It’s the Wahhabism, Stupid!

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Willtell

History doesn't back up your claims about Islam being peaceful to minorities

And Muhammad beheaded 300 Jews for betraying him

That act was actually decided by a Jewish judge to execute those Jews…did you know that?


They had in a war of life and death betrayed the early Muslims


This is primitive tribal times when such actions can get you wiped out


He was only protecting the Muslims.

Muhammad had to fight wars of life and death

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

An English translation of that document is presented below.

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

www.cyberistan.org...


I am well studied on Islamic history and don't only read the propaganda of negative press Muhammad has gotten for 1400 years from the Christian west

a reply to: Willtell

Yes, killed by Jewish laws I know the excuse. Muhammad was a warlord prophet.

Islam warred for Christian land since the beginning and won a whole lot and are now majority Muslim

Minorities suffer when Islam is the majority

Islamic history is bloody

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: Willtell

Ummmm, Kaffir is an insult to blacks in Africa, it means unclean/unwashed and manservant. It would be like calling these ISIS idiots the N word. So obama I doubt will be doing that any time soon. Kafir, as a slight, has racist implications much the same way Zionists refer to everyone else as goyim.

kaffirs

ghandi on kaffirs

Cheers - Dave

For the record, the word originally means "disbelievers". There's even a Surah/Revelation in the Qur'an called "Kafirun" which means "The Disbelievers" (-un, -oon makes a word plural). "Islamic" conquerors started labeling indigenous Africans "Kaffirs/Kafirs" from this perspective and from outright bigotry, and now it's come be an even stronger insult than the "n-word". In short, you're both right.


As for the OP:
The only way we'll ever drastically reduce Wahhabi terrorism is by going at the source. That doesn't necessarily mean war since that will just embolden more of them. But we absolutely have to stop funding them and their "moderate" rebel factions. And we need to have arms embargoes against their suppliers, mainly in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait, as well as economic embargoes against their powerbrokers until they can clean their own house. Not to mention, we have military bases throughout the GCC. But instead of hunting down or "correcting" their Wahhabi powerbrokers, we're literally propping up and defending their governments and militaries like in Qatar.

I think our govts also need to have an honest dialogue with our populations about what Wahhabism is; acknowledge that we've been using Wahhabi paramilitaries as "boots on the ground" in proxy wars since the Cold War; and acknowledge that our govts consider them valuable assets for these proxy wars. So they're basically allowing Wahhabi leaders, clerics, and organizations to promote their extreme interpretations in exchange for Petrodollar support, investments, and proxy war soldiers.

Or let's be more direct. The West's leadership views our relationships with Wahhabi powerbrokers as being worth the occasional terrorist attacks against our citizens. This is especially true since those attacks can also serve their interests to excite constituents during election years, enact new laws, and can be used as pretexts for more military interventions (and more defense spending).

Our leaders won't even mention Wahhabism, much less the fact that we've had strong alliances with them since "Lawrence of Arabia" and later on with FDR's secret meeting with the Sauds. Western governments across the aisle solicit lucrative defense contracts and foreign investment from them to this day (I see you Canada and the UK). Any of the ATS members who are big into military contracts will know exactly what I'm talking about. This whole "Sunni vs Shiite" propaganda is pushed by Wahhabi sources to cover for the Wahhabi conflicts against all other Muslims.

So in short, people are going to have to decide something very simple. Which one is more important to us as a society: money & geopolitical influence or our citizens' lives? I'm a pacifist, a socialist, and have been a critic of Wahhabis for a long time, so I think my position is clear. But I honestly think this is where the conversation needs to start. Otherwise, we'll just keep yapping about the same things every 3-6 months when the next inevitable attacks "slip through the cracks" and happen. Of course, the measures I outlined will probably hurt us economically in the short term. Hence, my bolded question in this paragraph.

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Willtell

History doesn't back up your claims about Islam being peaceful to minorities

And Muhammad beheaded 300 Jews for betraying him

That act was actually decided by a Jewish judge to execute those Jews…did you know that?


They had in a war of life and death betrayed the early Muslims


This is primitive tribal times when such actions can get you wiped out


He was only protecting the Muslims.

Muhammad had to fight wars of life and death

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

An English translation of that document is presented below.

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

www.cyberistan.org...


I am well studied on Islamic history and don't only read the propaganda of negative press Muhammad has gotten for 1400 years from the Christian west

If this is the case, then by extension all the followers of Islam should be taking up arms to destroy ISIS, because they (ISIS) would be the infidels. However, any nation which is not Christian, under the covenant, would be fair game accordingly. Therefore, any Christian nation whose government deliberately turns away from the faith becomes a target. Is that correct?

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Willtell

History doesn't back up your claims about Islam being peaceful to minorities

And Muhammad beheaded 300 Jews for betraying him

That act was actually decided by a Jewish judge to execute those Jews…did you know that?


They had in a war of life and death betrayed the early Muslims


This is primitive tribal times when such actions can get you wiped out


He was only protecting the Muslims.

Muhammad had to fight wars of life and death

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

An English translation of that document is presented below.

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

www.cyberistan.org...


I am well studied on Islamic history and don't only read the propaganda of negative press Muhammad has gotten for 1400 years from the Christian west

If this is the case, then by extension all the followers of Islam should be taking up arms to destroy ISIS, because they (ISIS) would be the infidels. However, any nation which is not Christian, under the covenant, would be fair game accordingly. Therefore, any Christian nation whose government deliberately turns away from the faith becomes a target. Is that correct?

Cheers - Dave

So wait, you think regular civilians like doctors, parents, teachers, construction workers, students, and stay-at-home Moms should drop their lives to fight ISIS, a paramilitary group with advanced weapons and training? Because there are actual Muslims fighting against them and similar groups right now.

That's literally the point in the military operations by Muslim majority groups like Syria's Army, Iraq's Army, Hezbollah's campaign against ISIS, Iran's campaigns in Syria, the Kurdish militaries and their constant battles with ISIS & the other Wahhabi groups like al Nusra Front, etc. Not to mention that Muslims in Chad, Nigeria, and their neighboring countries are also fighting "ISIS West" (aka Boko Haram).

But have you noticed something about the list of Muslim groups that are fighting ISIS in Syria? All of those groups are seen as opponents of the West and our allies. Why do you think that is? Even the Kurdish people, who've been massacred by both ISIS & al-Nusra, are currently locked in a war with NATO member Turkey. The Syrian "civil war" would've been over a long time ago if the West and GCC countries would stop arming those groups that coincidentally team up with or outright join ISIS.

At what point will people open their eyes and see that these aren't coincidences?

a reply to: Willtell

They murder professed Muslims Where in the Quran does it say do that?

Even I with my knowledge of Islam can easily justify killing anyone with the help pf Quran. Just define the corruption in a way to suit who you want killed.

5:32 Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

This is Muhammad:s I get a free ride to not follow the golden rule to those who oppose me. A slippery slope.

And this rewritten version of the verse can if innocent if defined the right way make golden rule deviations impossible to all including Muhammad.



Clearly someone created a better idea when they rejected Muhammad:s version and wrote the new one.

Not following the golden rule lead to suffering on all levels and I would recommend thinking twice even thrice about all actions. Do not miss the mark.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Willtell

Yes, killed by Jewish laws I know the excuse. Muhammad was a warlord prophet.

Islam warred for Christian land since the beginning and won a whole lot and are now majority Muslim

Minorities suffer when Islam is the majority

Islamic history is bloody

And you have not even added the insanity in India and the Hindus.

Wahhabism proudly supported by Sen John McCain, some Republicans and American gov.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Im talking about Islam not Hindu

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

ISIS are Muslims. In fact, Islam is the only thing connecting all of its members, who come from all over the globe, come from all races, and all socio-economic classes.

Was it the right side of history you were after then?

Keep whispering...

While some are working to prevent the worst, I guess others are getting off on the possibilities...

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: LittleByLittle

Im talking about Islam not Hindu

In this case I was referring to the conquest and genocides that Muslim did to the Hindus before present date. You could add the destruction of the Zoroastrianism. Islam has a tendency to go full pure evil. The current Wahabbi trend is just another version of Islamic genocides thru history. Muslim have been enslaving people for 1400 years. They always have an insane justification for it in their Quran.

en.wikipedia.org...

Timur Timur began a trek starting in 1397 to invade the territory of the reigning Sultan Nasir-u Din Mehmud of the Tughlaq Dynasty in the north Indian city of Delhi. He crossed the Indus River at Attock on 24 September. The capture of towns and villages was often followed by the massacre of their inhabitants and the raping of their women, as well as pillaging to support his massive army. Timur's invasion did not go unopposed and he did meet some resistance during his march to Delhi, most notably by the Sarv Khap coalition in northern India, and the Governor of Meerut. Although impressed and momentarily stalled by the valour of Ilyaas Awan, Timur was able to continue his relentless approach to Delhi, arriving in 1398 to combat the armies of Sultan Mehmud, already weakened by an internal battle for ascension within the royal family. The Sultan's army was easily defeated on 17 December 1398. Timur entered Delhi and the city was sacked, destroyed, and left in ruins. Before the battle for Delhi, Timur executed more than 100,000 captives. During the ransacking of Delhi, almost all inhabitants not killed were captured and enslaved. Timur left Delhi in approximately January 1399. In April, he had returned to his own capital, beyond the Oxus (Amu Darya). Immense quantities of spoils were taken from India, so as to erect a mosque at Samarkand, which historians today believe is the enormous Bibi-Khanym Mosque. Ironically, the mosque was constructed too quickly and suffered greatly from disrepair within a few decades of its construction. When Timur invaded India in 1398-99, collection of slaves formed an important object for his army. 100,000 Hindu slaves had been seized by his soldiers and camp followers. Even a pious saint had gathered together fifteen slaves. Regrettably, all had to be slaughtered before the attack on Delhi for fear that they might rebel. But after the occupation of Delhi the inhabitants were brought out and distributed as slaves among Timur's nobles, the captives including several thousand artisans and professional people.[22]

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Willtell

History doesn't back up your claims about Islam being peaceful to minorities

And Muhammad beheaded 300 Jews for betraying him

Muhammad and his band of immigrants arrived in Medina in 622 completely dependent on the hospitality of the three Jewish tribes that lived there alongside the Arabs. (sound familiar to nowadays?) by the end all three were destroyed, the last tribe was slaughtered of 800 and their wives made sex slaves.

It was a heck of a lot more than 300 JDmOKI (over 800 men and boys), take notice also that Willtell comes out with the excuse of that barbaric perverted false prophet Mohamad didn`t make the sentencing but a Jew did, what he didn`t correct you on was the numbers or that this Jew was a dying recent convert to Islam. Mohamad went about slaughtering with pleasure.

read about this Islamic massacre backed by their own books.

Just one of how many throughout history by either Mohamad or his latter followers till now.

This is just one more example of Islam and Mohamad as there perfect human example. It has nothing to do with this sect or that sect its what's written in their book that they are to follow. But if they are seen as not following to the letter can come with the death sentence. Yet the Quran says there is no compulsion in religion.

a reply to: gps777

All you have to do is look at Muhammad as a historical figure and not a prophet to realize he was a warlord raider and a very successful one

Really no different then previous warlords

Took slaves killed captives and took land

But super peaceful unless provoked....