Muslim world against Christians and Jews

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 12 2003 @ 08:26 PM
link   
To clear one thing up, christians (do) worship one god and three in
one.

Through isaiah the prophet..

"" behold my servant whom i have chosen, my beloved in whom i delight.
i shall place my spiriit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the (gentiles), and
in his name the gentiles will hope ""


"" say to daughter zion, behold, your king comes to you, (meek) and riding on an ass,
and a colt, the foal of a beast of burden ""


Now some of these qoutes i bring to mind..

genesis.

"" Let (us) make man in (our) image and likeness ""


Matt 22;43

"" He said to them, how then does (david), inspired by the spirit, call (him) lord
saying;.....

" The (lord) said to (my) (lord), sit at my right hand, until i place
thy enemies under thy feet ""?


we believe in the trinity, but still (one) god.

If david said " the lord said to my lord "

how can god talk to daivds god?

unless its the christ, the second part of the trinity?


Illmatic, islam has (always) taught forcable conversion, not (preachable) conversion, but
conversion by force.

That is why you see what you are seeing today and they will (not) stop
until they conquer the world through (force).

and this is why ww3 is starting.



pece.




posted on Feb, 12 2003 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Ok, what (is) up with all (the) ()? Also, yes, christians perfect, mauslims always evil.

And they worship three people truth, god(in about seven ways), jesus, and Mary. They all worshipped.

And I67, you put up good info, hope it falls on good ears. Well, more than NC and mine. Someone I think is sticking fingers in ears going lalala, I can't hear you, only voice I hear is the one in my head who is god!


Also, with Mauslims, why they do the Lalalalalalalalala? Is it so they don't hear the stupidity of their leaders? Or so they don't hear the truth about how they all gonna fry when we nuke them high?

Joe, you do see us shooting each other in the streets. It's called inner cities.

And another question, where did these "palenstinians" come from? When land owned by Egypt and Jordan, never heard of them. Jews come, We want our land!!! Who are we? Uh, lets see, hmmm, I know, we Palenstinians!!!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 13 2003 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Ok, what (is) up with all (the) ()? Also, yes, christians perfect, mauslims always evil.

And they worship three people truth, god(in about seven ways), jesus, and Mary. They all worshipped.

And I67, you put up good info, hope it falls on good ears. Well, more than NC and mine. Someone I think is sticking fingers in ears going lalala, I can't hear you, only voice I hear is the one in my head who is god!


Also, with Mauslims, why they do the Lalalalalalalalala? Is it so they don't hear the stupidity of their leaders? Or so they don't hear the truth about how they all gonna fry when we nuke them high?

Joe, you do see us shooting each other in the streets. It's called inner cities.

And another question, where did these "palenstinians" come from? When land owned by Egypt and Jordan, never heard of them. Jews come, We want our land!!! Who are we? Uh, lets see, hmmm, I know, we Palenstinians!!!!!!!!







posted on Feb, 13 2003 @ 07:13 PM
link   





[Edited on 14-2-2003 by William]



posted on Feb, 13 2003 @ 07:57 PM
link   
due to the recent events that have unfolded on ats.com, i cant say what I wish to say because it will get me banned for life... I think you know what I mean when I say I wish I can say what I say but I cant.


but instead of saying something I Know will get me banned I'll just say this..

YOUR WRONG

any person as yourself can post something without truly knowing what he has said.. which is in your case.. post evidence that shows islam has always been a conversion by force.

you wanna talk about conversion of force.

then let's talk about the european christian to came to africa and and forced down their religion christianity "for the good of them" because they called them 'n-word's and thought they were backward

let's talk about the christian early american who white washed the native indian for the same exact reason... bleacing their skin and hair... torturing them with christianity

THOSE ARE FACTS... what you said is a stupid comment which is not true at all.

you wanna talk about a religion of conversion of force? let's... but i warn you.. the only one that comes to mind is christianity.



posted on Feb, 13 2003 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Truth, with the evidence presented in your last post you are COMPLETELY wrong about the Trinity.

Anything in the Old Testimant that looks to be "poly-theistic//plural//more than one person blah blah" is because the Old Testimant was written by Jews whom at that time were:

Henotheistic: meaning they believed that there were gods for everything, but believed that ONE god, stood above all others, and that ONLY that one deserved worship.

It wasn't untill about the time of Christ, that Jews, and later Christians, would become monotheists.

When I said that the bible cut things out of the original texts, I was wrong, but what I was not wrong about was what I was thinking, and taught at SCHOOL but failed to convey.

That is that Christians today especially, misinterpret ENTIRELY! The Old Testimant, because they can not figure out why it is completely BACKWARDS to the New Testimant....it isn't monotheistic, its morals are very "immoral" and God is extremely vengeful.

Christianity especially explains all of this, incorrectly.

They think the lack of monothiesm is "the trinity", and that christ was god's sacrifice or whatever and that's why he's no longer vengeful (Am I right about that last part? That's a bit iffy)

Reality is the lack of monotheism is because Jews didn't believe in one god, they only worshipped one god, and the vengeance was because of the attempt of the Jews to unite themselves under one common belief, and every time in history the Jews bickered amongst themselves, or strayed from that one belief, hundreds of years later they'd explain how they held together, by attributing it to God and his whipping you into line like a Father would straighten out his son who strays but a little.

As I said before, the plauges of Egypt were not only to say "Our god is better than your God Egypt see?" but also to tell Israelites "If you forget your ways as you were when becoming like the egyptians, God will smite you as he did them".

The texts are the same, but the interpretations are not.

A good example is Abraham and Isaac, many christians talk of morals this and explaination that, you read it and it simply is "God said this so Abraham said ok God!"

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Feb, 13 2003 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Hmmm...
I think you are partly right fm.

The israelites recognised a heirachy of spiritual forces and recogniesed yhwh as the supreme being above them all.

This is repeated in christianity as well, we just give them different names, same entities though.

So the israelites recognised that there were territorial spirits who dominated certaim places, but called then by the names known to the people as Dagon, Baal, etc.

Christians recognise this as well and work in this paradygm.

They were still monotheistic in recognising that the other 'gods' (small g) as not worthy of worship, that yhwh is the "king of kings" the "lord of lords"


[Edited on 14-2-2003 by Netchicken]



posted on Feb, 13 2003 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Well, that is not true, they whho wrote the OT meaning the torah knew that
there was one god of worship and this was proclaimed through the generations from adam
and eve all the way down through their lineage.

basically what your saying is that if they believed in other (weak) gods then the (real) one did not
mention to them he is the only one?

which would mean that the OT is not inspired by god which i believe it is which would mean they knew when writing it he
was the only lord.


How can these same writers write the story of (the beggining of the earth) and the beggining of creation while at
the same time (believing) other gods?

Part of the OT came from the successors of moses who knew that no other (little) gods existed.


so i dont believe what you said, i believe the OT is the inspired written word of god through the (prophets).



peace.



posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 12:36 AM
link   
I'm glad you asked that truth, how did they write Genesis but believe in many gods??? Welcome to the most basics of college


Oral tradition, the oral tradtions of the Jews were passed down from the Sumers, and such.

If you look at Genesis there are "2 gods" one is nature-like, the other supreme-like...one is father-like the other is not.

This is because of a fundamental difference in thinking between peoples who can write, and those who can not.

People who can not write, can not believe in one god, can not understand how machines work, and can not be abstract, to them, the hammer, the log, the saw, and the hatchet are all the same things. To us, we clearly see 3 things are tools, the other is not.

This is what happend to the ancient Jews.

For centuries if not mellinea they passed down the stories of Genesis and Abraham and Noah, orally, and they were eventually written much later, like 1000BC or later...
...this is why you get a conflict in beliefs so evident in the OT, in the OT you have peoples talking about "our image" (sumer in origin) "and he sat upon the mountain where the gods dwell" (I found that somewhere in the OT
)

Because the Israelites at first WERE polytheistic, they left egypt when moses passed on to them the older tradition of believing in one god stronger then ANY OTHER GOD ANY HUMAN COULD EVER WORSHIP (probably wasn't true, more likely Abraham never existed, and Moses if he existed, made this up for reasons of forming a national identity)

See the Jews forgot who they were, it's like say native americans, and all of a sudden a prophet for the Natives arises, telling them to leave to Alberta, all of them of every nation, and that their gods are stronger and will protect them...so they leave and no one cares...so hundreds of years later, telling this history orally, it is transformed into story...and that's why now it has fanciful inventions such as plagues and contests.

Because oral cultures are situational, and very war-like, a person of an oral society CAN NOT THINK BY THEMSELVES (This is evident in Greece, everytime someone thinks by themselves, they are always talking to a God//Goddess). It is evident through out all oral societies...they are constantly argumentative, and everything is a contest.

So that's why the OT is so full of struggles, vengeances and destruction, while the NT is so much different.

When the OT was finally written down the world changed...the Israelites slowly began to accept monotheism, rather than henotheism, which replaced their iffy form of polytheism that they had when they were in Egypt.

Anything in the OT that says that they believed in One God during their times in Egypt, was more or less added a few hundred years later over time while they were making their nation in israel, as a uniting factor, 12 tribes, all united by one god, but they all thought there were other gods, but the kings//cheiftans saw the benifits at first in this unifying factor, and later it became literal story, passed down orally, until it was finally written and now it is taken as the word of god.

reality shows that there's no evidence for that, maybe it's true, it is the word of god, but why would the Israelis be any different than the Greeks, or any other Oral society on the planet? Vikings for example...they really weren't, when Greece started to replace story telling with writting, the same shift in beliefs occured that happend 500 years earlier with the Israelis...they stopped being polytheistic, and began to believe more in practicality...the greeks also showed that their oralistic structure, prevented scientific achievement.

While greeks could analyze the natural world, and invent stuff, they couldn't put them to much use.

The greeks had as much technology hmm 500-80BCish, as the Brittish did in the late 1800sAD.

But they never put two and two together, they used gears (Common tool of ALL industry) and they had the power of steam (power is power) and they made little of both and used them rarely.

Anyways...This transition from oral, to written, is why you see "And we made man in our image" and not "I made man in my image."

Older beliefs were passed down, and then written down, and thankfully never censored and re-written by later christians. They simply changed their interpretation of what "Our image" really meant.

I.E. "Angels, trinity, such and such"...it means none of that.

Our image is literally strait out of Sumerian and their beliefs which intermingled with all peoples of mesopotamia.

(All this is off the top of my head, point out stuff we'll work it out through discussion
)

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Yeah there is the theme of many gods, but they are all subservient to yhwh, the supreme God, The "us" bit is a precurser to the Trinity.

Now there are a few names for God emphasising his differnet aspects, and they incorporated EL ELOAIM and YHWH to mean the same God, ... but its still only one, we ar not talking about a Greek / Roman /Hindu pantheon of gods

FM .. this is pure conjecture and totally unsubstantiated below. It goes against Jewish traditions , that say that Moses or his wife wrote the first 5 books.

Yeah some were into calf worship, but God weeded them out during their 40 years in the desert. He took the tribe of Israel and culled out those who didn't believe in him fashiioning a strong army and nation with a single focus and belief.

That is what the bible says, to say that the OT was rewritten is totally unsubstantiated and unsupportable? Where is the proof?


Anything in the OT that says that they believed in One God during their times in Egypt, was more or less added a few hundred years later over time while they were making their nation in israel, as a uniting factor, 12 tribes, all united by one god, but they all thought there were other gods, but the kings//cheiftans saw the benifits at first in this unifying factor, and later it became literal story, passed down orally, until it was finally written and now it is taken as the word of god.



posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Don't you realize? It doesn't matter what the believe. They are killing each other over personal beliefs, when they could accept their differences, and live in semipeace.(ex: USA)

Do I go around killing people and starting wars just because somone believes differently than me? No, I don't. So why can't they live peacefully?

They should be able to discuss their differences like we do right here in ATS!



posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 01:17 PM
link   
because they preach (forcable) conversion.

sura 2:138

"" Our religion is the religion of allah and which religion can be
better than this ""


sura jihad 2:216

"" Holy fighting in allahs cause is (ordained) for you muslims though you (dislike) it ""



whats the reward?

sura 2:25

"" This is what we were provided with before, and they will give these things in
resemblence, and they shall have (therein) (purified) (mates) or (wives) and they
will abide therein (forever) ""


rivers of wine and milk along with purified women.

This heaven is not the heaven i can like, where is god in this heaven?

why isnt seeing gods face in this heaven? No one can imagine the greatness of heaven campared to
the pleasures of our earthly bodies.

heaven is all about peace love and being with god, not having purified mates and wives.


this is promised to the terrorist and they believe so easily.

peace.



posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Why doesn't anybody listen to me? Is it that I'm not making anysense?

Or am I hitting a nerve here? If I am insulting anybody tell me, I will stop. I mean no offense when I call people ignorant.(I even consider myself ignorant)



posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 01:22 PM
link   
My god i just thought of something that never came to mind before.

If allahs heaven consist of virgin women then why do they have sex after death?

obviosly they cannot procreat another human in heaven.

so why does allah offer virgins to men in his own writings?


when infact allah condemns (masterbating) or spilling your seed?

would not having sex after death be a pointless spilling of seed without creating another human?


very interesting.

peace.



posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 01:53 PM
link   
The biggest difference between ISLAM and

CHRISTIANISM is :

MUSLIMS consider that WAR is a way to CONVERT PEOPLES. In fact, they don't UNDERSTAND that it's a SPIRITUAL WAR on IDOLATRIES (pagans ?!) not ON PEOPLES WHO ALREADY HAVE A MONOTHEIST RELIGION.

CHRISTIANS name JESUS, holy son, son of GOD.

For MUSLIMS it's BLASPHEM to say that ALLAH have a son, even when you say that about ANGELS.

MOHAMAD, who was a peacefull man, said that JESUS was a prophet, such as MOISHE, ABRAHAM, JONAS...

QURAN is mostly INSPIRED by HOLY BIBLE and TALMUD.
SOME pretends that MOHAMAD read ENOCH BOOK too.

But tgatn we can't know...



posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth

My god i just thought of something that never came to mind before.

If allahs heaven consist of virgin women then why do they have sex after death?

obviosly they cannot procreat another human in heaven.

so why does allah offer virgins to men in his own writings?


when infact allah condemns (masterbating) or spilling your seed?

would not having sex after death be a pointless spilling of seed without creating another human?


very interesting.

peace.


Very interesting? Hahahaha

Very pathetic, my friend. How christian of you to try to bash other religions.

In order to spill seed you need to have a physical body, this shows how much intelligence you have. The Virgins are said for sexual pleasure, just as any other pleasure you wish, you will have in Paradise.

xmb.abovetopsecret.com...

^There you go, my *Christian* brother.

And don't expect me to post here again, you're a very funny and sad child.



posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Bcoffy you are just blind, he made a great point.

Sex for pleasure is a sin in conservative Islam, so what the hell is the point of 70 virgins?

Simple, because, Islam is a religion of conversion like any other, and if a guy can't have damn good sex in life, then he better have damn good sex in the after-life.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 05:26 PM
link   
NetChicken, I don't mean the OT was rewritten and thus changing the meanings of what was being told.

I mean that it was changed while being told, just as any other oral tradition, slightly yes, and usually only in the events that happend, not so much in the meaning of the story.

The morals laid out in the OT and such, had been passed down for ages immemorial, but what may have started out as a more historically accurate story (moses left egypt and the Israelites adopted one god as their supreme god) became a story of God against the Pharaoh's Gods, and plagues and vengeance...and the largest tall tale of all (unproveable though maybe it did happen, but it's very doubtable) the parting of the red sea.

That sort of stuff was added to the story, orally, once the OT was written down, it became stone, and it hasn't changed at all, but what has changed, are the way people view them.

For instance a child's bible story book will say things in Abraham, that makes it seem that Abraham gave a crap that he was going to kill his only son, in the actual text though, God said jump and Abraham said how high....on his way up!

See???

This does have backing, through historical context, and scholars are pretty sure they can find which books or versus were finally written when, and so I have no examples at this time, and probably won't bother to look some up, but some stories in the OT are really the same story, but written down over the course of several hundred years, to such a point that there are differences in the "writing styles and views of the rest of the world". Again, it doesn't change the meaning though.

I merely was pointing out the differences of an Oral society versus a written one, which is why there is such a difference through out the OT, rather than it being one solid strait forward peice more like the NT, which came about meaning to be written, and so didn't have the fanciful effects of oral tradition upon it.

Though I think some of the NT was written merely for fun, as some guy's view of things, Revelations seems VERY unreasonable, and I have no clue when it was written, but it seems to me it may have either Norse influence, or it may have been someone who thought of a clever way to end the "book" by making the opposite of Genesis (instead of creation, all creation now is destroyed...but with a happy ending of course, everything has to have a happy ending to be believable
)

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 05:59 PM
link   
*Jews were in region at 1200 B C
*Palestinians lived in area for 2000 years
*Both groups claim the area as home

Long before the Arab conquest, a thousand years before the Prophet Mohammed was born, the Jew, already exiled, sitting by the waters of Babylon, was singing: "If I forget thee O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its cunning."

Israel had already become a nation about 1220 B.c. - nearly two thousand years before the first Arab invasion began. The Jews' persistent presence on the land survived periodic attempts to extinguish them throughout their history. Around the first century, many Diaspora Jews observed the commandments of pilgrimage, and on the High Holidays in Jerusalem one might have met Jews from such different lands as Parthia, Media, Elam, Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia Minor, I'hrygia, Pamphylia, Cyrene, Crete, Rome and Arabia. By the time of the Roman conquest of Judea the Jews were considered "turbulent and troublesome people to deal with," according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, when they stubbornly refused to surrender their country to Roman rule.

The Emperor Hadrian, "determined to stamp out this aggressive Jewish nationalism," ruled that henceforth Jewish traditions such as circumcision, the Sabbath, reading of the law-in fact, the beliefs of Judaism itself-were illegal and "forbidden." Hadrian was "determined to convert the still half-ruined Jerusalem into a Roman colony." After the Jews' Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, the revolt of Jewish leader Bar Kochba-who had "200,000 men at his command" -- recaptured Jerusalem and many "strongholds and villages throughout the country." The "full-scale country-wide war raged with fierce bitterness for four years, the Romans having to bring in legion after legion of reinforcements to suppress the insurgents."

Although the Romans ultimately regained political reign, "sacked the city (of Jerusalem) and expelled the bulk of the Jewish survivors from the country", the cost of victory was shattering "It is said that as many as 580,000 men were slain!" Romans as well as Jews. It was after the debacle that Hadrian changed the name of the city of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, ordered the building of a temple of Jupiter on the Jewish Temple site and "forbade any Jew, on pain of death, to appear within sight of the city."

But in the same way that the name Judea did not disappear, neither did the Jews abandon their land. A number had obstinately remained, and many others quickly returned to rebuild their world. Some Jews, however, fled the Roman conquest for other points -- including Arabia, where they formed some new settlements and in many instances joined Jewish Arabian communities established at the time of release from the captivity in Babylon or existing even before then. Thus evolved the flight of the first "Palestinian" refugees-the Judeans, or Jews.

The Haven in Arabia

A look at the haven where these "Palestinian" or "Judean" Jewish refugees from the Romans found sanctuary is important to understanding the "heart of the matter" in the Middle East today -- the conflict between Arab and Jew. The circumstances of the Arabian Jewish communities in the Arabian Peninsula -- both before and after the Arab Conquest-bear importantly upon Arab-Jewish relationships until this day, because the pattern that developed in Arabia established a tradition that has been followed ever since.

According to Arabist scholar Alfred Guillaume, Jews probably first settled in Arabia in connection with the fall of Samaria in 721 B.C.: it is almost certain that the self-contained Jewish military colony in Aswan and upper Egypt, about which the world knew nothing until a few years ago, was founded just after the fall of Samaria, and consequently it is not impossible that some Jewish settlements in Arabia were due to fugitives fleeing from the old northern capital of the Hebrews.

Guillaurne is certain that "in the first and second centuries A.D., Arabia offered a near asylum" to the Jews who had been victimized by the "utterly ruthless" Romans. In the Arabian land considered by many to be "purely Arab," the land which would spawn Islam many centuries later,

Numbers of Jewish and Christian settlements were established in different parts of Arabia, both spreading Aramaic and Hellenistic culture. The chief southern Arabian Christian centre was in Najran, where a relatively advanced political life was developed. Jews and Judaised Arabs were everywhere, especially in Yathrib, later renamed Medina. They were mainly agriculturists and artisans. Their origin is uncertain and many different theories have been advanced.

Although the fact is little recognized, more than one historian has affirmed at the Arab world's second holiest city, Medina, was one of the allegedly "purely Arab" cities that actually was first settled by Jewish tribes." Bernard Lewis writes: The city of Medina, some 280 miles north of Mecca, had originally been settled by Jewish tribes from the north, especially the Banu Nadir and Banu Quraiza. The comparative richness of the town attracted an infiltration of pagan Arabs who came at first as clients of the Jews and ultimately sucqeeded in dominating them. Medina, or, as it was known before Islam, Yathrib, had no form of stable government at all. The town was tom by the feuds of the rival Arab tribes of Aus and Khazraj, with the Jews maintaining an uneasy balance of power. The latter, engaged mainly in agriculture and handicrafts, were economically and culturally superior to the Arabs, and were consequently disliked.... as soon as the Arabs had attained unity through the agency of Muhammad they attacked and ultimately eliminated the Jews.

Guillaume reports that the anti-Jewish attack at Khaibar was fiercely fought off, but "though the inhabitants fought more bravely here than elsewhere, outnumbered and caught off their guard, they were defeated." Those who somehow survived constituted the formula for Islam's future successes. Some of the Jews, "non-Muslims" or infidels, "retained their land," at least until Muslims could be recruited in sufficient numbers to replace the Jews. Meanwhile, the Arabian Jews paid a fifty-percent "tribute," or tax, for the "protection" of the new plunderers. As Professor Lewis writes, "The Muslim victory in Khaibar marked thefirst contact between the Muslim state and a conquered non-Muslim people and formed the basis for later dealings of the same type."

Other Jewish colonies succumbed in much the same way: "Jews were allowed to keep their land on condition that they surrendered half the produce to Medina." But, "the arrangement did not last long Virtually all of Khaibar's and Medina's surviving Jews along with "all the other Jews and Christians in the peninsula" were dispossessed and expelled through the Prophet Muhammad's edict, zealously implemented by his caliph Omar.

Much of the wealth of the country which had been concentrated in the hands of the Jews had now been seized by the Muslims, who were no longer indigent immigrants but wealthy landowners, men of substance, owning camels and horses and their own weapons.... Muhammad's fame spread far and wide, and the bedouin flocked to him in thousands.

Medina, Islam's second holiest city, was originally a Jewish settlement

The city of Medina, some 280 miles north of Mecca, had originally been settled by Jewish tribes from the north, especially the Banu Nadir and Banu Quraiza. The comparative richness of the town attracted an infiltration of pagan Arabs who came at first as clients of the Jews and ultimately succeeded in dominating them. Medina, or, as it was known before Islam, Yathrib, had no form of stable government at all. The town was tom by the feuds of the rival Arab tribes of Aus and Khazraj, with the Jews maintaining an uneasy balance of power. The latter, engaged mainly in agriculture and handicrafts, were economically and culturally superior to the Arabs, and were consequently disliked.... as soon as the Arabs had attained unity through the agency of Muhammad they attacked and ultimately eliminated the Jews.

According to Guillaume:

At the dawn of Islam the Jews dominated the economic life of the Hijaz [Arabia]. They held all the best land; at Medina they must have formed at least half of the population. There was also a Jewish settlement to the north of the Gulf of Aqaba, what is important is to note that the Jews of the Hijaz made many proselytes (or converts) among the Arab tribesmen.

The first "Palestinian" or Judean refugees -- the Jews -- had resettled to become prosperous, influential Arabian settlers.

The prosperity of the Jews was due to their superior knowledge of agriculture and irrigation and their energy and industry. Homeless [Jewish] refugees in the course of a few generations became large landowners in the country, the refugees who had come to the Hijaz when the Romans conquered Palestine controllers of its finance and trade.... Thus it can readily be seen that Jewish prosperity was a challenge to the Arabs, particularly the Quraysh at Mecca and other Arab tribes at Medina.

The Prophet Muhammad himself was a member of the Quraysh tribe, which coveted the Jews' bounty, and when the Muslims took up arms they treated the Jews with much greater severity than the Christians, who, until the end of the purely Arab Caliphate, were not badly treated.

One of the reasons for "this discrimination" against the Jews is what Guillaurne called "the Quran's scornful words" regarding the Jews development of land and culture was a prime source of booty in the Arabian desert peninsula. Beginning at the time of the Prophet Muhammad and Islam from the expulsions, depredations, extortion, forced conversions or murder of Jewish Arabians settled in Medina to the mass slaughter of Jews at Khaibar, the precedent was established among Arab-Muslims to expropriate that which belonged to the Jews. Relations between the Prophet Muhammad and the Jews were "never easy": They had irritated him by their refusal to recognize him as a prophet, by ridicule and by argument; and of course their economic supremacy was a standing irritant.

It appears that the first "instigation" by the Prophet Muhammad himself against the Jews was an incident in which he had "one or two Jews murdered and no blood money was paid to their next of kin."

Their leaders opposed his claim to be an apostle sent by God, and though they doubtless drew some satisfaction from his acceptance of the divine mission of Abraham, Moses, and the prophets, they could hardly be expected to welcome the inclusion of Jesus and Ishmael among his chosen messengers.

The existence of pockets of disaffected Jews in and around his base was a cause of uneasiness and they had to be eliminated if he (Muhammad) was to wage war without anxiety.

Because the Jews preferred to retain their own beliefs, a tribe of Jews in the neighborhood of Medina, fell under suspicion of treachery and were forced to lay down their arms and evacuate their settlements. Valuable land and much booty fell into the hands of the Muslims. The neighboring tribe of Qurayza, who were soon to suffer annihilation, made no move to help their co-religionists, and their allies, the Aus, were afraid to give them active support.

The Prophet Muhammad's pronouncement: "Two religions may not dwell together on the Arabian Peninsula." This edict was carried out by Abu Bakr and Omar I, the Prophet Muhammad's successors; the entire community of Jewish settlements throughout northern Arabia was systematically slaughtered. According to Bernard Lewis, "the extermination of the Jewish tribe of Quraiza was followed by "an attack on the Jewish oasis of Khaibar."

Messengers of Muhammad were sent to the Jews who had escaped to the safety and comfort of haibar, "inviting" Usayr, the Jewish "war chief," to visit Medina for mediations. Usayr set off with thirty companions and a Muslim escort. Suspecting no foul play, the Jews went unarmed. On the way, the Muslims turned upon the defenseless delegation, killing all but one who managed to escape. "War is deception," according to an oft-quoted saying of the Prophet.

The late Israeli historian and former President, Itzhak Ben-Zvi, judged the "inhuman atrocities" of the Arabian communities as unparalleled since then: the complete extermination of the two Arabian-Jewish tribes, the Nadhir and Kainuka' by the mass massacre of their men, women and children, was a tragedy for which no parallel can be found in Jewish history until our own day.

The slaughter of Arabian Jews and the expropriation of their property became Allah's will. According to the Koran, some you slew and others you took captive. He (Allah) made you masters of their [the Jews'] land, their houses and their goods, and of yet another land [Khaibar] on which you had never set foot before. Truly, Allah has power over all things.

Guillaume reports that the anti-Jewish attack at Khaibar was fiercely fought off, but "though the inhabitants fought more bravely here than elsewhere, outnumbered and caught off their guard, they were defeated." Those who somehow survived constituted the formula for Islam's future successes. Some of the Jews, "non-Muslims" or infidels, "retained their land," at least until Muslims could be recruited in sufficient numbers to replace the Jews. Meanwhile, the Arabian Jews paid a fifty-percent "tribute," or tax, for the "protection" of the new plunderers. As Professor Lewis writes, "The Muslim victory in Khaibar marked the first contact between the Muslim state and a conquered non-Muslim people and formed the basis for later dealings of the same type."

Thus the Jewish dhimmi evolved (the protected ones), the robbery of freedom and political independence compounding the extortion and eventual expropriation of property. "Tolerated" between onslaughts, expulsions, and pillages from the Arab Muslim conquest onward, the non-Muslim dhimmi-predominantly Jewish but Christian too provided the important source of religious revenue through the "infidel's" head tax. He became very quickly a convenient political scapegoat and whipping boy as well.

Link - www.eretzyisroel.org...

Arab Oppression of Jews

As a Muslim in Hebron retorted when he was confronted with his theft and vandalism of Jews in 1858, "his right derived from time immemorial in his family, to enter Jewish houses, and take toll or contributions at any time without giving account." This attitude and its prevalence in Palestine cannot be overlooked. It is perhaps the most powerful factor in the Middle East conflict today and certainly the core of the "Palestinian" question -- the true "heart of the matter."

From the beginning of Turkish rule in the sixteenth century, the infidel dhimma code of oppressions against non-believers was maintained in Palestine. The humiliation was a given; the degree of harshness of injunctions against Jews depended on the whim of the ruler, local as well as the lord of the empire. Among the constants of dhimma restrictions in the Holy Land:

Jews had to pass Muslims on their left side, because that was the side of Satan. They had to yield the right of way, step off the pavement to let the Arab go by, above all make sure not to touch him in passing, because this could provoke a violent response. In the same way, anything that. reminded the Muslim of the presence of alternative religions, any demonstration of alternative forms of worship, had to be avoided so synagogues were placed in humble, hidden places, and the sounds of Jewish prayer carefully muted.

Link - www.eretzyisroel.org...


Throwing Stones at Jews is based in Ancient Islamic Ritual

During the Hajj pilgrimage there is a ritual in which pilgrims stone a pillar symbolising the devil near the holy city of Mecca. Islamic sermons repeatedly emphasize the connection between the Jews and Satan. What is the proper way to deal with an insolent Jew? To throw stones.

Dr. Abdul Halim Mahmoud, rector of Cairos al-Ashar University, theologically and politically the most influential university in Islamdom: Allah commands Moslems to fight the friends of Satan wherever they are to be found. Among the friends of Satan indeed, among the foremost friends of Satan in the present age, are the Jews.

Just after the turn of the present century, the British vice-consul in Mosul wrote a report that illustrated the nature of the "traditional relationship" between Muslim and Jew in a less volatile moment: The attitude of the Moslems toward the Christians and Jews, to whom as stated above, they are in a majority of ten to one, is that of a master towards slaves whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed. It is often noticed in the streets that almost any Christian submissively makes way even for a Moslem child. Only a few days ago the writer saw two respectable looking, middle-aged Jews walking in a garden. A small Moslem boy, who could not have been more than 8 years old, passed by and, as he did so, picked up a large stone and threw it at them -- and then another -- with the utmost nonchalance, just as a small boy elsewhere might aim at a dog or bird. The Jews stopped and avoided the aim, which was a good one, but made no further protest.

Perhaps the definitive historian on the North African Jews, H. Z. Hirschberg, notes that in fifteenth-century Tunis, several Jews held "positions of honor." To a Western-oriented reader, the "position of honor" would indicate freedom from persecution. Yet an authenticated and respected document of that period, written by a visiting Flemish nobleman, describes Tunisian Jews as "despised and hated." After noting the privileged positions of local Christians, the nobleman wrote: The Jews, on the other hand, have no freedom. They must all pay a heavy ... tax. They wear special clothes, different from those of the Moors. If they did not do so, they would be stoned, and they therefore put a yellow cloth on their heads or necks; their women dare not even wear shoes. They are much despised and hated, more than even the Latin Christians. A teacher was sent from Beirut in 1910 to assess the constant reports of travail for the Yemenite Jews. He noted that, after more than a week, I have made myself acquainted with the life of the Jews in all its phases.... They are exceedingly unfortunate.... If they are abused, they listen in silence as though they had not understood; if they are attacked by an Arab boy with stones, they flee...

According to nineteenth-century historians, some Jewish families in Aleppo -which, like Alexandria, was an atypically tolerant cosmopolitan center of international commerce -- were affluent and relatively safe. Others, even in Aleppo, who were less well-connected were "subject to violence and oppression from various quarters." Money was extorted by officials on every pretext, petty bullying was commonplace, and one Jew reported that "When a Jew walked among them (the Muslims) in the market, one would throw a stone at him in order to kill him, another would pull his beard and a third his ear lock, yet another spit on his face and he became a symbol of abuse."

Reference Links:

www.us-israel.org...

www.stateofisrael.com...

www.time.com...

www.marxists.de...

www.cdn-friends-icej.ca...

www.memri.de...

www.eretzyisroel.org...

www.jajz-ed.org.il...



posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 07:56 PM
link   
has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

how is a religion stating he's better than all other religions forceable conversion... please tell me...

...... Christianity says if you dont believe in jesus your going to hell, period... THAT'S forceable conversion

on the contrary... Islam says whether your jew, christian, or muslim.. if you believe in God and do good you have your reward with Him.. how's that a forceable conversion..

HELLO, Islam was a religion ONLY for the arabs, THEY HAD STRICT LAWS THAT SAID SO.

Muslims never killed Christians massively... When Saladin retook Jerusalem from those devil crusader christians he allowed christians safe pilgrammages to the holy land! he even killed muslims who even looked at the christians in a wrong way...

christianty has those little missionaries today in the world which are modern day crusaders... THAT'S forceable conversion...


and the reason why Mohammad had a problem with the Jews is because they betrayed him in the battle of the trench.. you dont have to read all that.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join