Muslim Mexico?

@Reagaknight,

Forget the cartels - a larger problem we face is the sleeper cells. They come in like rats working in total isolation with one final goal to kill as many of us as possible. Reference those that were recently busted. The only reason they were found out is because they were incredibly stupid and involved an outsider. One thing you can be sure of, they will not make that mistake again. Next time, they will be even more under cover. As I've said before - watch your backs.

2 Replies

@socalgolfguy,

Rome has nothing to do with this.

Roman rule had everything to do with it.

The Muslims massacred Christians in Aleppo in 1148, and a letter with great detail was sent to the former Christian ruler of Antioch when it was captured, describing the enslavement, robbing, and murder of Christians in the city and the destruction of Christian churches, documents, etc. The Muslim entry into Constantinople saw rivers of blood flowing again and not even the Hagia Sofia was spared in the looting.

In 1148, the Second Crusade arrived in Syria, led by Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany. They decided to attack Damascus, despite the former alliance the city had made with the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Mu'in ad-Din reluctantly called for help from Nur ad-Din; the crusader siege lasted only four days before Nur ad-Din arrived.

Nur ad-Din took advantage of the failure of the crusade to prepare another attack against Antioch. In 1149, he launched an offensive against the territories dominated by the castle of Harim, situated on the eastern bank of the Orontes, after which he besieged the castle of Inab. The Prince of Antioch, Raymond of Poitiers, quickly came to the aid of the besieged citadel. The Muslim army destroyed the crusader army at the Battle of Inab, during which Raymond was killed. Raymond's head was sent to Nur ad-Din, who sent it along to the caliph in Baghdad.

When Saladin's forces won at Hattin, he ordered the mass execution of his captured opponents, in accordance with Koran 47:4- "When you meet unbelievers on the battlefield, strike at their necks."

Yes, the Crusaders army were slaughtered, whats your point. "When you meet the unbelievers on the battlefield" - by this it means the enemy soldiers, simple.

He intially planned to kill all of the Christians in the city, butt when the Christian ruler Balian threatened to destroy the city and kill all of the Muslims, he relented, and enslaved many Chrstians who could not buy their way out instead.

Yes, That doesnt make the Christians the victims, Muslim villages were destroyed and Salahideens sister was captured prior. The agreement was made by both the Christians and the Muslims to pay a ransom, and it was handed over to the Muslims.

Maybe, as you say, many religions were present in Jerusalem, but all non-Muslims were dhimmis and were oppressed and heavily taxed by the Muslim ruers.

Not maybe, your wrong.

The word dhimmi (plural dimam) literally means "protection, care, custody, covenant of protection, compact; responsibility, answerableness; financial obligation, liability, debt; inviolability, security of life and property; safeguard, guarantee, security; conscience"

ahl-dhimmi is "the free non-Muslim subjects living in Muslim countries who, in return for paying the capital tax, enjoyed protection and safety.

0 Replies

@Reagaknight,

Quote:

Roman rule had everything to do with it.

No, we are talking about the Crusades.

Quote:

In 1148, the Second Crusade arrived in Syria, led by Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany. They decided to attack Damascus, despite the former alliance the city had made with the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Mu'in ad-Din reluctantly called for help from Nur ad-Din; the crusader siege lasted only four days before Nur ad-Din arrived.

Nur ad-Din took advantage of the failure of the crusade to prepare another attack against Antioch. In 1149, he launched an offensive against the territories dominated by the castle of Harim, situated on the eastern bank of the Orontes, after which he besieged the castle of Inab. The Prince of Antioch, Raymond of Poitiers, quickly came to the aid of the besieged citadel. The Muslim army destroyed the crusader army at the Battle of Inab, during which Raymond was killed. Raymond's head was sent to Nur ad-Din, who sent it along to the caliph in Baghdad.

What point is this supposed to prove?

Quote:

Yes, That doesnt make the Christians the victims, Muslim villages were destroyed and Salahideens sister was captured prior. The agreement was made by both the Christians and the Muslims to pay a ransom, and it was handed over to the Muslims.

What it means is that Saladin isn't so merciful and civilized as you make him out to be.

Quote:

Not maybe, your wrong.

The word dhimmi (plural dimam) literally means "protection, care, custody, covenant of protection, compact; responsibility, answerableness; financial obligation, liability, debt; inviolability, security of life and property; safeguard, guarantee, security; conscience"

ahl-dhimmi is "the free non-Muslim subjects living in Muslim countries who, in return for paying the capital tax, enjoyed protection and safety.

It also means 'guilty.' This is because they have not only rejected Muhammed, but have distorted the legitmate messages they recieved from Allah. They are free to practice their religion, but are constantly reminded they are second-class citizens. The first caliph to excersize this practie had the Christians and make a pact with him:

Quote:

...we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, nor sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for purposeses of enmity against Muslims.

This allowed Muslims to seize the place of worship if they were 'used for enmity against Muslims. Before you say this is fair, it was also true that the testimony of the Christians was usually disallowed, discounted, or treated as lower that Muslim testimony, a Muslim could claim that it was being used for these purposes and take the church/monastery no matter what the people in it were doing. Christians also could not prevent any of their fellows from converting, had to let Muslims take refuge in places of worship for three days and treat them like kings, move from places Muslims wished to sit, could not look like Arab Muslims, could not have names similar to those of Muslims, could not own or carry weapons,, encrypt stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. They had to have the front of their hair cut, wear their customary clothes wherever they were, wear belts around their waist (all to identify them of course, much like in Nazi Germany). They had to refrain from ere3cting crosses outside of churches and ringing bells except discreetly, they could not preach outside of churches, they could not raise their voices while reciting the Bible in the presence of Muslims. They must pay the non-Muslim tax, the jizya, they must stay to the side of the street, may not build higher or as high as Muslim's buildings (though can acquire a tall house that is already in existance), cannot openly display wine or pork, recite the Torah or Bible out loud, or make public displays of funerals or feast days. Upon pain of death, they could not proselytyze amonq Muslims (though they counld not stop Muslims from doing the same among them.) If they broke any of these rules, the Muslims could do as they wished with them, kill or enslave. They are protected in return. Protected from both outsiders and the rulers who would have them killed or enslaved. Though these may have been relaxed here and there, they have always been on the books and ready to enforce.

This is all, of course, in accordance with Koran 9:29, To "make them feel subdued."

Quote:

Yes, the Crusaders army were slaughtered, whats your point. "When you meet the unbelievers on the battlefield" - by this it means the enemy soldiers, simple.

No, Saladin killed each captured enemy by cutting their heads off, not while fighting.

0 Replies

@Reagaknight,

The Crusades took two unfortunate turns: Western Christians killed Eastern Christians; Europe eventually quit. Other than that, they were glorious. We should resume crusading immediately to take permanent possession of the Holy Land.

0 Replies

@Reagaknight,

The Jews were oppressed too, and they deserve it much more than us.

And the feeling was mutual among the Western and Eastern Christians. The Western Christians originally came to the aid of the Byzantines, but the Byzantine forces turned their backs on the Crusaders in an early battle when they heard the battle seemed hopeless, they stopped marching towards the battlefield. The Crusaders won anyway and decided they'd be rather uncooperative from then on.

0 Replies

@Reagaknight,

"The Jews were oppressed too, and they deserve it much more than us."

Maybe, but it's the chase that counts most.

0 Replies

@socalgolfguy,

In 1148, the Second Crusade arrived in Syria, led by Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany. They decided to attack Damascus, despite the former alliance the city had made with the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Mu'in ad-Din reluctantly called for help from Nur ad-Din; the crusader siege lasted only four days before Nur ad-Din arrived.

Nur ad-Din took advantage of the failure of the crusade to prepare another attack against Antioch. In 1149, he launched an offensive against the territories dominated by the castle of Harim, situated on the eastern bank of the Orontes, after which he besieged the castle of Inab. The Prince of Antioch, Raymond of Poitiers, quickly came to the aid of the besieged citadel. The Muslim army destroyed the crusader army at the Battle of Inab, during which Raymond was killed. Raymond's head was sent to Nur ad-Din, who sent it along to the caliph in Baghdad.

Thats what happened in Aleppo in 1148.

What it means is that Saladin isn't so merciful and civilized as you make him out to be.

After villages were destroyed, caravans looted and the capture of Salahideems sister, i would say that the outcome wasnt one bit personal and very professional. It all comes down to opinions, the facts are there.

It also means 'guilty.' This is because they have not only rejected Muhammed, but have distorted the legitmate messages they recieved from Allah. They are free to practice their religion, but are constantly reminded they are second-class citizens. The first caliph to excersize this practie had the Christians and make a pact with him:

Provide proof, ive been to a few sites and all define the exact same thing.
Reference.com/Encyclopedia/Dhimmi

This allowed Muslims to seize the place of worship if they were 'used for enmity against Muslims. Before you say this is fair, it was also true that the testimony of the Christians was usually disallowed, discounted, or treated as lower that Muslim testimony, a Muslim could claim that it was being used for these purposes and take the church/monastery no matter what the people in it were doing. Christians also could not prevent any of their fellows from converting, had to let Muslims take refuge in places of worship for three days and treat them like kings, move from places Muslims wished to sit, could not look like Arab Muslims, could not have names similar to those of Muslims, could not own or carry weapons,, encrypt stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. They had to have the front of their hair cut, wear their customary clothes wherever they were, wear belts around their waist (all to identify them of course, much like in Nazi Germany). They had to refrain from ere3cting crosses outside of churches and ringing bells except discreetly, they could not preach outside of churches, they could not raise their voices while reciting the Bible in the presence of Muslims. They must pay the non-Muslim tax, the jizya, they must stay to the side of the street, may not build higher or as high as Muslim's buildings (though can acquire a tall house that is already in existance), cannot openly display wine or pork, recite the Torah or Bible out loud, or make public displays of funerals or feast days. Upon pain of death, they could not proselytyze amonq Muslims (though they counld not stop Muslims from doing the same among them.) If they broke any of these rules, the Muslims could do as they wished with them, kill or enslave. They are protected in return. Protected from both outsiders and the rulers who would have them killed or enslaved. Though these may have been relaxed here and there, they have always been on the books and ready to enforce.

It all comes down to the supreme leader, not every "muslim" leader followed the Quran nor the Sunnah regardless of which time line it was set in. But since youve brought it up id like multiple sources of proof please minus your opinion.

No, Saladin killed each captured enemy by cutting their heads off, not while fighting.

Freed soldiers usually come back to fight another day, Beheadings in history has always been known to be an "honors" or "soldiers" death.

0 Replies

@Reagaknight,

Quote:

Thats what happened in Aleppo in 1148.

And then Nur ed-Din ordered the killing of every Christian in the city.

Quote:

Provide proof, ive been to a few sites and all define the exact same thing.

It says 'responsibility' which can be the same, essentially. Your own link talked about the laws prohibiting their freedoms more vaguely than I did.

Quote:

It all comes down to the supreme leader, not every "muslim" leader followed the Quran nor the Sunnah regardless of which time line it was set in. But since youve brought it up id like multiple sources of proof please minus your opinion.

Ibn Kathir, vol. 4, 406 (agreement that Umar ibn al-Khattab made with Christians, constituting the bulk of it.)

'Umdat al Salik o11.3, 5 (another good bit of it.)

Qu'ran 2:29 ("feel themselves subdued"), 9:33 (Islam "be made uppermost above all religion.")

Quote:

Freed soldiers usually come back to fight another day, Beheadings in history has always been known to be an "honors" or "soldiers" death.

Here it was explicitly in accordance with the Koran, when you see unbelievers on the battlefield, strike at their necks.

0 Replies

@Reagaknight,

Azmr, Why dont you tell these guys their .... how do you say..... PARANIOD.

0 Replies

@Reagaknight,

And then Nur ed-Din ordered the killing of every Christian in the city.

Wheres the proof.

It says 'responsibility' which can be the same, essentially. Your own link talked about the laws prohibiting their freedoms more vaguely than I did.

So you have no proof, Ill repeat it once again.The word dhimmi (plural dimam) literally means "protection, care, custody, covenant of protection, compact; responsibility, answerableness; financial obligation, liability, debt; inviolability, security of life and property; safeguard, guarantee, security; conscience"

ahl-dhimmi is "the free non-Muslim subjects living in Muslim countries who, in return for paying the capital tax, enjoyed protection and safety.

Ibn Kathir, vol. 4, 406 (agreement that Umar ibn al-Khattab made with Christians, constituting the bulk of it.)

'Umdat al Salik o11.3, 5 (another good bit of it.)

Qu'ran 2:29 ("feel themselves subdued"), 9:33 (Islam "be made uppermost above all religion.")

Please post the full length of the verses, and most importantly the chapters.

Here it was explicitly in accordance with the Koran, when you see unbelievers on the battlefield, strike at their necks.

Again, When it mentions battlefield it talks about the enemy soldiers, their fate is up to the host of the captured.

0 Replies

@Reagaknight,

Quote:

Wheres the proof.

I got it from a real tangible book called 'The Politically Incorrect Guide Islam and the Crusades" which cites its sources and where much of what I'm saying otherwise also comes from.

Quote:

So you have no proof, Ill repeat it once again.The word dhimmi (plural dimam) literally means "protection, care, custody, covenant of protection, compact; responsibility, answerableness; financial obligation, liability, debt; inviolability, security of life and property; safeguard, guarantee, security; conscience"

ahl-dhimmi is "the free non-Muslim subjects living in Muslim countries who, in return for paying the capital tax, enjoyed protection and safety.

I gave you all of the subjective rules the dhimmis had to follow. The definition said 'responsible', which can mean 'guilty.' And I am getting all of my information from actual books, not copying and pasting, and I can find no internet source that has them, so I am not typing out the full verses and chapters.

Quote:

Again, When it mentions battlefield it talks about the enemy soldiers, their fate is up to the host of the captured.

So Saladin is hardly peaceful and forgiving in making this decision.

0 Replies

@Reagaknight,

Islam in Mexico,

Good for them maybe that way the huge drug and gang problem there might decrease. The U.S is really deperate to do something about its border control and everything they have done has failed.

But there is always the good old " Islamic Terrorist threat " tactic which has recently worked. As you can see by looking at peoples posts it pretty effective.

Keep up the good work

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

I got it from a real tangible book called 'The Politically Incorrect Guide Islam and the Crusades" which cites its sources and where much of what I'm saying otherwise also comes from.

This means nothing.

I gave you all of the subjective rules the dhimmis had to follow. The definition said 'responsible', which can mean 'guilty.' And I am getting all of my information from actual books, not copying and pasting, and I can find no internet source that has them, so I am not typing out the full verses and chapters.

Whats the difference between copying from a book and copy & pasting from the internet? Ill tell you, ones elctronically done quicker than the other. What can be found in books can be found on the internet. You wrong againt about the definition.

So Saladin is hardly peaceful and forgiving in making this decision.

Its all about opinions. I think Bush is a savage and an illiterate, you say hes a great leader with great intentions.

0 Replies

@Dubasoft,

Dubasoft;16769 wrote:

Islam in Mexico,

Good for them maybe that way the huge drug and gang problem there might decrease. The U.S is really deperate to do something about its border control and everything they have done has failed.

But there is always the good old " Islamic Terrorist threat " tactic which has recently worked. As you can see by looking at peoples posts it pretty effective.

Keep up the good work

Except they haven't done anything about it, stupid politicians are too scared to be called racist and lose the minoirty vote than protect their country. As a matter of fact, Dubya wanting to give amnesty to those in America is a call in completely the OPPOSITE direction, as that is only going to incourage MORE illegals to get in while the gettin' is good. Send hundreds of thousands of our boys over seas to fight for the stability of your oil empire, but nothing to help actually secure your physical borders, what a joke.

0 Replies

@Reagaknight,

Knighty,

Dude if you want to make a statement about the rules of engagement the crusades would have to be the worst example for you to ponder upon. Havent you watched the movie " Kingdom of Heaven " oh you havent?

Your explaination for the motives of the crusaders killing "Eastern" christians is quite laughable. The crusaders killed any Arab not just muslims Arabs.

What does this mean? well i believe people were killed on race yes the holy crusaders killed on ethnicity, Even thought it was a Arab who opened the gates for the crusaders to enter.

History has judged Salahdeen as a great respectable leader so get some proper books get a copy of Kingdom of Heaven, a bag of candy Popcorn and enjoy life man..

Take it easy.

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Quote:

This means nothing.

You said 'proof', that's mine.

Quote:

Whats the difference between copying from a book and copy & pasting from the internet? Ill tell you, ones elctronically done quicker than the other. What can be found in books can be found on the internet.

That's copyright infringement for the books i'm talking about. I tried to find an online Koran that would let me search for the verses I wanted in English and ther wasn't one.

Quote:

Its all about opinions. I think Bush is a savage and an illiterate, you say hes a great leader with great intentions.

I don't recall saying this at all. He has good intentions and he's definitely intelligent enough to lead the country, but he's made many mistakes, like most other Presidents.

0 Replies

@Reagaknight,

^ You just proved my point.

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

92b

I cant understand how this works? 12 million illegal aliens getting citizenship another problem swept under the rug?

Like you said this wont solve the issue as a matter of fact it is going to encourage the problem. But my point was using the Terrorist agenda to push laws through to justify imprisonment and to justify murder?

ponder upon that my friend.

Nice to met you all.

1 Reply

@Dubasoft,

Dubasoft;16776 wrote:

92b

I cant understand how this works? 12 million illegal aliens getting citizenship another problem swept under the rug?

Like you said this wont solve the issue as a matter of fact it is going to encourage the problem. But my point was using the Terrorist agenda to push laws through to justify imprisonment and to justify murder?

ponder upon that my friend.

Nice to met you all.

Ponder it? I try ot hammer it into people here.

0 Replies

@Dubasoft,

Dubasoft;16773 wrote:

Knighty,

Dude if you want to make a statement about the rules of engagement the crusades would have to be the worst example for you to ponder upon. Havent you watched the movie " Kingdom of Heaven " oh you havent?

Your explaination for the motives of the crusaders killing "Eastern" christians is quite laughable. The crusaders killed any Arab not just muslims Arabs.

What does this mean? well i believe people were killed on race yes the holy crusaders killed on ethnicity, Even thought it was a Arab who opened the gates for the crusaders to enter.

History has judged Salahdeen as a great respectable leader so get some proper books get a copy of Kingdom of Heaven, a bag of candy Popcorn and enjoy life man..

Take it easy.

I cannot talk to you if you take Kingdom of Heaven, the movie that alleges there was some peaceful group of Muslims, Christians, and Jews, and, Cowboy and Indian style, the mean Christians ruined everything, seriously.

0 Replies

Muslim Mexico?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know