Michigan Opens Door to Muslim Immigration

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#61
Umar is an interesting figure, unlike many muslim rulers today Umar did allow Christians and Jews to follow their own religions without penalty of death, though they still did have to pay the non-believer tax, which is fair enough. Umar had responsibility as a king to do what he must. Still though perhaps he was too bloody in his conquests as all conquerors are, but he did die in a very bloody manner himself. So it is hard to say. Let God judge Umar.

As for today's time islam has gotten out of hand. Muslims are just people as any other, and I'd even argue even more heartbreaking than Christian persecutions by Islam is how muslims themselves are persecuted by Islam. Something must be done about islam in this century or there will only be mass bloodshed for all people. We can all ready see this growing in numbers and intensity since this millenium began, and especially since 2010 just violence in general has spread now over all the earth.
 

Drett

Senior Member
Feb 16, 2013
1,663
38
48
#62
Perhaps Umar ibn Al-Khattāb (579 CE - 644 CE) was too busy murdering Hindus Drett. Alain Danielou in his book, Histoire de l' Inde writes:

"From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, and destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of 'a holy war' of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilizations, wiped out entire races."

The American historian Will Durant summed up Muslim negation of Hindus in India like this:

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

And, of course, Umar's attacks against the Sassanid Persian Empire and Byzantine empire are well documented. According to one estimate more than 4050 cities were captured during military conquest by the sword under Umar.

He was pretty much the opposite of the peacenik 60's hippy you are making him out to be. But at least the plague slowed him down a bit as did:

[video=youtube_share;-CcpkUQRVbc]http://youtu.be/-CcpkUQRVbc[/video]
Shia hate Umar and Abu Bakr. Remember Shia are the ones that practice taqiya not the Sunnis. If you want to believe what they have to say go ahead.

Muslims went to India long after Umar. Humans are human. Do you think if the Christians got it wrong the Muslims cannot ? I need to study up more on India before I form an opinion. Interesting people say Islam was spread by the sword but after 1000 years of rule, the majority of people in India were still Hindu.

What did Gandhi have to say about the prophet pbuh.

“I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind… I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.”

Not a lot of resentment there. If you ask him what he thinks of the British or the missionaries you would get another story.

On the flip side Muslims were near wiped out in the Philippines. The country went from being a Muslim country to Christian one.

In Australia Muslims traded peacefully with Aborigines for centuries. The English come and nearly wiped them out. To show you how cruel they were, a women would be raped then the severed head of her husband would be tied around her neck. Aborigines in Tasmania are extinct. When I worked in Aboriginal land, many Aboriginals would say they would love for it to go back to the old times when the English were out and they were trading with the Muslims again.
 
Last edited:

Elizabeth619

Senior Member
Jul 19, 2011
6,397
109
48
#63
We are a Country that is supposed to be primarily Christian. Did you forget that ?
Are you a Christian ? Do you believe Jesus Christ came as our Sacrificial Lamb,
nailed to the Cross, shed His Blood so we can be Christian, by receiving Him as
our Savior? Do you believe in the need of repentance? Do you believe Christ is
Prince of Peace ? If you are Christian and believe in Christ as Savior, you can
understand where we stand when we refuse to accept religions outside of Jesus
Christ. That is why we take a stand for our Lord and refuse to accept any other
gods.
So instead of understanding your prejudice you proceed to question whether or not I'm a Christian? Really?
Nowhere is it a law that Americans are to be Christian. Yes, I believe we are(or used to be) one nation under God but it violates ones rights to prevent them from coming to America based on ones spiritual belief. That is illegal. This country does not work that way.

By the way, no one can take your relationship with Christ away from you. If you think being around Muslims threatens your relationship with God then maybe you should get your faith in check.
 

Elizabeth619

Senior Member
Jul 19, 2011
6,397
109
48
#64
Elizabeth, Islam is a religion, it is not a Christian religion. The same is true for Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, and hundreds of other religions. When we let these religions define themselves as non religious groups, we give them an open door to pervert Christianity and take over the public forum and remove all Christian voice from it while they spread their message to the world. Think about it.
You're in violation of the constitution. Yeah, that piece of paper that gives us OUR right to worship freely? Goes for Muslims too. I'm not defending Islam either, but pointing out that you cannot keep them out of here.
 
May 4, 2014
288
2
0
#65
It should be obvious that the presence of diametrically opposed worldviews results in increased conflict often presenting as inherent struggle for supremacy (one need only read any scholarly book on world history to discover this) just as a diversity of languages does not enhance communications.

The founding fathers were almost all Protestant Christians from the three largest Christian traditions of colonial America:

1. Anglicanism (as in the cases of John Jay, George Washington, and Edward Rutledge).
2. Presbyterianism (as in the cases of Richard Stockton and the Rev. John Witherspoon).
3. Congregationalism (as in the cases of John Adams and Samuel Adams).

Other Protestant groups included the Society of Friends (Quakers), the Lutherans, and the Dutch Reformed. Minority positions included three Roman Catholics (Charles Carroll, Daniel Carroll of Maryland, and Thomas Fitzsimmons of Pennsylvania) and a few deists with Thomas Paine being the most prominent. Not one was a Muslim, atheist, or pagan.

According to the founding fathers, the United States should be a country where peoples of all faiths could live in peace and mutual benefit. But what they meant by "faiths" was decidedly Christian faiths.

As Bill Flax notes:

"All thought the Bible essential for just and harmonious society. The Founders disagreed on much, but were nearly unanimous concerning biblical morality.

They understood the relationship between state and society differently than progressive thinkers today: government cannot mold man. Righteous men must mold government which requires the inculcation of virtue through vibrant churches and the transmittal of values generationally via a social structure based on families. Jefferson ’s 'wall of separation' guarded faith, or lack thereof, against political interference."

Far from uprooting our Christian moorings, the Forefathers embraced their Christian heritage. Historian Larry Schweikart notes, “The founding documents of every one of the original thirteen colonies reveal them to be awash in the concepts of Christianity and God.” Youth learned to read using Scripture. Universities were chartered to teach doctrine. Students could not even enter Harvard, Yale or Princeton without assenting to the Westminster Confession.

John Adams noted, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity.”

Per Paul Johnson, “The Declaration of Independence was, to those who signed it, a religious as well as a secular act, and the Revolutionary War has the approbation of divine providence.” The Declaration contains four clear references to God. Independence was predicated on the “laws of nature and nature’s God” because men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” The Continental Congress thought success dependent on “the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions” to whom they relied on for “the protection of divine Providence.”

Secularists claim designations like “laws of nature” evidences Deism, not Christianity. But that phrase also appears in the quintessential statement of Protestant faith, the Westminster Confession, where “light of nature,” meaning the same, appears repeatedly.

John Locke, whose influence was indisputable, clarified that natural rights need to “be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God.” And that legislation must be “without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.”

Blackstone’s Commentaries, a pivotal support for America’s common law system, rests upon both sources for truth in Christian thinking. There is “special revelation” in the Holy Scriptures and “general revelation” of a complex, yet sublime world working according to an ordered design subject to discoverable natural laws."

So while the United States was not founded as a Christian theocracy, it was comprised of Christians who intended for the Christian worldview to be indelible to our social fabric and the founders, even the few non-Christians in the U.S. at the time, considered that a blessing.

This cooperation between the Christian worldview and state is referred to by U.S. historians as Jeffersonianism. By basing government in natural, universal, moral law, Jeffersonianism avoids antinomianism (secularism) on the one hand and state-mandated religion (reconstructionism) on the other.

Quoting Dave Miller PhD:

The Founders would never have favored integrating Islam into our schools, government, and other civil institutions. Far from it. In his discussion of freedom of religion in his monumental Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Father of American Jurisprudence Joseph Story clarified the meaning of the First Amendment with regard to the priority of Christianity:

"It is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty."

Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation (1833, 44.723-726.3.3.1865-1868, emp. added).

Indeed, the First Amendment was never intended to “level all religions.” Story further explained that:

"the real object of the First amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government" (1833, 3:728, emp. added).

One must not misconstrue the Founders’ strong emphasis on religious freedom and tolerance as an indication that they viewed all religion as legitimate or conducive to the principles of the Republic. Their central concern was “disestablishment,” i.e., preventing the federal government from establishing one Christian sect as the state religion. Their idea of “freedom of religion” was first and foremost freedom to pursue the Christian religion unhindered by the federal government, and only secondarily freedom to practice non-Christian religion.

This truth is verified by the discussions surrounding the wording of the First Amendment. George Mason—who has gone down in American history as the Father of the Bill of Rights—proposed the following wording:

“All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others” (as quoted in Rowland, 1892, 1:244, emp. added).

While Mason’s proposal did not make the final cut, it nevertheless establishes the historical context of the Founders’ discussion, demonstrating that their concern was first and foremost for the free exercise of the Christian religion.

Miller continued here: Apologetics Press - Were the Founding Fathers "Tolerant" of Islam? [Part I]

Even though you believe them, your assertions are false.
Your inflated, pseudo-intellectual pretense is laughable. Really, it is. You're clever, to your credit -- but, on the whole, far too reliant on biased articles and musings that credible law schools and the general consensus of Constitutional scholars would disembowel. Your ignorance of contemporary western legal and social infrastructure, as well as the highly dubious, speculative extrapolations you've made concerning the Founders' alleged intentions as far as religious freedom, are further testimonial of willful ignorance. So, let's set a few things straight.

To begin with, you've asserted that "diametrically opposed worldviews" inevitably begets violence, which is, in your defense, true to a certain extent -- in reference to culturally homogeneous civilizations in particular, stark contrasts in opinion often lead to violence as per human nature. However, that's to say nothing of the extent to which multiculturalism has been a positive force in the world, as well as the fact that many mainstream religious preferences share numerous similarities. Stark differences in opinion don't inevitably have to lead to violence and hatred in the presence of a properly cultivated society that endorses tolerance and acceptance, and the relatively peaceful state of many modern Western multicultural democracies proves this. You're free to posit non sequitur in alluding to X ancient civilization or Y underdeveloped, ethnically charged country as much as you'd like, but in a general sense, multiculturalism -- extending to religion as much as toward various customs and practices -- has been an overwhelming force for good in developed, properly cultivated societies. To my recollection, Canada hasn't ripped itself apart due to Muslim immigration, and nor have various European nations with significant Muslim demographics. If anything is toxic, it's overt homogeneity that begets polarization and intolerance.

The extrapolation Bill Flax makes in reference to religious freedom is simply not constitutionally substantiated, and fails to acknowledge the legislative history of various founders in reference to state governments prior to the adoption of the Constitution. For instance, Jefferson, James Madison and their allies among Virginia's religious groups ended the state's established church and helped pass the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty, a 1786 law guaranteeing religious freedom to all. No mention concerning Christianity in particular is given. Furthermore, Maryland representative Luther Martin said that a handful of delegates to the Constitutional Convention argued for formal recognition of Christianity in the Constitution, insisting that such language was necessary in order to "hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." But that view was not adopted, and the Constitution gave government no authority over religion. Article VI, which allows persons of all religious viewpoints to hold public office, was adopted by a unanimous vote. The language of the documents in question is very clear, and to speculate a supposedly intentional Christian underpinning is both unsubstantiated and superfluous, irrespective of the personal views of those presiding. Through the ratification of the First Amendment, observed Jefferson, the American people built a "wall of separation between church and state."

Bill Flax thus does little to credibly justify the perspective of Jefferson's quote in defense of Christianity's allegedly essential role in shaping government, as there's no truly compelling material to source that references such a perspective beyond a handful far-fetched quote mines that have little to no written basis in the nation's early legal documents. Furthermore, that's to say nothing of the irrelevance of the Founders' religious preferences in a modern, more pluralistic context when considering the intentionally flexible nature of the Constitution, which further undermines the misguided sentiment of Bill Flax.

In reference to the Declaration of Independence, which as an aside isn't an applicable point of contention in light of the fact that it isn't a legal document pertaining to the supreme law of the land, you continue to make unwarranted, dubious extrapolations concerning the intent of the nation's founding fathers by failing utterly to acknowledge the political overtones that saturate the language of the document alongside the philosophical era (the Enlightenment) in which the document's author was heavily influenced by. In addition, it appears as though you're attempting to imply that Christianity was the driving force behind the Declaration -- or, at the very least, a significant contribution. Again, this has no credible basis at all. Thomas Jefferson, the principal author to the Declaration, is quoted as stating the following in a letter to a friend:

"it is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, of so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."

Jefferson was clearly deistic in reference to religious faith, and was certainly not loyal to Christianity from a spiritual point of view. Rather, he contended that the morality of Jesus was to be lauded, but didn't share this perspective in reference to the entirety of the Bible with respect to morality. Jefferson lost faith roughly a decade before even authoring the Declaration, to begin with. Ultimately, it's easy to recognize that religious faith in reference to Christianity has no real bearing on the Declaration, and it's thus more plausible to perceive references to God in the Declaration in a deistic and/or philosophical light in lieu of a spiritual one.

As for John Locke, his influence on the Constitution is indeed unquestionable, but overstated in reference to Constitutional philosophy. In examining the context of the era, most founding fathers (along with a large fraction of colonial intelligentsia in general) were heavily shaped by the Enlightenment, and many were heavily deistic or indifferent to religion altogether. Contrary to your heavily erroneous understanding of several of the Founders' religious beliefs, the primary leaders of the nation's "founding fathers" held views that didn't single out Protestant Christianity from a spiritual or otherwise theological point of view as having a general legal applicability -- for instance, George Washington held a reputation for being inconsistent in matters of religious faith as far as a theological belief in Christianity, and was often dodgy during inquiries concerning religion while at the same time espousing general religious tolerance and freedom. Scholars generally depict Washington as having mostly deistic and Christian qualities, and that he, like many of his contemporaries, was heavily influenced by Deistic schools of thought associated with the Enlightenment. James Madison was largely indifferent to religious matters altogether, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were demonstrably deistic in terms of religious faith, and Alexander Hamilton drew heavily from the deistic philosophy of the era (while admittedly returning to religion in his later years).

In general, most of the nation's key founding fathers leaned toward something of a middle ground between various Protestant sects and deism to varying degrees, and it's thus unwarranted to posit that Locke's influence on Constitutional philosophy should have any truly meaningful merit insofar as asserting exclusively Christian undertones. Again, it can't be stated enough that the Enlightenment eclipsed Locke's much more conservative point of view in reference to religious allusions, and that the Enlightenment had an incalculable effect on the intelligentsia that eventually produced the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. While the Founders and Locke may have largely agreed on a Christian morality in reference to Christ's teachings, to assert that they agreed that the will of the Christian God -- and legislation concerning this "will" -- is unwarranted.

Ultimately, you severely understate the influence of the Enlightenment on the upper echelons of colonial academia, fail to recognize and acknowledge the influence that deism as per the Enlightenment had on the nation's key founders, and, perhaps most dishonestly, you make utterly tremendous leaps in speculation from contextually inaccurate quotes that simply don't hold merit by the general scholarly consensus. Your perspective is an attempt to validate and formalize a form of Christian revisionism through discredited, refuted material that, upon closer examination, doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#66
No, that's a false assertion. Umar ibn Al-Khattāb lived between 579 CE and 644 CE and the Muslims began pouring in to India around 632 CE.

Yes while the Muslims murdered between 80 million and 100 million Hindus over the centuries Drett (not counting the mass rapes of Hindu women and the destruction of thousands of ancient temples and libraries). The Hindus were considered pagans by the Muslims without protection as people of the book. The population of India actually negated (e.g. decreased) as a result and that's why it's called "the Muslim negation of India" taken from Dr. Koenraad Elst's book titled "The Negation of Islam" in which he states:

"The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter."

Will Durant argued in his book "The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage":

"The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period."

Francois Gautier in his book 'Rewriting Indian History' wrote:

"The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese."

Writer Fernand Braudel wrote in 'A History of Civilisations', that Islamic rule in India as a

"colonial experiment" was "extremely violent", and "the Muslims could not rule the country except by systematic terror. Cruelty was the norm – burnings, summary executions, crucifixions or impalements, inventive tortures. Hindu temples were destroyed to make way for mosques. On occasion there were forced conversions. If ever there were an uprising, it was instantly and savagely repressed: houses were burned, the countryside was laid waste, men were slaughtered and women were taken as slaves."

CAN'T YOU FEEL THE MUSLIM TOLERANCE AND LOVE SEEPING FROM THE PAGES OF HISTORY DRETT!

The Muslims genocidal murdering and slaving in India was without parallel until the 20th century (when state atheists managed to supersede it using modern technology) but the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and the majority never surrendered or converted making it impossible for the Muslims to complete their objective which was the total and complete submission of India to Islam.

As Indian heroes emerged (men like Guru Gobind Singh and Shivaji Maratha) and began gaining victories with armed military conflict against the invading Muslims, the Muslims offered twenty humiliating conditions and a "toleration" tax. It wasn't until the late 1700s, after centuries of Muslim death and destruction, that the people of India finally defeated even that and procreated to their present populous demographic.

But the Muslims have a real fetish for exploiting Hindus (old habits die hard I suppose in the unregenerate Muslim heart) and it continues to the present on a small scale: Muslim Persecution of Hindus In India -- The Story You Won't See In the Western Mainstream Media | Fox News

And Ghandi was not a Brahmin or a Kshatryia nor a Hindu theologian or a traditional systematic religious thinker. He was a non-traditionalist who invented his own philosophy (e.g. Satyagraha). He wouldn't be the right one to ask. As you know, most Hindus do not like Muslims and visa versa. When the British pulled out of India and the Hindu and Muslim populations parted with the Muslims going North and forming Pakistan: the ensuing widespread murder left a million dead bodies lying in the streets.

And how did that happen? Jinnah the Muslim threatened all of India with terror if his demands of an Islamic state (e.g. Pakistan) were not met stating, “I will have India divided or India burned” in his famous speech in August 16, 1946 in which he called for all Muslims to terrorize India with widespread Hindu and Sikh murder for the creation of Pakistan and on the appointed day Muslims began murdering and the Hindus and Sikhs fought back. A million people died.


Muslims went to India long after Umar. Humans are human. Do you think if the Christians got it wrong the Muslims cannot ? I need to study up more on India before I form an opinion. Interesting people say Islam was spread by the sword but after 1000 years of rule, the majority of people in India were still Hindu.

What did Gandhi have to say about the prophet pbuh.

“I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind… I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.”

Not a lot of resentment there. If you ask him what he thinks of the British or the missionaries you would get another story.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#67
I'll have to refute your ad hominem, ignorance, and false assertions later Lizathrose as it's really late here. But fear not lol; your scholarly correction is enroute. :) Right now though, it's time for bed. *yawn.*
 
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
#68
I'll have to refute your ad hominem, ignorance, and false assertions later Lizathrose as it's really late here. But fear not lol; your scholarly correction is enroute. :) Right now though, it's time for bed. *yawn.*
Lizathrose' argument was logically sound. In your arguments toward me you've bantered on reductio ad Hitlerum until everyone agrees with you and calls me a communist.
 
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
#69
No, that's a false assertion. Umar ibn Al-Khattāb lived between 579 CE and 644 CE and the Muslims began pouring in to India around 632 CE.

Yes while the Muslims murdered between 80 million and 100 million Hindus over the centuries Drett (not counting the mass rapes of Hindu women and the destruction of thousands of ancient temples and libraries). The Hindus were considered pagans by the Muslims without protection as people of the book. The population of India actually negated (e.g. decreased) as a result and that's why it's called "the Muslim negation of India" taken from Dr. Koenraad Elst's book titled "The Negation of Islam" in which he states:

"The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter."

Will Durant argued in his book "The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage":

"The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period."

Francois Gautier in his book 'Rewriting Indian History' wrote:

"The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese."

Writer Fernand Braudel wrote in 'A History of Civilisations', that Islamic rule in India as a

"colonial experiment" was "extremely violent", and "the Muslims could not rule the country except by systematic terror. Cruelty was the norm – burnings, summary executions, crucifixions or impalements, inventive tortures. Hindu temples were destroyed to make way for mosques. On occasion there were forced conversions. If ever there were an uprising, it was instantly and savagely repressed: houses were burned, the countryside was laid waste, men were slaughtered and women were taken as slaves."

CAN'T YOU FEEL THE MUSLIM TOLERANCE AND LOVE SEEPING FROM THE PAGES OF HISTORY DRETT!

The Muslims genocidal murdering and slaving in India was without parallel until the 20th century (when state atheists managed to supersede it using modern technology) but the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and the majority never surrendered or converted making it impossible for the Muslims to complete their objective which was the total and complete submission of India to Islam.

As Indian heroes emerged (men like Guru Gobind Singh and Shivaji Maratha) and began gaining victories with armed military conflict against the invading Muslims, the Muslims offered twenty humiliating conditions and a "toleration" tax. It wasn't until the late 1700s, after centuries of Muslim death and destruction, that the people of India finally defeated even that and procreated to their present populous demographic.

But the Muslims have a real fetish for exploiting Hindus (old habits die hard I suppose in the unregenerate Muslim heart) and it continues to the present on a small scale: Muslim Persecution of Hindus In India -- The Story You Won't See In the Western Mainstream Media | Fox News

And Ghandi was not a Brahmin or a Kshatryia nor a Hindu theologian or a traditional systematic religious thinker. He was a non-traditionalist who invented his own philosophy (e.g. Satyagraha). He wouldn't be the right one to ask. As you know, most Hindus do not like Muslims and visa versa. When the British pulled out of India and the Hindu and Muslim populations parted with the Muslims going North and forming Pakistan: the ensuing widespread murder left a million dead bodies lying in the streets.

And how did that happen? Jinnah the Muslim threatened all of India with terror if his demands of an Islamic state (e.g. Pakistan) were not met stating, “I will have India divided or India burned” in his famous speech in August 16, 1946 in which he called for all Muslims to terrorize India with widespread Hindu and Sikh murder for the creation of Pakistan and on the appointed day Muslims began murdering and the Hindus and Sikhs fought back. A million people died.
It is an often overlooked fact that Islam's Holy Quran and Christianity's bible venerate only one man as a pure moral example for mankind, that is the Christian 'Jesus' and the Islam 'Issa' - one and the same person.

"Behold! the angels said, 'Oh Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter, and of those nearest to God. He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. He shall be of the righteous... And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Goodness" (3:45-48).

So, taking into account the veneration of this man in both religions as the moral example for humanity, we can look at the things Jesus instructed and discern the true followers from their adherence to such instruction.

Jesus of Nazareth said 'love your enemies', and 'love your neighbour as yourself'. Two commands that require any adherent to treat every person equally - to show compassion and kindness to those who are even considered enemies. Both books verify these sayings in some way or another.

O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah as witnesses to fairness and do not let the hatred of others toward you make you swerve to do wrong and depart from right-doing. Be just, that is next to piety. Revere Allah, indeed Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do.”(5:8)

To those who when tyranny strikes them defend themselves - the recompense of evil is punishment like it, but whoever forgives and amends, he shall have his reward from Allah; surely Allah does not prefer the wrongdoing way. (42: 39-40)

Thus a person who fails to love their enemies, to not be swayed by evil and in fact to do kindness to those who show hatred towards them, can be called a non-follower, since true followers would adhere to these words.

Now, your assertion is that the slaughter of the Hindus was 'Muslim' - when in fact the leaders of the slaughtering armies were affiliate Muslims and Turk-Mongols like Timur Lane, not even fully acquainted with the symbolism and meanings of the Quran. Since both religions, Christianity and Islam, revere Jesus of Nazareth's moral teachings above all else, would you allow the same logic to be applied to the 'Christian' leaders who led the slaughters of millions - in that you would assume that they did it out of the real Christian faith?

If you would, then you might see from a more unbiased perspective.
 
J

J-Kay-2

Guest
#70
So instead of understanding your prejudice you proceed to question whether or not I'm a Christian? Really?
Nowhere is it a law that Americans are to be Christian. Yes, I believe we are(or used to be) one nation under God but it violates ones rights to prevent them from coming to America based on ones spiritual belief. That is illegal. This country does not work that way.

By the way, no one can take your relationship with Christ away from you. If you think being around Muslims threatens your relationship with God then maybe you should get your faith in check.

I am Christian. I know I stand a chance of being beheaded by Muslims who hate me for
Jesus Christ ( our Jesus ) not their mahdi, being my Savior. So I am willing to give my
life taking a stand for Christ. And remember their Allah does not believe in a peaceful
religion. Are we, as Christians ready to give our head for Christ ? I am very serious.

 
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
#71
I am Christian. I know I stand a chance of being beheaded by Muslims who hate me for
Jesus Christ ( our Jesus ) not their mahdi, being my Savior. So I am willing to give my
life taking a stand for Christ. And remember their Allah does not believe in a peaceful
religion.
Are we, as Christians ready to give our head for Christ ? I am very serious.

Here's a verse of the Quran that says otherwise:

Allah said: "O Jesus. I will take you and raise you to Myself, and rid you of (mind) the same falsehoods held by those who speak wrongly of me; I will make those who follow you (morally) superior to those who deny to follow. Concerning the Day of Resurrection: Then shall all mankind return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein you dispute." Surah 3:55

It means that Jesus is the highest authority for all men, and is a man whose moral teaching all people should follow for the good of mankind.
 
Last edited:

Agricola

Senior Member
Dec 10, 2012
2,638
88
48
#72
The long term goal of Islam is to bring the whole world under Islamic rule. The famous Leader of Libya, Colonel Gaddafi is quoted as stating on lines that Europe can not be brought under Islamic rule by war, instead the victory will come by peacful means, in other words the population game.

In the West we seem oblivious to population wars, most of the world seem to understand it. The Russians understood it and gave medals and rewards to women who gave birth to 8 or more children, Middle East understand it, with Israel rewarding mothers who give birth to numerous children and so on. The latest census data shows that although Muslims make up less than 10% of the population, they gave birth to more children than the White British population did.

Yet in the so called Western countries we remain oblivious to this threat, its only now after many decades that the issue is coming to light as Islamic population is becoming more noticeable and more vocal. In UK a number of cities have large areas where only Muslims live, they have driven out the non-muslims through intimidation and threats, yet our government do not want to say anything or do anything out of fear of repercussions.

Soon we will see a larger increase of Muslim Members of Parliament and local councillours, how many Islamic councils will there be in 20 years time? Then there is the issue of the take over of schools in Birmingham, where muslims forced out non-muslim staff and head teachers, replacing them with hard line Islamic teachers, the same is happening on national levels, we saw it in Sudan and no in Nigeria.

Some European countries are at the tipping point of reaching nearly 50% Muslim population, then what?


[h=3][/h]
 
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
#73
The long term goal of Islam is to bring the whole world under Islamic rule. The famous Leader of Libya, Colonel Gaddafi is quoted as stating on lines that Europe can not be brought under Islamic rule by war, instead the victory will come by peacful means, in other words the population game.

In the West we seem oblivious to population wars, most of the world seem to understand it. The Russians understood it and gave medals and rewards to women who gave birth to 8 or more children, Middle East understand it, with Israel rewarding mothers who give birth to numerous children and so on. The latest census data shows that although Muslims make up less than 10% of the population, they gave birth to more children than the White British population did.

Yet in the so called Western countries we remain oblivious to this threat, its only now after many decades that the issue is coming to light as Islamic population is becoming more noticeable and more vocal. In UK a number of cities have large areas where only Muslims live, they have driven out the non-muslims through intimidation and threats, yet our government do not want to say anything or do anything out of fear of repercussions.

Soon we will see a larger increase of Muslim Members of Parliament and local councillours, how many Islamic councils will there be in 20 years time? Then there is the issue of the take over of schools in Birmingham, where muslims forced out non-muslim staff and head teachers, replacing them with hard line Islamic teachers, the same is happening on national levels, we saw it in Sudan and no in Nigeria.

Some European countries are at the tipping point of reaching nearly 50% Muslim population, then what?
It should not technically matter what percentage of the population are Muslim, because there are legal precedents that cannot be undermined regardless of the parliamentary majority's religious views. As for 'Sharia Towns', it's nothing more than a few hard-line Muslims putting up stickers in central London, which the councils then go round adn take down, and Scotland Yard investigate.

It's ludicrous how much of a sensation the media has made of this, when it is literally impossible and unfathomable for there to be Sharia Law zones in a country under United Kingdom law. It just cannot and will not happen - if someone breaks the law, they will be arrested, regardless of their religious beliefs. Women have been threatened in these areas and the police investigate and arrest as normal.

As for the schools issue, there were only a few schools with Muslim majorities and there were, in the words of educational investigators, 'plots to run school ls by Islamic rules'. Obviously, since the UK is a free state where religious opinion is secondary to the laws of equality and freedom of thought, this is being harshly opposed by official authorities and will be nipped in the bud.

It's the same thing as when my school teacher tried to instil feminist viewpoints in us; she was fired.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#74
Your argument was false and I refuted it here http://christianchat.com/christian-news-forum/93823-obama-defiler.html#post1578904 and here http://christianchat.com/christian-news-forum/93823-obama-defiler-2.html#post1579231

One example I provided, in refuting a specific false assertion of yours that de facto man-made secular law supersedes God's de jure eternal holy and normative moral law (see Acts 5:29 "but Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men'") was that it was moral for citizens of the Third Reich to disobey Nazi law and not surrender up Jews for extermination.

My example usage in that context is wholly legitimate and not the association fallacy you falsely assert because of your ignorance. To qualify as reduction ad Hitlerum, there must be a fallacy of irrelevance in which a conclusion is suggested based solely on something's or someone's origin rather than its current meaning.

Tthe fallacious nature of reductio ad Hitlerum is easily illustrated by identifying X as something that Adolf Hitler or his supporters did promote but which is not considered unethical, such as painting (like Sir Winston Churchill), enjoying classical music (like some of the July 20 plotters), or owning dogs (like Franklin Delano Roosevelt).

For example: "Hitler loved animals, so animal protection is a fascist activity [because the things Hitler did were wrong, or because it could lead to results ideologically or morally aligned with Hitler."

^ That is real example of reductio ad Hitlerum. Please educate yourself with respect to the rules of logic so that you will cease making so many ignorant false assertions and false accusations. Thanking you in advance.


Lizathrose' argument was logically sound. In your arguments toward me you've bantered on reductio ad Hitlerum until everyone agrees with you and calls me a communist.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,708
3,650
113
#75
. Since both religions, Christianity and Islam, revere Jesus of Nazareth's moral teachings above all else, would you allow the same logic to be applied to the 'Christian' leaders who led the slaughters of millions - in that you would assume that they did it out of the real Christian faith?
'Revering' Jesus' moral teachings does not make true Christianity irregadless what name they go by...that would only be a shell. To revere his 'moral teaching' one must consider him morally true and not a liar. Jesus made claims that Islam rejects thus essentially calling Jesus a liar such as...

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

And

Mark 9:31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

So those who claim they are following His moral teachings but reject Him at other points are deceived no matter what their title is.
 
J

J-Kay-2

Guest
#76
Here's a verse of the Quran that says otherwise:

Allah said: "O Jesus. I will take you and raise you to Myself, and rid you of (mind) the same falsehoods held by those who speak wrongly of me; I will make those who follow you (morally) superior to those who deny to follow. Concerning the Day of Resurrection: Then shall all mankind return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein you dispute." Surah 3:55

It means that Jesus is the highest authority for all men, and is a man whose moral teaching all people should follow for the good of mankind.

You have brought tears to my eyes .... I know the ONE true JESUS CHRIST.
I pray you will find Him as your Savior. This is a deceptive quote you are
posting, and I assume believing. God have mercy on your soul.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#77
Early attacks upon and conquests by Muslims of Hindus were Arab conquests such as the Muslim Arab military attacks of Sindh and Multan along the Indus River for the Umayyad Caliphate by Arab generals such as Muhammad bin Qasim (who was born and raised in Saudi Arabia).

Following that would have been military incursions during the Ghaznavid Period under the Muslim Afgans Mahmud of Ghazni and Mu'izz al-Din, etc... which eventually brings us to the of the Delhi Sultanate in which the first four of the five dynasties between 1206 AD and 1526 AD were of Turkish origin.

I'm not sure what your point is in arguing that Turkish Muslims are not as Muslim as Arab or Persian Muslims as they were certainly all Muslims who based their laws on the Quran and sharia and participated in Indian atrocity and enslavement.

Moving along, you seem to think Islam and Christianity view Jesus the same way. They don't. In Islam, Jesus is a prophet and the exact number of prophets, while not stated in the Qur'an (40:78), is based on the belief that every community has had a messenger. Muslim tradition has put the number at 124,000 prophets. Now among the prophets, five are recognized to be in the highest rank and given the title of ulu'l-'Azm (people of the determination or perseverance). They are: Muhammad, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (some Muslims also include Adam as the sixth person in this list).

In Islamic theology, it is Muhammad who is the greatest of all prophets superseding Jesus whom they deny as God leveling a charge of blasphemy against us Christians for rightfully asserting that Jesus Christ is exactly who He said He is which is God. As John 8:58 recorded; Jesus declared, "I say unto you, Before Abraham was [and Muhammed], I am."

Why am I telling you all of this in response to what you posted you may be wondering. The reason is simple. Your attempted correlation that the Jesus of Islam and the Jesus of Christianity are equitable fails because the authoritative revelations and resulting epistemologies concerning Jesus Christ are diametrically opposed in the two worldviews.

In Islam, according to the Qur'an, Jesus was merely a human being who was chosen by God as a prophet and sent for the guidance of the people of Israel. Mullah's throughout Islam's history have taught that Jesus' ministry was limited to the nation of Israel, and his revelation was basically one of confirmation and revision of the Mosaic covenant (5:46-47). Muslims aren't following Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior as genuine Christians do: just the opposite.

They're highest authority is Muhammed in Medina. Islam teaches that the newer violent revelations of Muhammed supersede the earlier Meccan ones. It's the Medina Quran that incorporates much of the moral blessings and instructions of Jihad, violence, human enslavement, raiding, etc... That's their highest authority: not the words of Jesus Christ.


It is an often overlooked fact that Islam's Holy Quran and Christianity's bible venerate only one man as a pure moral example for mankind, that is the Christian 'Jesus' and the Islam 'Issa' - one and the same person.

"Behold! the angels said, 'Oh Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter, and of those nearest to God. He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. He shall be of the righteous... And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Goodness" (3:45-48).

So, taking into account the veneration of this man in both religions as the moral example for humanity, we can look at the things Jesus instructed and discern the true followers from their adherence to such instruction.

Jesus of Nazareth said 'love your enemies', and 'love your neighbour as yourself'. Two commands that require any adherent to treat every person equally - to show compassion and kindness to those who are even considered enemies. Both books verify these sayings in some way or another.

O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah as witnesses to fairness and do not let the hatred of others toward you make you swerve to do wrong and depart from right-doing. Be just, that is next to piety. Revere Allah, indeed Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do.”(5:8)

To those who when tyranny strikes them defend themselves - the recompense of evil is punishment like it, but whoever forgives and amends, he shall have his reward from Allah; surely Allah does not prefer the wrongdoing way. (42: 39-40)

Thus a person who fails to love their enemies, to not be swayed by evil and in fact to do kindness to those who show hatred towards them, can be called a non-follower, since true followers would adhere to these words.

Now, your assertion is that the slaughter of the Hindus was 'Muslim' - when in fact the leaders of the slaughtering armies were affiliate Muslims and Turk-Mongols like Timur Lane, not even fully acquainted with the symbolism and meanings of the Quran. Since both religions, Christianity and Islam, revere Jesus of Nazareth's moral teachings above all else, would you allow the same logic to be applied to the 'Christian' leaders who led the slaughters of millions - in that you would assume that they did it out of the real Christian faith?

If you would, then you might see from a more unbiased perspective.
 
S

Sirk

Guest
#79
Love a vocabulary policeman or woman.....cuz the letter of the law people need love too.
 
J

J-Kay-2

Guest
#80
John 14:6
King James Bible
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.