Howdy BadBoy

Oct 11, 2010 -- 6:39PM, BDboy wrote:

But there's a background history we don't still know: why were Christian families so keen for a possibility that their son would become like Skollu Mehmed? The Ottoman heydey was 1481-1566, with stagnation until 1826. Were there problems in the rural Balkans at this time? Why so keen at this time, and not at other times? What about Christian families in the cities? Also, it says that janissaries were "slaves" -- they weren't slaves in the order of Ottoman heirarchy.

>>>>>> Muslims were not traditional "Colonists" as we came to know the term. They became part of the community and promoted people of all background with talent. No other colonial "masters" were willing to put the natives as their "King" like Muslims did. It was unlike any other European colonies than followed.  

The fact remains that Muslims were Imperialists and Colonialist not only in Spain but in Middle Eastern countries that were predominaltely Christian as well as in India. 

The Imperialist Muslims were traditional colonialist. 

Colonialism refers to the establishment and maintenance of colonies in one territory by people from another territory.

There were other colonialist who dominated other territories but allowed other kings to rule those territories so long as they obeyed their colonial masters. 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism

There are two different methods of imposing foreign domination on other countries.

• Settler colonialism involved a large number of colonists, typically seeking fertile land to farm.

• Exploitation colonialism involved fewer colonists, typically interested in extracting resources to export to the metropole. This category includes trading posts, but it applies more to the much larger colonies where the colonists would provide much of the administration and own much of the land and other capital, but rely on indigenous people for labour.

Expolitation colonialism is what the Islamic Imperialist imposed on Spain as well as other countries.

It is not unusal for exploitation colonialist to use people from the countries they are dominating and for these lackeys to serve as puppets for their colonial masters.  These lackeys are rewarded with with wealth and a degree of power.

The British Imperialist(a European power)used this tactic in India. 

Oct 11, 2010 -- 6:39PM, BDboy wrote:

Convertion was encouraged but NOT forced. It is clearly prohibited in Islam [ Al Qur'an 2:256]

Many people flurished without converting to Islam as well. Click here to read the story of "Jewish golden age under Muslim rule". 

If you bothered  to read the link you posted you would have read:

After being persecuted by the puritanical Almohades during a time of great political upheaval in Spain, Maimonides and his family fled to Fostat in Egypt.

The Almohades were MUSLIMS.  Or what would  today would be called by some Muslims, Not-Real, So-Called Mis-Understanders of True Peaceful Moderate Tolerant Islam. 

Oct 11, 2010 -- 6:39PM, BDboy wrote:

Back then Christian people could not even imagined such acceptance of other faith communities. In India there were no forced conversions of Hindus to Christianity.   

That would depend on which specific time and place you are referring too.  The Jews lived in Spain before the Muslim Imperialist invaded Spain.   After the Christian Jihad freed  Spain from Imperialist Muslim domination Jews and Muslims were encouraged to leave much like the Meccans were after the Muhammads victory and like the Christians and Jews were encouraged to leave Arabia.

Oct 11, 2010 -- 6:39PM, BDboy wrote:

If any unbiased person follows what happened [ death, exile or convertion] in Europe after Muslims left Europe { After 1492} will see what I mean. 

 If any unbiased person follows what happened [ death, exile or convertion] in Arabia after Pagans, Christians and Jews  left Arabia  { After 630} will see what I mean.

Oct 11, 2010 -- 6:39PM, BDboy wrote:

Does not even come close to anything Muslims practiced.  

After the successul Christian Jihad in 1492

It come very close and is almost identical with what Arab Muslims, did to Arab Jews, Arab Christians, and Arab Pagans after Arab Muslims conquered Arabia. 

The tolerance of the Jews in Spain ebbed and flowed just as it did in all countries from time to time.  Even in Muslim countries the degree of toleration and persecution varied. 

When Jews were expelled from Spain, some went to "more" tolerant Muslim countries and some went to "more" tolerant Christian countries. 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jew...

Now it seems that you are arguing that Muslim Imperialism and Colonialism was either not as bad or even a good thing thing, just a being a slave to a Muslim was not as bad or even a good thing, in comparision to being a slave of a Christian. 

Again it depends on time and place.  

What I find interesting is that the Muslims were tolerated and treated MUCH better than the Jews were treated and  tolarated. 

Compare the treatements:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Granada

• That both great and small should be perfectly secure in their persons, families, and properties.
• That they should be allowed to continue in their dwellings and residences, whether in the city, the suburbs, or any other part of the country.
• That their laws should be preserved as they were before, and that no-one should judge them except by those same laws.
• That their mosques, and the religious endowments appertaining to them, should remain as they were in the times of Islam.
• That no Christian should enter the house of a Muslim, or insult him in any way.
• That no Christian or Jew holding public offices by the appointment of the late Sultan should be allowed to exercise his functions or rule over them.
• That all Muslim captives taken during the siege of Granada, from whatever part of the country they might have come, but especially the nobles and chiefs mentioned in the agreement, should be liberated.
• That such Muslim captives as might have escaped from their Christians masters, and taken refuge in Granada, should not be surrendered; but that the Sultan should be bound to pay the price of such captives to their owners.
• That all those who might choose to cross over to Africa should be allowed to take their departure within a certain time, and be conveyed thither in the king's ships, and without any pecuniary tax being imposed on them, beyond the mere charge for passage, and
• That after the expiration of that time no Muslim should be hindered from departing, provided he paid, in addition to the price of his passage, the tithe of whatever property he might carry along with him.
• That no-one should be prosecuted and punished for the crime of another man.
• That the Christians who had embraced Islam should not be compelled to relinquish it and adopt their former creed.
• That any Muslim wishing to become a Christian should be allowed some days to consider the step he was about to take; after which he is to be questioned by both a Muslim and a Christian judge concerning his intended change, and if, after this examination, he still refused to return to Islam, he should be permitted to follow his own inclination.
• That no Muslim should be prosecuted for the death of a Christian slain during the siege; and that no restitution of property taken during this war should be enforced.
• That no Muslim should be subject to have Christian soldiers billeted upon him, or be transported to provinces of this kingdom against his will.
• That no increase should be made to the usual imposts, but that, on the contrary, all the oppressive taxes lately imposed should be immediately suppressed.
• That no Christian should be allowed to peep over the wall, or into the house of a Muslim or enter a mosque.
• That any Muslim choosing to travel or reside among the Christians should be perfectly secure in his person and property.
• That no badge or distinctive mark be put upon them, as was done with the Jews and Mudejares.
• That no muezzin should be interrupted in the act of calling the people to prayer, and no Muslim molested either in the performance of his daily devotions or in the observance of his fast, or in any other religious ceremony; but that if a Christian should be found laughing at them he should be punished for it.
• That the Muslims should be exempted from all taxation for a certain number of years.
• That the Lord of Rome, the Pope, should be requested to give his assent to the above conditions, and sign the treaty himself."

  That same year, Spain's Jews were ordered to convert to Catholicism or face expulsion from Spanish territories during the Spanish Inquisition

Howdy

Oct 17, 2010 -- 1:22PM, BDboy wrote:

 

As I stated before. Muslims made Spain their country.

And as I stated before Muslims made Spain "their" country through shedding their blood AND THE BLOOD OF NON-MUSLIMS.  

Oct 17, 2010 -- 1:22PM, BDboy wrote:

They shed blood to defend it and made new improvements in southern Spain. It was so impressive during the "Dark age" of Europe that it became an "One of a kind" inclusive multicultural soceity.

No it was NOT one of a kind.  There were Jews and Christians living together throughout Europe. 

Oct 17, 2010 -- 1:22PM, BDboy wrote:

Chrstians hated Jews for religious reasons (And some other reasons). But Muslims gave them protection.

And there were Muslims who hated  "the Jews-Yehudi-Bani-Israel" for religious reasons.  After all "they" rejected Muhammad as a Prophet and "they" conspired to have him and his followers murdered.  

Oct 17, 2010 -- 1:22PM, BDboy wrote:

Same thing went on in India. Muslims built Taj Mahal and Agra Fort in INDIA.

You are right the same thing did go on in India.  Muslim Imperialists-Colonalist made India "their" country shedding their blood and the BLOOD OF THOSE WHO DARED TO RESIST. 

Oct 17, 2010 -- 1:22PM, BDboy wrote:

 Later Europeans  the English brought Indian money to Europe to rebuild it. This included the very crown of queen of England. Europeans (Most of them) NEVER took India as their homeland.

I agree. The English did pay to have the Taj Mahal restored with their money.

Oct 17, 2010 -- 1:22PM, BDboy wrote:

Muslims on the other hand lived their for hundreds of years and made India their homes. Of course many "native" Indians also converted to Islam as well.[/quote[

Of course a "tiny minority" of "native" Indians become apostates and reverted to Islam. 

 

Oct 17, 2010 -- 1:22PM, BDboy wrote:

 All of them built the modern India you see today.

I disagree.  It was the British who built the "modern" India you see today. 

Oct 17, 2010 -- 1:22PM, BDboy wrote:

 Before Muslims arrived in India, it comprised of small nations states constantly fighting with each other.

Gee just like in Arabia. 

Oct 17, 2010 -- 1:22PM, BDboy wrote:

Muslims United the modern India and gave it a dynamic culture, music and Identity. Many land marks Indias boast today were built by muslims. 

First of all India had a "dynamic" culture hundreds, if not  thousands of years before Muhammad took his first breath. 

All Imperialist will influence and ARE INFLUENCED BY the countries they are dominating. 

Oct 17, 2010 -- 1:22PM, BDboy wrote:

I can give you many more examples. True knowledge of Islam encourages us to look beyond  religion, geography or national boundaries. 

I am sure you can give many more examples of Islamic Imperilism. 

Oct 17, 2010 -- 1:22PM, BDboy wrote:

 Today more modern nations realize this vision and coming togather with specific set of Ideas to improve our communities. 

Pretty soon the whole planet will be dominated by Islamic Imperialism and peace and joy will reign throughout the world, like in the middle east. 

Oct 17, 2010 -- 1:22PM, BDboy wrote:

Muslims were NEVER your typical colonial masters. They have uplifted many people who were treated badly by others. Islamic ideology forbids Muslims to treat people based on race. 

Gee, what ideology or religion doesn't forbid people being treated based on race. 

Oct 17, 2010 -- 1:22PM, BDboy wrote:

I have never claimed Muslims to be perfect little angles but as a community they have contributed more than they took. They were a force for good in places they went to. We cannot say that for many other communities based on historic evidence.

What you are claiming is that those Muslims who were a little bit less than perfect are not following "true" Islam.  

What you are claiming is that Islamic Imperialism is not as bad as "typical"  Imperialism. 

What you are claiming is that Slavery is not an evil if they slavemasters are "true" Muslims. 

My questions to you is why aren't more people immigrating to Islamic countries?

What country do you live in? 

Why is it that the populations of non-Muslims are declining in all Islamic countries? 

 

Howdy BaDboy

Oct 31, 2010 -- 4:00PM, BDboy wrote:

Oct 31, 2010 -- 12:54PM, IDBC wrote:

What you are claiming is that those Muslims who were a little bit less than perfect are not following "true" Islam.  

>>>>>> Ideally all Muslims strive to practice true Islam. Some gets closer than the rest like all major religions. 

Why? 

>>>>>>> Yes, it is a FACT ( Not a claim). 

Prove it.

First tell me what "typical"  Imperialism means. 

>>>>>>>> The way most western countries practiced slavery is different than how Muslims used to practice it. There are examples where slaves were made kings of than country. An unthinkable idea in western 'Slave" traditions. 

Nov 2, 2010 -- 1:39PM, Scottishpresbyterianmanpca4life wrote:

Are you kidding me!!! Islamic Imperialism was horrible. In the name of Muhammed and his cult, over 70 million Hindu individuals were slaughtered for rejecting Islam.

>>>>>>> My knowledge of Hiddu history is pretty good. When did this even take place? After Muslims ruled India for around 1000 years, around 90% of Indian population remained non-Muslims ( Around 2% were converted to Christianity---Mainly by Portugese in southern India).

[ Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_o... ]

Nov 2, 2010 -- 1:39PM, Scottishpresbyterianmanpca4life wrote:

Are you kidding me!!!, alright I know that Christians have had blood on their hands also, but this double standard is ridiculous. Islam has a lot of evil blood on its hands since the devil pretending to be the angel gabriel fooled Muhammed.

>>>>>>> It does not look like you have ideas about the Qur'an or what Muhammad (PBUH) preached.

If the devil dictated the book to Muhammad ( According to you!!) why did the name "Jesus" appeared in the Qur'an 25 times and the name "Muhammad" appeared only 4 times?

Why did the name "Adam" appeared 25 times?

Why did a whole chapter in the Qur'an was dedicated after "Mary---mother of Jesus Christ"?

Why did the name "Moses" was mentioned over 100 times?

Why was Jesus glorified in such clear terms? Why was Mary "Chosen above women of all nations?"

Why are so many Christian scholars are reverting( Converting) to Islam?

www.islamtomorrow.com/

Nov 2, 2010 -- 1:39PM, Scottishpresbyterianmanpca4life wrote:

 It is an injustice to the victims of Islam in its bloody almost 1400 year history to say Islam wasn't spread by the sword. What about all the native people who had imperialism under so-called Christian imperialism who are still Christian today.

>>>>>> I think you misunderstood me ( Or I was not clear enough) about history of Islam. There were some Muslims who fought there way to Europe at one time. I do NOT deny that. However there were no mass conversion at the point of sword ( This is pure fantasy). Islam also prohibits it in clear terms. [ Source: Al Qur'an 2:256]

Well like many African Americans whos forfathers were forced to convert to Christianity [ In many cases from Islam----Read Alex Hally's "Roots" if you are interested] many people stayed in Christianity. This is a worldwide phenomenon.

Nov 2, 2010 -- 1:39PM, Scottishpresbyterianmanpca4life wrote:

What about what happened to the Balkans under the Ottoman empire which was a Sharia law Islamic empire. Do some research on why the Armenians suffered a genocide under Islamic rule, the truth hurts Muslims.

>>>>>>>> Sharia Law forbids forced convesion in clear terms. The Turkish people [ The other party of the "Alledged genocide"] strongly deny a "Genocide". Personally I am not here to defend any murderers. If any Muslim commited a crime, I can call a crime. However when you try to tell others that, Islam supports crimes like murders and plundering---- I strongly object to such "Made up stories". I have not found anything in Islamic scriptures to support such claim.

Nov 2, 2010 -- 1:39PM, Scottishpresbyterianmanpca4life wrote:

I'm not making excuses for things so-called Christians did but the Bible never gave Christians permission to spread Christianity by the sword.!!! Let's be honest and wake up to the blood Islam has caused over the innocent who didn't deserve it.!!!

>>>>>>>>> All crimes are crimes. I do not like to "Justify" even one murder for any reason.

At the same time I'll advice you not to equate killing initiated by Christians with anything in the world. There is no compitition. NO one can compete with them.

I am going to give you an example you can see [ NO need to hit the history books!]. George Bush attacked Iraq in retaliation of 9-11. You know how many lives lost in the US. In Iraq it costed well over half a million lives few years ago. Now a days I do not count anymore. NO one from Iraq EVER attacked America but a whole nation was forced into a unnecessary war. If you read what happened in Southern Spain after Muslims were forced out of Europe around 1492, you will get a glimpse of it.

I can give you example of more genocide Muslims caused on Muslims as well. But they were NEVER "Islamic". Islam does NOT support such wars to spread religion.

I am happy to report that, the places with Muslim majority population today received Islam in a peaceful way. For example, the largest "Muslim" country in the world "Indonesia" NEVER saw a Muslim army. Islam reached that land via Muslim traders who used to buy spices from local people. People admired Muslims and came to embrace Islam on their own. This is a living miracle.......