Political Crossfire Forums

[brian_in_idaho]

comment's deleted-wrong thread, sorry

[brian_in_idaho]

More from the fruitcake:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sheik-told-shut-up--for-a-bit/2006/10/27/1161749284120.html

Quote: Muslim leader Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly is refusing to resign over a sermon in which he blamed women for rape and instead has chanted an anti-American slogan outside Sydney's Lakemba Mosque.

After midday prayers today, the sheik was besieged by a group of reporters who asked him whether he would bow to demands and quit.

The Islamic clergyman smiled and shook his head, saying in English: "After we clean the world of the White House first."

His words were greeted by cheers and applause from dozens of supporters among hundreds of worshippers at mosque.

Several men called out "Allahu akbar'' (God is great) as the sheik's car sped away.

I have nothing against Islam, but man, you guys have to look at some housecleaning to gain credability in the mainstream world. This kind of guy attracks kooks and nutcases, kind of like Richard Butler did with his "Church of Jesus Christ Christian" (aka Aryan Nations), but he was NOT a national leader for Christianity.


Edited to add....This should be in the other thread about the Islamic cleric's comments about women "asking" for rape, I put it here in response to slitedeviance's link. sorry for any confusion

[Rankor and Pissing]

Saracen wrote:

She's not entirely correct. She's very wrong on many parts, among them her Zionist position, which I frankly think is based on limited experiences. She has quite a lot of things incorrect, especially her overly bloody accusations on Palestinians and Hamas, who are not as bloody, though still despicable. Furthermore, I believe that she should re-evaluate the reasons to why the extremist Muslims are doing this so she may have a more balanced criticism. She should also refrain from collectivism.

I always like to balance things and while I thought she was evocative and brought some issues to the table, I also have to weigh against that her personal experience which as Muslima pointed out, was fairly horrific. That certainly would change anyone's outlook I would suppose.

What I did find interesting was that she did endorse a few moderates here in the U.S. who are not getting much support from the Muslim communities. If it is such that moderates do not want to speak out due to fear or backlash within their communities - it's a shame and hopefully that will change.

Overall, I think her position will at the very least cause people (both Muslim and Non) to stop and think a little more and to investigate a little more. While you and I do sometimes go around and around on issues regarding the extremes of Islam, I always value your opinion and insight Saracen.

[unclesamual]

I haven't seen the whole interview. But I want to point out something on the part where she says Christians who were identified by their ID as Christian were killed in checkpoints. It seems the Christian militias started this practice.

Quote:
Throughout the spring of 1975, minor clashes had been building up towards all-out conflict, with the LNM pitted against the Phalange, and the ever-weaker national government wavering between the need to maintain order and cater to its Christian constituency. On the morning of April 13, 1975, unidentified gunmen in a speeding car fired on a group of Phalangist leaders leaving Church in the Christian Beirut suburb of Ain Rumaneh, killing four people in what was probably an attempt on the life of Pierre Gemayel. Hours later, Phalangists led by the Gemayels, killed 27 Palestinian workers travelling on a bus in Ein Al-Rumaneh; citywide clashes erupted. On December 6, 1975, four Christians were killed in East Beirut. In retaliation, the Phalange erected roadblocks throughout the city, where identification cards were inspected for religious affiliation. Any Palestinian or Muslim caught was killed by having his throat cut.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon_Civil_War

[Saracen]

brian in idaho wrote: You are saying that teaching hatred and promoting violent opposition to opposing religious views is not a bad thing? IMO that approach is part of the problem Islam has within Western cultures; specifically that mainstream members of the religion do not denounce the hate mongers in the strongest possible terms. I haven't been inside a Christian church in decades, but I believe any Christian leader advocating violence against Muslims would be soundly denounced, as they should be. Silent acceptance of these leaders as speaking for Islam supports the conclusion that it is a religion of hatred and violence.

They're supporting defense. What else would you do if your nation was attacked? I agree, however, that not only do some of them preach it the wrong way, but also many people take it the wrong way and do some crazy stuff. I believe that politics shouldn't be discussed by clerics unless it's for a good and unifying cause.

[starwest]

Very, very brave woman, to come forward with her story. Has she got a bounty on her head yet????

The 'HOLY SCRIPTURES' are teaching this violence and sexual oppression, even the FGM is continuing internationally...so Islam has a lot of cleaning up to do.

How come, every time the truth comes to light the Muslims' say, oh, the west did this and the west did that?

Our world is based on fighting for land, for wealth, for freedom...and from what l understand the blood was shed on both sides. I am still waiting for an apology from the Islamists for the Crusades, and for 9/11...as far as l can see it will be a loooong wait.

[Saracen]

starwest wrote: Very, very brave woman, to come forward with her story. Has she got a bounty on her head yet????

The 'HOLY SCRIPTURES' are teaching this violence and sexual oppression, even the FGM is continuing internationally...so Islam has a lot of cleaning up to do.

How come, every time the truth comes to light the Muslims' say, oh, the west did this and the west did that?

Our world is based on fighting for land, for wealth, for freedom...and from what l understand the blood was shed on both sides. I am still waiting for an apology from the Islamists for the Crusades, and for 9/11...as far as l can see it will be a loooong wait.

Whoa... you do realize that the Crusades ended up with the "Christians" of Europe being even more bloodier? Not to slant on Christianity, but blaming Muslim violence on Islam makes as much sense as blaming child violence on schoolbooks. In other words, you forget the motives behind the actions.

[agentkgb]

starwest wrote: I am still waiting for an apology from the Islamists for the Crusades, and for 9/11...as far as l can see it will be a loooong wait.
The Crusades? Yes, it will indeed be a long wait, since a Pope started them.

[cap'n queasy]

agentkgb wrote: starwest wrote: I am still waiting for an apology from the Islamists for the Crusades, and for 9/11...as far as l can see it will be a loooong wait.
The Crusades? Yes, it will indeed be a long wait, since a Pope started them.

In answer to a request from the Byzantine Empire which was getting conquered by Islam. They lost the Holy Land and asked for help regaining it. A little late, because they eventually got conquered. Their capital, Constantinople, is now called Istanbul, and the rest of their empire is now called Turkey.

So the Crusades were not exactly what anyone could call unprovoked.

[Saracen]

cap'n queasy wrote: agentkgb wrote: starwest wrote: I am still waiting for an apology from the Islamists for the Crusades, and for 9/11...as far as l can see it will be a loooong wait.
The Crusades? Yes, it will indeed be a long wait, since a Pope started them.

In answer to a request from the Byzantine Empire which was getting conquered by Islam. They lost the Holy Land and asked for help regaining it. A little late, because they eventually got conquered. Their capital, Constantinople, is now called Istanbul, and the rest of their empire is now called Turkey.

Incorrect. The Byzantines were already taking over the Mid-East and Egypt. The Muslims simply fought them off, and Caliph Umar took control over Palestine without shedding a lot of blood. This is not to downplay death, but the treatment of Muslims towards their fellow Jews and Christians was far beyond even "hostile". It was when Hakim of Palestine burned a church (synagogue?) and declared himself God incarnate that the Christians attacked.

Quote: So the Crusades were not exactly what anyone could call unprovoked.

Oh, sure, but in fact, the Christian Arabs were slaughtered by the Crusaders, along with their Muslim and Jewish brethren who were left for the dead after the Conquest of Jerusalem.

Another thing: if "Christian" Zionism is true, why did the Crusaders kill Jews as well as Christians?

[starwest]

I actually don't need a apology for the crusades, I just bring it up because I find it annoying that the Muslims' actually asked and recieved an apology. It shows the world how incredibly tolerant and king the west has been to the Muslims', especially given that the crusades began to protect Cristians who were pilgrimaging to the Holy Lands. It was a war that had blood on both sides. And because historians on both sides gave their own biased version of accounts it is impossible to tally up the evil deeds and see who is worse.
That is why the Muslims' didn't deserve an apology, but they got one anyway...

[Saracen]

starwest wrote: I actually don't need a apology for the crusades, I just bring it up because I find it annoying that the Muslims' actually asked and recieved an apology. It shows the world how incredibly tolerant and king the west has been to the Muslims', especially given that the crusades began to protect Cristians who were pilgrimaging to the Holy Lands. It was a war that had blood on both sides. And because historians on both sides gave their own biased version of accounts it is impossible to tally up the evil deeds and see who is worse.
That is why the Muslims' didn't deserve an apology, but they got one anyway...

I for one did not care for an apology. I know that at some points the Muslims were no better than the Crusaders.

Also, the Muslims themselves were quite more tolerant at that time: they allowed Jews and Christians to worship and maintained their Holy sites.

[superskippy]

Quote: Incorrect. The Byzantines were already taking over the Mid-East and Egypt.

Actually the Byzantines inherited the realms of the Eastern Roman Empire, their territory was slowly eroded over time by Egyptian, Arab, and Turkish advances.

Quote: Oh, sure, but in fact, the Christian Arabs were slaughtered by the Crusaders, along with their Muslim and Jewish brethren who were left for the dead after the Conquest of Jerusalem.

Indeed the Crusades are perhaps the only great instance where two of the Abrahamic religions took up the sword to defend against another. The battles of Haifa and Jerusalem are full of accounts of Jewish soldiers taking up the sword and fighting the Crusaders. In Haifa especially did Jews take up the sword alongside the Muslim soldiers and due to the large Jewish population of Haifa it is beleived that they may have outnumbered the Fatmid garrison.

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: Quote: Incorrect. The Byzantines were already taking over the Mid-East and Egypt.

Actually the Byzantines inherited the realms of the Eastern Roman Empire, their territory was slowly eroded over time by Egyptian, Arab, and Turkish advances.

So, it really wasn't a conquest of just Arabs, then!

Quote: Quote: Oh, sure, but in fact, the Christian Arabs were slaughtered by the Crusaders, along with their Muslim and Jewish brethren who were left for the dead after the Conquest of Jerusalem.

Indeed the Crusades are perhaps the only great instance where two of the Abrahamic religions took up the sword to defend against another. The battles of Haifa and Jerusalem are full of accounts of Jewish soldiers taking up the sword and fighting the Crusaders. In Haifa especially did Jews take up the sword alongside the Muslim soldiers and due to the large Jewish population of Haifa it is beleived that they may have outnumbered the Fatmid garrison.

Remember also that the Crusades were purely driven by politics more than anything else. There were moderate Crusaders who sought Jerusalem as a place to repent and ask for forgiveness from God. But when I did a little bit of googling, look what I stumbled on:

Wikipedia wrote: The preaching of the crusade inspired further anti-Semitism. According to some preachers, Jews and Muslims were enemies of Christ, and enemies were to be fought or converted to Christianity. The general public apparently assumed that "fought" meant "fought to the death", or "killed". The Christian conquest of Jerusalem and the establishment of a Christian emperor there would supposedly instigate the End Times, during which the Jews were supposed to convert to Christianity. In parts of France and Germany, Jews were thought to be responsible for the crucifixion, and they were more immediately visible than the far-away Muslims. Many people wondered why they should travel thousands of miles to fight non-believers when there were already non-believers closer to home.

The first part shouldn't be surprising, but the second part is an echoing of what is happening in the present.

[superskippy]

Quote: So, it really wasn't a conquest of just Arabs, then!

Yep, the Roman Empire stretched far and though it retracted before the division, the Byzantine Empire still stretched at it's height to stretched in tiny tendrels towards Persia and the Cauceses. Infact under Justinian I the Roman Empire was almost restablished to some extant territorialy with Italy, Southern Spain, North Africa, and Dalmatia all recovered including Rome itself.

Byzantine History always interested me it's just so diverse and the Empire comes back from the brink so many times. And Constantinople stood as a wall against the Ottomans for centuries and the fall of Constantinople is perhaps one of the most true poetic battles ever. With the Ottomans at last pouring into the city and Constantine XI last of the Roman Emperors drew his sword cast aside his cloak and according to Ottoman and Byzantine sources proclaimed "The City is fallen but I am alive" and charged into the fray. And so the last Roman Emperor fell at the last bastion of Rome and Constantinople at last fell.

Sorry if I got way off topic it's just Byzantine History so fascinates me and it's fall could have been written as a script to a movie.

Quote: Remember also that the Crusades were purely driven by politics more than anything else. There were moderate Crusaders who sought Jerusalem as a place to repent and ask for forgiveness from God.

The Crusaders of the 1st Crusade were zealots beyond belief, their zeal for the cause and fanatacisim is what led them to success. The morale inspired by their zeal was perhaps the greatest in history as the constantly outnumbered force fought with insane vigour at every battle and indeed even broke a siege with their own depleted arms in a fanatical charge.

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: Sorry if I got way off topic it's just Byzantine History so fascinates me and it's fall could have been written as a script to a movie.

Watch Kingdom of Heaven. It's a fascinating movie. :tu:

Now, back to the topic...