It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

History-Islam: The Religion of Genocide

page: 2
38
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

Appreciated Murgatroid thank you, I`m just praying for a painless peaceful passing, she stopped chemo about a month ago because she is too old and weak and riddled with cancer and her bones especially her spine is weakened and crumbling.

She is in good hands monitoring the pain and has a lot of family by her.

Thanks again.




posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: gps777

One question.... how come Islam didnt just continue to conquer the rest of Europe? what stopped them specifically?





Well, you're asking a question that would really need pages upon pages of history to fully answer. I guess I can give you a brief sketch....

In the west, i.e. the Moors, Caliphate of Córdoba, Almoravids, etc. (based in Iberia and Morrocco) we can mostly put it down to Spanish insurgency and fighting prowess. Tours was famous, yes, when Martel stopped them from taking France, but it was a brief moment in the theatre of some 800+ years of fighting in Iberia. In the beginning we have guys like Don Pelayo, who finally halted the (seemingly inexorable) Moorish advance, and he hung on to a tiny sliver of land in the Asturian highlands. Later on as the Moors were slowly pushed back by insurrection, we have the early Spanish kingdoms emerging, I.e. Leon, Aragon, Portugal, and Castille. These were small states and didn't control much territory at first, but gradually waged a long, drawn out war of attrition against the Muslim occupiers, who often had to worry about their own Spanish subjects revolting as well as external foes. It's a little known fact, but the majority of Muslims in Iberia were actually native converts, known as "Moriscos" (a fact which totally invalidates the "black African Moors in Europe" theory, but I digress).

Anyway, we later have characters like El Cid show up, a famous Spanish soldier-mercenary who started out fighting for the Almoravids, but later switched sides and ended up capturing the city of Valencia and inflicting the first major defeats on the newly established Almoravid dynasty, who had come to Iberia with the intention of reclaiming all lost Muslim territory. Of course, they were not successful (largely due to his successes).

Iberians like El Cid were master skirmishers and ambushers- they were among the best mobile irregular soldiers in the world during that period. We also have mercenary companies like the Almogavars come to prominence during the Reconquista. They started out in Iberia fighting Moors, but eventually became highly sought-after warriors all over the Mediterranean; they were some of the most cutthroat killers out there at the time.

Of course, throughout the whole 800 year period of the Reconquista, there was a nearly-constant stream of western European Catholic knights coming to Iberia, seeking to make a name for themselves by defeating Saracens. The Pope would intermittently sanction Crusades in the region, but Frankish knights often came of their own accord without a particular crusading impetus. The Iberian kings also received financial and logistical support from the church and the Catholic powers, in addition to military aid. This was a huge contributing factor to their success. They were certainly not alone in that fight.

Eventually, the Moors were driven back to a small enclave in Granada, where they held for a while. Boabdil, the last Muslim ruler in Iberia, was finally crushed during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, and the Reconquista came to a close in 1492- the same year Columbus set out.

What happened after that is mainly trivial- the final "clean up" of all the remaining Muslims in the region, which is the much-maligned Inquisition (certainly a sordid affair, though really no more brutal than any other atrocity of the time period).

Of course, this only concerns events in the western theatre of the Christian-Muslim conflict. The Ottoman conquests in the east are another subject entirely. Since I'm feeling generous, I'll follow this post up with another.

edit on 16-11-2015 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: gps777

Can you open a new topic with same title, just change Islam to Christianity. You will get similar results. OK, maybe in this modern time Christianity is passive, but no religion killed more people in the name of god than Christians.

Lots of Christians ignore this because this happen in past, but also many don't even know that.

In other words religion use people. And this two big religions use people to kill.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: gps777

I haven't studied the specifics of the slave trade but this is the first I'm hearing that the Moslems or Islam were the primary culprits...

Then you say that they killed another 60 million Christians, some of whom were already accounted for in the slave trade?

400 million Hindus sounds astronomically high considering their population was estimated to be 100 million in 1600 and didnt reach 255 million until the late 1800s. I guess the Moslems stopped the slaughtering allowing the Hindus to reproduce?

But in modern history we know that the Bolsheviks slaughtered 50 million Christians. Some say it was as high as 100 million.

WW2 claimed 70 million lives?

Not as staggering as your Islam numbers but then again, these numbers are more recent, within the past century.

I dunno, just seems like part of the constant demonification of the West's latest boogeyman (Islam/Moslems), now that Communism has been retired/defeated.

*shrugs*


edit on 16-11-2015 by gladtobehere because: typo



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Continued from the other post.....

I guess Islam in eastern Europe would have to begin with the crumbling Byzantine empire. Though much of their territory was in Asia, they were Greek-speaking and considered a part of Europe at the time. During the 10th century they controlled most of Anatolia, but that would change upon the arrival of the nomadic Seljuk Turks from Central Asia. Under a guy called Alp Arslan, the Seljuks carved out a massive (but short-lived) empire in the Middle-East, and began pushing into Asia Minor. They defeated the Byzantines at Manzikert, and thus found themselves in control of most of the interior of Anatolia. The Byzantines retained control of the coastal provinces, while the inland regions largely became desolate badlands, constantly raided by Turkish horseman.

Anyway, following a long serious of events, a Turk called Mehmet captured the city of Constantinople and that spelled the end of the Christian Byzantines. The Byzantines had acted as a buffer between Islam and Europe for centuries, and with them gone, it was only a matter of time before Islam made it's way into the Balkans. Ironically enough, the Byzantines were gravely weakened by their fellow Christians during the fourth Crusade. The crusaders decided to avert their course and attack Byzantium, carving out their own Latin principalities. This was a huge blow to eastern Christians, and no doubt contributed to the success of the later Islamic conquest.

Fast forward a few decades and we have the Ottoman Empire, founded by the Turk Osman. With the Greeks in ruin, there was a power vacuum in the Balkans which they quickly sought to fill. In a matter of years the Ottomans had overrun the area of modern Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria etc. The reached their zenith under Suleiman the Magnificent, and were probably the largest empire in the world for a while.

In steps a character like Vlad Tepes. He operated on the Wallachian border land, and as we all know, resorted to pretty gruesome tactics in order to stave off the Ottoman advance.

It's important to note that the Ottomans largely met their match in the Hungarian kingdom. This is often overlooked, but the Hungarians dealt the Turks plenty of defeats and held their own for centuries, though they would eventually be subjugated. The Ottomans often faced revolts from the Serbs and other Balkan groups, and there was near-constant low intensity warfare along the frontiers. In order to quash rebellious attitudes the Ottomans instituted the Jannisary system, where they would abduct young Christian boys at an early age and train them to be skilled, highly disciplined soldiers in the Sultans armies.

The Ottomans had also, for a short time, gained a stranglehold over the Mediterranean. The Spanish empire was still in it's heyday, though, and would put it's navy to use; Spain allied with the Italian merchant republics to wage war on the Turkish fleet, culminating in a resounding victory at Lepanto. This put an end to Ottoman aspirations in the Med sea, but they would still be the dominant power in SE Europe for quite some time.

In the late 17th century, the Ottomans pushed their furthest into Europe, and this would be their final great foray against Christianity. At the battle of Vienna, the Turks surrounded the city in a protracted siege, and they awaited response from the Christian alliance. Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, and Poles (among others) would unite to thwart the attack. The greatest player in this battle, as most people know, would be the Poles. Under Jan Sobieski, the Polish Hussar cavalry routed the Ottomans in a famous charge, and the battle soon came to a close.

After Vienna, the Ottomans would be content with their remaining holdings in the Balkans, and were largely on the defensive. A resurgent Austria-Hungry presented an imposing threat, as did the rising Russian empire.

In the 19th and 20th centuries the Ottomans were in decline, facing revolts from Serbs, Greeks, Croats, Bulgarians, Albanians and others. They lost their grip on the Balkans soon after, and at the close of WWI their empire was no more, carved up by the European powers.

The difference between the Balkans and Iberia was that the Balkan Muslims were not systematically expelled- their descendants can still be found in the region to this day, and their presence has incited no small amount of contention and bloodshed (wrongfully, IMO).
edit on 16-11-2015 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 01:52 AM
link   
originally posted by: gladtobehere



I haven't studied the specifics of the slave trade but this is the first I'm hearing that the Moslems or Islam were the primary culprits...

Then you say that they killed another 60 million Christians, some of whom were already accounted for in the slave trade?



No I didn`t say that at all, it was in the OP for you to read, I said "note also some of these figures may overlap, African Christians, etc" so maybe if you read it properly you wouldn`t be jumping to this conclusion. The reason I put that "note there is because all of those figures could be overlapping.



400 million Hindus sounds astronomically high considering their population was estimated to be 100 million in 1600 and didnt reach 255 million until the late 1800s. I guess the Moslems stopped the slaughtering allowing the Hindus to reproduce?


Read what was directly under 400 million Hindu`s, it wasn`t hard to do....

" According to reports from the 1899 in a statement made by Indian religious leader Swami Vivekananda quoting Muslim historian Firistha, Muslims slaughtered over 400 million Hindus during an 800 year Muslim rule"

I recommend watching the video when you have time, the guy did a heck of a lot of study and its quite an eye opener.

Non of these figures are mine by the way and have said no one can know the exact figures and even noted there maybe overlap, I don`t know, though those figures don`t include Muslim vs Muslim.

Not directed at you, but to anyone wanting to make a thread about any other topic of such crimes, rape slaughter forced conversion theft , I say make it.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Islam isn't responsible. People are responsible.

There have been atrocities committed by Christians, Hindus, and even right now there are Buddhists in Myanmar committing genocide.

Saying a religion causes genocide is like saying guns cause murder.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Religions don't kill people, people kill people.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 02:26 AM
link   
...why are the links you posted from bias anti Islam websites.

Can you provide a source to the study ?

I would really like to see how they have come up with these numbers.

Any orginal source ?

Thanks!



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   
originally posted by: saadad



Can you open a new topic with same title, just change Islam to Christianity.

You will get similar results. OK, maybe in this modern time Christianity is passive, but no religion killed more people in the name of god than Christians.


Lots of Christians ignore this because this happen in past, but also many don't even know that.


Prove it then.

Christianity from its infancy after Christ had 600 years to grow, which is NOT a violent belief, it was always physically passive but spiritually strong, it is turn the other cheek if slapped, give your own coat to someone who steals from you, if someone doesn`t want to hear the gospel, turn and dust your shoes off.

The first Christians were almost whipped out as soon as Mohammad came onto the scene in his first 25 years, it was because they don`t have armies, they were massacred and the Christian women captured and raped forced to convert or die.

Watch the video, there are sections which shows the battles on a map as they happen, 548 slaughtering battles led by Islam, It also shows the Knights Templar battles taking back the Holy land.

I also linked to the Spanish inquisition up to 5000 deaths caused by them.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 02:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kapusta
...why are the links you posted from bias anti Islam websites.

Can you provide a source to the study ?

I would really like to see how they have come up with these numbers.

Any orginal source ?

Thanks!


It gives a source some are links for each, some are written in books etc where the info and figures came from . That site didn`t come up with the figures, they were taken from different sources.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

As much as I agree with that ,but if a person believes in their book which teaches and is taught otherwise by a person who lived that style of life, they believe they are doing the right thing by their leaders example and words backed by others of the same belief.

In Western countries Islam/Muslims are held to our laws. Which would then make the person responsible and held if they lived by the laws of their book.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 02:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: gps777
originally posted by: saadad



Can you open a new topic with same title, just change Islam to Christianity.

You will get similar results. OK, maybe in this modern time Christianity is passive, but no religion killed more people in the name of god than Christians.


Lots of Christians ignore this because this happen in past, but also many don't even know that.


Prove it then.

Christianity from its infancy after Christ had 600 years to grow, which is NOT a violent belief, it was always physically passive but spiritually strong, it is turn the other cheek if slapped, give your own coat to someone who steals from you, if someone doesn`t want to hear the gospel, turn and dust your shoes off.

The first Christians were almost whipped out as soon as Mohammad came onto the scene in his first 25 years, it was because they don`t have armies, they were massacred and the Christian women captured and raped forced to convert or die.

Watch the video, there are sections which shows the battles on a map as they happen, 548 slaughtering battles led by Islam, It also shows the Knights Templar battles taking back the Holy land.

I also linked to the Spanish inquisition up to 5000 deaths caused by them.


This is a lie.

And that video is crap and full of historical shyte and lies

The crusades didnt start until after muhammad died.
Show me in the quran where it says "convert or die" ?

Let me prove to you

Here is a letter muhammad wrote to the Christains living in Muslim lands .

Wiki does an alright job translating it.


Muhammad the son of ‘Abd Allah, the Messenger of Allah, and careful guardian of the whole world; has written the present instrument to all those who are in his national people, and of his own religion, as a secure and positive promise to be accomplished to the Christian nation, and relations of the Nazarene, whosoever they may be, whether they be the noble or the vulgar, the honorable or otherwise, saying thus.I. Whosoever of my nation shall presume to break my promise and oath, which is contained in this present agreement, destroys the promise of God, acts contrary to the oath, and will be a resister of the faith, (which God forbid) for he becomes worthy of the curse, whether he be the King himself, or a poor man, or whatever person he may be.



That whenever any of the monks in his travels shall happen to settle upon any mountain, hill, village, or other habitable place, on the sea, or in deserts, or in any convent, church, or house of prayer, I shall be in the midst of them, as the preserver and protector of them, their goods and effects, with my soul, aid, and protection, jointly with all my national people; because they are a part of my own people, and an honor to me.Moreover, I command all officers not to require any poll-tax on them, or any other tribute, because they shall not be forced or compelled to anything of this kind.None shall presume to change their judges or governors, but they shall remain in their office, without being deported.No one shall molest them when they are travelling on the road.Whatever churches they are possessed of, no one is to deprive them of them.Whosoever shall annul any of one of these my decrees, let him know positively that he annuls the ordinance of God.Moreover, neither their judges, governors, monks, servants, disciples, or any others depending on them, shall pay any poll-tax, or be molested on that account, because I am their protector, wherever they shall be, either by land or sea, east or west, north or south; because both they and all that belong to them are included in this my promissory oath and patent.And of those that live quietly and solitary upon the mountains, they shall exact neither poll-tax nor tithes from their incomes, neither shall any Muslim partake of what they have; for they labor only to maintain themselves.Whenever the crop of the earth shall be plentiful in its due time, the inhabitants shall be obliged out of every bushel to give them a certain measure.Neither in time of war shall they take them out of their habitations, nor compel them to go to the wars, nor even then shall they require of them any poll-tax.In these eleven chapters is to be found whatever relates to the monks, as to the remaining seven chapters, they direct what relates to every Christian.Those Christians who are inhabitants, and with their riches and traffic are able to pay the poll-tax, shall pay no more than twelve drachms.Excepting this, nothing shall be required of them, according to the express order of God, that says, ‘Do not molest those that have a veneration for the books that are sent from God, but rather in a kind manner' [29:46]. Give of your good things to them, and converse with them, and hinder everyone from molesting them.If a Christian woman shall happen to marry a Muslim man, the Muslim shall not cross the inclination of his wife, to keep her from her church and prayers, and the practice of her religion.That no person hinder them from



read the rest here



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: gps777

How is a gun more responsible than the human who uses it?

The same is true for a religion.

A gun and a religion are the same -- tools, and how those tools are used makes them "evil" or "bad".

If someone choose to use a gun to go on a killing spree, we blame the person and not his weapon. If someone uses a religion as a weapon, we go after the religion and not the person. How does that make logical sense?



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Had to respond to this MM - slightly off topic but nonetheless relevant ...

Guns do not incite violence - religion- can, has and does ... ( non-specific ).

Man is the firing mechanism ... brainwashing is key here.




posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: gps777

No, don't shoot the messengers or those that keep historical records contrary to the powers that be.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: saadad




In other words religion use people.


Its the other way around,

people use religion or their interpretation of it to commit acts.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Timely




Guns do not incite violence - religion- can, has and does ... ( non-specific ).


This is incorrect,

A religion cannot incite violence but a persons interpretation or out of context use of religious texts can.

Religions by themselves are concepts/ varied beliefs amongst individuals

Without a person to act, Religions are exactly like a gun, inanimate without someone to use it for a purpose.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale

You forgot the brainwashing part ...



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: saadad




In other words religion use people.


Its the other way around,

people use religion or their interpretation of it to commit acts.


Yes I agree with you.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Timely
a reply to: InhaleExhale

You forgot the brainwashing part ...



Who does the brainwashing and who gets brainwashed?

Again you can use gun to crack a nut, hit and nail into wood or shoot someone among its many other uses a person can find, just like religion.

People can find many ways to use just about anything to their advantage, the more complex the item/belief/concept they use, the easier it is manipulate another that lack a more in depth knowledge of what they are being told or shown.




top topics



 
38
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join