Islam was greedy for the lands of others and sought to occupy them.
In fact, <<<" Futuh is an Arabic word with the literal meaning of "openings". When appearing in classical Islamic literature it signifies the early Arab-Muslim conquests which facilitated the spread of Islam and Islamic civilization.
As is clear from the literal meaning of the word, futuh is a term with a strong ideological bias in favor of the conquests it signifies, implying their general beneficence and legitimacy. Here is Lewis on the ideology of futuh within classic Islamic thought:
These were not seen as conquests in the vulgar sense of territorial acquisitions, but as the overthrow of impious regimes and illegitimate hierarchies, and the "opening" of their peoples to the new revelation and dispensation... The use of the root fth is thus not unlike the twentieth century use of the verb "liberate", and is indeed sometimes replaced by the latter verb (harrara) in modern Arabic writing on early Islamic history. The Arabic verb ghalaba, "conquer", with its connotation of overwhelming by means of superior force, is sometimes used in early accounts of the Muslim conquests, but only in the context of actual military operations...
Underlying this usage, clearly, is a concept of the essential rightfulness or legitimacy of the Muslim advance and the subsequent illegitimacy of Muslim retreat before infidel conquest... The advance of Muslim power is thus an opening or a liberation, to give free scope to this divinely implanted propensity.
The Political Language of Islam, pp. 93-94
Many histories from the classical period of Islamic civilization dealing with the early conquests have futuh in their title and are considered to form their own genre of literature, called futuh reports. Like many other histories from the early period, the futuh reports contain a mixture of genres and material, with some clearly of an administrative, religio-legal, philosophical, or edificatory nature. For example, a common feature of the genre is an account of the opposing ambassador's first impression of the Arab army in which he remarks favorably upon the primitive virtues of these early Muslim warriors, thus implicitly criticizing the luxury and over-refinement of the author's own time.
The following is a partial list of these histories:
* Futuh Misr (Conquests of Egypt) by Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam
* Futuh al-Sham (Conquests of Syria) by al-Azdi
* Futuh al-Iraq (Conquests of Iraq) by al-Waqidi
* Futuh al-Habasa (Conquests of Abyssinia) by Sihab ad-Din Admad ibn Abd-al-Qadir
* Futuh al-Buldan (Conquests of the Lands) by Abu Al-Abbas Ahmad Bin Jab Al-Baladhuri
The impact of the futuh conquests was immense, not least of all on the conquerors themselves, who incorporated many features of the advanced cultures they absorbed into what eventually became classic Islamic civilization.
Among the conquered peoples, the futuh invasions resulted in two related, though not identical, social upheavals: Islamization and Arabization. The former occurred as Islam became a society's regnant religio-political framework. The latter occurred as Arab customs and the Arab language became widely adopted by a population. Though the two developments often occurred in tandem, the expression of one did not necessarily mean the expression of the other. Many Middle Eastern Christians, for example were Arabized but never Islamicized, while the Persians were Islamicized but did not Arabize.
Of the two upheavals, Islamization had the greater impact on social and cultural identity. In all cases Islamization led to a people's near total rejection of their pagan, pre-Islamic past, such that their ancestral achievements and heritage were either forgotten or actively denigrated. When in the 19th Century European Orientalists began recovering this past, their findings were at first ignored by the Muslim residents of the Near East:
The discovery... of the ancient past was a non-Middle Eastern enterprise and achievement, and for a long time it had no impact on the peoples of the Islamic Middle East, who remained uninterested in their own pagan past. For them, significant history began with the advent of Islam. That was their own, their true history, the history that mattered. What came before was an age of ignorance, of no value with no lesson to teach.
The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, p. 68
Though this alienation may be partially explained by the Arab cultural imperialism implicit in Islamization (as exemplified in the adoption of the Arabic script, for example), there is a more direct theological rationale for this, which is the Islamic concept of jahiliyyah, or state of ignorance and barbarity which supposedly prevailed in pre-Islamic Arabia. Readily applied by the first Islamicized peoples to their own pagan pasts, it led them to view these epochs as times of rampant impiety, ignorance, and injustice from which little of value could be gleaned.
Thus one trope of converted Muslims' perception of their own history is the depiction of the pre-Islamic political order as one of rampant exploitation and tyranny, with rulers ordering society according to malign whim rather than in humble subordinance to God's beneficent law for mankind:
Until the findings of Egyptology became known to them, all that most Egyptians knew about Pharaoh was what they learned from the Qur'an, and the image of Pharaoh in the Qur'an is much the same as in the Old Testament. For Muslims as for Christians and Jews, Pharaoh was the archetypal pagan tyrant and oppressor in which the heroes are the Banuh Isra'il, the children of Israel.
The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, p. 77
And in Islamic Persia, "Chosroes" became as strong a by-word for tyrannical pagan kingship as "Pharaoh" (though ironically the pagan destroyer of the Achaemenid Empire, Alexander the Great, was lionized thanks to an accident of Qur'anic textual sources).
Such hostile depictions of the pre-Islamic political order are a necessary complement to the ideology of futuh: in order for the Muslim conquests to be seen as liberatory, the social orders which they replaced had to be depicted as negatively as possible.
With the rejection of the pre-Islamic political order came the rejection of its cultural legacy as well, often expressed by the iconoclastic destruction of its monumental remains as in the recent demolition of the Buddhas of Bamyan. In Egypt, for example, the missing nose of the Great Sphinx of Giza was broken off by a fanatic Sufi when he saw the local farmers making offerings to the Sphinx.
And in Iran:
...the ancient past had been forgotten and to a greater extent obliterated. In Persepolis, the ancient Persian capital, the Muslim conquerors had hacked away the faces of the Medes and Persians depicted in the friezes, seeing in them an expression of pagan idolatry. Only the most recent pre-Islamic history... was known at all, and that in a sketchy form, and from Arabic sources. The more ancient history of Iran was forgotten, and even the name of Cyrus, the founder of the Persian state, was unknown.
[The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, p. 71]
The popular dissemination of Orientalist discoveries lead to a revision of these attitudes, however, and at least a partial reassertion of pre-Islamic identities. In Egypt, the works of native scholars such as Rifa'a Rafi' al-Tahtawi led to renewed interest in the Pharaonic past and helped give rise to Egyptian national identity movements such as Pharaonism. Though initially derided by other Arabs as tafar'un (meaning lapsing into pharaonism), the Egyptian movements were in time emulated elsewhere:
This movement in Egypt was first opposed, condemned, even derided in other Arabic speaking countries. It was seen as something artificial, as a parochial attempt to create a little Egypt within the greater Arab or Islamic brotherhood. It was denounced by pan-Arabists as separatist, by religious people as neo-pagan, and by both as divisive. Nevertheless the example of Egypt had an impact
in other Middle Eastern lands.
[The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, pp. 69-70]
The acceptance of classical Islam's interpretation of the futuh conquests by the Islamicized/Arabized peoples of the Near East and beyond varies.
It has been least contentious among the Arab countries of Asia, where identity with the original Arab conquerors is strongest. In modern Arab historiography there has been a trend (in part due to the influence of Western-style nationalism), to portray the earliest conquests as liberations of Arabs (or proto-Arabs) from Sassanid/Byzantine imperial domination:
Most Arabs today are Arabized descendants of the inhabitants of pre-conquest Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, but any suggestion that Islamic culture is an Arabized development of what prevailed in those pre-conquest lands deeply offends them.
Lapidus, [The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Islamic World (ISBN 0-521-66993-6), p. 24]
In North Africa, a reassertion of ethnic and linguistic identity among Berbers called Berberism has recently developed.
Despite a rich pre-Islamic political and cultural heritage, attempts at a reassertion of national identity in Iran have often met with strong resistance:
In 1971, when the Shah of Iran held a great celebration in Persepolis to commemorate the 2,500th anniversary of the foundation of the Persian monarchy by Cyrus the Great, he was vehemently attacked on Islamic religious grounds. Exalting the monarchy was bad enough, but far worse was the proclamation of a common identity with the Zoroastrian past, and a consequent redefinition of the basis of allegiance. For the shah's religious critics, the identity of the Iranians was defined by Islam, and their brothers were Muslims in other countries, not their own unbelieving and misguided ancestors.
[The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, p. 75]
With the overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, traditional notions of identity returned to Iran, as can be seen by the unabashed embrace of the classic futuh interpretation of Persian history in the propaganda of the Iran-Iraq War:
The Iraqis, on their side, call the Iranians Furs, a somewhat derogatory term in medieval times, with a suggestion that the Persians were the heirs of the Zoroastrians defeated at the battle of Qadisiyya in A.D. 637. This battle, which shattered the military power of the Iranian emperors and led to the incorporation of all their lands and peoples in the Muslim Arab Empire, is claimed with pride by both sides. For the Iraqis, it was a victory of Arabs over Persians... For the soldiers of the Islamic Republic, it was victory of Muslims over heathens, and a blessed beginning of the Islamization of the peoples of Iran.
[The Political Language of Islam, p. 121]
Acceptance in Pakistan of futuh "salvation history" can be seen in current expressions of alienation from both the political as well as cultural legacies of its pre-Islamic past:
In September 1979, on Defense of Pakistan Day, there was a long article in the Pakistan Times on Bin Qasim as a strategist. The assessment was military, neutral, fair to the soldiers of both sides. It drew a rebuke from the chairman of the National Commission on Historical and Cultural Research.
"Employment of appropriate phraseology is necessary when one is projecting the image of a hero. Expressions such as 'invader' and 'defenders' and 'the Indian Army' fighting bravely but not being quick enough to 'fall upon the withdrawing enemy' loom large in the article. 'Had Raja Dahar defended the Indus heroically and stopped Qasim from crossing it, the history of the subcontinent might have been quite different.' One fails to understand whether the writer is applauding the victory of the hero or lamenting the defeat of his rival?"
[Among the Believers, p. 141]
The excavated city of Mohenjo-Daro... is one of the archaeological glories of Pakistan and the world. The excavations are now being damaged by waterlogging and salinity, and appeals for money have been made to world organizations. A feature letter in the Dawn offered its own ideas for the site. Verses from the Koran, the writer said, should be engraved and set up in Mohenjo-Daro in "appropriate places": "Say (unto them, O Mohammed): Travel in the land and see the nature of the sequel for the guilty ... Say (O Mohammed, to the disbelievers): Travel in the land and see the nature of the consequence for those who were before you. Most of them were idolators."
[Among the Believers, pp. 141-142]
An interesting cultural adaptation found mainly here, though, is the widespread claim of descent from the Arab (or Moghul) conquerors:
"Islam doesn't show on my face. We have nearly all, subcontinental Muslims, invented Arab ancestors for ourselves. Most of us are sayeds, descendants of Mohammed through his daughter Fatima and cousin and son-in-law Ali... Everybody has got an ancestor who came from Arabia or Central Asia."
[Beyond Belief, p. 307]
The last Nawab of Bahawalpur was fanatical about the ancestry he claimed. In Bahawalpur and Pakistan and the subcontinent he was an Arab of the Abassids and a conqueror, a man drawing his wealth from the country, but not part of it. He wore the fez to make the point.
[Beyond Belief, p. 331] " [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia as of 5/12/2007]>>>.
As can be seen, Islamic Imperialism worked as follows, wrongfully capture a people and subgate them, then brain wash them, just like a cancer conquers the human body. Also, they continue to occupy and do not want to give back what rightly belongs to others, but seek to keep the occupied brain washed.
In fact, they tried this wicked approach on Spain, but the subjeducated people fought back and eventually recovered their land and nation. Let's look into this briefly, <<<"Many like to place the blame on others for what results from their own willful acts. With Islam this has been the case from at least 711 AD forward. In 711 AD they attacked Spain and through the years overran most of the country, but when they got kicked out finally about seven hundred years after they started their illegal occupation they screamed about all the wonderful things they did for those they subjected; what utter nonsense." [source - The Sponsors of Unprovoked Attacks and Criminal Acts Responsible For All That Occurs: by Iris the Preacher, 2006]>>>.
So as we can see, Islam from its very beginnings was out to greedily take that which belonged to others, to subjugate the enslaved, and to brain wash them. This evil actions succeeded in most cases except for Spain, and the occupation of the subjugated nations continues until the present.
THE SOLUTION TO ELIMINATING VIOLENCE BY SOME IN ISLAM:
The fact is that over 90% of the violence on earth could be eliminated by dissolving this one religion that is given to much violence such as car bombs, suicide bombs, 9/11/2001 destruction of the World Trade Center, the placing of IED to kill people, etc. and should be dissolved in the interest of world peace may seem unthinkable as all should be granted the basic human right of freedom of conscience - freedom of religion. However, all freedoms must be constrained when they are used to injure and hurt others; to wit, one's freedom should end when it is used to injure, murder, and hurt others.
Many do not realize that good people can be in evil false religions, but this is indeed the case.
Many people have difficulty seeing the difference between people, good or bad, and the religion they are in, and feel when someone mentions the evil bad of a false religion they are also talking about the mislead individuals that belong to it.
These selfsame people fail to realize that most of mankind is being mislead by the religious leaders of evil false religions and/or egotistical men who believe what they say takes precedence over the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible. In addition, it is not what either the Bible or the Bible knockoff the Qur'an or other so called holy book actually say, but how religious leaders be they priest and/or imams or muftis or what ever teach the people is the interpretation of what is written either in the Bible or the bible knockoff the Qur'an that matters and governs actions. It matters not what the Bible and/or the Bible knockoff really say. People go by what they are taught by their religious leaders. Take the genocide committed by the Roman Catholic Church at the direction of their supreme religious leader, the pope, what mattered was not that the Bible clearly said at Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill." (Authorized King James Bible; AV), but what their religious leaders told them. Therefore, it is the religion at fault, irregardless of what their particular holy book, be it the Bible or the Bible knockoff the Qur'an may say. Neither in so called Christianity or in Islam are most individuals actions really governed in any way by what their particular holy book really says, but they are governed by the interpretation of their religious leaders. Thus, knowing this reality, one would be either just plain stupid and/or dumb to even bother looking at a particular religion's holy book and expect the members would conform to it. Take the Rig Vede and find me for example a Hindu actually conforming to it instead of the interpretation given to it by his religious leaders, like looking for a needle in the haystack per K.S. Lal, India's greatest historian.
The truth is most religious leaders either take things out of context and/or twist what their particular 'holy book' says to further their personal agendas or the agendas of the particular evil false religion they represent, what ever that may be. In reality, little thought or concern is ever given to what a particular 'holy book' actually says. Nowhere is this more true than with religious leaders who claim to be using the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible, as their guide. This practice is particularly dishonoring of the Creator of all there is, Almighty God (YHWH), because it brings dishonor on his Inspired Word, the Bible, by many who see those proclaiming to follow the Bible are NOT really doing so. This hypocrisy gives many the wrong impression of the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible, and unjustly brings reproach on it. This is very unfortunate and fits right in with the god of this system of things, Satan the Devil, with regard his continuing attempt to mislead all of mankind if possible.
When a religion let's its religious leaders get totally out of bounds and endanger world peace, it is time to dissolve it. Now of course this is NOT to be taken as saying and/or implying that all the religious leaders in a particular religion are bad people. However, if the good religious leaders in a religion can NOT control the bad actions of other religious leaders within the group or do NOT desire to do so, and the unchecked actions of the bad ones endanger world peace, it is time to dissolve the religion.
Let's look at an actual example where the good religious leaders of a religion are NOT reining in the bad, i.e., NOT cleaning out the bad ones either by excommunication and/or other means where dissolution may be the best solution, and where religious freedom can be maintained by giving members of this religion the opportunity to choose any of the other 33,000 plus religions.
PRESENT DAY BLOOD SPILLING BY ISLAM:
At present members of Islam are still in their SOP - spilling blood of innocent people all over the world, and especially so in Iraq, Pakistan, Thailand, the United States, India, etc. We shall look at a few salient cases of this modern day blood spilling by Islam:
[1] Let's look at how Islam is using its usual SOP in three provinces of Thailand today, 2006. An article in the New York Times clearly shows that Islam has remained violent until today, <<<"In Thailand, a New Model for Militants? ...
October 1, 2006
HAT YAI, Thailand - The bomb that exploded outside New Cherry Ancient Massage was among the most sinister kinds - a lethal sucker punch timed to detonate moments after two other blasts had lured onlookers into the streets of this tourist town.
The homemade device, hidden in a motorcycle parked outside the busy parlor, killed five people, including a Canadian teacher and three masseuses. All 30 surviving massage workers quit on the spot. Within days, the parents of the three dead women came to take their daughters' bodies home.
"One father asked, 'Why my child? She was a good girl,' " said New Cherry owner Boonchai Sangmankung. "And I couldn't answer him. I don't know myself. Why do the attacks continue? Why are more innocent people killed every day?"
Since 2004, militants in Thailand's predominantly Muslim south have waged a bloody separatist insurgency against the cultural elite of this largely Buddhist nation, targeting teachers, monks, community leaders and government officials. So far, 1,700 people have been killed, yet the campaign of almost-daily bombings, arson attacks, kidnappings and assassinations has gone largely unnoticed in a Western world fixated on higher-profile Islamic terrorism campaigns in Iraq and elsewhere.
"The violence in southern Thailand is quite significant compared to many other world conflicts today," said Panitan Wattanayagorn, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok. "The U.S. lost 3,000 soldiers in three years in Iraq. This death toll is not far behind." ...
Many Muslim residents still chafe over what they consider a century of abusive rule. But experts differ over the roots of the insurgency. Some say it's a battle over religious freedom, others say it's a fight for territory and self-rule. Still others say it's both...
In the first six months of 2006, two people died every day, on average: A Buddhist teacher was gunned down in front of his fourth-grade class by men dressed as students. A salesman was beheaded outside a crowded teashop. The owner of an elephant troupe was shot seven times by assailants who had lined up with children to buy tickets for a show.
In August, 22 small bombs exploded nearly simultaneously in banks throughout southern Yala province, killing one person and bringing commerce to a standstill. Two months earlier, 50 bombs went off in a single day at government offices and police stations.
Last year, 15 militants stormed a Buddhist temple and hacked two monks to death before setting fire to their bodies. Thai officials believe that 30,000 Buddhists have fled the south since the attack. Insurgents also have targeted fellow Muslims suspected of conspiring with a military known for its brutality in dealing with the Islamic militants...[source - By John M. Glionna, Times Staff Writer on 10/01/2006]>>>.
[2] In the United States and elsewhere, an Australian newspaper did a summary of the violence and were quite conservative in their findings as the percentage should probably be higher than they gave in their summary. <<<" The Newspaper article is but a summary of evidence from around the world some of which was presented immediately below it, all from reliable world news sources. I presented a newspaper with a summary of it as it would take a many volume book to present it all. Apparently you fail to read the news daily with regard to how many murders are being committed daily in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, etc. by members of Islam. Also, you show you fail to listen to Al Jazzera and BBC to hear the proof of what the newspaper summarized - do you dig it? The world would be a much more tranquil and peaceful place without Islam, and even more so without apostate (counterfeit) so called Christianity. Let's look once more at what I posted in the past:
The Weekend Australian (newspaper) had this to say on the matter,
<<"Did you know that 90-95% of the conflicts in the world today are Muslims fighting non-muslims or each other?
Islam is intolerant of other religions, so much so that Christians in Nigeria, Sudan and middle eastern countries are killed for practicing their religion. Muslims are also responsible for burning down their churches. Sydney has recently seen an attack on four churches for similar reasons. (December 16, 2005) How can we tolerate such intolerance?">>.[7]
Says it all, so clearly Islam should be redefined as something other than a religion. So it is very necessary that this greed and hate be addressed. Remember, Matthew 5:9, "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." (AV).
Let's consider the facts as continually revealed in the world news that shows if any thing that the newspaper editor may have been a little low when he said 95 percent of the violence in the world was caused by Muslims. Here are some instances of terrorism by members of Islam:[7]
(1) World Trade Center - 9/11 - unprovoked attack and mass murder by Muslims.[8]
(2) London Subway Bombing by Muslims [9]
(3) Continued mosque bombings in Iraq by Muslims.[10]
(4) Suicide bombings in Israel by Muslims.[11]
(5) Suicide bombing of a wedding reception in Jordan by Muslims.[12]
(6) Daily roadside bombings in Iraq by Muslims.[13]
(7) Train bombings in Spain my Muslims.[14]
(8) Riots and car burnings and murders in France by Muslims.[15]
(9) Suicide bombings in Iraq by Muslims.[16]
(10) Car and truck bombings in Iraq by Muslims.[17]
(11) Unprovoked murder of 8 Israelis and the kidnapping of 2 by Muslims to provoke turmoil and violence in Lebanon and Israel by Muslims.[18]
(12) Unprovoked murder of 2 Israelis and the kidnapping of 1 by Muslims to provoke turmoil and violence in Gaza by Muslims.[19]
(13) Bombing of restaurants and cafes in Bali, Indonesia by Muslims.[20]
(14) Bombing of a trains in India by Muslims.[21]
(15) Take over o***rammar school in Russia resulting in the deaths of many students by Muslims.[22]
(16) Attempted shoebombing of a plain by a Muslim.[23]
(17) Conspiracy to bomb about 10 planes going from UK by Muslims.[24]
(18) Attempted murder of several Indian politicians in Kashmir by Muslims.[25]
(19) Many violent acts by Muslims in Afghanistan.[26]
(20) Murder o***irl by Shiite Muslims in Iran.[27]
(21) Conspiracy to bomb trains in Germany - as previously posted for you.[28]
(22) And the list could go on and on, get it?
References:
[7] The Weekend Australian, November 26-27, 2005 AD
[8] World Trade Center bombing, by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[9] Explosions Hit Three Tube Stations, One Bus, Thursday, July 21, 2005, Fox News
[10] By Ellen Knickmeyer and K.I. Ibrahim, Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, February 23, 2006; Page A01
[11] Suicide attack, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[12] Zarqawi Calls for Jordan King's Head, Friday, November 18, 2005
[13] The Daily Star, 03/21/2006, Vol. 5 #644
[14] CBS News, WASHINGTON, March 12, 2004
[15] Free Republic, News/Activism 05/30/2006 5:46:30 PM PDT, and, The Telegraph, By Colin Randall in Paris (Filed: 31/05/2006)
[16] Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[17] CNN, Thursday, March 18, 2004 Posted: 4:59 PM EST (2159 GMT)
[18] Telegraph (UK), Israeli crisis is a smoke screen for Iran's nuclear ambitions, By Con Coughlin(Filed: 14/07/2006)
[19] Associated Press
[20] aljazeera.net, Bali a soft target, experts say, By Marianne Kearney in Jakarta, Indonesia, Monday 03 October 2005, 20:20 Makka Time, 17:20 GMT
[21] MSNBC, Associated Press, Updated: 6:26 p.m. ET July 12, 2006
[22] Beslan school hostage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[23] CNN, CNN NEWSNIGHT AARON BROWN, Debate Over Guantanamo Detainees Continues, Aired January 21, 2002 - 22:00 ET
[24] TIME, The Daily Dish, by Andrew Sullivan, The Alleged UK Terror Plot, 16 Aug 2006 09:58 am
[25] The New Yorker, BETWEEN THE MOUNTAINS - India and Pakistan are caught in a dangerous struggle over Kashmir. But what do its people want? by Isabel Hilton , Issue of 2002-03-11
[26] USA Today, USA's Muslims under a cloud, Updated 8/10/2006 9:13 AM ET
[27] NITV Satellite TV station located in Los Angeles, on Masjed Soleymaani Hastam, and [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great, and (in German) Iran/forum/viewtopic.php of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia' and sosiran97.home.comcast.net/MasjedSoleymaaniHastam.mp3, and
[28] AOL NEWS, War on Terror, and Netscape.com, Third Lebanese Arrested in German Train Terror Plot , (via dailystar.com.lb)
[source - Large Religions are False Religions - Their Fruitage, which can be read in its entirety and which covers also the wrongs of apostate (counterfeit) Christians at,
religioustruths.proboards59.com/ind...read=1163175928 ] >>>.
It is obvious that you do not know the difference between a summary of proof and the individual proofs that support it, some of salient examples of proof which, as previously mentioned appeared immediately below it in my post.
[3] Violence by members of Islam never let's up as a very recent world news item shows, <<<" by Ramzi Haidar 1 hour, 40 minutes ago [05/21/2007]
NAHR AL-BARED, Lebanon (AFP) - The Lebanese government offered late Monday a truce in its confrontation with Islamists in north Lebanon that cost 58 lives, as a bomb exploded in Beirut for the second straight night.
"The Lebanese army is ready to stop firing if the other side does the same. It will not open fire if it is not attacked," a government source in Beirut said, on condition of anonymity. The offer followed indirect negotiations between the army and the splinter group Fatah al-Islam through the mediation of Jamaa Islamiya, a Sunni organisation, participants in the contacts told AFP. The fighting had eased off by late Monday, but three soldiers were killed in an attack on an army post outside the Nahr al-Bared camp, raising the overall toll to 58 dead. Hospital and security sources gave a breakdown of the deaths: 30 soldiers, 17 Islamist fighters, 10 Palestinian civilians and a Lebanese civilian.
Lebanese troops bombarded the Islamist militiamen, accused of links to Al-Qaeda and Syrian intelligence, with tanks and heavy artillery earlier on Monday, the second day of the bloodiest internal fighting since the 1975-1990 civil war.
see Part 2
INTRODUCTION:
Of course there are many false religions on earth. Some are violent and some of their religious leaders instruct them to lust for violence, hate, and greed; whereas, others are very peaceful such as most Buddhist. Also, there are some who have their violent moments.
SO CALLED CHRISTIAN GROUPS VARY FROM QUITE VIOLENT TO VERY PEACEABLE:
Take the Serbian Orthodox church where most of their members either acted violently or gave moral support to violent crimes against Muslims and Corinthians during the civil war in the former Yugoslavia. In evaluating this and other atrocities by so called Christians there appears to be something all seem to be overlooking. This will now explained by way of illustration using math as an example - the problem 4 + 4 = 8 has 8 as the only correct answer, but there are billions upon billions of wrong answers that can be given, i.e., the entire number system with the exception of 8, the correct answer.
Now there are over 33,000 so called Christian religions all claiming to be correct, but of course this can NOT be so just as any answer other than 8 for the math problem above is wrong. Now let's face it, the only correct one would be the one correctly following ALL the teachings of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ and NOT just some of them. Christ clearly said at Matthew 7:12-20, "Whatsoever things, therefore, ye would, that men be doing unto you, so, be, ye also, doing, unto them,––for, this, is the law and the prophets.
13 Enter ye in at, the narrow gate; because broad and roomy is the way that leadeth unto destruction,––and, many, are they who enter thereby:
14 Because, narrow, is the gate, and, confined, the way, that leadeth unto life,––and, few, are they who find, it.
15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, who come unto you in clothing of sheep,––while, within, they are ravening wolves.
16 By their fruits, shall ye find, them, out,––unless perhaps men gather––from thorns, grapes! or, from thistles, figs!
17 So, every good tree, fine fruit, produceth,––whereas, the worthless tree, evil fruit, produceth:
18 It is, impossible, for a, good tree, to be bearing, evil fruit, neither doth, a worthless tree, produce, fine fruit.
19 Every tree that beareth not fine fruit, is hewn down, and, into fire, is cast.
20 After all then, by their fruits, shall ye find, them, out." (Rotherham Bible; RB)
The fact is this reality shows the religion of most Serbs to be just as false as that of Islam, and would therefore not be partial for one over the other.
A VIOLENT RELIGION FROM ITS INCEPTION – ISLAM:
Since its inception Islam claims to be a peaceful religion, but in practice it has been anything but peaceful. In fact, it was responsible for among other things, bringing on or being the cause of the Crusades, but trying to throw the blame for them on others. Let's look at the facts, <<<" Throughout history Islam which claims to be a religion of peace has attacked apostate (counterfeit) Christians and has attempted to steal land and people from them, and then cried fowl when they struck back. How ridicules and hypocritical that is for any group; to wit, to initiate blood guilt and then yell when the other group defends itself and strikes back.
For example, Islam yells about the wrongs of the apostate (counterfeit) Christian Crusades that started in 1095 with the First Crusade under the directions of Pope Urban II, and ended with the Ninth Crusade in 1289. Of course, the apostate (counterfeit) Christians committed many atrocities such as their wrong doing against the Jews in Jerusalem by the Franks, one of the groups making up the Crusader forces. However, in reality, Islam was responsible for all that occurred as they lit-the-fuse that caused the crusades to take place with their blood guilty war like ways as we shall see in this article with facts that can be checked by all."[source - Religion of Peace That Loves War:, by Iris the Preacher, 2006]>>>. And, <<<" When members of Islam move to Australia, Canada, England, France, Spain, US, Denmark, etc. they want religious freedom, they demand it, but do they want to grant the same basic human right of conscience to others? NO, they definitely do not. This denial is shown to be the case from ancient times. In fact, this denial was actually the 'trigger' for the Crusades that Islam so blames the so called Christians for, but fail to state that they brought the Crusades on themselves by their actions. How so? Let's look at the facts from history." [source - Islam Is Against Freedom of Conscience Yet Wants It For Themselves: by Iris the Preacher, 2006]>>>. And an encyclopedia says, <<<" <<" A turning point in western attitudes towards the east came in the year 1009, when the Fatimid caliph of Cairo, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, had the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem destroyed. His successor permitted the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it under stringent circumstances, and pilgrimage was again permitted, but many stories began to be circulated in the West about the cruelty of Muslims toward Christian pilgrims; these stories then played an important role in the development of the crusades later in the century."[source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]>>>.
Today, many in Islam decry the temporary occupation of Iraq by a coalition that wants nothing better than to leave, but does not see how it can until members of Islam stop killing each other because they belong to different flavors of Islam - until the country is stabilized. Yet, these same members of Islam, many of which have been occupying other's lands for centuries see no wrong in so doing - what a corrupt double standard. For example, they wrongly occupy much of Palestine, but the entire Palestine was given not to the descendants of Abraham's son, Ishmael, from whom the Arabs descended, but to the descendants of Abraham's son, Isaac, by none other than the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob, creator of all there is, himself, as clearly recorded in Numbers 34:1-28, "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Command the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land of Canaan; (this is the land that shall fall unto you for an inheritance, even the land of Canaan with the coasts thereof:) 3 Then your south quarter shall be from the wilderness of Zin along by the coast of Edom, and your south border shall be the outmost coast of the salt sea eastward: 4 And your border shall turn from the south to the ascent of Akrabbim, and pass on to Zin: and the going forth thereof shall be from the south to Kadeshbarnea, and shall go on to Hazaraddar, and pass on to Azmon: 5 And the border shall fetch a compass from Azmon unto the river of Egypt, and the goings out of it shall be at the sea. 6 And as for the western border, ye shall even have the great sea for a border: this shall be your west border. 7 And this shall be your north border: from the great sea ye shall point out for you mount Hor: 8 From mount Hor ye shall point out your border unto the entrance of Hamath; and the goings forth of the border shall be to Zedad: 9 And the border shall go on to Ziphron, and the goings out of it shall be at Hazarenan: this shall be your north border. 10 And ye shall point out your east border from Hazarenan to Shepham: 11 And the coast shall go down from Shepham to Riblah, on the east side of Ain; and the border shall descend, and shall reach unto the side of the sea of Chinnereth eastward: 12 And the border shall go down to Jordan, and the goings out of it shall be at the salt sea: this shall be your land with the coasts thereof round about. 13 And Moses commanded the children of Israel, saying, This is the land which ye shall inherit by lot, which the LORD commanded to give unto the nine tribes, and to the half tribe: 14 For the tribe of the children of Reuben according to the house of their fathers, and the tribe of the children of Gad according to the house of their fathers, have received their inheritance; and half the tribe of Manasseh have received their inheritance: 15 The two tribes and the half tribe have received their inheritance on this side Jordan near Jericho eastward, toward the sunrising. 16 ¶ And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 17 These are the names of the men which shall divide the land unto you: Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun. 18 And ye shall take one prince of every tribe, to divide the land by inheritance. 19 And the names of the men are these: Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh. 20 And of the tribe of the children of Simeon, Shemuel the son of Ammihud.
21 Of the tribe of Benjamin, Elidad the son of Chislon. 22 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Dan, Bukki the son of Jogli. 23 The prince of the children of Joseph, for the tribe of the children of Manasseh, Hanniel the son of Ephod. 24 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Ephraim, Kemuel the son of Shiphtan. 25 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Zebulun, Elizaphan the son of Parnach. 26 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Issachar, Paltiel the son of Azzan. 27 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Asher, Ahihud the son of Shelomi. 28 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Naphtali, Pedahel the son of Ammihud.
29 These are they whom the LORD commanded to divide the inheritance unto the children of Israel in the land of Canaan." (Authorized King James Bible; AV).
This shows extreme greed and a lust for violence on the part of many of the descendants of Abraham's son Ishmael as they already control over 98% of the middle east, but do not even want the descendants of Abraham's son Isaac to have the less than 2% that was given to them.
Now we shall deal with how Islam was violent from the beginning and really represented Arab imperialism with a religious façade.
EARLY ARAB IMPERIALISM AND LUST FOR VIOLENCE:
First an overview of Arab Imperialism:
As one writer put it, <<<" Muslims from all over the world are feared as terrorists in the Western world. Is it a propaganda or misunderstanding? It is neither. Frankly stated, it is the truth.
Islam has divided humankind into two perpetually hostile groups, i.e. the Muslims and the non-Muslims. The former have the duty to hate their own fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and countrymen if they practise a different faith. The Muslims must force the infidels to embrace Islam, using any means including murder, rape, loot, arson, deception and treason.
Until a country has embraced Islam, it is legally considered a battlefield (Dar-ul-Harb) and the Muslims are obliged to betray their own motherland through civil and military action. Once it is converted to the Muslim ideology, it ranks as a Land of Peacxe (Dar-us-Salaam) but at a very high cost to one's national pride because then it exists as a spiritual and cultural satellite of Arabia. This is what makes Islam the subtle tool of Arab Imperialism.
Islamic ideology, which is based on intense hatred of the non-Muslims, is beginning to loom as Islamophobia in the West. The recent Osostlander Report on fundamentalism by the European Parliament has recognised this peril. Though it has been suppressed by the majority vote for the time being, its spectre shall rise again and again until the Muslims start respecting the human rights of free speech and action."[source - ISLAM: The Arab Imperialism, by Anwar Shaikh]>>>.
And another historian said, <<<" In the year 620 AD, the prophet sent Khaled-ebn-valid to the Bani Hares tribe to make them become moselms, and emphasized that should they refuse to become moslems, he should make war with them. Khaled (who was famous for his massacres of the tribes of Arabia) reminded the leaders of the Bani Hares tribe to "convert to islam in order to remain alive". The leaders of Bani Hares, fearing the lives of their people, converted to islam, and went with Khaled to see mohammad. Mohammad emphasized to the representatives of the Bani Hares tribe that "if khaled had not written that you have converted to islam, I would have rolled your heads beneath your feet"
source: History of Tabbari [arab historian]
volume 4, pages 1256-1258
The slogans and "there is no obligation in religion" did not stop the prophet mohammad to summarily behead followers of other religions ("people of the book" [ie, jews]) for not converting to islam, such that in the case of the Bani Quraizeh tribe, after they surrendred following a war [with mohammad's army], it was ordered [by mohammad] that 900 of their men and youth be beheaded, and their property was taken as war booty, their women and children as slaves, and devided among the moslems. (1) Tabbari [arab historian] reminds us that "the prophet ordered that holes [mass graves] be dug in the ground, and "imam" ali and zobeir cut off their heads in mohammad's presense." [see picture below] (2)
In such wars, the moslem arabs did not even refrain from sleaping with [having sex] the married wives of the captured men, but ofcourse this was also permitted in the qoran.(3)
references:
1) Nafaes-ol Fonoon by Shamseddin Mohammad Ameli, page 312; Montakheb-ol Tavarikh by Haj Mohammad Hashem Khorasani, page 54; Parto Eslam by Ahmad Amin, volume 1 page 117; Tarikh Tabbari, by Tabbari, volume 3 pages 1088-1091
2) Tarikhk Tabbari, volume 3 page 1093
3) qoran 4:24 [source - www.geocities.com/hammihanirani/articles/islamterror.html on 5/12/2007 and hammihan.20fr.com/ on 5/12/2007 under auspices of Free Iran Press].
And in a book review by Daniel Pipes of "The Arab Imperialism" By Anwar Shaikh, Sheikh noted that according to the Qur'an", <<<" Building on an earlier study with a similar title, Shaikh portrays Islam as a political movement which has conquered peoples around the world. Born a Muslim in India in 1928 and so fervent in his early faith that he killed three non-Muslim men in the riots of 1947, Shaikh has renounced Islam and become a leading spokesman against it. Shaikh sees Islam as a form of Arab imperialism, one he finds far more enduring than the British variant: if the latter required armies to be maintained, the former does not. Instead, it has become self-perpetuating by virtue of having conquered peoples' minds.
Like many anti-Islamic polemicists, Shaikh dwells on the career of the Prophet Muhammad, searching it out for inconsistencies (his attitude toward freedom of religion before and after reaching power) and unsavoriness (the Islamic portrayal of paradise shows that, in Islam, "sexual gratification is the ultimate goal of life"). Shaikh goes beyond other critiques in finding that the Qur'an portrays Muhammad to be God's superior and even "the only God"; from this he concludes that "Islam is Muhammadanism." The purpose of this religion, he finds, is "invented Islam to glorify Arabia." And the scheme worked, bringing "imperial dignity to the Arabs," subordinating huge numbers of non-Arab converts and their offspring to "Arab cultural hegemony," and making them permanent allies for the Arab cause. In his pungent words, every non-Arab Muslim has "turned into a moth, restless to cremate itself on the flame of Arab imperialism."
Shaikh has lived in Great Britain since 1956; he sees his writings, which have prompted some twenty edicts against his life, as his way to atone for the three murders a half century ago. Unlike Salman Rushdie, he lives openly ("Everyone is aware of my address") and, when asked if he expects to die violently, replies, "I want to die honourably."[source - Daniel Pipes & Middle East Quarterly June 1999; and references, Islam The Arab Imperialism By Anwar Shaikh] >>>. And in another book review of the same boo, Ibn al Rawandi, says, <<<" Shaikh attacks head on the muslim claim that Islam is a universal religion addressed by God to the whole of mankind, constituting the final revelation delivered by the final prophet. Far from this being the case, Shaikh sees Islam as the product of the genius of Muhammad, who masterfully exploited the ancient Middle Eastern notion of prophethood in pursuit of his own and his people's "dominance urge", which sounds very like Nietzsche's Will to Power.
Shaikh begins by pointing out the inherent absurdities in the concept of prophethood. How it in effect puts belief in prophets above belief in God, since the prophet is supposedly God's messenger and mouthpiece, implying that He is incapable of communicating with humans in any other way. The muslim idea that Muhammad is the final prophet, confirming and fulfilling all previous prophets, is seen as Muhammad's masterstroke, putting the kibosh on any change or innovation.
On the basis of the text of the Quran, underwritten by the traditional biography of the Prophet, Shaikh discerns a progress in Muhammad's expression of his prophetic role. In the beginning, when he was politically weak, he claimed to be a mortal and humble servant of Allah, but when he became strong, after his supposed move from Mecca to Medina: "he began changing his tone, until he was able to claim himself to be Allah's Superior". (75) The proof of this is Q.33:56 "Lo! Allah and his angels shower praises on the Prophet (Muhammad). O ye who believe also shower praises on him and salute him with a worthy salutation". Shaikh claims that the word translated "shower praises on him", really means worship and is usually applied to God.
According to Shaikh the arrogance of Muhammad is fully expressed in the arrogance of the religion he invented toward all nonArabs, especially the Jews. The notorious episode of the Jewish tribe of the Banu Quraiza, in which Muhammad is supposed to have overseen the slaughter of 800 Jewish men, is seen by Shaikh as: "a pathetic model of ethnic cleansing. The Jews suffered this fate when they refused to become Arabs. We cannot find an example of such extreme nationalism so early in history. Yet the muslims believe that Islam does not recognize nationalism. They insist that it is a message of international brotherhood". (1034) As regards history this is not quite true of course. It was routine in the ancient world that when a city was conquered the men were killed and the women and children sold into slavery. However that may be, Shaikh is undoubtedly right to emphasize the essentially Arab nature of Islam, and how that ethnic identity was imposed on those they conquered." [source - Review of Anwar Shaikh book, "The Arab Imperialism" published by The Principality Publishers, P.O. Box 918, Cardiff CF5 2NL (UK) by Ibn al Rawandi]>>>.
The MEMRI - The Middle East Media Research Institute, Special Dispatch Series - No. 1569 said, in quoting France's Berber Leader Belkacem Lounes, said, <<<"'There Is No Worse Colonialism Than That of the Pan-Arabist Clan that Wants to Dominate Our People' [Belkacem Lounes, president of the World Amazigh Congress, wrote an open letter to Libyan leader Mu'ammar Qaddafi in response to the latter's March 1 speech in which he denied the existence of a Berber or Amazigh people in North Africa. In his letter, dated April 10, Lounes protested Qaddafi's statements, saying that the 30 million Amazigh living today in North Africa cannot be ignored. He added that the Amazigh had played a central role in the fight against European colonialism, but that since independence they had been oppressed by the "internal colonialism" of pan-Arabism, which he labels an imperialist ideology. Lounes stated that it was archaic to consider diversity a danger, and calls on the North African governments to commit to democracy and human rights.]
"What Worse Offense to Elementary Rights is There Than Denying The Existence Of a People?"
"... I waited until April to respond to your speech, since it is during this month that the Amazigh people celebrates every year... a great moment in its history, known as the 'Tafsut Imazighen' ('Amazigh Spring'). For us, this is a celebration of our memory, of our spirit of resistance to all forms of imperialism, and of our love of liberty...
"The people of whom you spoke [in your speech] are women, men, and children who speak their Amazigh language daily. They are women, men, and children who live every day their Amazigh identity, which your words injured. What worse offense to elementary rights is there than denying the existence of a people?..."
"It is Difficult to Imagine That You Are Unaware of... 30 Million Amazigh Speakers" In North Africa
"You claim that Amazigh civilization disappeared due to 'a century of drought in North Africa'... It is difficult to imagine that you are unaware of the existence of 30 million Amazigh-speakers living today in all of the countries of Tamazgha [i.e. North Africa]...
"You let it be understood that the Amazigh are supposedly an invention of colonialism! What colonialism is capable of creating a people ex nihilo, with its language and traditions that go back several thousand years? How could colonialism have done this - given that when the first foreigner arrived on North African soil, he found that the Amazigh had already been there for a long time?...
"How to explain these contradictions and the brutal return to this desire to negate a tangible history and reality? You even denied the evidence, when you assured us that the Amazigh problem did not exist in Libya. But... the Libyan Amazigh, like Amazigh elsewhere, face ostracism, exclusion, and discrimination of all kinds..."
"Thinking That Diversity Is a Danger is an Archaic and Totalitarian Idea"
"You say that 'Libya is for the Libyans' and that you will not accept anyone's saying that they have this identity or that identity.
"So be it - but then [you] must immediately suppress any reference to Arab identity in all of the country's legislative texts, as well as in the names of political, economic, and cultural institutions, starting with the Arab Libyan Republic, Libyan Arab Airlines, the Union of the Arab Maghreb, etc. Then we will be entirely [favorably] disposed to speak of a 'Libyan Libya,' with its history, languages, and cultures. But if your conception of Libya is one of an exclusively Arab country, then for us, the fight for our identity continues...
"You menace the Amazigh, warning that whosoever asserts their identity will be considered a traitor in the service of colonialism... Thinking that diversity is a danger is an archaic and totalitarian idea that is contrary to all of the principles of universal rights.
"We Are a People... Determined To Live Free"
"In addition, I see it as my obligation to repeat here what I told you [face to face]: We are a people and we are determined to live free, whatever it costs us. We are generally peaceful and hospitable. Whoever offers us his hand, we take him into our arms. But whoever tries to keep us from living in dignity, we will fight him with all legitimate means." [source - The MEMRI - The Middle East Media Research Institute, Special Dispatch Series - No. 1569]>>>.
Imperialistic from the beginning:
The start of imperialism was with the plundering of a camel caravan as described, <<<" A general mistake that leads to a fallacious view of facts is the presumption that Badr was the first battle fought against the infidels. As a matter of fact several engagements had actually preceded it. 'Urwa Ibn Zubair wrote a letter to 'Abd al-Malik, the opening sentence of which was : "'Abu Sufyan Ibn Harb was coming from Syria with seventy riders all of whom were Quraish." This was reported to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his Copmpanions. Hostitlities had laready broken out between the two partiies, and a few persons from the other party including Ibn Hadrami had been slain and some taken prisoners ..... And this had been the event that had led to war between the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the Quraish. This had also been the first occasion when losses were mutually inflicted ; and this encounter had taken place before Abu Sufyan departed for Syria."
The best way to arrive at the truth is to see what the other side had to say. Such evidence is rarely found, but fortunately, it is available in this case. Hakim Ibn Hizam (a nephew of Khadija the wife of the propeht), who was still an unbeliever had come with the Quraish army. He was five years older than the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and had been friendly to him in the pre-ministry days and continued to be so even when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had entered upon his mission. However he did not embrace Islam till the conquest of Mecca. Ibn Hakim was a Quraish dignitary, held the office of Rifada, and owned and manged Dar al-Nadwa. He lived till the days of the caliph Marwan Ibn Hakam. Once he went to see Marwan, who received him with great honour. Marwan left his royal seat, sat by his side and asked him to relate the events of Badr. Having described te preliminary datails, he said, " When the Quraish had encamped, I went to 'Utba, and said to him, 'O' father of Walid, won't you like to win a life-long fame ?' 'How is it possible ?' asked 'Utba, and I answered, 'You see, the Quraish demand from Muhammad nothing more than blood for the blood of Hadrami, and he was your ally. Why don't you pay his blood-money yourself and let all your people march back home-ward. 'Utba like this proposal, but Abu Jahl did not consent to it. Abu Jahl called 'Amir Hadrami, the brother of the deceased Hadrami, and said that he should stand out and invoke the aid of the nation, for he had his chance of vengenace close at hand. According to Arab custom, 'Amir Hadrami cast off his clothes and cried, 'Oh 'Amr Hadrami, 'Amr Hadrami, Oh 'Amir Hadrami !"
The first man who came into the battle-field was this Amir Hadrami.
Hakim Ibn Hizam and 'Amir Hadrami wee both non-believers, when Badr was fought. 'Utba and Abu Jahl, the leading chiefs died infidels. When persons of consequence, such as these, regarded the battle of Badr as a revenge for Hadrami's blood, we need not care if others, born hundreds of years after the battle, believed that it had been the outcome of an intended plunder of the caravan." [source - This is a quote from an extract of the Second Volume of English Translation of Sirat-un-Nabi originally written in Urdu by the late 'Allama Shibli Nu'mani, a well-known Muslim historian who requires no commendation.]>>>.
Next, Islam stole Syria from its owner, the Roman Empire of the East/Byzantine Empire, and here is a partial account of this wrongful action, <<<" In the face of the Muslim expansion, the Byzantine emperor Heraclius gathered a large army which met the Muslim army at the Battle of the Yarmuk in Syria on 20 August 636. It was a crushing victory which gave Syria to the Muslims... A description of the battle. Heraclius gathered large bodies of Greeks, Syrians, Mesopotamians and Armenians numbering about 200,000. This army he put under the command of one of his choice men and sent as a vanguard Jabalah ibn-al-Aiham al-Ghassani at the bead of the "naturalized" Arabs [musta'ribah] of Syria of the tribes of Lakhm, Judham and others, resolving to fight the Moslems so that be might either win or withdraw to the land of the Greeks and live in Constantinople. The Muslims gathered together and the Greek army marched against them. The battle they fought at al-Yarmuk ,was of the fiercest and bloodiest kind. Al-Yarmuk [Hieromax] is a river. In this battle 24,000 Moslems took part. The Greeks and their followers in this battle tied themselves to each other by chains, so that no one might set his hope on flight. By Allah's help, some 70,000 of them were put to death, and their remnants took to flight, reaching as far as Palestine, Antioch, Aleppo, Mesopotamia and Armenia. In the battle of al-Yarmuk certain Moslem women took part and fought violently. Among them was Hind, daughter of 'Utbah and mother of Mu'awivah ibn-abi-Sufyan, who repeatedly exclaimed, "Cut the arms of these 'uncircumcised' , with your swords!" Her husband abu-Sufvan had come to Syria as a volunteer desiring to see his sons, and so he brought his wife with him. He then returned to al-Madinah where he died, year 31, at the age of 88. Others say he died in Syria. When the news of his death was carried to his daughter, umm-Habibah, she waited until the third day on which she ordered some yellow paint and covered with it her arms and face saving, "I would not have done that, had I not heard the Prophet say, 'A woman should not be in mourning for more than three days over anyone except her husband."' It is stated that she did likewise when she received the news of her brother Yazid's death. But Allah knows best." [source - Medieval Sourcebook: Al-Baladhuri: The Battle Of The Yarmuk (636) and After by Paul Halsall Jan 1996]>>>. As we can see, right from the beginning, Islam was greedy for the lands of others and sought to occupy them.
In fact, <<<" Futuh is an Arabic word with the literal meaning of "openings". When appearing in classical Islamic literature it signifies the early Arab-Muslim conquests which facilitated the spread of Islam and Islamic civilization.
As is clear from the literal meaning of the word, futuh is a term with a strong ideological bias in favor of the conquests it signifies, implying their general beneficence and legitimacy. Here is Lewis on the ideology of futuh within classic Islamic thought:
These were not seen as conquests in the vulgar sense of territorial acquisitions, but as the overthrow of impious regimes and illegitimate hierarchies, and the "opening" of their peoples to the new revelation and dispensation... The use of the root fth is thus not unlike the twentieth century use of the verb "liberate", and is indeed sometimes replaced by the latter verb (harrara) in modern Arabic writing on early Islamic history. The Arabic verb ghalaba, "conquer", with its connotation of overwhelming by means of superior force, is sometimes used in early accounts of the Muslim conquests, but only in the context of actual military operations...
Underlying this usage, clearly, is a concept of the essential rightfulness or legitimacy of the Muslim advance and the subsequent illegitimacy of Muslim retreat before infidel conquest... The advance of Muslim power is thus an opening or a liberation, to give free scope to this divinely implanted propensity.
The Political Language of Islam, pp. 93-94
Many histories from the classical period of Islamic civilization dealing with the early conquests have futuh in their title and are considered to form their own genre of literature, called futuh reports. Like many other histories from the early period, the futuh reports contain a mixture of genres and material, with some clearly of an administrative, religio-legal, philosophical, or edificatory nature. For example, a common feature of the genre is an account of the opposing ambassador's first impression of the Arab army in which he remarks favorably upon the primitive virtues of these early Muslim warriors, thus implicitly criticizing the luxury and over-refinement of the author's own time.
The following is a partial list of these histories:
* Futuh Misr (Conquests of Egypt) by Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam
* Futuh al-Sham (Conquests of Syria) by al-Azdi
* Futuh al-Iraq (Conquests of Iraq) by al-Waqidi
* Futuh al-Habasa (Conquests of Abyssinia) by Sihab ad-Din Admad ibn Abd-al-Qadir
* Futuh al-Buldan (Conquests of the Lands) by Abu Al-Abbas Ahmad Bin Jab Al-Baladhuri
The impact of the futuh conquests was immense, not least of all on the conquerors themselves, who incorporated many features of the advanced cultures they absorbed into what eventually became classic Islamic civilization.
Among the conquered peoples, the futuh invasions resulted in two related, though not identical, social upheavals: Islamization and Arabization. The former occurred as Islam became a society's regnant religio-political framework. The latter occurred as Arab customs and the Arab language became widely adopted by a population. Though the two developments often occurred in tandem, the expression of one did not necessarily mean the expression of the other. Many Middle Eastern Christians, for example were Arabized but never Islamicized, while the Persians were Islamicized but did not Arabize.
Of the two upheavals, Islamization had the greater impact on social and cultural identity. In all cases Islamization led to a people's near total rejection of their pagan, pre-Islamic past, such that their ancestral achievements and heritage were either forgotten or actively denigrated. When in the 19th Century European Orientalists began recovering this past, their findings were at first ignored by the Muslim residents of the Near East:
The discovery... of the ancient past was a non-Middle Eastern enterprise and achievement, and for a long time it had no impact on the peoples of the Islamic Middle East, who remained uninterested in their own pagan past. For them, significant history began with the advent of Islam. That was their own, their true history, the history that mattered. What came before was an age of ignorance, of no value with no lesson to teach.
The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, p. 68
Though this alienation may be partially explained by the Arab cultural imperialism implicit in Islamization (as exemplified in the adoption of the Arabic script, for example), there is a more direct theological rationale for this, which is the Islamic concept of jahiliyyah, or state of ignorance and barbarity which supposedly prevailed in pre-Islamic Arabia. Readily applied by the first Islamicized peoples to their own pagan pasts, it led them to view these epochs as times of rampant impiety, ignorance, and injustice from which little of value could be gleaned.
Thus one trope of converted Muslims' perception of their own history is the depiction of the pre-Islamic political order as one of rampant exploitation and tyranny, with rulers ordering society according to malign whim rather than in humble subordinance to God's beneficent law for mankind:
Until the findings of Egyptology became known to them, all that most Egyptians knew about Pharaoh was what they learned from the Qur'an, and the image of Pharaoh in the Qur'an is much the same as in the Old Testament. For Muslims as for Christians and Jews, Pharaoh was the archetypal pagan tyrant and oppressor in which the heroes are the Banuh Isra'il, the children of Israel.
The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, p. 77
And in Islamic Persia, "Chosroes" became as strong a by-word for tyrannical pagan kingship as "Pharaoh" (though ironically the pagan destroyer of the Achaemenid Empire, Alexander the Great, was lionized thanks to an accident of Qur'anic textual sources).
Such hostile depictions of the pre-Islamic political order are a necessary complement to the ideology of futuh: in order for the Muslim conquests to be seen as liberatory, the social orders which they replaced had to be depicted as negatively as possible.
With the rejection of the pre-Islamic political order came the rejection of its cultural legacy as well, often expressed by the iconoclastic destruction of its monumental remains as in the recent demolition of the Buddhas of Bamyan. In Egypt, for example, the missing nose of the Great Sphinx of Giza was broken off by a fanatic Sufi when he saw the local farmers making offerings to the Sphinx.
And in Iran:
...the ancient past had been forgotten and to a greater extent obliterated. In Persepolis, the ancient Persian capital, the Muslim conquerors had hacked away the faces of the Medes and Persians depicted in the friezes, seeing in them an expression of pagan idolatry. Only the most recent pre-Islamic history... was known at all, and that in a sketchy form, and from Arabic sources. The more ancient history of Iran was forgotten, and even the name of Cyrus, the founder of the Persian state, was unknown.
[The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, p. 71]
The popular dissemination of Orientalist discoveries lead to a revision of these attitudes, however, and at least a partial reassertion of pre-Islamic identities. In Egypt, the works of native scholars such as Rifa'a Rafi' al-Tahtawi led to renewed interest in the Pharaonic past and helped give rise to Egyptian national identity movements such as Pharaonism. Though initially derided by other Arabs as tafar'un (meaning lapsing into pharaonism), the Egyptian movements were in time emulated elsewhere:
This movement in Egypt was first opposed, condemned, even derided in other Arabic speaking countries. It was seen as something artificial, as a parochial attempt to create a little Egypt within the greater Arab or Islamic brotherhood. It was denounced by pan-Arabists as separatist, by religious people as neo-pagan, and by both as divisive. Nevertheless the example of Egypt had an impact
in other Middle Eastern lands.
[The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, pp. 69-70]
The acceptance of classical Islam's interpretation of the futuh conquests by the Islamicized/Arabized peoples of the Near East and beyond varies.
It has been least contentious among the Arab countries of Asia, where identity with the original Arab conquerors is strongest. In modern Arab historiography there has been a trend (in part due to the influence of Western-style nationalism), to portray the earliest conquests as liberations of Arabs (or proto-Arabs) from Sassanid/Byzantine imperial domination:
Most Arabs today are Arabized descendants of the inhabitants of pre-conquest Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, but any suggestion that Islamic culture is an Arabized development of what prevailed in those pre-conquest lands deeply offends them.
Lapidus, [The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Islamic World (ISBN 0-521-66993-6), p. 24]
In North Africa, a reassertion of ethnic and linguistic identity among Berbers called Berberism has recently developed.
Despite a rich pre-Islamic political and cultural heritage, attempts at a reassertion of national identity in Iran have often met with strong resistance:
In 1971, when the Shah of Iran held a great celebration in Persepolis to commemorate the 2,500th anniversary of the foundation of the Persian monarchy by Cyrus the Great, he was vehemently attacked on Islamic religious grounds. Exalting the monarchy was bad enough, but far worse was the proclamation of a common identity with the Zoroastrian past, and a consequent redefinition of the basis of allegiance. For the shah's religious critics, the identity of the Iranians was defined by Islam, and their brothers were Muslims in other countries, not their own unbelieving and misguided ancestors.
[The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, p. 75]
With the overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, traditional notions of identity returned to Iran, as can be seen by the unabashed embrace of the classic futuh interpretation of Persian history in the propaganda of the Iran-Iraq War:
The Iraqis, on their side, call the Iranians Furs, a somewhat derogatory term in medieval times, with a suggestion that the Persians were the heirs of the Zoroastrians defeated at the battle of Qadisiyya in A.D. 637. This battle, which shattered the military power of the Iranian emperors and led to the incorporation of all their lands and peoples in the Muslim Arab Empire, is claimed with pride by both sides. For the Iraqis, it was a victory of Arabs over Persians... For the soldiers of the Islamic Republic, it was victory of Muslims over heathens, and a blessed beginning of the Islamization of the peoples of Iran.
[The Political Language of Islam, p. 121]
Acceptance in Pakistan of futuh "salvation history" can be seen in current expressions of alienation from both the political as well as cultural legacies of its pre-Islamic past:
In September 1979, on Defense of Pakistan Day, there was a long article in the Pakistan Times on Bin Qasim as a strategist. The assessment was military, neutral, fair to the soldiers of both sides. It drew a rebuke from the chairman of the National Commission on Historical and Cultural Research.
"Employment of appropriate phraseology is necessary when one is projecting the image of a hero. Expressions such as 'invader' and 'defenders' and 'the Indian Army' fighting bravely but not being quick enough to 'fall upon the withdrawing enemy' loom large in the article. 'Had Raja Dahar defended the Indus heroically and stopped Qasim from crossing it, the history of the subcontinent might have been quite different.' One fails to understand whether the writer is applauding the victory of the hero or lamenting the defeat of his rival?"
[Among the Believers, p. 141]
The excavated city of Mohenjo-Daro... is one of the archaeological glories of Pakistan and the world. The excavations are now being damaged by waterlogging and salinity, and appeals for money have been made to world organizations. A feature letter in the Dawn offered its own ideas for the site. Verses from the Koran, the writer said, should be engraved and set up in Mohenjo-Daro in "appropriate places": "Say (unto them, O Mohammed): Travel in the land and see the nature of the sequel for the guilty ... Say (O Mohammed, to the disbelievers): Travel in the land and see the nature of the consequence for those who were before you. Most of them were idolators."
[Among the Believers, pp. 141-142]
An interesting cultural adaptation found mainly here, though, is the widespread claim of descent from the Arab (or Moghul) conquerors:
"Islam doesn't show on my face. We have nearly all, subcontinental Muslims, invented Arab ancestors for ourselves. Most of us are sayeds, descendants of Mohammed through his daughter Fatima and cousin and son-in-law Ali... Everybody has got an ancestor who came from Arabia or Central Asia."
[Beyond Belief, p. 307]
The last Nawab of Bahawalpur was fanatical about the ancestry he claimed. In Bahawalpur and Pakistan and the subcontinent he was an Arab of the Abassids and a conqueror, a man drawing his wealth from the country, but not part of it. He wore the fez to make the point.
[Beyond Belief, p. 331] " [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia as of 5/12/2007]>>>.
As can be seen, Islamic Imperialism worked as follows, wrongfully capture a people and subgate them, then brain wash them, just like a cancer conquers the human body. Also, they continue to occupy and do not want to give back what rightly belongs to others, but seek to keep the occupied brain washed.
In fact, they tried this wicked approach on Spain, but the subjeducated people fought back and eventually recovered their land and nation. Let's look into this briefly, <<<"Many like to place the blame on others for what results from their own willful acts. With Islam this has been the case from at least 711 AD forward. In 711 AD they attacked Spain and through the years overran most of the country, but when they got kicked out finally about seven hundred years after they started their illegal occupation they screamed about all the wonderful things they did for those they subjected; what utter nonsense." [source - The Sponsors of Unprovoked Attacks and Criminal Acts Responsible For All That Occurs: by Iris the Preacher, 2006]>>>.
So as we can see, Islam from its very beginnings was out to greedily take that which belonged to others, to subjugate the enslaved, and to brain wash them. This evil actions succeeded in most cases except for Spain, and the occupation of the subjugated nations continues until the present.
THE SOLUTION TO ELIMINATING VIOLENCE BY SOME IN ISLAM:
The fact is that over 90% of the violence on earth could be eliminated by dissolving this one religion that is given to much violence such as car bombs, suicide bombs, 9/11/2001 destruction of the World Trade Center, the placing of IED to kill people, etc. and should be dissolved in the interest of world peace may seem unthinkable as all should be granted the basic human right of freedom of conscience - freedom of religion. However, all freedoms must be constrained when they are used to injure and hurt others; to wit, one's freedom should end when it is used to injure, murder, and hurt others.
Many do not realize that good people can be in evil false religions, but this is indeed the case.
Many people have difficulty seeing the difference between people, good or bad, and the religion they are in, and feel when someone mentions the evil bad of a false religion they are also talking about the mislead individuals that belong to it.
These selfsame people fail to realize that most of mankind is being mislead by the religious leaders of evil false religions and/or egotistical men who believe what they say takes precedence over the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible. In addition, it is not what either the Bible or the Bible knockoff the Qur'an or other so called holy book actually say, but how religious leaders be they priest and/or imams or muftis or what ever teach the people is the interpretation of what is written either in the Bible or the bible knockoff the Qur'an that matters and governs actions. It matters not what the Bible and/or the Bible knockoff really say. People go by what they are taught by their religious leaders. Take the genocide committed by the Roman Catholic Church at the direction of their supreme religious leader, the pope, what mattered was not that the Bible clearly said at Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill." (Authorized King James Bible; AV), but what their religious leaders told them. Therefore, it is the religion at fault, irregardless of what their particular holy book, be it the Bible or the Bible knockoff the Qur'an may say. Neither in so called Christianity or in Islam are most individuals actions really governed in any way by what their particular holy book really says, but they are governed by the interpretation of their religious leaders. Thus, knowing this reality, one would be either just plain stupid and/or dumb to even bother looking at a particular religion's holy book and expect the members would conform to it. Take the Rig Vede and find me for example a Hindu actually conforming to it instead of the interpretation given to it by his religious leaders, like looking for a needle in the haystack per K.S. Lal, India's greatest historian.
The truth is most religious leaders either take things out of context and/or twist what their particular 'holy book' says to further their personal agendas or the agendas of the particular evil false religion they represent, what ever that may be. In reality, little thought or concern is ever given to what a particular 'holy book' actually says. Nowhere is this more true than with religious leaders who claim to be using the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible, as their guide. This practice is particularly dishonoring of the Creator of all there is, Almighty God (YHWH), because it brings dishonor on his Inspired Word, the Bible, by many who see those proclaiming to follow the Bible are NOT really doing so. This hypocrisy gives many the wrong impression of the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible, and unjustly brings reproach on it. This is very unfortunate and fits right in with the god of this system of things, Satan the Devil, with regard his continuing attempt to mislead all of mankind if possible.
When a religion let's its religious leaders get totally out of bounds and endanger world peace, it is time to dissolve it. Now of course this is NOT to be taken as saying and/or implying that all the religious leaders in a particular religion are bad people. However, if the good religious leaders in a religion can NOT control the bad actions of other religious leaders within the group or do NOT desire to do so, and the unchecked actions of the bad ones endanger world peace, it is time to dissolve the religion.
Let's look at an actual example where the good religious leaders of a religion are NOT reining in the bad, i.e., NOT cleaning out the bad ones either by excommunication and/or other means where dissolution may be the best solution, and where religious freedom can be maintained by giving members of this religion the opportunity to choose any of the other 33,000 plus religions.
PRESENT DAY BLOOD SPILLING BY ISLAM:
At present members of Islam are still in their SOP - spilling blood of innocent people all over the world, and especially so in Iraq, Pakistan, Thailand, the United States, India, etc. We shall look at a few salient cases of this modern day blood spilling by Islam:
[1] Let's look at how Islam is using its usual SOP in three provinces of Thailand today, 2006. An article in the New York Times clearly shows that Islam has remained violent until today, <<<"In Thailand, a New Model for Militants? ...
October 1, 2006
HAT YAI, Thailand - The bomb that exploded outside New Cherry Ancient Massage was among the most sinister kinds - a lethal sucker punch timed to detonate moments after two other blasts had lured onlookers into the streets of this tourist town.
The homemade device, hidden in a motorcycle parked outside the busy parlor, killed five people, including a Canadian teacher and three masseuses. All 30 surviving massage workers quit on the spot. Within days, the parents of the three dead women came to take their daughters' bodies home.
"One father asked, 'Why my child? She was a good girl,' " said New Cherry owner Boonchai Sangmankung. "And I couldn't answer him. I don't know myself. Why do the attacks continue? Why are more innocent people killed every day?"
Since 2004, militants in Thailand's predominantly Muslim south have waged a bloody separatist insurgency against the cultural elite of this largely Buddhist nation, targeting teachers, monks, community leaders and government officials. So far, 1,700 people have been killed, yet the campaign of almost-daily bombings, arson attacks, kidnappings and assassinations has gone largely unnoticed in a Western world fixated on higher-profile Islamic terrorism campaigns in Iraq and elsewhere.
"The violence in southern Thailand is quite significant compared to many other world conflicts today," said Panitan Wattanayagorn, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok. "The U.S. lost 3,000 soldiers in three years in Iraq. This death toll is not far behind." ...
Many Muslim residents still chafe over what they consider a century of abusive rule. But experts differ over the roots of the insurgency. Some say it's a battle over religious freedom, others say it's a fight for territory and self-rule. Still others say it's both...
In the first six months of 2006, two people died every day, on average: A Buddhist teacher was gunned down in front of his fourth-grade class by men dressed as students. A salesman was beheaded outside a crowded teashop. The owner of an elephant troupe was shot seven times by assailants who had lined up with children to buy tickets for a show.
In August, 22 small bombs exploded nearly simultaneously in banks throughout southern Yala province, killing one person and bringing commerce to a standstill. Two months earlier, 50 bombs went off in a single day at government offices and police stations.
Last year, 15 militants stormed a Buddhist temple and hacked two monks to death before setting fire to their bodies. Thai officials believe that 30,000 Buddhists have fled the south since the attack. Insurgents also have targeted fellow Muslims suspected of conspiring with a military known for its brutality in dealing with the Islamic militants...[source - By John M. Glionna, Times Staff Writer on 10/01/2006]>>>.
[2] In the United States and elsewhere, an Australian newspaper did a summary of the violence and were quite conservative in their findings as the percentage should probably be higher than they gave in their summary. <<<" The Newspaper article is but a summary of evidence from around the world some of which was presented immediately below it, all from reliable world news sources. I presented a newspaper with a summary of it as it would take a many volume book to present it all. Apparently you fail to read the news daily with regard to how many murders are being committed daily in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, etc. by members of Islam. Also, you show you fail to listen to Al Jazzera and BBC to hear the proof of what the newspaper summarized - do you dig it? The world would be a much more tranquil and peaceful place without Islam, and even more so without apostate (counterfeit) so called Christianity. Let's look once more at what I posted in the past:
The Weekend Australian (newspaper) had this to say on the matter,
<<"Did you know that 90-95% of the conflicts in the world today are Muslims fighting non-muslims or each other?
Islam is intolerant of other religions, so much so that Christians in Nigeria, Sudan and middle eastern countries are killed for practicing their religion. Muslims are also responsible for burning down their churches. Sydney has recently seen an attack on four churches for similar reasons. (December 16, 2005) How can we tolerate such intolerance?">>.[7]
Says it all, so clearly Islam should be redefined as something other than a religion. So it is very necessary that this greed and hate be addressed. Remember, Matthew 5:9, "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." (AV).
Let's consider the facts as continually revealed in the world news that shows if any thing that the newspaper editor may have been a little low when he said 95 percent of the violence in the world was caused by Muslims. Here are some instances of terrorism by members of Islam:[7]
(1) World Trade Center - 9/11 - unprovoked attack and mass murder by Muslims.[8]
(2) London Subway Bombing by Muslims [9]
(3) Continued mosque bombings in Iraq by Muslims.[10]
(4) Suicide bombings in Israel by Muslims.[11]
(5) Suicide bombing of a wedding reception in Jordan by Muslims.[12]
(6) Daily roadside bombings in Iraq by Muslims.[13]
(7) Train bombings in Spain my Muslims.[14]
(8) Riots and car burnings and murders in France by Muslims.[15]
(9) Suicide bombings in Iraq by Muslims.[16]
(10) Car and truck bombings in Iraq by Muslims.[17]
(11) Unprovoked murder of 8 Israelis and the kidnapping of 2 by Muslims to provoke turmoil and violence in Lebanon and Israel by Muslims.[18]
(12) Unprovoked murder of 2 Israelis and the kidnapping of 1 by Muslims to provoke turmoil and violence in Gaza by Muslims.[19]
(13) Bombing of restaurants and cafes in Bali, Indonesia by Muslims.[20]
(14) Bombing of a trains in India by Muslims.[21]
(15) Take over o***rammar school in Russia resulting in the deaths of many students by Muslims.[22]
(16) Attempted shoebombing of a plain by a Muslim.[23]
(17) Conspiracy to bomb about 10 planes going from UK by Muslims.[24]
(18) Attempted murder of several Indian politicians in Kashmir by Muslims.[25]
(19) Many violent acts by Muslims in Afghanistan.[26]
(20) Murder o***irl by Shiite Muslims in Iran.[27]
(21) Conspiracy to bomb trains in Germany - as previously posted for you.[28]
(22) And the list could go on and on, get it?
References:
[7] The Weekend Australian, November 26-27, 2005 AD
[8] World Trade Center bombing, by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[9] Explosions Hit Three Tube Stations, One Bus, Thursday, July 21, 2005, Fox News
[10] By Ellen Knickmeyer and K.I. Ibrahim, Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, February 23, 2006; Page A01
[11] Suicide attack, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[12] Zarqawi Calls for Jordan King's Head, Friday, November 18, 2005
[13] The Daily Star, 03/21/2006, Vol. 5 #644
[14] CBS News, WASHINGTON, March 12, 2004
[15] Free Republic, News/Activism 05/30/2006 5:46:30 PM PDT, and, The Telegraph, By Colin Randall in Paris (Filed: 31/05/2006)
[16] Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[17] CNN, Thursday, March 18, 2004 Posted: 4:59 PM EST (2159 GMT)
[18] Telegraph (UK), Israeli crisis is a smoke screen for Iran's nuclear ambitions, By Con Coughlin(Filed: 14/07/2006)
[19] Associated Press
[20] aljazeera.net, Bali a soft target, experts say, By Marianne Kearney in Jakarta, Indonesia, Monday 03 October 2005, 20:20 Makka Time, 17:20 GMT
[21] MSNBC, Associated Press, Updated: 6:26 p.m. ET July 12, 2006
[22] Beslan school hostage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[23] CNN, CNN NEWSNIGHT AARON BROWN, Debate Over Guantanamo Detainees Continues, Aired January 21, 2002 - 22:00 ET
[24] TIME, The Daily Dish, by Andrew Sullivan, The Alleged UK Terror Plot, 16 Aug 2006 09:58 am
[25] The New Yorker, BETWEEN THE MOUNTAINS - India and Pakistan are caught in a dangerous struggle over Kashmir. But what do its people want? by Isabel Hilton , Issue of 2002-03-11
[26] USA Today, USA's Muslims under a cloud, Updated 8/10/2006 9:13 AM ET
[27] NITV Satellite TV station located in Los Angeles, on Masjed Soleymaani Hastam, and [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great, and (in German) Iran/forum/viewtopic.php of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia' and sosiran97.home.comcast.net/MasjedSoleymaaniHastam.mp3, and
[28] AOL NEWS, War on Terror, and Netscape.com, Third Lebanese Arrested in German Train Terror Plot , (via dailystar.com.lb)
[source - Large Religions are False Religions - Their Fruitage, which can be read in its entirety and which covers also the wrongs of apostate (counterfeit) Christians at,
religioustruths.proboards59.com/ind...read=1163175928 ] >>>.
It is obvious that you do not know the difference between a summary of proof and the individual proofs that support it, some of salient examples of proof which, as previously mentioned appeared immediately below it in my post.
[3] Violence by members of Islam never let's up as a very recent world news item shows, <<<" by Ramzi Haidar 1 hour, 40 minutes ago [05/21/2007]
NAHR AL-BARED, Lebanon (AFP) - The Lebanese government offered late Monday a truce in its confrontation with Islamists in north Lebanon that cost 58 lives, as a bomb exploded in Beirut for the second straight night.
"The Lebanese army is ready to stop firing if the other side does the same. It will not open fire if it is not attacked," a government source in Beirut said, on condition of anonymity. The offer followed indirect negotiations between the army and the splinter group Fatah al-Islam through the mediation of Jamaa Islamiya, a Sunni organisation, participants in the contacts told AFP. The fighting had eased off by late Monday, but three soldiers were killed in an attack on an army post outside the Nahr al-Bared camp, raising the overall toll to 58 dead. Hospital and security sources gave a breakdown of the deaths: 30 soldiers, 17 Islamist fighters, 10 Palestinian civilians and a Lebanese civilian.
Lebanese troops bombarded the Islamist militiamen, accused of links to Al-Qaeda and Syrian intelligence, with tanks and heavy artillery earlier on Monday, the second day of the bloodiest internal fighting since the 1975-1990 civil war.
see Part 2
