Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
piscohot
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:16 am

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by piscohot »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
piscohot wrote:
Now answer this:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: Why did you find my line "All of you are doing exactly the same. What was wrong then? The difference is that he was right and all of you are wrong.", so difficult to understand?
What was he right about?
Muhammad was right in passing the Message of Allah to his Meccan folks, who were idolaters and pagans.

The Meccans did not allow him the freedom of speech. So, he stood up, spoke up and defended the right to speak and delivered the Message. Does this help?

yes, it helped alot, thank you.

It helped to confirm that muslims think it is their right to impose their beliefs on others. Muhammad couldn't get anyone to believe his 'revelations' so he resorted to insulting their religions, customs and ancestors. When the people can no longer tolerate Muhammad and his attacks on them and retaliated, muslims believed that it is an attack on Islam (never mind that Muhammad caused it) and wiped them out.
What so difficult about admitting things as it was?
Muhammad's actions caused the retaliation from the meccans.
Why the need to keep saying that Muhammad was persecuted because of his beliefs? Muhammad was persecuted because he cannot shut up and leave other people's religion alone.
And to think I've met muslims whose eyes actually welled up in tears when they talked about how Muhammad was 'persecuted' back then. :roll:
Quran miracle (16:69) : Bees eat ALL fruits
Quran miracle (27:18) : an ant SAID, "O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not."

Ghalibkhastahaal
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:20 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

piscohot wrote:
yes, it helped alot, thank you.
Glad it helped. Thanks
piscohot wrote:It helped to confirm that muslims think it is their right to impose their beliefs on others.
That is not right, if any Muslim does that.
piscohot wrote:Muhammad couldn't get anyone to believe his 'revelations' so he resorted to insulting their religions, customs and ancestors. When the people can no longer tolerate Muhammad and his attacks on them and retaliated, muslims believed that it is an attack on Islam (never mind that Muhammad caused it) and wiped them out.
What so difficult about admitting things as it was?
Muhammad's actions caused the retaliation from the meccans.
Why the need to keep saying that Muhammad was persecuted because of his beliefs? Muhammad was persecuted because he cannot shut up and leave other people's religion alone.
And to think I've met muslims whose eyes actually welled up in tears when they talked about how Muhammad was 'persecuted' back then. :roll:
Muhammad was a Messenger of God. So were others before him. He was not on a forum. His job was to deliver the Message and he did. He was kicked out by the Kafirs, so how could he have wiped them out.

His best chance to wipe the Meccans out, was when he made his triumphal entry into Mecca. Did he wipe them out? Was there any massive slaughter?

None! Right?

piscohot
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:16 am

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by piscohot »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:His best chance to wipe the Meccans out, was when he made his triumphal entry into Mecca. Did he wipe them out? Was there any massive slaughter?

None! Right?
:lol:

You want to name a christain or jewish settlement or any non muslim tribe still living in Saudi Arabia?
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: He was kicked out by the Kafirs
he wasn't kicked out. He ran away.
Quran miracle (16:69) : Bees eat ALL fruits
Quran miracle (27:18) : an ant SAID, "O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not."

Ghalibkhastahaal
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:20 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

piscohot wrote:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:His best chance to wipe the Meccans out, was when he made his triumphal entry into Mecca. Did he wipe them out? Was there any massive slaughter?

None! Right?
:lol:
Like every non-Muslim you avoided an answer and tried to laugh it off. This is what the the non-Muslims usually do, when they are asked a question. Anyway, I should be the one to laugh at your blank answer.
piscohot wrote:You want to name a christain or jewish settlement or any non muslim tribe still living in Saudi Arabia?
There is even no Muslim tribe living in Saudi Arabia. The Jews ran away long time ago. The Christians are
still living in their hig-class compounds. Now, it is my turn to laugh. :lol:
piscohot wrote:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: He was kicked out by the Kafirs
he wasn't kicked out. He ran away.
No.

Please read Islamic history to acquaint yourselves.

User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
piscohot wrote:
yes, it helped alot, thank you.
Glad it helped. Thanks
piscohot wrote:It helped to confirm that muslims think it is their right to impose their beliefs on others.
That is not right, if any Muslim does that.
piscohot wrote:Muhammad couldn't get anyone to believe his 'revelations' so he resorted to insulting their religions, customs and ancestors. When the people can no longer tolerate Muhammad and his attacks on them and retaliated, muslims believed that it is an attack on Islam (never mind that Muhammad caused it) and wiped them out.
What so difficult about admitting things as it was?
Muhammad's actions caused the retaliation from the meccans.
Why the need to keep saying that Muhammad was persecuted because of his beliefs? Muhammad was persecuted because he cannot shut up and leave other people's religion alone.
And to think I've met muslims whose eyes actually welled up in tears when they talked about how Muhammad was 'persecuted' back then. :roll:
Muhammad was a Messenger of God. So were others before him. He was not on a forum. His job was to deliver the Message and he did. He was kicked out by the Kafirs, so how could he have wiped them out.

His best chance to wipe the Meccans out, was when he made his triumphal entry into Mecca. Did he wipe them out? Was there any massive slaughter?

None! Right?
Because they surrendered without a fight. How did you ignore that part??? The Banu weren't so fortunate and didn't get the chance to surrender and 800 of them were beheaded in one day. My God what is the matter with you people?? How can you be so hypnotized?? Why kill the Meccans when you can control them, tax them and/or convert them? And you talk about no compulsion in religion, but the first thing Muhammad did was to smash all of their idols.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

darth
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:16 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by darth »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
piscohot wrote:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: He was kicked out by the Kafirs
he wasn't kicked out. He ran away.
No.

Please read Islamic history to acquaint yourselves.
Piscohot is correct. It is you who needs to read islamic history.
Mo ran away from Mecca. Prior to that he was preaching there for 10 years. Nobody took him seriously in the beginning. Probably as a result of this, he started becoming more threatening and aggressive. Thus he started making enemies. But he was still protected by his uncle for a very long time. After his uncle died and he still did not mend his way, situation started getting tense until one day in the middle of the night he ran away like the coward he was. But do you think he went to medina to preach peacefully. Nope he became a ganglord there.
Some "prophet" you follow....

Ghalibkhastahaal
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:20 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

Spoiler! :
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
piscohot wrote:
yes, it helped alot, thank you.
Glad it helped. Thanks
piscohot wrote:It helped to confirm that muslims think it is their right to impose their beliefs on others.
That is not right, if any Muslim does that.
piscohot wrote:Muhammad couldn't get anyone to believe his 'revelations' so he resorted to insulting their religions, customs and ancestors. When the people can no longer tolerate Muhammad and his attacks on them and retaliated, muslims believed that it is an attack on Islam (never mind that Muhammad caused it) and wiped them out.
What so difficult about admitting things as it was?
Muhammad's actions caused the retaliation from the meccans.
Why the need to keep saying that Muhammad was persecuted because of his beliefs? Muhammad was persecuted because he cannot shut up and leave other people's religion alone.
And to think I've met muslims whose eyes actually welled up in tears when they talked about how Muhammad was 'persecuted' back then. :roll:
Muhammad was a Messenger of God. So were others before him. He was not on a forum. His job was to deliver the Message and he did. He was kicked out by the Kafirs, so how could he have wiped them out.

His best chance to wipe the Meccans out, was when he made his triumphal entry into Mecca. Did he wipe them out? Was there any massive slaughter?

None! Right?
Because they surrendered without a fight. How did you ignore that part??? The Banu weren't so fortunate and didn't get the chance to surrender and 800 of them were beheaded in one day. My God what is the matter with you people?? How can you be so hypnotized?? Why kill the Meccans when you can control them, tax them and/or convert them? And you talk about no compulsion in religion, but the first thing Muhammad did was to smash all of their idols.
But if he were a person of hatred and vengeance and if he had wanted, he could have slaughtered them all. Right? But he forgave them. Two Bannus were forgiven and one stupid Banu, the rascals Banu Quraiyzah had their leaders killed. But there was no slaughter of 400 or 600 or 800 or 960 Jews. That is a Jewish propaganda, which was carried out by the Jews back then. They have exactly the same story that Alexander hung up 800 Jews on the cross. May be your story came from that copy.

The Jews have always been good at cooking up numbers and they even have a chapter Numbers in their Bible. You cannot trust the Jews. They will lie through their teeth far better than the Christians.

Only Paul beats them in lying. They have even come up with an unsubstantiated figure of six million Jews killed by the European Christians.

This story came from a Lying Jewish convert, Ibne Ishaq (Ben Issac), if you know what I mean. He was a liar and sucked up to the Jews and brought in Jewish tales.

If this event were true, there would have been half a million hadith narrations and Bukhari and company would have passed away without being able to compile. Laugh it off, my friend.

User avatar
Chiclets
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:19 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Chiclets »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:They have even come up with an unsubstantiated figure of six million Jews killed by the European Christians.
Welcome back bmz, could not stay away from the FFI cesspit for too long eh :wink:
gupsfu wrote:When someone uses the "taken out of context" argument without explaining what it's really supposed to mean, you know he's lying.
Muslims are so secure in their faith that they need to kill those who don’t share it.

darth
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:16 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by darth »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
But if he were a person of hatred and vengeance and if he had wanted, he could have slaughtered them all. Right? But he forgave them.
A choice of convert or die does not translate to "forgiveness".
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: You cannot trust the Jews. They will lie through their teeth far better than the Christians.

Ahh! A jew hating bigot. Could be BMZ as chiclet says. But since many muslims digest the hateful trash that is called the quran, it could be any other muslim as well.

User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: But if he were a person of hatred and vengeance and if he had wanted, he could have slaughtered them all. Right?
Why slaughter the non threatening ones, when they can instead help fund jihad and conquest of other lands? Why do you think the Russians burned down every town they evacuated in WW2? It was so that they wouldn't leave any resources behind for the German's to use. what's the good of being a ruler if you have no revenue source?
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: But he forgave them. Two Bannus were forgiven and one stupid Banu, the rascals Banu Quraiyzah had their leaders killed. But there was no slaughter of 400 or 600 or 800 or 960 Jews. That is a Jewish propaganda, which was carried out by the Jews back then. They have exactly the same story that Alexander hung up 800 Jews on the cross. May be your story came from that copy.
My God, how you are lied to. I'm not even going to dignify that last comment with a response. And, of course, whenever there's a problem, the Jews are always the convenient scapegoat. Honestly, you people should make any reasonable person want to vomit.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: The Jews have always been good at cooking up numbers and they even have a chapter Numbers in their Bible. You cannot trust the Jews. They will lie through their teeth far better than the Christians.
Only Paul beats them in lying.
Why would someone leave a cushy job as a tax collector, only to be abused and imprisoned, and stick with his "supposed" lie, when all he had to do is to agree to stop his preaching and they would leave him alone and let him out of prison? What kind of a liar does that?? Only people who believe in something do that. On the other hand, we have our 20% booty profit pedophile prophet who had a conquering army. Doesn't seem like it was very hard for him to stick to his story. So who's really the liar Paul, or Muhammad?? Think about it. But, of course,...... you can't. You're a Muslim. You're simply incapable of objective thought. Muslims are the world's mascot for mental illness :lol: .
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: They have even come up with an unsubstantiated figure of six million Jews killed by the European Christians.
Yeah, you're right. I wasn't that big of a deal. it was only three million. :lol: Just look at yourself, you creep. Honestly, what is the matter with your soul?

You truly have been indoctrinated into the propaganda of the ignorant, and yet, at the same time, you simply can't understand why so many people dislike Muslims so much.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: This story came from a Lying Jewish convert, Ibne Ishaq (Ben Issac), if you know what I mean. He was a liar and sucked up to the Jews and brought in Jewish tales.

If this event were true, there would have been half a million hadith narrations and Bukhari and company would have passed away without being able to compile. Laugh it off, my friend.
What was that??
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

sum
Posts: 6630
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by sum »

Hello Ghalibkhastahaal

You seem to find the time to respond to other posts but not the time to answer mine. Why is that?

Please tell us which muslim countries were looted, what muslim wealth was looted and how the muslims obtained their wealth.

You made the claim and so I assume that you have the details of what you claimed.

Please answer my question and educate us all including the visitors to the forum.

sum

User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

darth wrote:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
But if he were a person of hatred and vengeance and if he had wanted, he could have slaughtered them all. Right? But he forgave them.
A choice of convert or die does not translate to "forgiveness".
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: You cannot trust the Jews. They will lie through their teeth far better than the Christians.

Ahh! A jew hating bigot. Could be BMZ as chiclet says. But since many muslims digest the hateful trash that is called the quran, it could be any other muslim as well.
Absolutely. They all get fed the same diet. There's even a remarkable similarity in the very methodology of their reasoning itself when the Quran is challenged. I think somebody outlined that in here a few years ago, and not only did Muslims do all of these things, but almost in the same order as well. For example, first claim it's not interpreted correctly, then if that doesn't work, claim the translation is bad, and if that doesn't work, question the questioner's credibility etc.......All of it very predictable, and all of it very dishonest. And they even know they are dishonest, but they don't care. It truly confounds me.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

Ghalibkhastahaal
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:20 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

sum wrote:Hello Ghalibkhastahaal

You seem to find the time to respond to other posts but not the time to answer mine. Why is that?

Please tell us which muslim countries were looted, what muslim wealth was looted and how the muslims obtained their wealth.

You made the claim and so I assume that you have the details of what you claimed.

Please answer my question and educate us all including the visitors to the forum.

sum
sum, the truth is that the European colonizers looted the nations they colonized. By looting, I do not mean a gang of Europeans came, robbed, looted and went back home. We have Mahmood of Ghaznavi, who also looted Hindu temple seventeen times. The British, the French, the Spanish, the Portughese, the Italians, the Belgians and the Germans were the looters. However, they reformed, thanks to another power that was coming up, that is, the Americans.

Since you insist, here is an extract on how the French looted Algeria:
Spoiler! :
Algeria - FRANCE IN ALGERIA, 1830-1962

Most of France's actions in Algeria, not least the invasion of Algiers, were propelled by contradictory impulses. In the period between Napoleon's downfall in 1815 and the revolution of 1830, the restored French monarchy was in crisis, and the dey was weak politically, economically, and militarily. The French monarch sought to reverse his domestic unpopularity. As a result of what the French considered an insult to the French consul in Algiers by the dey in 1827, France blockaded Algiers for three years. France used the failure of the blockade as a reason for a military expedition against Algiers in 1830.

Invasion of Algiers

Using Napoleon's 1808 contingency plan for the invasion of Algeria, 34,000 French soldiers landed twenty-seven kilometers west of Algiers, at Sidi Ferruch, on June 12, 1830. To face the French, the dey sent 7,000 janissaries, 19,000 troops from the beys of Constantine and Oran, and about 17,000 Kabyles. The French established a strong beachhead and pushed toward Algiers, thanks in part to superior artillery and better organization. Algiers was captured after a three-week campaign, and Hussein Dey fled into exile. French troops raped, looted (taking 50 million francs from the treasury in the Casbah), desecrated mosques, and destroyed cemeteries. It was an inauspicious beginning to France's self-described "civilizing mission," whose character on the whole was cynical, arrogant, and cruel.

Hardly had the news of the capture of Algiers reached Paris than Charles X was deposed, and his cousin Louis Philippe, the "citizen king," was named to preside over a constitutional monarchy. The new government, composed of liberal opponents of the Algiers expedition, was reluctant to pursue the conquest ordered by the old regime, but withdrawing from Algeria proved more difficult than conquering it. A parliamentary commission that examined the Algerian situation concluded that although French policy, behavior, and organization were failures, the occupation should continue for the sake of national prestige. In 1834 France annexed the occupied areas, which had an estimated Muslim population of about 3 million, as a colony. Colonial administration in the occupied areas--the so-called régime du sabre (government of the sword)--was placed under a governor general, a high-ranking army officer invested with civil and military jurisdiction, who was responsible to the minister of war.

Algeria - The Land and Colonizers

Even before the decision was made to annex Algeria, major changes had taken place. In a bargain-hunting frenzy to take over or buy at low prices all manner of property--homes, shops, farms and factories--Europeans poured into Algiers after it fell. French authorities took possession of the beylik lands, from which Ottoman officials had derived income. Over time, as pressures increased to obtain more land for settlement by Europeans, the state seized more categories of land, particularly that used by tribes, religious foundations, and villages.

Soon after the conquest of Algiers, the soldier-politician Bertrand Clauzel and others formed a company to acquire agricultural land and, despite official discouragement, to subsidize its settlement by European farmers, triggering a land rush. Clauzel recognized the farming potential of the Mitidja Plain and envisioned the production there of cotton on a large scale. As governor general (1835-36), he used his office to make private investments in land and encouraged army officers and bureaucrats in his administration to do the same. This development created a vested interest among government officials in greater French involvement in Algeria. Commercial interests with influence in the government also began to recognize the prospects for profitable land speculation in expanding the French zone of occupation. They created large agricultural tracts, built factories and businesses, and exploited cheap local labor.

Called colons (colonists) or, more popularly, pieds noirs (literally, black feet), the European settlers were largely of peasant farmer or working-class origin from the poor southern areas of Italy, Spain, and France. Others were criminal and political deportees from France, transported under sentence in large numbers to Algeria. In the 1840s and 1850s, to encourage settlement in rural areas official policy was to offer grants of land for a fee and a promise that improvements would be made. A distinction soon developed between the grands colons (great colonists) at one end of the scale, often self-made men who had accumulated large estates or built successful businesses, and the petits blancs (little whites), smallholders and workers at the other end, whose lot was often not much better than that of their Muslim counterparts. According to historian John Ruedy, although by 1848 only 15,000 of the 109,000 European settlers were in rural areas, "by systematically expropriating both pastoralists and farmers, rural colonization was the most important single factor in the destructuring of traditional society."
This is not exhaustive.

piscohot
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:16 am

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by piscohot »

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
darth wrote:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
But if he were a person of hatred and vengeance and if he had wanted, he could have slaughtered them all. Right? But he forgave them.
A choice of convert or die does not translate to "forgiveness".
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: You cannot trust the Jews. They will lie through their teeth far better than the Christians.

Ahh! A jew hating bigot. Could be BMZ as chiclet says. But since many muslims digest the hateful trash that is called the quran, it could be any other muslim as well.
Absolutely. They all get fed the same diet. There's even a remarkable similarity in the very methodology of their reasoning itself when the Quran is challenged. I think somebody outlined that in here a few years ago, and not only did Muslims do all of these things, but almost in the same order as well. For example, first claim it's not interpreted correctly, then if that doesn't work, claim the translation is bad, and if that doesn't work, question the questioner's credibility etc.......All of it very predictable, and all of it very dishonest. And they even know they are dishonest, but they don't care. It truly confounds me.

Muslims only want to believe that their beloved Prophet was wronged by the meccans(gives them a good reason to be teary-eyed).
It's a self-lying excuse when the purpose of Muhammad and Islam was to eradicate all other religions.
It did not matter to them that the kaba was home to 360 stone idols, the muslim moonstone amongst them. The meccans had absolutely no problem with all these religions and had no problem with Muhammad, at least for the first 10 years. What changed such that the meccans who had no problem with the other 359 stones, had such a big problem with Muhammad? Muslims of the past provided the answers when they revealed that Muhammad, in his desperation for believers, began to insult the religion of others, their customs and their ancestors. But for muslims, they are going to ignore this and insist that it was the right of Muhammad to do what he did (they pretend that Muhammad never did insult anyone or anything in his desperation and the story in the hadiths on the meccans approaching Muhammad's uncle must be a story cooked up by jews :*) ).
Even when Muhammad was raiding caravans, the meccans did nothing to the stone of the muslims. In fact, the muslims were allowed to do pilgrimage even though they at war with each other. But the minute Muhamamd gain power in Mecca, the first thing he did was to destroy the other stones.
Which brings the real intention of Muhammad from the day of his preaching Islam to the surface- getting rid of all other religions. Hence we can see all the revelations about 'No comuplsion in religion'and 'to your your religion and to me mine' were nothing but lies to put non muslims off guard until Muhammad was strong enough to do carry out his plans.
Quran miracle (16:69) : Bees eat ALL fruits
Quran miracle (27:18) : an ant SAID, "O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not."

Brendalee
Posts: 1449
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:14 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Brendalee »

Ghalibkhastahaal:

Perhaps you should tell us all WHY the French (and Brits, and Americans, and Dutch, etc.etc.) were so cross with the Algerians...so cross, in fact, that the French finally invaded.

While you are at it, you might tell us about the first American attack on Tripoli.

But you probably will not want to discuss the slave raids on European and British soil (let alone the massive enslavements carried out by the Muslims in India and Africa), or the relentless attacks on British and European (and American) ships at sea, the seizure of cargos and ships and the enslavement of the crews. (The French suffered particularly badly from attacks on their vessels.)

And you are unlikely to go even earlier and tell us of 400 years of attacks on Christian countries which led to the Crusades. Or the invasions deep into Europe and the conquest and imperialistic occupation of places in Europe, like the former Yugoslavia as just one example, where the Muslim Turks even demanded a HUMAN tax of dhimmi Christian CHILDREN to enslave, forceable convert and turn into Muslim slave soldiers. ( Naw, you probably do not wish to talk about the Jannisaries either.)

Ghalibkhastahaal
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:20 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

Brendalee wrote:Ghalibkhastahaal:

Perhaps you should tell us all WHY the French (and Brits, and Americans, and Dutch, etc.etc.) were so cross with the Algerians...so cross, in fact, that the French finally invaded.

While you are at it, you might tell us about the first American attack on Tripoli.

But you probably will not want to discuss the slave raids on European and British soil (let alone the massive enslavements carried out by the Muslims in India and Africa), or the relentless attacks on British and European (and American) ships at sea, the seizure of cargos and ships and the enslavement of the crews. (The French suffered particularly badly from attacks on their vessels.)

And you are unlikely to go even earlier and tell us of 400 years of attacks on Christian countries which led to the Crusades. Or the invasions deep into Europe and the conquest and imperialistic occupation of places in Europe, like the former Yugoslavia as just one example, where the Muslim Turks even demanded a HUMAN tax of dhimmi Christian CHILDREN to enslave, forceable convert and turn into Muslim slave soldiers. ( Naw, you probably do not wish to talk about the Jannisaries either.)
That would be another subject for another time. I was just showing sum that the French thieves looted the Muslims of Algeria. That is what he had wanted to know. We will talk about other European thieves some other time.

Brendalee
Posts: 1449
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:14 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Brendalee »

:lol: Oh sure! You want to make some accusations against the French and their invasion of Algeria, but you do not wish to talk about WHY the French invaded Algeria. :roflmao:

Incidentally, please do not use C & P without citing the source or giving a link.

Brendalee
Posts: 1449
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:14 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Brendalee »

You point out:
French thieves looted the Muslims of Algeria.
I doubt the French saw it that way. They would surely have seen it only as a partial recompense for the centuries the Muslims had been looting the French, raping THEIR citizens, and enslaving them; not to mention razing their countryside during invasion. Nasty stuff...but you can hardly claim they were not sorely provoked. And you can hardly claim that they had not tried every other recourse first. And you cannot claim that, short of professing Islam, there was any other way to put an END to the depredations Muslims had been inflicting for centuries.

And, to answer one of sum's points, since you decline to do so: The Algerians acquired the bulk of their wealth by RAIDING non-Muslims, not least the French. This includes their ruler, who took the typical 20% of the booty.

And since you decline to answer why the Americans attacked Tripoli the first time, let me enlighten you. It was because Algeria was certainly not the ONLY (to put it mildly) Muslim country to live off the proceeds of slaving and looting. The Americans, like the French, had tried every possible diplomatic means to stop the Muslims from attacking their ships and enslaving their crews. They attacked Tripoli to FREE their enslaved crews.

Such a sense of humour you have! Muslims can loot, rape, enslave, devastate countryside in lands not their own. Seemingly this is fine.
But if a European, British or American power has quite enough and retaliates (and reclaims some part of the loot stolen from THEM), THEY are nasty thieves! LOL!

sum
Posts: 6630
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by sum »

Hello Ghalibkhastahaal

Brendalee has covered a lot in reply to your accusations of Western "looters". Thank you Brendalee. Any other looting of muslim wealth by Westerners? Please tell us.

Please bear in mind that when muslims invade a land they take everything. Muslims do not leave but take permanent control and the land is declared waqf. The muslims oppress the non-muslims in their own land to the point that people find it less oppressive to convert to Islam than remain oppressed as a non-muslim. You destroy previous cultures and the relentless progress of Islam with its conversions leads in time to a people who have no recollection of their own previous culture. It is gone for ever. The people become brainwashed and that ends any possibilty of regaining their previous culture.

Islam has become the world`s most destructive and intolerant ideology the planet has ever known. It has become abundantly clear that muslims who understand Islam have become automatons and have lost the ability to think freely. You are all dumb terminals who can only operate within the paramaters of your programming. This is why logic and reason are of no consequence to muslims.

sum

User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

The hysterical part is that the worst invaders and looters were the Muslim Ottoman's. And they didn't just loot, they occupied and ruled the entire Middle East and more for 400 years. And look at how far behind compared to the west that the Middle East found itself after the west freed it. That was the fault of the Muslim Ottomans. But this all gets ignored because they were Muslims.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

Post Reply