Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Hollie]

I’m struck by your presumption that pious Moslems who commit acts of atrocities in furtherance of their religion are somehow doing so contrary to Islamic ideology.

I'm struck by your simplistic understanding of Islam for someone who has claimed such vaunted knowledge.

It becomes quite preposterous to assert that Moslem's ideology has nothing to do with Islamic terror. These are the books that are holy to Muslims--the Koran is literally interpreted to be God's own, uncreated word. These books provide the basis for Islamic shariah law. They constitute the fundamental "system for life" for each Moslem. More importantly though, they contain ample divine rationale for the murder and conquest of those who refuse to accept Islam's supremacy.

I won't say Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with theology. In fact I didn't. Every religion has it's problems with fundamentalist literalists...at this point in time...Islam is in primacy in that regard. What I pointed out was a lot of Muslims do NOT agree with those theological interpretations.

Those books also contain the rationale for charity, for humane treatment of the enemy, they also specify when it is ok to engage in war and a whole lot of stuff that escapes your limited research. Unfortunately there are Muslims who also don't grasp that. As Ghandi once said...it's not your Christ I have a problem with it's your Christians (more or less) - you can say the same about Muslims. Mohammed (assuming you actually did read historical bio's on him) was ahead of his time in the treatment of women, orphans, charity, opposition to the corruption of the religious elite at the time, taking care of the poor...something lost on some of his subsequent followers. All these things should be viewed in the context of the era in which they existed. Unfortunately there are those who seek to recreate that era.

And beyond the books, actions speak with the utmost clarity. In scores of armed conflicts in the world today, Moslems are fighting for their God-given right to subjugate the infidels and to make Islam and God's law

And right there...I question your accuracy. Many conflicts are not about "subjugating" infidels but about sepratist movements (such as Chechnya) or ethnic conflicts (as is occurring in CAR with atrocities on both sides) or simple survival (the Rohinga in Myanmar).

Ultimately, the worldwide plague of islamic terrorism is a function of a particular politico-religious ideology. When islamic terrorist superstars drench their threats to kill infidels with "god willing", I'm not conflicted by ambiguity or reservations about what is at stake. The current, globe-girdling crisis pits Islam against the better parts of the West. Those who want to see the two sides as morally equivalent routinely demand that we try to understand "what the Islamic militants want" and to appreciate "our own role in bringing such destruction upon us." In other words, we are required to see the components of the Islamic hive mind, which kills and enslaves, as individuals with the same sort of moral basis as our own: persons who would be capable, given certain preconditions, of treating us as moral equals, despite our divergences from Islam’s ideology. Well, hell. That's pretty silly. Can anyone show me one location in the islamist Middle East where infidels are accepted/treated as equals of Moslems? I don't have the moral compass that Moslems have regarding their absolutist distinction between Moslems and infidels, and I celebrate that.

Morality does carry with it, decision making and responsibility for those decisions. Convictions about morality (right and wrong) have never been uniform across all people and time, even within a single nation. Today, however, the very nature of right and wrong as absolutes not subject to one's opinion is under challenge from adherents to a politico-religious ideology that flies the flag of "submission" and demands "tolerance" of those with deviant moral convictions. The many ironies of this situation begin with that community's perfect willingness to condemn and murder anyone who differs with them.

The very nature of right and wrong is under challenge alright.

I’m not at all surprised by your apologetics for a brutish, retfogtade politico-religious ideology. My understanding of islam is based upon islamic theology and history.


Let's be honest, the ummah clearly doesn't enjoin right nor does it forbid wrong.

Examine the very worst atrocities taking place in the world today; Darfur, Iraq, India, Phillipines, Europoe, Africa etc., and you'll find the orthodox muslim doctrine of world domination playing a part.

Your position is of an apologist and ill-informed. Your posted comments represent a system of formed opinions on what you think or do not think about matters, though you require of yourself far less evidence than you require of others for their positions - that is, you are being dismissive to claims that Islamic terrorism is a worldwide threat to the free world.

I’m also concerned about the rights of the general public to be protected from Islamic terrorism. As much as you may wish to avoid having to address it, Islamic terrorism is a clear and present threat to the Western world and others.

This madness of calculated mass murder is not happening in the cause of any other faith on the globe at this time. It is only happening in the cause of Islam's jihad and it’s happening with the financial and logistical support of Arab/Muslim governments, sympathizers and enablers and it is definitely occurring frequently enough to require any objective, reasoned person consider that this problem is directly related to Islamic doctrine.

A sensible and reasoned person cannot sweep away the reality that if Muslims are genuinely concerned about "rights", (the very rights that Muslims demand for themselves but explicitly deny others), over the continuing incidents of mass murder in Allah’s name, then it falls to them to set forth, unequivocally, that reform to their ideology must be undertaken.



To suggest that an Arad warlord was “ahead of his time” is comical. Your hero has quite a history of being "ahead of his time"


610 - Mohammed, in a cave on Mt. Hira, hears the angel Gabriel tell him that Allah is the only true God.
613 - Muhammad's first public preaching of Islam at Mt. Hira. Gets few converts.
615 - Muslims persecuted by the Quraish.
619 - Marries Sau'da and Aisha
620 - Institution of five daily prayers
622 - Muhammad immigrates from Mecca to Medina, which was then called Yathrib, gets more converts.
623 - Battle of Waddan
623 - Battle of Safwan
623 - Battle of Dul-'Ashir
624 - Muhammad and converts begin raids on caravans to fund the movement.
624 - Zakat becomes mandatory
624 - Battle of Badr
624 - Battle of Bani Salim
624 - Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr and Zakat-ul-Fitr
624 - Battle of Bani Qainuqa'
624 - Battle of Sawiq
624 - Battle of Ghatfan
624 - Battle of Bahran
625 - Battle of Uhud. 70 Muslims are killed.
625 - Battle of Humra-ul-Asad
625 - Battle of Banu Nudair
625 - Battle of Dhatur-Riqa
626 - Battle of Badru-Ukhra
626 - Battle of Dumatul-Jandal
626 - Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah
627 - Battle of the Trench
627 - Battle of Ahzab
627 - Battle of Bani Quraiza
627 - Battle of Bani Lahyan
627 - Battle of Ghaiba
627 - Battle of Khaibar
628 - Muhammad signs treaty with Quraish.
630 - Muhammad conquers Mecca.
630 - Battle of Hunsin.
630 - Battle of Tabuk
632 - Muhammad dies.
632 - Abu-Bakr, Muhammad's father-in-law, along with Umar, begin a military move to enforce Islam in Arabia.
633 - Battle at Oman
633 - Battle at Hadramaut.
633 - Battle of Kazima
633 - Battle of Walaja
633 - Battle of Ulleis
633 - Battle of Anbar
634 - Battle of Basra,
634 - Battle of Damascus
634 - Battle of Ajnadin.
634 - Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat Umar Farooq becomes the Caliph.
634 - Battle of Namaraq
634 - Battle of Saqatia.
635 - Battle of Bridge.
635 - Battle of Buwaib.
635 - Conquest of Damascus.
635 - Battle of Fahl.
636 - Battle of Yermuk.
636 - Battle of Qadsiyia.
636 - Conquest of Madain.
637 - Battle of Jalula.
638 - Battle of Yarmouk.
638 - The Muslims defeat the Romans and enter Jerusalem.
638 - Conquest of Jazirah.
639 - Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt.
641 - Battle of Nihawand
642 - Battle of Rayy in Persia
643 - Conquest of Azarbaijan
644 - Conquest of Fars
644 - Conquest of Kharan.
644 - Umar is murdered. Othman becomes the Caliph.
647 - Conquest of the island of Cypress
644 - Uman dies and is succeeded by Caliph Uthman.
648 - Campaign against the Byzantines.
651 - Naval battle against the Byzantines.
654 - Islam spreads into North Africa
656 - Uthman is murdered. Ali become Caliph.
658 - Battle of Nahrawan.
659 - Conquest of Egypt
661 - Ali is murdered.
662 - Egypt falls to Islam rule.
666 - Sicily is attacked by Muslims
677 - Siege of Constantinople
687 - Battle of Kufa
691 - Battle of Deir ul Jaliq
700 - Sufism takes root as a sect of Islam
700 - Military campaigns in North Africa
702 - Battle of Deir ul Jamira
711 - Muslims invade Gibraltar
711 - Conquest of Spain
713 - Conquest of Multan
716 - Invasion of Constantinople
732 - Battle of Tours in France.
740 - Battle of the Nobles.
741 - Battle of Bagdoura in North Africa
744 - Battle of Ain al Jurr.
746 - Battle of Rupar Thutha
748 - Battle of Rayy.
749 - Battle of lsfahan
749 - Battle of Nihawand
750 - Battle of Zab
772 - Battle of Janbi in North Africa
777 - Battle of Saragossa in Spain


After their surrender at the "Battle of the Trench" (see date above), 600-900 men were beheaded in the marketplace of Medina over trenches dug there. The women (who weren't taken as concubines) and children were sold into slavery. Some were sold to buy horses and weapons. This is recorded in the Koran two verses2:

He [God —ed.] brought down from their strongholds those who had supported them [i.e., the Banu Qurayza Jews who had supported the Banu Quraysh Arabs —ed.] from among the People of the Book [Jews —ed.] and cast terror into their hearts, so that some you slew and others you took captive.

He made you masters of their land, their houses, and their goods, and of yet another land [Khaybar—another conquest over a Jewish community in Arabia —ed.] on which you had never set foot before. Truly, God has power over all things.

You know something Hollie...when you are going to on mass cut'n'paste (hey...don't you ding Tinmore for that...?) you ought to link to your sources...and...those sources don't exactly scholarly.

Chronology of early Islam (83 wars in 154 years!)

Most of what you are saying fall's in the category of "blah blah blah" - how, specifically, was Mohammed NOT ahead of his time in the 6th century?

Was he an epileptic hallucinating in a cave? Who the hell knows. We have prophets conferring with burning shrubbery and zombie prophets running around proclaiming descent from deities with anger management issues. Religion is nuts, war was common place (as was rape and pillage as a rightful reward of conquest)...it sucked to be a woman, it sucked to be an orphan and it sucked even more to be a widow. That was the world THEN.

Mohammed and his followers started out persecuted by the polytheists. He saw corruption, greed, and inhumane treatment of widows and orphans. And he sought to remedy it. And, he did.

Like all prophets he was a product of his time - yet you judge him by 20th century ethics. ALL the prophets would fail your test.

The problem is largely what the followers choose to do with it.

Gee whiz. Poor persecuted Arab warlord.

That does nothing to diminish the legacy of murder, rape and brutality that defines 1400 years of Islamist ideology.

 

[Coyote]

I’m struck by your presumption that pious Moslems who commit acts of atrocities in furtherance of their religion are somehow doing so contrary to Islamic ideology.

I'm struck by your simplistic understanding of Islam for someone who has claimed such vaunted knowledge.

It becomes quite preposterous to assert that Moslem's ideology has nothing to do with Islamic terror. These are the books that are holy to Muslims--the Koran is literally interpreted to be God's own, uncreated word. These books provide the basis for Islamic shariah law. They constitute the fundamental "system for life" for each Moslem. More importantly though, they contain ample divine rationale for the murder and conquest of those who refuse to accept Islam's supremacy.

I won't say Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with theology. In fact I didn't. Every religion has it's problems with fundamentalist literalists...at this point in time...Islam is in primacy in that regard. What I pointed out was a lot of Muslims do NOT agree with those theological interpretations.

Those books also contain the rationale for charity, for humane treatment of the enemy, they also specify when it is ok to engage in war and a whole lot of stuff that escapes your limited research. Unfortunately there are Muslims who also don't grasp that. As Ghandi once said...it's not your Christ I have a problem with it's your Christians (more or less) - you can say the same about Muslims. Mohammed (assuming you actually did read historical bio's on him) was ahead of his time in the treatment of women, orphans, charity, opposition to the corruption of the religious elite at the time, taking care of the poor...something lost on some of his subsequent followers. All these things should be viewed in the context of the era in which they existed. Unfortunately there are those who seek to recreate that era.

And beyond the books, actions speak with the utmost clarity. In scores of armed conflicts in the world today, Moslems are fighting for their God-given right to subjugate the infidels and to make Islam and God's law

And right there...I question your accuracy. Many conflicts are not about "subjugating" infidels but about sepratist movements (such as Chechnya) or ethnic conflicts (as is occurring in CAR with atrocities on both sides) or simple survival (the Rohinga in Myanmar).

Ultimately, the worldwide plague of islamic terrorism is a function of a particular politico-religious ideology. When islamic terrorist superstars drench their threats to kill infidels with "god willing", I'm not conflicted by ambiguity or reservations about what is at stake. The current, globe-girdling crisis pits Islam against the better parts of the West. Those who want to see the two sides as morally equivalent routinely demand that we try to understand "what the Islamic militants want" and to appreciate "our own role in bringing such destruction upon us." In other words, we are required to see the components of the Islamic hive mind, which kills and enslaves, as individuals with the same sort of moral basis as our own: persons who would be capable, given certain preconditions, of treating us as moral equals, despite our divergences from Islam’s ideology. Well, hell. That's pretty silly. Can anyone show me one location in the islamist Middle East where infidels are accepted/treated as equals of Moslems? I don't have the moral compass that Moslems have regarding their absolutist distinction between Moslems and infidels, and I celebrate that.

Morality does carry with it, decision making and responsibility for those decisions. Convictions about morality (right and wrong) have never been uniform across all people and time, even within a single nation. Today, however, the very nature of right and wrong as absolutes not subject to one's opinion is under challenge from adherents to a politico-religious ideology that flies the flag of "submission" and demands "tolerance" of those with deviant moral convictions. The many ironies of this situation begin with that community's perfect willingness to condemn and murder anyone who differs with them.

The very nature of right and wrong is under challenge alright.

I’m not at all surprised by your apologetics for a brutish, retfogtade politico-religious ideology. My understanding of islam is based upon islamic theology and history.


Let's be honest, the ummah clearly doesn't enjoin right nor does it forbid wrong.

Examine the very worst atrocities taking place in the world today; Darfur, Iraq, India, Phillipines, Europoe, Africa etc., and you'll find the orthodox muslim doctrine of world domination playing a part.

Your position is of an apologist and ill-informed. Your posted comments represent a system of formed opinions on what you think or do not think about matters, though you require of yourself far less evidence than you require of others for their positions - that is, you are being dismissive to claims that Islamic terrorism is a worldwide threat to the free world.

I’m also concerned about the rights of the general public to be protected from Islamic terrorism. As much as you may wish to avoid having to address it, Islamic terrorism is a clear and present threat to the Western world and others.

This madness of calculated mass murder is not happening in the cause of any other faith on the globe at this time. It is only happening in the cause of Islam's jihad and it’s happening with the financial and logistical support of Arab/Muslim governments, sympathizers and enablers and it is definitely occurring frequently enough to require any objective, reasoned person consider that this problem is directly related to Islamic doctrine.

A sensible and reasoned person cannot sweep away the reality that if Muslims are genuinely concerned about "rights", (the very rights that Muslims demand for themselves but explicitly deny others), over the continuing incidents of mass murder in Allah’s name, then it falls to them to set forth, unequivocally, that reform to their ideology must be undertaken.



To suggest that an Arad warlord was “ahead of his time” is comical. Your hero has quite a history of being "ahead of his time"


610 - Mohammed, in a cave on Mt. Hira, hears the angel Gabriel tell him that Allah is the only true God.
613 - Muhammad's first public preaching of Islam at Mt. Hira. Gets few converts.
615 - Muslims persecuted by the Quraish.
619 - Marries Sau'da and Aisha
620 - Institution of five daily prayers
622 - Muhammad immigrates from Mecca to Medina, which was then called Yathrib, gets more converts.
623 - Battle of Waddan
623 - Battle of Safwan
623 - Battle of Dul-'Ashir
624 - Muhammad and converts begin raids on caravans to fund the movement.
624 - Zakat becomes mandatory
624 - Battle of Badr
624 - Battle of Bani Salim
624 - Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr and Zakat-ul-Fitr
624 - Battle of Bani Qainuqa'
624 - Battle of Sawiq
624 - Battle of Ghatfan
624 - Battle of Bahran
625 - Battle of Uhud. 70 Muslims are killed.
625 - Battle of Humra-ul-Asad
625 - Battle of Banu Nudair
625 - Battle of Dhatur-Riqa
626 - Battle of Badru-Ukhra
626 - Battle of Dumatul-Jandal
626 - Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah
627 - Battle of the Trench
627 - Battle of Ahzab
627 - Battle of Bani Quraiza
627 - Battle of Bani Lahyan
627 - Battle of Ghaiba
627 - Battle of Khaibar
628 - Muhammad signs treaty with Quraish.
630 - Muhammad conquers Mecca.
630 - Battle of Hunsin.
630 - Battle of Tabuk
632 - Muhammad dies.
632 - Abu-Bakr, Muhammad's father-in-law, along with Umar, begin a military move to enforce Islam in Arabia.
633 - Battle at Oman
633 - Battle at Hadramaut.
633 - Battle of Kazima
633 - Battle of Walaja
633 - Battle of Ulleis
633 - Battle of Anbar
634 - Battle of Basra,
634 - Battle of Damascus
634 - Battle of Ajnadin.
634 - Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat Umar Farooq becomes the Caliph.
634 - Battle of Namaraq
634 - Battle of Saqatia.
635 - Battle of Bridge.
635 - Battle of Buwaib.
635 - Conquest of Damascus.
635 - Battle of Fahl.
636 - Battle of Yermuk.
636 - Battle of Qadsiyia.
636 - Conquest of Madain.
637 - Battle of Jalula.
638 - Battle of Yarmouk.
638 - The Muslims defeat the Romans and enter Jerusalem.
638 - Conquest of Jazirah.
639 - Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt.
641 - Battle of Nihawand
642 - Battle of Rayy in Persia
643 - Conquest of Azarbaijan
644 - Conquest of Fars
644 - Conquest of Kharan.
644 - Umar is murdered. Othman becomes the Caliph.
647 - Conquest of the island of Cypress
644 - Uman dies and is succeeded by Caliph Uthman.
648 - Campaign against the Byzantines.
651 - Naval battle against the Byzantines.
654 - Islam spreads into North Africa
656 - Uthman is murdered. Ali become Caliph.
658 - Battle of Nahrawan.
659 - Conquest of Egypt
661 - Ali is murdered.
662 - Egypt falls to Islam rule.
666 - Sicily is attacked by Muslims
677 - Siege of Constantinople
687 - Battle of Kufa
691 - Battle of Deir ul Jaliq
700 - Sufism takes root as a sect of Islam
700 - Military campaigns in North Africa
702 - Battle of Deir ul Jamira
711 - Muslims invade Gibraltar
711 - Conquest of Spain
713 - Conquest of Multan
716 - Invasion of Constantinople
732 - Battle of Tours in France.
740 - Battle of the Nobles.
741 - Battle of Bagdoura in North Africa
744 - Battle of Ain al Jurr.
746 - Battle of Rupar Thutha
748 - Battle of Rayy.
749 - Battle of lsfahan
749 - Battle of Nihawand
750 - Battle of Zab
772 - Battle of Janbi in North Africa
777 - Battle of Saragossa in Spain


After their surrender at the "Battle of the Trench" (see date above), 600-900 men were beheaded in the marketplace of Medina over trenches dug there. The women (who weren't taken as concubines) and children were sold into slavery. Some were sold to buy horses and weapons. This is recorded in the Koran two verses2:

He [God —ed.] brought down from their strongholds those who had supported them [i.e., the Banu Qurayza Jews who had supported the Banu Quraysh Arabs —ed.] from among the People of the Book [Jews —ed.] and cast terror into their hearts, so that some you slew and others you took captive.

He made you masters of their land, their houses, and their goods, and of yet another land [Khaybar—another conquest over a Jewish community in Arabia —ed.] on which you had never set foot before. Truly, God has power over all things.

You know something Hollie...when you are going to on mass cut'n'paste (hey...don't you ding Tinmore for that...?) you ought to link to your sources...and...those sources don't exactly scholarly.

Chronology of early Islam (83 wars in 154 years!)

Most of what you are saying fall's in the category of "blah blah blah" - how, specifically, was Mohammed NOT ahead of his time in the 6th century?

Was he an epileptic hallucinating in a cave? Who the hell knows. We have prophets conferring with burning shrubbery and zombie prophets running around proclaiming descent from deities with anger management issues. Religion is nuts, war was common place (as was rape and pillage as a rightful reward of conquest)...it sucked to be a woman, it sucked to be an orphan and it sucked even more to be a widow. That was the world THEN.

Mohammed and his followers started out persecuted by the polytheists. He saw corruption, greed, and inhumane treatment of widows and orphans. And he sought to remedy it. And, he did.

Like all prophets he was a product of his time - yet you judge him by 20th century ethics. ALL the prophets would fail your test.

The problem is largely what the followers choose to do with it.

Gee whiz. Poor persecuted Arab warlord.

That does nothing to diminish the legacy of murder, rape and brutality that defines 1400 years of Islamist ideology.

I don't think there is a single major world religion that doesn't have a problematic legacy.

 

[Shusha]

I don't think there is a single major world religion that doesn't have a problematic legacy.

The legacy isn't the problem. The actions of today are the problem.

 

[Shusha]

Second - is there a difference, in your view, between deliberately targeting kids (example - the Itmar massacre or the Dumas massacre) and, kids being accidentally killed in a military action?

Yes and...

is there a responsibility for BOTH sides to protect children by ensuring they are removed from military targets?

 

[Shusha]

I won't say Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with theology.

Islamic terrorism is sourced in Islamic theology. Thank you for acknowledging this.

Every religion has it's problems with fundamentalist literalists...

NOT every religion has current problems with fundamental literalists committing widespread murder of innocents.

What I pointed out was a lot of Muslims do NOT agree with those theological interpretations.

And what we are pointing out is that NOT ENOUGH Muslims are actively engaged in changing the dialogue and changing the interpretations let alone changing the actions of those who do agree with those theological interpretations.

 

[Shusha]

The problem is largely what the followers choose to do with it.

Yuh uh. Hence Hollie's point.

 

[Shusha]

Let's agree - it is wrong to kill children.

Can we agree it is unequivocally wrong to TARGET and KILL Palestinian children AND Jewish children?

Sure, I can agree.

Now can we dump the double standard?

You can't just look at the number of dead and establish the standard. The standard is not the number of dead.

Exactly. In many ways it's in WHO is targeted.

When Israel reacts in self defense to rockets launched across the border - Israel tries to avoid targeting children.

I would also say when Hamas launches rockets, it is not targeting children, it targets randomly.

But when someone creeps into a house and slits the throats of an entire family...there is no question about the target.

This isn't actually complicated. Standards are pretty clear. It is morally wrong and illegal to:

Target any non-combatants.
Target anything other than a military objective.
Fail to target at all by committing violence indiscriminately.
Place military objectives in the vicinity of non-combatant civilians.
Fail to remove civilians from the vicinity of military targets.


Israel is guilty of none of these things. Arab Palestinians are guilty of all of them.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

[

What does this imply, if not that the conflict duration is set by the Arab Palestinian condition that "Israel end the war?" This places the burden solely upon the Israelis.

The Palestinians do not want war. They were attacked by Israel in 1948 and those attacks have never stopped.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians were NOT attacked in 1948. I know that it is an imperative that pro-Arab Palestinians believe that, but it simply is NOT even close to the truth.

The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949
On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighboring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs.
SOURCE: UN DPI 2499 •

In May 1948, Israeli Military Operations were justified in the following way.

1. In order to repel aggression, and as part of our essentially defensive plan, to prevent these areas being used as bases for attacks against the State of Israel.

2. In order to protect Jewish population, traffic and economic life, including the protection of those Jewish settlements outside the area of the State where, owing to the absence of any duly constituted authority and the failure to implement the guarantees and safeguards provided for, under the General Assembly Plan, life and property are in imminent danger. Similar considerations apply in the absence of any international statute for the City of Jerusalem to the Jewish area of the City.
​

No Israeli Forces entered any Arab sovereign territory as of the date of the first truce.

The only occupying force over the West Bank was Jordanian, which was not relinquished for fourty years. The Gaza Strip was a military governorship, which was endorsed by former Arab Palestinian allies of the former Ottoman Empire and the former NAZI Regime.

Civil society is pushing for the enforcement of the law which is not being done.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I always ask when this is brought to the forefront: What particular actual law (or laws) are being cited?

This is one of those allegations that the pro-Arab Palestinians stumble over quite frequently.

✦ I would like to see a simple statement of charges; and the particular law (or laws) that is being claimed...​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

[

What does this imply, if not that the conflict duration is set by the Arab Palestinian condition that "Israel end the war?" This places the burden solely upon the Israelis.

The Palestinians do not want war. They were attacked by Israel in 1948 and those attacks have never stopped.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians were NOT attacked in 1948. I know that it is an imperative that pro-Arab Palestinians believe that, but it simply is NOT even close to the truth.

The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949
On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighboring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs.
SOURCE: UN DPI 2499 •

In May 1948, Israeli Military Operations were justified in the following way.

1. In order to repel aggression, and as part of our essentially defensive plan, to prevent these areas being used as bases for attacks against the State of Israel.

2. In order to protect Jewish population, traffic and economic life, including the protection of those Jewish settlements outside the area of the State where, owing to the absence of any duly constituted authority and the failure to implement the guarantees and safeguards provided for, under the General Assembly Plan, life and property are in imminent danger. Similar considerations apply in the absence of any international statute for the City of Jerusalem to the Jewish area of the City.
​

No Israeli Forces entered any Arab sovereign territory as of the date of the first truce.

The only occupying force over the West Bank was Jordanian, which was not relinquished for fourty years. The Gaza Strip was a military governorship, which was endorsed by former Arab Palestinian allies of the former Ottoman Empire and the former NAZI Regime.

Civil society is pushing for the enforcement of the law which is not being done.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I always ask when this is brought to the forefront: What particular actual law (or laws) are being cited?

This is one of those allegations that the pro-Arab Palestinians stumble over quite frequently.

✦ I would like to see a simple statement of charges; and the particular law (or laws) that is being claimed...​

Most Respectfully,
R

On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.​

The partition plan flopped and was never implemented. There was no territory allotted for a Jewish state.

What territory did Israel claim and how was it acquired?

 

[Hollie]

I’m struck by your presumption that pious Moslems who commit acts of atrocities in furtherance of their religion are somehow doing so contrary to Islamic ideology.

I'm struck by your simplistic understanding of Islam for someone who has claimed such vaunted knowledge.

It becomes quite preposterous to assert that Moslem's ideology has nothing to do with Islamic terror. These are the books that are holy to Muslims--the Koran is literally interpreted to be God's own, uncreated word. These books provide the basis for Islamic shariah law. They constitute the fundamental "system for life" for each Moslem. More importantly though, they contain ample divine rationale for the murder and conquest of those who refuse to accept Islam's supremacy.

I won't say Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with theology. In fact I didn't. Every religion has it's problems with fundamentalist literalists...at this point in time...Islam is in primacy in that regard. What I pointed out was a lot of Muslims do NOT agree with those theological interpretations.

Those books also contain the rationale for charity, for humane treatment of the enemy, they also specify when it is ok to engage in war and a whole lot of stuff that escapes your limited research. Unfortunately there are Muslims who also don't grasp that. As Ghandi once said...it's not your Christ I have a problem with it's your Christians (more or less) - you can say the same about Muslims. Mohammed (assuming you actually did read historical bio's on him) was ahead of his time in the treatment of women, orphans, charity, opposition to the corruption of the religious elite at the time, taking care of the poor...something lost on some of his subsequent followers. All these things should be viewed in the context of the era in which they existed. Unfortunately there are those who seek to recreate that era.

And beyond the books, actions speak with the utmost clarity. In scores of armed conflicts in the world today, Moslems are fighting for their God-given right to subjugate the infidels and to make Islam and God's law

And right there...I question your accuracy. Many conflicts are not about "subjugating" infidels but about sepratist movements (such as Chechnya) or ethnic conflicts (as is occurring in CAR with atrocities on both sides) or simple survival (the Rohinga in Myanmar).

Ultimately, the worldwide plague of islamic terrorism is a function of a particular politico-religious ideology. When islamic terrorist superstars drench their threats to kill infidels with "god willing", I'm not conflicted by ambiguity or reservations about what is at stake. The current, globe-girdling crisis pits Islam against the better parts of the West. Those who want to see the two sides as morally equivalent routinely demand that we try to understand "what the Islamic militants want" and to appreciate "our own role in bringing such destruction upon us." In other words, we are required to see the components of the Islamic hive mind, which kills and enslaves, as individuals with the same sort of moral basis as our own: persons who would be capable, given certain preconditions, of treating us as moral equals, despite our divergences from Islam’s ideology. Well, hell. That's pretty silly. Can anyone show me one location in the islamist Middle East where infidels are accepted/treated as equals of Moslems? I don't have the moral compass that Moslems have regarding their absolutist distinction between Moslems and infidels, and I celebrate that.

Morality does carry with it, decision making and responsibility for those decisions. Convictions about morality (right and wrong) have never been uniform across all people and time, even within a single nation. Today, however, the very nature of right and wrong as absolutes not subject to one's opinion is under challenge from adherents to a politico-religious ideology that flies the flag of "submission" and demands "tolerance" of those with deviant moral convictions. The many ironies of this situation begin with that community's perfect willingness to condemn and murder anyone who differs with them.

The very nature of right and wrong is under challenge alright.

I’m not at all surprised by your apologetics for a brutish, retfogtade politico-religious ideology. My understanding of islam is based upon islamic theology and history.


Let's be honest, the ummah clearly doesn't enjoin right nor does it forbid wrong.

Examine the very worst atrocities taking place in the world today; Darfur, Iraq, India, Phillipines, Europoe, Africa etc., and you'll find the orthodox muslim doctrine of world domination playing a part.

Your position is of an apologist and ill-informed. Your posted comments represent a system of formed opinions on what you think or do not think about matters, though you require of yourself far less evidence than you require of others for their positions - that is, you are being dismissive to claims that Islamic terrorism is a worldwide threat to the free world.

I’m also concerned about the rights of the general public to be protected from Islamic terrorism. As much as you may wish to avoid having to address it, Islamic terrorism is a clear and present threat to the Western world and others.

This madness of calculated mass murder is not happening in the cause of any other faith on the globe at this time. It is only happening in the cause of Islam's jihad and it’s happening with the financial and logistical support of Arab/Muslim governments, sympathizers and enablers and it is definitely occurring frequently enough to require any objective, reasoned person consider that this problem is directly related to Islamic doctrine.

A sensible and reasoned person cannot sweep away the reality that if Muslims are genuinely concerned about "rights", (the very rights that Muslims demand for themselves but explicitly deny others), over the continuing incidents of mass murder in Allah’s name, then it falls to them to set forth, unequivocally, that reform to their ideology must be undertaken.



To suggest that an Arad warlord was “ahead of his time” is comical. Your hero has quite a history of being "ahead of his time"


610 - Mohammed, in a cave on Mt. Hira, hears the angel Gabriel tell him that Allah is the only true God.
613 - Muhammad's first public preaching of Islam at Mt. Hira. Gets few converts.
615 - Muslims persecuted by the Quraish.
619 - Marries Sau'da and Aisha
620 - Institution of five daily prayers
622 - Muhammad immigrates from Mecca to Medina, which was then called Yathrib, gets more converts.
623 - Battle of Waddan
623 - Battle of Safwan
623 - Battle of Dul-'Ashir
624 - Muhammad and converts begin raids on caravans to fund the movement.
624 - Zakat becomes mandatory
624 - Battle of Badr
624 - Battle of Bani Salim
624 - Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr and Zakat-ul-Fitr
624 - Battle of Bani Qainuqa'
624 - Battle of Sawiq
624 - Battle of Ghatfan
624 - Battle of Bahran
625 - Battle of Uhud. 70 Muslims are killed.
625 - Battle of Humra-ul-Asad
625 - Battle of Banu Nudair
625 - Battle of Dhatur-Riqa
626 - Battle of Badru-Ukhra
626 - Battle of Dumatul-Jandal
626 - Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah
627 - Battle of the Trench
627 - Battle of Ahzab
627 - Battle of Bani Quraiza
627 - Battle of Bani Lahyan
627 - Battle of Ghaiba
627 - Battle of Khaibar
628 - Muhammad signs treaty with Quraish.
630 - Muhammad conquers Mecca.
630 - Battle of Hunsin.
630 - Battle of Tabuk
632 - Muhammad dies.
632 - Abu-Bakr, Muhammad's father-in-law, along with Umar, begin a military move to enforce Islam in Arabia.
633 - Battle at Oman
633 - Battle at Hadramaut.
633 - Battle of Kazima
633 - Battle of Walaja
633 - Battle of Ulleis
633 - Battle of Anbar
634 - Battle of Basra,
634 - Battle of Damascus
634 - Battle of Ajnadin.
634 - Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat Umar Farooq becomes the Caliph.
634 - Battle of Namaraq
634 - Battle of Saqatia.
635 - Battle of Bridge.
635 - Battle of Buwaib.
635 - Conquest of Damascus.
635 - Battle of Fahl.
636 - Battle of Yermuk.
636 - Battle of Qadsiyia.
636 - Conquest of Madain.
637 - Battle of Jalula.
638 - Battle of Yarmouk.
638 - The Muslims defeat the Romans and enter Jerusalem.
638 - Conquest of Jazirah.
639 - Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt.
641 - Battle of Nihawand
642 - Battle of Rayy in Persia
643 - Conquest of Azarbaijan
644 - Conquest of Fars
644 - Conquest of Kharan.
644 - Umar is murdered. Othman becomes the Caliph.
647 - Conquest of the island of Cypress
644 - Uman dies and is succeeded by Caliph Uthman.
648 - Campaign against the Byzantines.
651 - Naval battle against the Byzantines.
654 - Islam spreads into North Africa
656 - Uthman is murdered. Ali become Caliph.
658 - Battle of Nahrawan.
659 - Conquest of Egypt
661 - Ali is murdered.
662 - Egypt falls to Islam rule.
666 - Sicily is attacked by Muslims
677 - Siege of Constantinople
687 - Battle of Kufa
691 - Battle of Deir ul Jaliq
700 - Sufism takes root as a sect of Islam
700 - Military campaigns in North Africa
702 - Battle of Deir ul Jamira
711 - Muslims invade Gibraltar
711 - Conquest of Spain
713 - Conquest of Multan
716 - Invasion of Constantinople
732 - Battle of Tours in France.
740 - Battle of the Nobles.
741 - Battle of Bagdoura in North Africa
744 - Battle of Ain al Jurr.
746 - Battle of Rupar Thutha
748 - Battle of Rayy.
749 - Battle of lsfahan
749 - Battle of Nihawand
750 - Battle of Zab
772 - Battle of Janbi in North Africa
777 - Battle of Saragossa in Spain


After their surrender at the "Battle of the Trench" (see date above), 600-900 men were beheaded in the marketplace of Medina over trenches dug there. The women (who weren't taken as concubines) and children were sold into slavery. Some were sold to buy horses and weapons. This is recorded in the Koran two verses2:

He [God —ed.] brought down from their strongholds those who had supported them [i.e., the Banu Qurayza Jews who had supported the Banu Quraysh Arabs —ed.] from among the People of the Book [Jews —ed.] and cast terror into their hearts, so that some you slew and others you took captive.

He made you masters of their land, their houses, and their goods, and of yet another land [Khaybar—another conquest over a Jewish community in Arabia —ed.] on which you had never set foot before. Truly, God has power over all things.

You know something Hollie...when you are going to on mass cut'n'paste (hey...don't you ding Tinmore for that...?) you ought to link to your sources...and...those sources don't exactly scholarly.

Chronology of early Islam (83 wars in 154 years!)

Most of what you are saying fall's in the category of "blah blah blah" - how, specifically, was Mohammed NOT ahead of his time in the 6th century?

Was he an epileptic hallucinating in a cave? Who the hell knows. We have prophets conferring with burning shrubbery and zombie prophets running around proclaiming descent from deities with anger management issues. Religion is nuts, war was common place (as was rape and pillage as a rightful reward of conquest)...it sucked to be a woman, it sucked to be an orphan and it sucked even more to be a widow. That was the world THEN.

Mohammed and his followers started out persecuted by the polytheists. He saw corruption, greed, and inhumane treatment of widows and orphans. And he sought to remedy it. And, he did.

Like all prophets he was a product of his time - yet you judge him by 20th century ethics. ALL the prophets would fail your test.

The problem is largely what the followers choose to do with it.

Gee whiz. Poor persecuted Arab warlord.

That does nothing to diminish the legacy of murder, rape and brutality that defines 1400 years of Islamist ideology.

I don't think there is a single major world religion that doesn't have a problematic legacy.

I don’t know of a single religion currently, other than Islam, whose adherents cite as the basis for their atrocities.

I find it impossible to use “well, they used to do it”, as an excuse for the near daily acts of madness committed by adherents to islam.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Let's agree - it is wrong to kill children.

Can we agree it is unequivocally wrong to TARGET and KILL Palestinian children AND Jewish children?

Sure, I can agree.

Now can we dump the double standard?

You can't just look at the number of dead and establish the standard. The standard is not the number of dead.

Exactly. In many ways it's in WHO is targeted.

When Israel reacts in self defense to rockets launched across the border - Israel tries to avoid targeting children.

I would also say when Hamas launches rockets, it is not targeting children, it targets randomly.

But when someone creeps into a house and slits the throats of an entire family...there is no question about the target.

This isn't actually complicated. Standards are pretty clear. It is morally wrong and illegal to:

Target any non-combatants.
Target anything other than a military objective.
Fail to target at all by committing violence indiscriminately.
Place military objectives in the vicinity of non-combatant civilians.
Fail to remove civilians from the vicinity of military targets.


Israel is guilty of none of these things. Arab Palestinians are guilty of all of them.

Israeli bullshit, of course.

Israeli liar gets his ass handed to him.

 

[Hollie]

Let's agree - it is wrong to kill children.

Can we agree it is unequivocally wrong to TARGET and KILL Palestinian children AND Jewish children?

Sure, I can agree.

Now can we dump the double standard?

You can't just look at the number of dead and establish the standard. The standard is not the number of dead.

Exactly. In many ways it's in WHO is targeted.

When Israel reacts in self defense to rockets launched across the border - Israel tries to avoid targeting children.

I would also say when Hamas launches rockets, it is not targeting children, it targets randomly.

But when someone creeps into a house and slits the throats of an entire family...there is no question about the target.

This isn't actually complicated. Standards are pretty clear. It is morally wrong and illegal to:

Target any non-combatants.
Target anything other than a military objective.
Fail to target at all by committing violence indiscriminately.
Place military objectives in the vicinity of non-combatant civilians.
Fail to remove civilians from the vicinity of military targets.


Israel is guilty of none of these things. Arab Palestinians are guilty of all of them.

Israeli bullshit, of course.

Israeli liar gets his ass handed to him.

Funny that a Pom Pom flailer for Islamic terrorists would want to lecture anyone on ethics.

 

[Hollie]

I have to believe it was an atrocious oversight not to include the
Great Satan among those responsible for the ills that plague a totalitarian Islamic fear society.



Hamas blames Israel and Palestinian Authority for Gaza drug problem

The number of drug addicts in Gaza has reached approximately 150,000, according to reports. The main culprit according to Hamas, however, is Israel.

The drugs typically come in through Egypt and other locations, rewarding smugglers with large profits. A doctor in the region defined the problem as "a threat to our people." Channel 13 has cited a number of reasons they've found that explain why so many young people turn to drugs: desperation, unemployment, the continued fighting with Israel, the lack of hope, the desire to dream and be somewhere else instead of a cold, complex and disappointing reality.

 

[Hollie]

A "dire situation" in the mini-caliphate of Haniyeh'istan seems a bit contrived. Luxury shopping malls in Gaza, Hamas being identified as the 2nd wealthiest islamic terrorist franchise and the neighboring Emir of Mahmoud'istan buying himself a 50 million dollar presidential jet suggests that Hamas has every interest in maintaining the status quo.



Hamas delegation tells Erdogan of Gaza’s dire situation, Temple Mount ‘danger’

Hamas delegation led by its chief, Ismail Haniyeh, met Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Istanbul on Saturday and spoke to him about the dire humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, the terror group said in a report posted on its official website.

 

[Hollie]

I know you will find this as shocking as I did.



Hamas official: The goal is 'liberation of Palestine'

Hamas official: The goal is 'liberation of Palestine'

Senior Hamas leader says the parliamentary and presidential elections are intended to strengthen the fight against Israel.




Yes. Shocking. The goal of a totalitarian politico-religious ideology is not primarily directed toward the betterment of its citizens and promoting their health, safety and security.

Rather, its reaffirming the politico-religious ideals that have remained unchanged since the 7th century.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The head of the student movement, Abd al-Rahman Alawi, says "Bir Zeit University, "which graduated the martyr engineer Yahya Ayyash and the prisoner Marwan Barghouti and dozens of martyrs and prisoners who had a clear imprint in the history of the Palestinian resistance, should be a source of uprisings and a political platform as it is now."

University officials say there are two reasons for the new rule, which had been discussed internally for years. One is the obvious - that pro-terror activity on campus is disruptive and against the values of the university. The other is that those activities give Israel an excuse to say that the university tolerates pro-terror activity.

Indeed, last week Israel arrested the president of the Student Council Conference at Birzeit University in Ramallah, Shatha Majid Hassan, at her home on December 5, along with a number of Hamas students that the IDF accused of gathering intelligence and preparing bombs for sabotage last Friday.

University officials insist that this anti-militarization rule has nothing to do with the arrests. In fact, the university forced all student blocs to sign a pledge not to engage in military-type demonstrations before the last student elections.

The other aspect of this story is that up until now, it has not been reported in any English-language media.

Yes, a major university closes its doors right before final exams, students are rioting, and there is complete silence on the story.

Bir Zeit University has some 14,000 students shut out from campus twice in a week and there is a near-total news blackout!

Most major Palestinian Arabic media has been ignoring the story or only publishing bits and pieces about the university closing without discussing why. It has been covered more by the pan-Arab press than Palestinian media.

This shows yet again:

- Palestinian media is not free to report on things that make Palestinian institutions look bad.

- NGOs and international media are not interested in doing any work to expose internal Palestinian rifts and conflict.

- Narratives of Israeli evil and Palestinian innocence are more important than reporting the news honestly.

- The world gets a highly skewed idea of how things are in the most-reported part of the worldd.

- Most reporters on the ground in the Middle East are lazy and have no interest in reporting actual news on their own, or their editors kill any stories that don't fit the "narrative."

(full article online)

Palestinian university closes because students insist on openly supporting terrorism on campus. Where's the coverage? ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Coyote]

'];\

I don't think there is a single major world religion that doesn't have a problematic legacy.

The legacy isn't the problem. The actions of today are the problem.

Yes, but I also think there is a lot of dishonest media on the actions of today that make it seem as if most Muslims support or engage in terrorism, rape, and pedophilia and these drive persistent memes that people keep promoting.

Example - child marriage is a serious problem in many parts of the world, one of the countries highest on the offending list is India (non Muslim) for example (I started a thread on it once but threads don't gain much traction if they don't have Jews or Muslims). It is a problem in Guatemala, Nepal, Afghanistan etc etc. The reasons for it are complicated ranging from economics, low valuation of girls, "business deals" between families. It's culture more than a religion but it's a fight to change culture is some of these poor, rural regions. The argument made that it's a "Muslim problem" deals with one Hadith that set Aisha's age as very young in a time (though that is not considered accurate)...when everyone married very young The more educated and economically enfranchised a population is, the more they recognize there is more value in educating a girl rather than marrying her off as soon as possible - the more people oppose child marriage. It's not a Muslim problem per se - it's a larger issue that should not be ignored and it's complicated to fix. But what do we see?

 

[Coyote]

The problem is largely what the followers choose to do with it.

Yuh uh. Hence Hollie's point.

Hollie's point is to smear all Muslims with the behavior of extremists. She is quite clear on that and note - she does not deny it.

 

[Coyote]

I'm struck by your simplistic understanding of Islam for someone who has claimed such vaunted knowledge.

I won't say Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with theology. In fact I didn't. Every religion has it's problems with fundamentalist literalists...at this point in time...Islam is in primacy in that regard. What I pointed out was a lot of Muslims do NOT agree with those theological interpretations.

Those books also contain the rationale for charity, for humane treatment of the enemy, they also specify when it is ok to engage in war and a whole lot of stuff that escapes your limited research. Unfortunately there are Muslims who also don't grasp that. As Ghandi once said...it's not your Christ I have a problem with it's your Christians (more or less) - you can say the same about Muslims. Mohammed (assuming you actually did read historical bio's on him) was ahead of his time in the treatment of women, orphans, charity, opposition to the corruption of the religious elite at the time, taking care of the poor...something lost on some of his subsequent followers. All these things should be viewed in the context of the era in which they existed. Unfortunately there are those who seek to recreate that era.

And right there...I question your accuracy. Many conflicts are not about "subjugating" infidels but about sepratist movements (such as Chechnya) or ethnic conflicts (as is occurring in CAR with atrocities on both sides) or simple survival (the Rohinga in Myanmar).

The very nature of right and wrong is under challenge alright.

I’m not at all surprised by your apologetics for a brutish, retfogtade politico-religious ideology. My understanding of islam is based upon islamic theology and history.


Let's be honest, the ummah clearly doesn't enjoin right nor does it forbid wrong.

Examine the very worst atrocities taking place in the world today; Darfur, Iraq, India, Phillipines, Europoe, Africa etc., and you'll find the orthodox muslim doctrine of world domination playing a part.

Your position is of an apologist and ill-informed. Your posted comments represent a system of formed opinions on what you think or do not think about matters, though you require of yourself far less evidence than you require of others for their positions - that is, you are being dismissive to claims that Islamic terrorism is a worldwide threat to the free world.

I’m also concerned about the rights of the general public to be protected from Islamic terrorism. As much as you may wish to avoid having to address it, Islamic terrorism is a clear and present threat to the Western world and others.

This madness of calculated mass murder is not happening in the cause of any other faith on the globe at this time. It is only happening in the cause of Islam's jihad and it’s happening with the financial and logistical support of Arab/Muslim governments, sympathizers and enablers and it is definitely occurring frequently enough to require any objective, reasoned person consider that this problem is directly related to Islamic doctrine.

A sensible and reasoned person cannot sweep away the reality that if Muslims are genuinely concerned about "rights", (the very rights that Muslims demand for themselves but explicitly deny others), over the continuing incidents of mass murder in Allah’s name, then it falls to them to set forth, unequivocally, that reform to their ideology must be undertaken.



To suggest that an Arad warlord was “ahead of his time” is comical. Your hero has quite a history of being "ahead of his time"


610 - Mohammed, in a cave on Mt. Hira, hears the angel Gabriel tell him that Allah is the only true God.
613 - Muhammad's first public preaching of Islam at Mt. Hira. Gets few converts.
615 - Muslims persecuted by the Quraish.
619 - Marries Sau'da and Aisha
620 - Institution of five daily prayers
622 - Muhammad immigrates from Mecca to Medina, which was then called Yathrib, gets more converts.
623 - Battle of Waddan
623 - Battle of Safwan
623 - Battle of Dul-'Ashir
624 - Muhammad and converts begin raids on caravans to fund the movement.
624 - Zakat becomes mandatory
624 - Battle of Badr
624 - Battle of Bani Salim
624 - Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr and Zakat-ul-Fitr
624 - Battle of Bani Qainuqa'
624 - Battle of Sawiq
624 - Battle of Ghatfan
624 - Battle of Bahran
625 - Battle of Uhud. 70 Muslims are killed.
625 - Battle of Humra-ul-Asad
625 - Battle of Banu Nudair
625 - Battle of Dhatur-Riqa
626 - Battle of Badru-Ukhra
626 - Battle of Dumatul-Jandal
626 - Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah
627 - Battle of the Trench
627 - Battle of Ahzab
627 - Battle of Bani Quraiza
627 - Battle of Bani Lahyan
627 - Battle of Ghaiba
627 - Battle of Khaibar
628 - Muhammad signs treaty with Quraish.
630 - Muhammad conquers Mecca.
630 - Battle of Hunsin.
630 - Battle of Tabuk
632 - Muhammad dies.
632 - Abu-Bakr, Muhammad's father-in-law, along with Umar, begin a military move to enforce Islam in Arabia.
633 - Battle at Oman
633 - Battle at Hadramaut.
633 - Battle of Kazima
633 - Battle of Walaja
633 - Battle of Ulleis
633 - Battle of Anbar
634 - Battle of Basra,
634 - Battle of Damascus
634 - Battle of Ajnadin.
634 - Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat Umar Farooq becomes the Caliph.
634 - Battle of Namaraq
634 - Battle of Saqatia.
635 - Battle of Bridge.
635 - Battle of Buwaib.
635 - Conquest of Damascus.
635 - Battle of Fahl.
636 - Battle of Yermuk.
636 - Battle of Qadsiyia.
636 - Conquest of Madain.
637 - Battle of Jalula.
638 - Battle of Yarmouk.
638 - The Muslims defeat the Romans and enter Jerusalem.
638 - Conquest of Jazirah.
639 - Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt.
641 - Battle of Nihawand
642 - Battle of Rayy in Persia
643 - Conquest of Azarbaijan
644 - Conquest of Fars
644 - Conquest of Kharan.
644 - Umar is murdered. Othman becomes the Caliph.
647 - Conquest of the island of Cypress
644 - Uman dies and is succeeded by Caliph Uthman.
648 - Campaign against the Byzantines.
651 - Naval battle against the Byzantines.
654 - Islam spreads into North Africa
656 - Uthman is murdered. Ali become Caliph.
658 - Battle of Nahrawan.
659 - Conquest of Egypt
661 - Ali is murdered.
662 - Egypt falls to Islam rule.
666 - Sicily is attacked by Muslims
677 - Siege of Constantinople
687 - Battle of Kufa
691 - Battle of Deir ul Jaliq
700 - Sufism takes root as a sect of Islam
700 - Military campaigns in North Africa
702 - Battle of Deir ul Jamira
711 - Muslims invade Gibraltar
711 - Conquest of Spain
713 - Conquest of Multan
716 - Invasion of Constantinople
732 - Battle of Tours in France.
740 - Battle of the Nobles.
741 - Battle of Bagdoura in North Africa
744 - Battle of Ain al Jurr.
746 - Battle of Rupar Thutha
748 - Battle of Rayy.
749 - Battle of lsfahan
749 - Battle of Nihawand
750 - Battle of Zab
772 - Battle of Janbi in North Africa
777 - Battle of Saragossa in Spain


After their surrender at the "Battle of the Trench" (see date above), 600-900 men were beheaded in the marketplace of Medina over trenches dug there. The women (who weren't taken as concubines) and children were sold into slavery. Some were sold to buy horses and weapons. This is recorded in the Koran two verses2:

He [God —ed.] brought down from their strongholds those who had supported them [i.e., the Banu Qurayza Jews who had supported the Banu Quraysh Arabs —ed.] from among the People of the Book [Jews —ed.] and cast terror into their hearts, so that some you slew and others you took captive.

He made you masters of their land, their houses, and their goods, and of yet another land [Khaybar—another conquest over a Jewish community in Arabia —ed.] on which you had never set foot before. Truly, God has power over all things.

You know something Hollie...when you are going to on mass cut'n'paste (hey...don't you ding Tinmore for that...?) you ought to link to your sources...and...those sources don't exactly scholarly.

Chronology of early Islam (83 wars in 154 years!)

Most of what you are saying fall's in the category of "blah blah blah" - how, specifically, was Mohammed NOT ahead of his time in the 6th century?

Was he an epileptic hallucinating in a cave? Who the hell knows. We have prophets conferring with burning shrubbery and zombie prophets running around proclaiming descent from deities with anger management issues. Religion is nuts, war was common place (as was rape and pillage as a rightful reward of conquest)...it sucked to be a woman, it sucked to be an orphan and it sucked even more to be a widow. That was the world THEN.

Mohammed and his followers started out persecuted by the polytheists. He saw corruption, greed, and inhumane treatment of widows and orphans. And he sought to remedy it. And, he did.

Like all prophets he was a product of his time - yet you judge him by 20th century ethics. ALL the prophets would fail your test.

The problem is largely what the followers choose to do with it.

Gee whiz. Poor persecuted Arab warlord.

That does nothing to diminish the legacy of murder, rape and brutality that defines 1400 years of Islamist ideology.

I don't think there is a single major world religion that doesn't have a problematic legacy.

I don’t know of a single religion currently, other than Islam, whose adherents cite as the basis for their atrocities.

I find it impossible to use “well, they used to do it”, as an excuse for the near daily acts of madness committed by adherents to islam.

How about some actual numbers? In 2018 there were 1.8 billion Muslims. How many are involved in atrocities? How much of the violence is a result of ongoing wars and conflicts that are not religiously based? Why is it, when it comes to Islam only - the extremists are used to define the whole? Hate mongering maybe?

Try to answer without plagerierizing cut'n'paste ok? Reveal your sources.

 

[Hollie]

The problem is largely what the followers choose to do with it.

Yuh uh. Hence Hollie's point.

Hollie's point is to smear all Muslims with the behavior of extremists. She is quite clear on that and note - she does not deny it.

Writing in the third person of course, Hollie has never stated a goal to smear all Moslems with the behavior of "extremists".

Hollie has stated on several occasions that the "extremist" label is unfounded when Moslems are behaving in strict accord with islam, (in the way of Islam's "prophet" as an example of behavior for all Moslems for all time), as delineated in the Koran, hadith and Sunnah. That would make them pious Moslems.