History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedA word to the Radical terrorists from a Muslim

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
Author
strategos View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 09-Mar-2005
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1098
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote strategos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2005 at 19:38
Originally posted by Oguzoglu Oguzoglu wrote:

Originally posted by Gavriel Gavriel wrote:

Because Israels where they came from,please forgive me if im wrong but i thought Jerusalem was over 2000years old!the jews were living there before anyone else was.
And a lot of Jews did settle in Britain and America after the war,even though the British Government at the time did STOP a lot more from entering.
G

But the inhabitants of the region was Arabs for the last 1000 years, and when the Jews were settled there.

So because most of Russia occupies parts of the Turkic, Mongolic and Tunguzic ancestoral homelands, lets just give the region from Altays to Baikal to Turkish rule and eastern of Lake Baykal to Mongols. The same logic. And what about giving America back to natives?

 

I dont recall a turkic nation in current Russia? Jerusalem actually had a stable "state", while the turkic tribes were just nomadic tribes..

And also, the land today known as Israel did belong to the British Empire, so thery technically gave up their lands to give to form Israel.

 



Edited by strategos
http://theforgotten.org/intro.html
Back to Top
Miller View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 392
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Miller Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 00:31
Originally posted by Oguzoglu Oguzoglu wrote:

But the inhabitants of the region was Arabs for the last 1000 years, and when the Jews were settled there.

So because most of Russia occupies parts of the Turkic, Mongolic and Tunguzic ancestoral homelands, lets just give the region from Altays to Baikal to Turkish rule and eastern of Lake Baykal to Mongols. The same logic. And what about giving America back to natives?

I think what you are saying is that historical claims to any land does not matter we should look at the current occupants in control. Look at Israel with your logic now. Who is in control of that land? Jews. Then what is the difference if the historical claim is based on 100, 500 or 2000s year old history

 

Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Status: Offline
Points: 2983
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 02:27

Originally posted by Gavriel Gavriel wrote:

Why dont the Jews belong in israel? after what happened to them in Europe during the 30,s and 40,s,they deserved a country to call there own,why not israel/Palastine?its where they came from in the first place.

what post are you replaying on? or you are starting a new one?

anyway tell me in what rules did it say people who suffered by whoever deserve a country to call there own?

the thing is that Europe got tired of them and just wanted them to be somewhere else. and that was Palistine

Originally posted by Gavriel Gavriel wrote:

Because Israels where they came from,please forgive me if im wrong but i thought Jerusalem was over 2000years old!the jews were living there before anyone else was.
And a lot of Jews did settle in Britain and America after the war,even though the British Government at the time did STOP a lot more from entering.
G

well there were peope living there before the jews.

 

Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Status: Offline
Points: 2983
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 02:44
Originally posted by Miller Miller wrote:

Originally posted by Oguzoglu Oguzoglu wrote:

But the inhabitants of the region was Arabs for the last 1000 years, and when the Jews were settled there.

So because most of Russia occupies parts of the Turkic, Mongolic and Tunguzic ancestoral homelands, lets just give the region from Altays to Baikal to Turkish rule and eastern of Lake Baykal to Mongols. The same logic. And what about giving America back to natives?

I think what you are saying is that historical claims to any land does not matter we should look at the current occupants in control. Look at Israel with your logic now. Who is in control of that land? Jews. Then what is the difference if the historical claim is based on 100, 500 or 2000s year old history

 

yea  they are in control NOW. actully not full control

dont think they will keep that control forever though. as soon as certain states get bord of them and leave them alone i think it is a big possibilty that this control would change position.

Back to Top
Miller View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 392
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Miller Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 03:23
 

Things have always changed, but rarely have gone back to what they were before

 

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 04:30
Quote

I dont recall a turkic nation in current Russia? Jerusalem actually had a stable "state", while the turkic tribes were just nomadic tribes..

Jews were also nomads. They have just settled in the region around the city of Jarusalem, they dont originally belong there. Do you know what Jarusalem means? An ancient Arab god Salem, a city build for her.

And Turks homelands are under Russian occupation now, Altays in southern Siberia. Yes, it was a stable region, you dont have to have cities to have your homeland. Why dont we just settle Turks all over Balkans, Europe, middle East (without countries) in southern Russia and build a new state there? That would be fair wouldnt it?

Quote   Look at Israel with your logic now. Who is in control of that land?

So lets just invade a country, settle your population there, and 50 years later you claim your rights there because you occupy the land. What kind of logic is that? We arent living in medieval ages.

Quote And also, the land today known as Israel did belong to the British Empire, so thery technically gave up their lands to give to form Israel.

It didnt belong to the British Empire. The region was just an ex British one. So with the same logic, the region belonged to Ottomans in the last 500 years. Why not settle Turks there, or let the chance to Turks, to choose whom to settle there?

Back to Top
ill_teknique View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 636
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ill_teknique Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 05:52
well i guess fifty years and two thousand years is the same thing when you talk about your family owning a plot of land or a house in the forties and in the forites bc when your family tree probalbly does not even extent that long
Back to Top
strategos View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 09-Mar-2005
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1098
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote strategos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 17:41
Originally posted by Oguzoglu Oguzoglu wrote:

I

It didnt belong to the British Empire. The region was just an ex British one. So with the same logic, the region belonged to Ottomans in the last 500 years. Why not settle Turks there, or let the chance to Turks, to choose whom to settle there?

They did settle turkls there, but in the populatio exchanges between greece and turkey, they were shipped back to Turkey. Also, I knoiw this one FYROMian who claims turkish heritage, so i guess turks did settle their

http://theforgotten.org/intro.html
Back to Top
Illuminati View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 949
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Illuminati Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 18:34

Christianity has just as dark of a past as Islam does. I would say that CHristianity is responsible for more crimes in history than islam is. The Crusades, the inquisition, etc...But thats all deep in the past. Time to move on and let the past be the past.

There are Islamic terrorists and there are Christian terrorists. What do you think abortion clinic bombers are? I call them Christian terrorists.

I hold no grudge against some group that may have committed a crime long before I was ever born. This is just another reason why religion is the true evil.

On another thought. Why not just get rid of the term "Islamic terrorists" and "Christian terrorists"?? Lets just call them all "Religious terrorists" Because thats what they are. No need to categorize them. They are all the same

This all just goes to show that the governments of the world need to become as secular as humanly possible.

Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: DesertSouthwest
Status: Offline
Points: 3264
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 19:19
Christianity has just as dark of a past as Islam does. I would say that CHristianity is responsible for more crimes in history than islam is. The Crusades, the inquisition, etc...But thats all deep in the past. Time to move on and let the past be the past.

I can agree that Christianity and all religions have their dark side but as for more atrocities I do not agree with that. read; The Myth of Islamic Tolerance by Robert Spencer


There are Islamic terrorists and there are Christian terrorists. What do you think abortion clinic bombers are? I call them Christian terrorists.

There is no comparison between the two and what few Christian terrorists there are it is condemned by the church and it is of localized and not on a global scale like Islam. The Bible(New Testement) does not ask its followers to kill non- believers. And, both Jews and Christians today no longer take the Torah to the degree the early Hebrews did. Why aren't very many moderate Muslims condemning the actions of the radicals? There are a few voices but most are quiet or indirect in their apology-double talk.

I hold no grudge against some group that may have committed a crime long before I was ever born. This is just another reason why religion is the true evil.

We are on the same side and what you say is true but religion is not the only problem, the Communist killed millions of the people as well-Stalin. In some way the Communist Chinese government could be the bigger threat to America than the radical Muslims.

On another thought. Why not just get rid of the term "Islamic terrorists" and "Christian terrorists"?? Lets just call them all "Religious terrorists" Because thats what they are. No need to categorize them. They are all the same- not all terrorist are religious.

Any kind of terrorism is evil and yes there are Christian terrorist but they are small compared to the span of terrorism brought on by radical Islam.

This all just goes to show that the governments of the world need to become as secular as humanly possible.

Christianity has reformed over the years to allow our current seperation of church and state, but currently true Islam cannot be based on seperation of church and state like you have in former Christian nations. Turkey is the only exception and even then it has its problems with true freedom of religion. Islam would have to go through a reformation much like Christianity has but I wonder if this is possible. If you look at the core of the Haddith and the Koran is this is ever possible, I hope it is.
Name one of our founding fathers who was a Muslim.

I am currently reading:
Islam Unveiled by Robert Spencer
Back to Top
The Guardian View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 12-Jul-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Guardian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 19:36

 it has its problems with true freedom of religion

 

could you be mores oecific and clear?Like what?

It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.
                             &nb
Back to Top
ill_teknique View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 636
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ill_teknique Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 19:58
Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:

Christianity has just as dark of a past as Islam does. I would say that CHristianity is responsible for more crimes in history than islam is. The Crusades, the inquisition, etc...But thats all deep in the past. Time to move on and let the past be the past.

I can agree that Christianity and all religions have their dark side but as for more atrocities I do not agree with that. read; The Myth of Islamic Tolerance by Robert Spencer


There are Islamic terrorists and there are Christian terrorists. What do you think abortion clinic bombers are? I call them Christian terrorists.

There is no comparison between the two and what few Christian terrorists there are it is condemned by the church and it is of localized and not on a global scale like Islam. The Bible(New Testement) does not ask its followers to kill non- believers. And, both Jews and Christians today no longer take the Torah to the degree the early Hebrews did. Why aren't very many moderate Muslims condemning the actions of the radicals? There are a few voices but most are quiet or indirect in their apology-double talk.

I hold no grudge against some group that may have committed a crime long before I was ever born. This is just another reason why religion is the true evil.

We are on the same side and what you say is true but religion is not the only problem, the Communist killed millions of the people as well-Stalin. In some way the Communist Chinese government could be the bigger threat to America than the radical Muslims.

On another thought. Why not just get rid of the term "Islamic terrorists" and "Christian terrorists"?? Lets just call them all "Religious terrorists" Because thats what they are. No need to categorize them. They are all the same- not all terrorist are religious.

Any kind of terrorism is evil and yes there are Christian terrorist but they are small compared to the span of terrorism brought on by radical Islam.

This all just goes to show that the governments of the world need to become as secular as humanly possible.

Christianity has reformed over the years to allow our current seperation of church and state, but currently true Islam cannot be based on seperation of church and state like you have in former Christian nations. Turkey is the only exception and even then it has its problems with true freedom of religion. Islam would have to go through a reformation much like Christianity has but I wonder if this is possible. If you look at the core of the Haddith and the Koran is this is ever possible, I hope it is.
Name one of our founding fathers who was a Muslim.

I am currently reading:
Islam Unveiled by Robert Spencer


you sound very racist and ignorant

Islam not being a religon of peace?

First of all I don't think that you have the credentials to state such a claim in the first place.

http://www.islamicfoundationvp.org/RECIPEFORWORLDPEACE.pdf

surah 1 - ayat 135 :
"Believers! Be upholders of justice, and bearers of witness to truth for the sake of Allah, even though it may either be against yourselves or agaisnt your parents and kinsmen, or the rich or the poor: for Allah is more concerned with their well-being than you are. Do not, then, follow your own desires lest you keep away from justice. If you twist or turn away from (the truth), know that Allah is well aware of all that you do."

surah 5 - ayat 32:
"Whoesoever kills a human bieng unless it be (in punishment( for murder
or for spreading mischief on earth, it shall be as if he had slain all manking; and he who saves a life shall be as if he had given lfie to all mankind..."

I.E. do not associate a terrorist who "claims" affiliation to Islam as an Isalmic terrorist just like the west never lables timothy mcveigh and the IRA as Christian terroists, they are all in the same pot to me and neither religion condoes such behavior therefore if either one of them does such a deed he is out of the ranks of believers of either religion. that is one bias that keeps coming up in the west and that is much more to do with the villizantion of Islam and the Islamic world for the past 1500 years than it has to do with the religon itself.

surah 6 - ayat 151:

"do not kill a person, which Allah has made sacred except through the due process of law."


--Sunnah--- Propeht Muhammads sayings " Among all the sins, the greatest sins are to associate someone or something with God and to kill human beings."
more proof on my behalf

From the Quran and Shariah

Surah 6

" If some non-Muslim state opresses its Muslim citizens, it is not premissible for any
Islamic state anywhere in the world to retaliate agaisnt its own non-Muslim subjects; even if all the Muslims living in a non-Muslim state are massacred, no Muslim state canunjustly shed the blood of a single non-Muslim citizen, in retalitation, living within its boundaries because it is agaisnt Islamic Law."

Surah 5 - Ayat 2
"Cooperate with each one another for virtue and piety and do not cooperate with one another for the purpose of evil and agression."

In other words do not form a organization to destroy human lives, etc, because you are not part of the Ummah as of that time. I.E. the community of Muslims. and you are not to be called a muslim if you do such.

Islamic armies conquer Damascus, Hams and the remaining towns of Syria and according to the terms of the treaty they realize some amount of tax for the protection of the life and property of the citizens and the defense of the country (634 A.D., within two years after Prophet Muhammad SAW). But later the Muslim leaders received news that Heraclius had brought a big army which he was anxious to bring against the Muslims. Therefore they decided to bring together their own scattered armies in various conquered towns to concentrate at one point to face the hordes of Heraclius with joint effort. So in keeping with this decision our armies started leaving the towns of Hams, Damascus and other towns. Khalid in Hams, Abu Ubaidah in Damascus and other generals in other towns addressed the citizens thus:

"The money or monies we had realized from you was meant for the protection of your lives and properties, and also to defend your lands from outside aggression. But we are sorry to inform you that we are parting with you and since we would not be able to protect and defend you, we are returning the amounts of taxes collected from you."

To this the citizens said in reply:

"God be with you and bring you back victorious. Your governance and your justice and equity have enamored us, since the Romans in spite of being our coreligionists, we have bitter experience of their oppression and tyranny. By God! If they had been in your position they would not have returned a copper out of the taxes collected from us. Rather, they would have taken away everything they could from here belonging to us."

Sheikh-al-Islam Ibn Taimiyah Liberated Jews and Christians

When the Tartars made a sudden assault on Syria and took countless men from Muslims, Jews and Christians as prisoners, Sheikh-al-Islam Ibn-e-Taimiyah talked to the Tartar Chief about the release of the prisoners. The Chief gave his assent for the release of the Muslim prisoners but refused to do so in the case of the Jews and the Christians. But Sheikh-al-Islam did not agree and insisted on the release of the Jews and the Christians, who, he told him, were the Zimmis (Dhimmis) of the Islamic state and were bound to them. They could not let even one individual remain in captivity whether he belonged to their own community or from those living with them under a covenant.


In Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasid Khalifas, Christians and Jews, equally with Muslims, were admitted to the Schools and universities - not only that, but were boarded and lodged in hostels at the cost of the state. When the Moors were driven out of Spain, the Christian conquerors held a terrific persecution of the Jews. Those who were fortunate enough to escape fled, some of them to Morocco and many hundreds to the Turkish empire, where their descendants still live in separate communities, and still speak among themselves an antiquated form of Spanish. The Muslim empire was a refuge for all those who fled from persecution by the Inquisition.


Surah 2 - Ayat 256
"There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

meaning to be a true muslim you cannot convert someone forcibly you can invite him to accept your relgion and that is up to him if he is willing to adhere to it. Sure there has been forceful conversions sometimes by some muslim generals but then again there has been Christian states I.E. colonial spain and portugal converting Native Americans enmasse and Germany converting Saxons and slaughtering reverts under Charlemagne. But im not trying to say that that is the way of the Qu'ran or the Bible im defending the religion not the people who claim that they do something behidn the veil of religion because that is not what the Qu'ran obviously teaches it tells you if you do act in this fashion your Iman(faith) will be nonexistent and you cannot be a faithful muslim. You become a Kafir a Kafir is not the follower of any relgion it is the muslim and any other who does not belive in god or god's plan for humanity.

In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad (s) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai. It consisted of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including such topics as the protection of Christians, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war.

An English translation of that document is presented below.


This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).

Surah 5 - Ayat 69
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

but im sure many here will dismiss this and still belive that Islam is a violent religon and when compared to Christianity it tolerates other much more. It is Christianty that dooms anyone who does not belive in Jesus as the saviour. Islam claims that all that belive in god wheter muslim christian jew or none but belive in god will have their chance to enter heaven



I am merely stating facts to your misinformed claim that comes more from a millenia old villification of Islam than real facts. I am merely trying to say that a muslim terrorist is not a real muslim and should be called simply terrorist because that is not what the religion teaches it teaches peace among humanity. and im saying the same about a christian terrorist he is no more a christian to me either beacause both books condem such acts.
Back to Top
ill_teknique View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 636
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ill_teknique Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 20:00
watching fox and reading purely western titles that adhere to the centuries old villification will do that to your average whitey living in the suburbs i've realized living here in america

did you watch 30days on fx if not maybe you should d/l the episode or something
Back to Top
Miller View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 392
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Miller Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 23:40
Originally posted by Oguzoglu Oguzoglu wrote:

So lets just invade a country, settle your population there, and 50 years later you claim your rights there because you occupy the land. What kind of logic is that? We arent living in medieval ages.

Good or bad it was your logic not mine. I just pointed out the contradiction. Read what you said before again

 

 

Back to Top
ill_teknique View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 636
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ill_teknique Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2005 at 02:27
emperor the united states was a western country how would you have gotten a muslim there as a founding father when
Kuta Kinte was one of the first Muslims brougth here as a slave.

Thats right the slave trade while deemed immoral by the pope was banned on "heathens" aka native americans whom  he wanted to convert but since they thought that all africans were muslims he was happy to tell them to enslave blacks because they thought they were all muslims.
Back to Top
Menippos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 1136
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Menippos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2005 at 03:57
That's a bit off, ill_teknique. They didn't think of them as muslims, they thought of them as animals. And animals, as they thought back then, not only they didn't have a religion, but they also didn't have rights on their existence, hence slavery material.
CARRY NOTHING
Back to Top
Makros View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 08-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Makros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2005 at 04:20

I think that there was a time when christians too were like the muslim extremists. during the crusades when they killed a lot muslims thinking that they'd go to heaven and have indulgence for sins. But since the protestant movements and stuff, There was a balance. The Roman Catholic church no longer had that much power over the people except maybe in Spain and Italy etc. and people had become more open minded and has since moved on. with the protestant movement, liberal thinking was fostered and roman catholic tradionalism was countered.  I think Jihad and crusades are just the same except christians right now think that a crusade would be crazy and even if the pope would call for one people won't give a rats ass. So how come in Islam some people still believe in the jihad? Was there no split in Islam, and which is more liberal the sunni or the shiite?

 

Back to Top
Murtaza View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 03-Jun-2005
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Murtaza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2005 at 04:32

Makros

jihad, is  something defensive, not agressive.

But It was used for agressive  aims too.

And Jihad is not  something like crusaders, there  is not a whole islamic  attack  against  christians, but They were mostly politic attack.

For exp: Attack  of Ottomans(Not attack of Muslims)

 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.