[ExI] If Politicians were Innocent and Honest

[painlord2k at libero.it]

Il 30/03/2009 1.56, Stefano Vaj ha scritto:

>> If I'm wrong, could you point to me where and when Islam learned
>> religious intolerance and missionarism from judeochristianism?

> The Old Testament?

And when do you hear any of them cite the Old Testament? Or the New
Testament?
A basilar tenet of faith for them is that the Old and the New Testament
were corrupted respectively by Jews and Christians and anything not
concordant with the Quran and the Hadits must be discarded.

> The crusades?

I remember that the First Crusade happened in the 1095.

The first people killed by Muslims are from Medina just after Mohammed
went there and started to convert people there (620).

Some notable examples of victims were:
Asma bint Marwan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asma_bint_Marwan
Abu Afak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_%27Afak

All of this is recorded in the Islamic texts by the Muslims, not from
enemies.

So, the Crusades happen 470 years after the first killing religiously
motivated by Islam.

> The Spanish "Reconquista" that my friend Guillaume Faye seems
> nowadays to like so much?


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Muslim_occupation_of_the_Iberian_Peninsula
818
>
>
>
- The revolt in Córdoba against the Muslims is punished by three
days of massacres and pillage, with 300 notables crucified and 20,000
families expelled.

> The inquisition?

The Spanish Inquisition happen after the Reconquista.
And it is a Spanish thing, not a Catholic thing.
Add to this that

> The witch hunt?

Do you speak about the accuse of witchcraft that Mohammed raised against
his enemies? They are recounted in the Hadits.

> The ethnocidal efforts of missionaries in Africa, Asia, the
> Americas?

Do you speak about the ethnocidal efforts of the Christian missionarries
to exterminate the Hindus in the current Afghanistan?
I would say they were very successful, as there are no Hindus in
Afghanistan, only Muslims.

> The Muslim chroniclers al—Baladhuri (in Kitab Futuh al—Buldan) and
> al—Kufi (in the Chachnama) include enough isolated details to
> establish the overall nature of the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad b.
>  Qasim in 712 C.E. [6] These narratives, and the processes they
> describe, make clear that the Arab invaders intended from the outset
>  to Islamize Sindh by conquest, colonization, and local conversion.
> Baladhuri, for example, records that following the capture of Debal,
>  Muhammad b. Qasim earmarked a section of the city exclusively for
> Muslims, constructed a mosque, and established four thousand
> colonists there. [7] The conquest of Debal had been a brutal affair,
>  as summarized from the Muslim sources by Majumdar. [8]
>
> Despite appeals for mercy from the besieged Indians (who opened their
> gates after the Muslims scaled the fort walls), Muhammad b. Qasim
> declared that he had no orders (i.e., from his superior al—Hajjaj,
> the Governor of Iraq) to spare the inhabitants, and thus for three
> days a ruthless and indiscriminate slaughter ensued. In the
> aftermath, the local temple was defiled, and '700 beautiful females
> who had sought for shelter there, were all captured'. The capture of
> Raor was accompanied by a similar tragic outcome. [9]
>
>> Muhammad massacred 6000 fighting men who were found in the fort,
>> and their followers and dependents, as well as their women and
>> children were taken prisoners. Sixty thousand slaves, including 30
>> young ladies of royal blood, were sent to Hajjaj, along with the
>> head of Dahar [the Hindu ruler]. We can now well understand why
>> the capture of a fort by the Muslim forces was followed by the
>> terrible jauhar ceremony (in which females threw themselves in fire
>> kindled by themselves), the earliest recorded instance of which is
>> found in the Chachnama. [9] Majumdar, The Classical Age, pp.
>> 458—459.

I suppose they learned this from the Crusaders that happened 3 centuries 
after.



> But, there again, who cares? Islam might or might not be marginally
> better than Christianity in this or that aspect (e.g., with regard to
> pre-implantation diagnosis or the teaching of ID in western schools).

Well, the Christians will not, marginally, kill you for believing in 
evolution and will not, marginally, yell you "Son of pigs and apes" in 
the same time.



> Its metaphysical fundamentals, however, remain nevertheless just as
> at odd with a transhumanist anthropology as any other such religion.

You could say so; you could believe so; but there are many reasons to 
believe that Christianity is the religion of Technology.

> And certainly I do not welcome its forced import in Europe, to some
> extent sponsored by the US, if anything because muslims still believe
> in their God more than European christians in average do.

It is not that they believe in it, it is that they feat it (and the 
religious establishment and their co-religionists) more than they fear 
the reactions of the locals.
The problem is they are exchanging the behaviour of the elites with the 
behaviours of the population. And the elites are doing their best to 
suppress any natural and healthy reaction (for their sake). So, when the 
suppression will not work any more, the reactions will be much worse and 
uncontrollable.

Mirco

For the reader informations I add this news:
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2009/03/italy-two-deported-for-planning-to-blow.html

A day or another someone of them will be lucky or a bit less moronic 
than usual, and will succeed in doing something really big. Then the 
reaction will not be pretty to see or hear.