Jews DON'T control the media
Kord Burphardt
> "Larry R" <fut...@primus.ca> wrote in message
> news:1pJt7.16166$C72.31...@news.tor.primus.ca...
> > You are pretty stupid and uninformed to make such a ridiculous statement
> > regarding who owns what, who stole what, and the truth behind the area.
> > It really irks me to see such ignorant assholes who know diddley squat
> about
> > what they are saying. They open their yaps to hear themselves expel
> > bullshit.
> > The hollowest vessels make the largest sounds. Read a little history blvd.
> > ROOTS
>
> Everyone historian knows that the Zionists took Israel by force, and not by
> civilized methods. I am sorry, but that's the truth.
>
> Read this statement By some Jews that want justice in the Middle East at
> this web site
>
> http://www.cactus48.com/conclusionI.html
>
> __________________________________________
>
> "As we have seen, the root cause of the Palestine-Israel conflict is clear.
> During the 1948 war, 750,000 Palestinians fled in terror or were actively
> expelled from their ancestral homeland and turned into refugees.
That is true. Had the Israelis bit the bullet then and expelled
or killed the rest of the Palestinians there would be no problem
today and Jews and Arabs would live in as much harmony as muslims
can live with any non-muslims. Arabs would have understood Jewish
genocide against Palestinians, and accepted it if there were no
Palestinians japping to them about it. Genocide is an acceptable
treatment of defeated people according to the Koran (which see).
The problem was that the Jews returning from Europe were Europeans
and their Western sensibilities crippled them for "life amongst
muslims." The Israelis actually went about buying land (their lands,
which the Palestinian desert nomads had grabbed after the Diaspora
of the Jews from Israel at the hands of the Romans). The Israelis
were innocent enough to believe they would be able to live in peace
with their muslim neighbors! And this fallacy can be seen to this day
in the truly moronic statements by Western "leaders" testifying to
the notion that "true Islam is a religion of peace!" I mean, do they
believe that nearly 60 million victims of the Islamic Conquest simply
butchered themselves?!?! Maybe it was just some fundamentalist Islamic
Terrorists, perhaps just 19 or so of them, who killed all those people.
What happened in 1948 was that ALL THE Arab muslim peoples and states
(not just the Palestinians) immediately declared an unapologetic war
of GENOCIDE against Israel --to this day unapologetic by a lot of
muslims who are either unaware how bad this makes them look to Western
sensibilities, or who simply don't give a damn what non-muslims think--
a war whose expressed (by muslim religious leaders, not merely by muslim
generals) aim was the utter extermination of all the Jews "in Palestine"
and the dumping of all their corpses into the ocean (because they would
polute the Arabian peninsula if they remained on land). So imagine the
muslims' chagrin when a handful of Jews managed (in what still remains
a near miraculous achievement) to defeat the combined armies of all the
Arab states!
Yes, there were a few well documented cases where some Israelis engaged
in some ethnic-clensing. But the vast majority of the Palestinian exodus
took place because it has always been common practice amongst muslims
to kill ALL defeated enemies in celebratory bouts of genocide --some of
which have far exceeded anything Hitler or Stalin ever dreamt of-- and
the fleeing Palestinians thought the Jews were about to do to them what
they themselves had vowed to Allah in a sacred promise to do to the Jews.
There will NEVER be peace in the mideast until ALL the Palestinians
are removed from Israel. And there will not be peace in the world until
ALL the muslims are militarily contained... so they cannot threaten
the world's peace ever again BECAUSE it is in the nature of Islam to
regard genocide, terrorism, and whatever horrors it takes as acceptable
whenever required, and it is in the nature of the Koran to promote and
actually demand them:
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you,
therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into
the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their
heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[58:5] Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be crumbled
to dust, as were those before them: for we have already sent down
Clear Signs and the Unbelievers will have a humiliating Penalty
Sahih Muslim
Book 019, Number 4366:
It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger
of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and
Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.
Sahih Muslim
The Book of Faith (Kitab Al-Iman)
Book 001, Number 0033:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the
Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people
till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the
messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they
do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf
except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day,
nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor
follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book,
until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in
a state of subjection.
[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near
to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with
those who guard (against evil).
[4.74] Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this
world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah,
then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty
reward.
From the Sunnah of the Prophet (the "other leg" of the Koran):
[9:5] But when the forbidden months are past, then fight
and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them,
beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem
There is no need to think this through. The above is MORE than enough
of a wakeup call for anyone with even two cent's worth of brain (so
don't expect George Bush to wake up tomorrow and "get" the truth
staring him in the face). But this is indisputable:
Until such day as you see muslims public'lly condemning the Koran's
calls for terrorism and genocide against non-muslims, Islam will be
the true enemy of all mankind, of every member of the human race who
happens not to be a muslim. And this miracle of all miracles has yet
to be seen in the world. It would make Islam a religion of peace, and
no muslim could live with that sea-change.
> The state
> of Israel then refused to allow them to return and either destroyed their
> villages entirely or expropriated their land, orchards, houses, businesses
> and personal possessions for the use of the Jewish population. This was the
> birth of the state of Israel.
> We know it is hard to accept emotionally, but in this case the Jewish people
> are in the wrong.We took most of Palestine by force from the Arabs and
> blamed the victims for resisting their dispossession. If you run into
> someone's car, for whatever reason, simple justice demands that you repair
> it. Our moral obligation to the Palestinian people is no less clear. It is
> time for all Jewish people of good conscience to make whatever amends are
> possible to the Palestinians in order to live up to the best part of the
> Jewish tradition - its ethical and moral basis."
What you do not understand is the very simple fact that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES
will the Palestinians EVER accept living in peace with the state of Israel:
It is forbidden by the Koran (read it above). In fact the Koran encourages
muslims to lie and cheat, and stab as many people in the back as need be
in order to achieve the ultimate victory over non-muslims. So if anybody
thinks Arafat's word is worth the bad breath it's written on, that poor soul
deserves what he will get for his trust: Arafat's knife squarely in the back.
There is a "joke" going around in the West that the Palestinians will never
fail to pass up a negotiated victory. The idiots who make this joke are
simply displaying their mind-boggling ignorance of the fact that no muslim
is able to sign a paper that establishes the right of non-muslims to live
"among" muslims as equals: IT IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN BY THE KORAN. It would
be heresy, it would be a clear rejection of the Prophet Mohammed's testimony
of what Allah told him to say to the believers. It would be, above all,
suicide: ALL muslims who have "signed on" for a negotiated peace with Israel
ARE telling their fellow-muslims that it's only a stratagem on their part to
gain a better position from which with time to destroy Israel (see the Koran
quote above). There is no end to the evils and crimes promulgated and called
for by the Koran.
If Bush thinks the war on terrorism will last a hundred years, the muslims
think nothing if the war to destroy Israel requires a thousand (years). They
will think nothing of granting some whatever concessions along the way IF
these concessions help in their ultimate destuction of Israel and the murder
of all Israelis to the last one. People who not only have yet to condemn the
victims of the Islamic Conquest, but who revel and celebrate their murder are
hardly likely to give much thought to the murder of however many more innocents
it takes.
You will hear many muslims, big and small, express regret over the massacres
at the Twin Towers and Pentagon... but the recent ACTION of our beloved Saudi
friends and allies says it all... when they refused to grant the US permission
to use bases in its territories because (so the Saudis said) they didn't wish
to have muslims attacked from there! (I wonder if they said this to the
Americans with a straight face?) I mean, errrr... weren't the Iraqis muslims?
And did not the Americans bomb the Hell out of them FROM Saudi Arabia?
And now you know a little bit more of the ethics of muslims: When it came to
having their own asses saved by the Americans there wasn't a second's
hesitation to filling up Saudi Arabia with a trillion infidel Americans (and
their women soldiers). But, now that their asses are out of the fire... well,
you know: The Saudies ARE so very religiously scrupulous. AND, the American
infidels are SO filthy polluted that their mere presense in Saudi Arabia would
be most unaceptable in the extreme. (I believe the Saudi defense minister swore
that they would never "bear" one single soldier fighting muslims from there.)
Sorry, George Bush Junior. Call again if some other non-Saudi muslims cutthroats
are about to cut off the King's jewels... and we'll see whether "we" can bear
the presence of you polluted American "creatures" in Saudi Arabia long enough
for you to save the Saudi King's jewels again with your young men and women's
blood. Now, don't forget to call, Junior. Heah!
And now you understand a little bit more what muslims consider ethical and
moral behavior. And now you understand a little bit more what any Israeli
who signs a peace treaty "for all time" with Arafat OR ANY OTHER MUSLIM can
expect the minute he turns his back on them.
JM
Two points:
1. (for those who believe in the worldwide Zionist Conspiracy) See:
the following quotes: If Jews/Zionists control the media, why is it
they are allowing the likes of CNN/Rather/Jennings, even FOXnews et
al. to continue propogating the fantasy that Islam (which may
literally _mean_ peace, yes...so?) hasn't as its primary foundational
footings a hatred/fear for and desire to destroy all _other_ faiths as
is so well-illustrated/tested by the quotations from the Koran (that's
the actual English spelling, folks)? Why wouldn't these good Zionists
be trumpeting this stuff to the world? As it sits, I see nothing but
soft-peddling of these facts; all you ever hear about is how shocked
everyone is because, after all, Islam means "peace"? You'd have to
laugh at the absurdity if it weren't so sad and so horrifyingly stupid
to believe these lies.
Cont'd behind the quote.
> > __________________________________________
2 (for those both stupid and ignorant) RE: the "Zionists" having
established the modern state of Israel by "force."
Duh. And? I'm sorry, can you who take issue with this name a single
nation that was not established this way? Even Oog and Aag had to
kill someone to ensure the safety of their cave in the Neander Valley
200,000 years ago! That Jews trying to _re_-establish Isreal in its
historical location had to kill and/or chase away the then current
batch of squatters (i.e. Brits, and Palestinians/Philistines) is
neither news, nor should it be particularly troubling to any thinking
individual. This argument is similar to the ones in the Americas and
Austrailia/N.Zealand which hold that we should "give it back" to the
natives we (Euros) "stole it from" Nonsense on stilts. The word is
nothing if not awash in histories of conquest, re-conquest, and
re-re-conquest. _Every_ piece of real estate on the planet, by the
time of Columbus was "claimed" by someone going back, sometimes,
10,000 years. Should the Chinese give China back to its original
occupants? How about the Ainu in Japan (Caucasians), from whom modern
Japanese (hailing from the Korean penn.) stole the islands? Shouldn't
them foul, nasty Japs give Japan back to them dirty white boys they
"stole" it from--and, coincidentally no doubt, virtually exterminated
in the process? And natch, there's the North and South American
Natives...we should, of course, apply today's veddy, veddy modern
social concerns to their "plight," and let them have their land back.
Should we also demand they recapture their cultures and
socio-technical states of advancement at the time? Sure we should!
Let's let the Sioux start taking hundreds of slaves a year from native
tribes again! Let's let Navajo die from impacted wisdom teeth! Let's
close the casinos! How about the Abos in Auss? Should we allow them
to return to their ever-so sustainable agricultural practices wherein
they, yearly, burn off _huge_ swaths of land to flush out game; it's
the major reason so much of Austrailia is desertified...let's let them
finish the job!
Anyone who buys into this is thinking with their heart (or body parts
further south, still) and not their head. Ditto the "Jewish
question." Israel has as much right to exist as does Andorra, or
Monaco, both taken from "native" peoples, yet I see no one in here
screaming for these nations to be squashed and their lands returned to
the Neanderthals.
JM
moj
"JM" <tmtrs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:98c31c55.01100...@posting.google.com...
> kri...@mindless.com (Kord Burphardt) wrote in message news
> Two points:
> 1. (for those who believe in the worldwide Zionist Conspiracy) See:
> the following quotes: If Jews/Zionists control the media, why is it
> they are allowing the likes of CNN/Rather/Jennings, even FOXnews et
> al. to continue propogating the fantasy that Islam (which may
> literally _mean_ peace, yes...so?)
No, Islam means "to submit." A Muslim is "one who submits."
>hasn't as its primary foundational
> footings a hatred/fear for and desire to destroy all _other_ faiths as
> is so well-illustrated/tested by the quotations from the Koran (that's
> the actual English spelling, folks)?
There is no "correct" spelling in English. It is a phonetic equivalent from
the Arabic, but could be (and has been) spelled as "Koran" or "Qu'ran." My
English copy of the Qu'ran is spelled the second way. I am sure, like with
Chinese names, there are a few acceptable equivalents.
>Why wouldn't these good Zionists
> be trumpeting this stuff to the world? As it sits, I see nothing but
> soft-peddling of these facts; all you ever hear about is how shocked
> everyone is because, after all, Islam means "peace"? You'd have to
> laugh at the absurdity if it weren't so sad and so horrifyingly stupid
> to believe these lies.
We must remember that it is too easy to project the views and actions of a
lunatic fringe on the majority. Most Muslims are peaceful, law abiding, and
very tolerant of other religions. The Jews and the Muslims coexisted very
well for hundreds of years in the Middle East and elsewhere (especially
Moorish Spain, where the Sephardim enjoyed unprecedented acceptence in the
community), although Christians and Muslims never really got along.
Christians tended to want to convert people too much.
No, actually not "duh." Israel was established by a UN resolution in 1947.
Israel was preserved by force, as five Arab nations attacked immediately
after the British took their flag down in 1948.
>And? I'm sorry, can you who take issue with this name a single
> nation that was not established this way? Even Oog and Aag had to
> kill someone to ensure the safety of their cave in the Neander Valley
> 200,000 years ago!
Probably true. Kind of makes Marxists look silly when they say that
equality of economy creates lasting peace.
>That Jews trying to _re_-establish Isreal in its
> historical location had to kill and/or chase away the then current
> batch of squatters (i.e. Brits, and Palestinians/Philistines) is
> neither news, nor should it be particularly troubling to any thinking
> individual.
While the British were squatters in the area (along with the French in
Lebanon), the Palestinians were not. They had lived there alongside the
Jews for three millenia. And mostly peacefully. The problem they had with
the Jews is the Jews moved into the area and settled it as a means of
conquest, and I can understand why that upset them (these Jews being
European, and not natives, brought with them Western culture, which I
believe is challenging to a good many Muslims). However, the Jews had been
dispersed by the Romans before, so there really is equal claim to the area.
That is why the UN established a seperate Palestinian state in 1948.
Unfortunately, the Arab nations, in attacking, kind of took over that and
relegated the Palestinians to second class citizens. The real problem in
the area, and the reason that the Palestinians are so adamant about creating
their own nation, is that the Palestinians, due to better education and
wealth and more Western influence, are generally distrusted or despised by
the rest of the Arabs in the region. It's a sad, sad mess.
>This argument is similar to the ones in the Americas and
> Austrailia/N.Zealand which hold that we should "give it back" to the
> natives we (Euros) "stole it from" Nonsense on stilts. The word is
> nothing if not awash in histories of conquest, re-conquest, and
> re-re-conquest. _Every_ piece of real estate on the planet, by the
> time of Columbus was "claimed" by someone going back, sometimes,
> 10,000 years. Should the Chinese give China back to its original
> occupants?
>How about the Ainu in Japan (Caucasians), from whom modern
> Japanese (hailing from the Korean penn.) stole the islands? Shouldn't
> them foul, nasty Japs give Japan back to them dirty white boys they
> "stole" it from--and, coincidentally no doubt, virtually exterminated
> in the process? And natch, there's the North and South American
> Natives...we should, of course, apply today's veddy, veddy modern
> social concerns to their "plight," and let them have their land back.
You neglect to mention that the Israelis attempted to do just that, then
moved settlers into the Arab areas again. The Palestinians must feel like
the American Indians by now, and I as a Jew can't blame them.
> Should we also demand they recapture their cultures and
> socio-technical states of advancement at the time? Sure we should!
> Let's let the Sioux start taking hundreds of slaves a year from native
> tribes again! Let's let Navajo die from impacted wisdom teeth! Let's
> close the casinos! How about the Abos in Auss? Should we allow them
> to return to their ever-so sustainable agricultural practices wherein
> they, yearly, burn off _huge_ swaths of land to flush out game; it's
> the major reason so much of Austrailia is desertified...let's let them
> finish the job!
You can't recompense a people for dispossing them. It doesn't undo the
hatred. But that doesn't mean from today going forward you shouldn't try to
make them feel welcome.
> Anyone who buys into this is thinking with their heart (or body parts
> further south, still) and not their head. Ditto the "Jewish
> question." Israel has as much right to exist as does Andorra, or
> Monaco, both taken from "native" peoples, yet I see no one in here
> screaming for these nations to be squashed and their lands returned to
> the Neanderthals.
Last time I checked the Neanderthals were extinct. But if they weren't, I
am sure they would be welcome to live in Andorra side by side with the
Andorrans.
S D Rodrian
> We must remember that it is too easy to project the views and actions of a
> lunatic fringe on the majority. Most Muslims are peaceful, law abiding, and
> very tolerant of other religions.
No doubt that's why most of the Jews once having to live in terror
amongst muslims are now in Israel. It's was probably just too much
tolerance for them.
> The Jews and the Muslims coexisted very
> well for hundreds of years in the Middle East and elsewhere (especially
> Moorish Spain, where the Sephardim enjoyed unprecedented acceptence in the
> community), although Christians and Muslims never really got along.
The Jews of Spain paid dearly for the lesson the Spanish learned
during their Islamic oppression: That there would ONLY be peace
in Spain when all the "foreigners" were finally gone from Spain.
It worked. Spain has never again had to fear Islamic terrorism. And
notice that the Jews and muslims were expelled from Spain (the Hindus
and others were all butchered in place by the muslims). If the Israelis
had been half as smart as the Spanish today there would be no muslims
in Israel, and Palestinians would be Arabs living in their Arab lands
instead of engaged in terrorism while trying to dispossess the Jews
of THEIR land. If all the Arabs lived in their Arab countries their
governments would HAVE to keep them from attacking Israel, or else.
> Christians tended to want to convert people too much.
Ridiculous! They wanted to SAVE people's souls. They're not to
blame if non-christians didn't want to be saved. In Cuba, a Syboney
native chief who was to be burned at the stake was asked by a priest
to convert so he could go to Heaven. "Are there Spanish in Heaven?"
The chief asked. "Yes, of course," answered the priest. "Then
forget about it," answered the Syboney chief, and: "Light my fire,
baby." (This is the source of Jose Feliciano's famous rock hit.)
The problem has always been that it is individual talent that
creates wealth... so Marxists and muslims would have us all live
peacefully in rags, not unlike pigs in a pen... with the appropriate
dictators, I mean, "farmers" tending lovingly to our every need.
> You neglect to mention that the Israelis attempted to do just that, then
> moved settlers into the Arab areas again. The Palestinians must feel like
> the American Indians by now, and I as a Jew can't blame them.
In every horror movie, there's always some utterly idiotic moron
who proposes, "The monster is a superior lifeform, far ahead of
us in culture and style of shoes! We can't possibly kill it. We
owe it to Science to stand here and be eaten alive!" You've seen
these movies. Well, surprise! Here you have the odious idiot in
the flesh! My Jewish sir, jump thou into the teeths of the muslims
and be eaten already--I am running out of popcorn.
> > Should we also demand they recapture their cultures and
> > socio-technical states of advancement at the time? Sure we should!
> > Let's let the Sioux start taking hundreds of slaves a year from native
> > tribes again! Let's let Navajo die from impacted wisdom teeth! Let's
> > close the casinos! How about the Abos in Auss? Should we allow them
> > to return to their ever-so sustainable agricultural practices wherein
> > they, yearly, burn off _huge_ swaths of land to flush out game; it's
> > the major reason so much of Austrailia is desertified...let's let them
> > finish the job!
>
> You can't recompense a people for dispossing them. It doesn't undo the
> hatred. But that doesn't mean from today going forward you shouldn't try to
> make them feel welcome.
> > Anyone who buys into this is thinking with their heart (or body parts
> > further south, still) and not their head. Ditto the "Jewish
> > question." Israel has as much right to exist as does Andorra, or
> > Monaco, both taken from "native" peoples, yet I see no one in here
> > screaming for these nations to be squashed and their lands returned to
> > the Neanderthals.
>
> Last time I checked the Neanderthals were extinct.
Nonsense! I work for one of them. And when he and his wife
invite us to their home for dinner they make us go through
all the cartoon animals painted on their walls (not to mention
the horrid choking smoke of their bar-B-Qs... never knew a
damn Neanderthal yet that knew how to use a proper propane oven).
> But if they weren't, I
> am sure they would be welcome to live in Andorra side by side with the
> Andorrans.
There ya go: "Honey, the Neanders just boinked our daughter and
now they're roasting her over at their pit."
"That's all right, honey. They have to eat too."
We know you, sir: You've been in countless bad drive-in movies.
SD Rodrian
www.sdrodrian.com
moj
news:bf7b874e.01100...@posting.google.com...
> "moj" <malb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<zx2u7.9435$b66.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
> > We must remember that it is too easy to project the views and actions of
a
> > lunatic fringe on the majority. Most Muslims are peaceful, law abiding,
and
> > very tolerant of other religions.
>
> No doubt that's why most of the Jews once having to live in terror
> amongst muslims are now in Israel. It's was probably just too much
> tolerance for them.
Why don't you read history instead of being a complete ignoramus. I suppose
that Israel was just randomly formed and Jews just moved in, eh? In fact,
they were allowed in under the Ottoman goverment, starting in the 1880s.
And there had been Jewish communities existing in Palestine that had never
even been dispersed by the Romans. As to why they moved to Israel after
Israel's formation--wouldn't you? Judaism is an extremely community
oriented religion, and it is only natural for Jews to congregate in
close-knit communities. As people moved to the region, they tended to
migrate to the pre-existing communities in order to be better Jews (studying
the Talmud, the Torah, concentration of rabbis, etc.).
> > The Jews and the Muslims coexisted very
> > well for hundreds of years in the Middle East and elsewhere (especially
> > Moorish Spain, where the Sephardim enjoyed unprecedented acceptence in
the
> > community), although Christians and Muslims never really got along.
>
> The Jews of Spain paid dearly for the lesson the Spanish learned
> during their Islamic oppression: That there would ONLY be peace
> in Spain when all the "foreigners" were finally gone from Spain.
> It worked. Spain has never again had to fear Islamic terrorism. And
> notice that the Jews and muslims were expelled from Spain (the Hindus
> and others were all butchered in place by the muslims). If the Israelis
> had been half as smart as the Spanish today there would be no muslims
> in Israel, and Palestinians would be Arabs living in their Arab lands
> instead of engaged in terrorism while trying to dispossess the Jews
> of THEIR land. If all the Arabs lived in their Arab countries their
> governments would HAVE to keep them from attacking Israel, or else.
First of all, the number of Hindus in Spain in 1492 probably could be
measured on one hand. Secondly, the Spanish expelled the Moors, but
executed the Jews in the Spanish Inquisition. It was probably the most
brutal anti-semetic attack on long-established Jewish communities until the
time of the Russian Pogroms. Thirdly, the Palestinians are treated, as I
said, as second class citizens in other Arab countries. In each of the
invasion attempts on Israel, Palestian refugees were required to live in
refugee camps in other Arab countries (primarily Jordan and Lebanon, but
also Syria and Egypt). Far from keeping the Palestinians from Attacking
Israel, the governments of those countries themselves attacked. That is
hardly a solution. And finally, it is so nice to see you advocating
genocide for the Palestinians. You must be a ball to have around at
parties.
> > Christians tended to want to convert people too much.
>
> Ridiculous! They wanted to SAVE people's souls. They're not to
> blame if non-christians didn't want to be saved.
OK, now I see where you are coming from. I suppose you blame homosexuals
for causing the WTC attack like Jerry Falwell, too.
Let's see, how many souls were saved? The Jews in the Spanish and Roman
Inquisitions? The Witches burned throughout the Middle Ages? The Muslims
in the Crusades? The American Indians? It really isn't very Christian to
kill those that simply don't want to be saved, and then blame them for their
deaths.
> In Cuba, a Syboney
> native chief who was to be burned at the stake was asked by a priest
> to convert so he could go to Heaven. "Are there Spanish in Heaven?"
> The chief asked. "Yes, of course," answered the priest. "Then
> forget about it," answered the Syboney chief, and: "Light my fire,
> baby." (This is the source of Jose Feliciano's famous rock hit.)
So you advocate burning all non-Christians at the stake as your preferred
method of genocide? How very Christ-like of you. I seem to recall from the
Gospels that Christ actually had the good Samaritan executed.
Marxism, for all it's flaws, does not advocate living in rags. Marxism has
a lot of problems, one of them is not recognizing that individual talent
creates wealth, because that is not what creates wealth. Wealth is created
by capital investment, creation and risk, but not talent. There are plenty
of people and countries with wealth that have not a lick of talent to them.
> > You neglect to mention that the Israelis attempted to do just that, then
> > moved settlers into the Arab areas again. The Palestinians must feel
like
> > the American Indians by now, and I as a Jew can't blame them.
>
> In every horror movie, there's always some utterly idiotic moron
> who proposes, "The monster is a superior lifeform, far ahead of
> us in culture and style of shoes! We can't possibly kill it. We
> owe it to Science to stand here and be eaten alive!" You've seen
> these movies. Well, surprise! Here you have the odious idiot in
> the flesh! My Jewish sir, jump thou into the teeths of the muslims
> and be eaten already--I am running out of popcorn.
I will only dignify this non-argument so far as to say that you are a
complete moron who believes that Palestinians are yours to kill at whim.
Yes, you are quite clever. Nice to know your boss went extinct about 35,000
years ago. I guess you can come into work late and no one cares that you
are a genocide-loving idiot. Of course, I would probably go to the
Neanderthal BBQ before yours, as you probably want to use Sybony tribesmen
for your fuel.
> > But if they weren't, I
> > am sure they would be welcome to live in Andorra side by side with the
> > Andorrans.
>
> There ya go: "Honey, the Neanders just boinked our daughter and
> now they're roasting her over at their pit."
>
> "That's all right, honey. They have to eat too."
>
> We know you, sir: You've been in countless bad drive-in movies.
Not only an advocate of genocide, but a plain old racist, too. I am sure we
replace the word "Neaders" with "blacks" or "Jews" or (to use your
phonetic) "A Rabs", and it wouldn't change it at all.
> SD Rodrian
> www.sdrodrian.com
Why not just sign your name as Hitler and get it over with?
Jeffrey E Salzberg
malb...@earthlink.net says...
> As to why they moved to Israel after
> Israel's formation--wouldn't you? Judaism is an extremely community
> oriented religion, and it is only natural for Jews to congregate in
> close-knit communities
Especially as -- less than 5 years after the end of the holocaust -- it
was regarded as the only nation on earth that was 100% unlikely to be
ruled by an antisemitic government.
--
*-=-=-=-=-=-*-=-=-=-=-=-*
Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer
http://www.suncoast.quik.com/salzberg
moj
Marc
"Jeffrey E Salzberg" <salz...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.16238a63a...@news.verizon.net...
S D Rodrian
> "S D Rodrian" <s...@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
> news:bf7b874e.01100...@posting.google.com...
> > "moj" <malb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<zx2u7.9435$b66.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> >
> > > We must remember that it is too easy to project the views and actions of
> a
> > > lunatic fringe on the majority. Most Muslims are peaceful, law abiding,
> and
> > > very tolerant of other religions.
> >
> > No doubt that's why most of the Jews once having to live in terror
> > amongst muslims are now in Israel. It's was probably just too much
> > tolerance for them.
>
> Why don't you read history instead of being a complete ignoramus.
Because then I'd be denied the pleasure of conversing with
persons like you as an equal.
> I suppose
> that Israel was just randomly formed and Jews just moved in, eh?
Yes! That is precisely how it happened. As it was recently proven
in a lab experiment where scientists threw some bits of humor,
genius and talent into a flask, shook it, ran some electricity
through it and... discovered that several Jews had spontaneously
appeared in the mix! (The experiment has been confirmed, by the way,
in any number of different countries throughout the ages.)
> In fact,
> they were allowed in under the Ottoman goverment, starting in the 1880s.
> And there had been Jewish communities existing in Palestine that had never
> even been dispersed by the Romans. As to why they moved to Israel after
> Israel's formation--wouldn't you? Judaism is an extremely community
> oriented religion, and it is only natural for Jews to congregate in
> close-knit communities. As people moved to the region, they tended to
> migrate to the pre-existing communities in order to be better Jews (studying
> the Talmud, the Torah, concentration of rabbis, etc.).
... also the terrain there is at sea-level, so some of them
probably just rolled down there by happenstance. (Most likely of
all after a heavy meal.)
> > > The Jews and the Muslims coexisted very
> > > well for hundreds of years in the Middle East and elsewhere (especially
> > > Moorish Spain, where the Sephardim enjoyed unprecedented acceptence in
> the
> > > community), although Christians and Muslims never really got along.
> >
> > The Jews of Spain paid dearly for the lesson the Spanish learned
> > during their Islamic oppression: That there would ONLY be peace
> > in Spain when all the "foreigners" were finally gone from Spain.
> > It worked. Spain has never again had to fear Islamic terrorism. And
> > notice that the Jews and muslims were expelled from Spain (the Hindus
> > and others were all butchered in place by the muslims). If the Israelis
> > had been half as smart as the Spanish today there would be no muslims
> > in Israel, and Palestinians would be Arabs living in their Arab lands
> > instead of engaged in terrorism while trying to dispossess the Jews
> > of THEIR land. If all the Arabs lived in their Arab countries their
> > governments would HAVE to keep them from attacking Israel, or else.
>
>
> First of all, the number of Hindus in Spain in 1492 probably could be
> measured on one hand.
Well, I knew they were short in statute, but they were that small!?!?!
> Secondly, the Spanish expelled the Moors, but
> executed the Jews in the Spanish Inquisition.
No, sir: The Inquisition was only allowed to execute Christians.
That's what I love about christians, sir: Their respect for
other people's lives.
In any case, I have gone through the rest of your IQ exam, and
your score is near miraculous: Minus 47! (With a score like that
it's near miraculous that you can type at all--Unless you are
one of those Gulf Arabs rich enough to own a typing secretary,
of course. Which... I'm beginning to suspect is the case.)
I do share one thing with Muslims, sir: Envy of the unequaled
achievements by Jews throughout their entire history: Remove
all those achievements from world history, and we would now be
horrifically impoverished creatures.
Islamic achievements... let's see, well, there's always Danny
Thomas, and Klinger from Mash--Oh no, wait, they were Lebanese
Christians I believe. O well, maybe somebody from bin Ladin's
organization will contribute something to the world in future
(maybe they'll bathe, or something).
S D Rodrian
www.sdrodrian.com
re:
moj
"S D Rodrian" <s...@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
news:bf7b874e.01100...@posting.google.com...
> "moj" <malb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<gmdu7.9761$cp1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > "S D Rodrian" <s...@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
> > news:bf7b874e.01100...@posting.google.com...
> > > "moj" <malb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<zx2u7.9435$b66.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > >
> > > > We must remember that it is too easy to project the views and
actions of
> > a
> > > > lunatic fringe on the majority. Most Muslims are peaceful, law
abiding,
> > and
> > > > very tolerant of other religions.
> > >
> > > No doubt that's why most of the Jews once having to live in terror
> > > amongst muslims are now in Israel. It's was probably just too much
> > > tolerance for them.
> >
> > Why don't you read history instead of being a complete ignoramus.
>
> Because then I'd be denied the pleasure of conversing with
> persons like you as an equal.
Oh, a wit about you. Very funny. If it were only true....
> > I suppose
> > that Israel was just randomly formed and Jews just moved in, eh?
>
> Yes! That is precisely how it happened. As it was recently proven
> in a lab experiment where scientists threw some bits of humor,
> genius and talent into a flask, shook it, ran some electricity
> through it and... discovered that several Jews had spontaneously
> appeared in the mix! (The experiment has been confirmed, by the way,
> in any number of different countries throughout the ages.)
More humor. Almost as funny as "Full House." Are you sure you aren't one
of the Olsen twins?
And I suppose the Holocaust was only allowed to execute Aryans. Christians
have shown arguably the least respect for people's lives of all the major
religions. In the least Christians are the full equal to Islam in this
regard. Your denial is quite amazing on this matter. I guess you will deny
the millions of deaths caused by colonialism and forced conversions in other
parts of the globe, too. But, since our specific topic is the Spanish
Inquisition at the moment, here is a good link for you to let a little light
into your black, misguided soul:
http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/64.htm
As you see, the Inquisition was only targeted at non-Christians
(non-Catholics specifically), and the issue you mentioned in your first
email, that Christians cannot be faulted if the non-believers didn't want to
be saved--those non-believers that did not wish to be saved were executed by
being burned alive. Some choice. The absolute milk of human kindness.
> In any case, I have gone through the rest of your IQ exam, and
> your score is near miraculous: Minus 47! (With a score like that
> it's near miraculous that you can type at all--Unless you are
> one of those Gulf Arabs rich enough to own a typing secretary,
> of course. Which... I'm beginning to suspect is the case.)
To be accused of stupidity by someone so obviously worthy is a badge of
honor I will wear forever. However, since you obviously cannot read well
enough, I will repeat what I have already stated: I am Jewish. for someone
obviously so accurate in IQ testing, you sure have a problem with reading.
> I do share one thing with Muslims, sir: Envy of the unequaled
> achievements by Jews throughout their entire history: Remove
> all those achievements from world history, and we would now be
> horrifically impoverished creatures.
>
> Islamic achievements... let's see, well, there's always Danny
> Thomas, and Klinger from Mash--Oh no, wait, they were Lebanese
> Christians I believe. O well, maybe somebody from bin Ladin's
> organization will contribute something to the world in future
> (maybe they'll bathe, or something).
I guess algebra, the number zero, optics, non-Euclidian geometry, and
numerals (an Arabic word, by the way) never played a role in anything
important. A good source on the influence of Islam on these mathematical
discoveries is http://www.fav.net/acMath_1.html. Not to mention Arabesque
architecture and music theories, the telescope, the pendulum, the watch, the
mariner's compass, distilled alcohol, steel, petroleum distillation, and
althouugh the Arabs did not invent gunpoweder, they were the first to use
cannons, in 1324 employing them to attack Huesca, Spain. But these are so
insignificant that the New World could never have been conquered without
them, nor could the Renaissance have occurred. But I guess you are
right--there was no lasting impact from any of these inventions.
You would do a little better if you didn't just assume that, because the
Arab countries were almost universally colonized by the West and thus raped
of much of their culture and wealth, simply because a country is poor now
that it has always been so.
moj
Sorry!
Moj
"moj" <malb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:AQmu7.10569$cp1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Kord Burphardt
> Is that why the Jews enoyed the hositality of the Islamic states in
> Spain for 800 years and also in Jerusalem. You have quoted many ayats.
> However YOU are NOT a scholar of Islam. You have not read the letter
> signed by Hadrat Umar Ibn al Kathab, the second Caliph of Islam who,
> based on the teachings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad sallah alaiwassalam,
> let ALL people go about their faith and business as usual.
Nor have I read Caliph el Loko's call for muslims to embrace love and
compassion for all non-muslims. But I'm sure it exists--So what? In what
way does it help the victim of a murder that the whole world love him but
one?!?! It's futile for me to point out to you, sir, that it is not the
Koran's calls for love and peace that have butchered nearly 60 million
human beings in the course of the Islamic genocide against non-muslims
(which is going on to this day, as there are tribes in Kashmere which are
on the brink of extinction at the hands of the muslims)... it is the
Koran's calls for terrorism and genocide that have moved the pious to
those inhuman actions.
The Koran may be mere words, sir. But what cannot be AND OUGHT NEVER be
ignored is the fact that no muslim will condemn even the most egregiously
barbaric and savage portions of the Koran! (Some of which you can read
for yourself at the end of this post.) Will you? No you will not. You
will instead cite those utterly irrelevant calls for love and the brotherhood
of men which have never caused anybody any trouble in the whole sorry
history of Islam's existence. The true terror of Islam is indeed in the
terror of even the most decent-minded muslim to stand up for decency. That
says all there is to say about the nature of Islam, sir. And no one need be
any sort of scholar to understand that gut-real truth.
> While Europe was living in the Dark Ages in mud
> huts Cordoba, the Capital of Muslim Spain the citizens were living in
> a city with street lighting, sewage systems, and warm water. The first
> university in Europe was made by Muslims in Andalucia.
No doubt, no doubt it must have been Paradise on earth... living under
the muslims in Spain. So all the more perplexing that the Spaniards
themselves invested 500 brutal bloody years of revolution and war to rit
themselves of their muslim benefactors, eh?! Me, I don't even put up an
argument if my pizza is delivered cold and gummy.
> People who
> wanted to learn about science had to know Arabic because the Muslims
> were the most highly educated. They made great advances in science, in
> medicine, in astrology, physics, maths, recovered and translated the
> knowledge of the Romans and Greeks which had been destroyed by the
> Europeans.
What a croc, sir! That is one of the most gigantic "big lies" of history:
For your edification ALL that so-called "Islamic" science is Greek science.
The fall of the Roman Empire and the overrun of Europe by barbarians broke
the thread of history there, and the muslims' only (real) contribution is
that somehow they managed to avoid using what remained of ancient greek
civilization as firewood. Check your history again and you will discover
that there was no significant advance in science since the fall of the Roman
empire and the renaissance (even almost unto the rise of the British one
and the subsequent beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, yesterday).
What muslim "scholars" added (mostly in practical medicine, because of
their lack of scruples about cutting up people, living or dead) can be
summed up in the same manner one sums up their great Islamic achievements
in architecture: They copied, sir, they copied. The Arab muslims were utterly
illiterate barbarians just out of the desert, and their only original
achievement is the camel. Throughout the Islamic conquest, what the Islamic
barbarians did not destroy (the same way they recently destroyed the great
Buddahs in Afghanistan), they shamelessly converted into Islamic mosque (like
the Hagia Sophia Church in Constantinople, now a mosque) after which you saw
the sprouting of "similar" mosques elsewhere. Even the great Taj Mahal in India
is really an ancient Hindu temple to Shiva which the muslims have desecrated
just as they desecrated every Christian Church they got hold of, and even the
holiest ground in the promised land, the Temple of The Lord at Jerusalem
originally built by Solomon. ALL the wealth muslims have ever owned they
have stolen from the people who originated that wealth until the coming of
petroleum. And ALL the splendor of Islamic "civilization" has been the enjoyment
by the muslims of all they managed to steal from their rightful owners. They
are, have always been, and ever will be ignorant and blind to true civilization
as long as they are under the unforgiving psychological enslavement of Islam.
Once the petroleum runs out, the Arabs will be swallowed up by their brutal
culture right back into the desert from which they came, for, until the coming
of petroleum there NEVER was a single moment in all of Islamic history when
their "greatness" was not stolen from somebody else... no matter what any
Hollywood movie says. SEE: http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/tejo.html
> In Islam a person is only allowed to attack a soldier and not
> civilians.
Well, you should tell that to the massacred at the twin towers. You
should tell that to the 300,000 Arminiam massacred. You should tell that
to the countless millions and millions of Hindus and others massacred
by the muslims. I'm sure it will make them rest better in their graves,
all those women and children soldiers. http://www.cilicia.com/armo10.html
> Your knowledge of Islam is futile.
My knowledge of Islam is enough. My knowledge of muslims and their crimes
is already too much to bear. I wish the world had never heard of the
bastards. And I am certain I am not the only one who wishes that. And I,
for one, do not need to know the color of my murderer's underwear.
I do know this: if Islam is the ultimate major source of terrorism in today's
world, and it absolutely is (or just take the Islamic terrorists themselves
at their word when they all cite the Koran as their marching orders)... then
it's better that the whole world start looking into the reason why Islam is
the greatest source of evil in the world, instead of pretending its festering
open wound is a lovely blue pool from which "for some inexplicable reason"
pus seems to be oozing from it on a regular basis: For centuries the world
thought disease was caused by magic, and it was not until the world finally
confronted the real cause of disease that the world has finally begun to
control pestilence.
> Leave it to the people who know what Islam is and what its fundamentals are
> rather than quoting without knowledge, background and understanding.
Sorry: No! The struggle against evil belongs to us all, my dear sir.
I tell you this: Not until Islamic "scholars" themselves begin to
confront the evil of Islam will that evil begin to come under
control. And it's for the benefit of muslims themselves that this
ought to be done, for the Islamic world is STILL in the grips of a
savage and brutal dark ages which far surpasses the European Dark
Ages which the West put behind it CENTURIES AGO. The saving grace
of the Christian world has, ever since the European Dark Ages, been
that there are so many Christian sects (preventing any one of them
from brainwashing Europeans with a lot of religious gibberish). And
what the Islamic world is in dire need of is its own Martin Luthers
to demand a frank and open discussion among muslims of those portions
of the Koran which are self-evidently more Satanic than sacred:
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you,
therefore make firm those who believe.
I will cast terror into
the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their
heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
Meaning, pure and simple, and without any apologies: Terrorize non-muslims
to your heart's delight. Make it as gruesome as you care to make it. And
throughout the history of the Islamic conquest... it has been spectacularly
gruesome, as uncounted millions of innocents have been butchered, not by
a handful of renegade fundamentalists, but by the full power of the muslim
states and potentates. And now you might be starting to get an inkling of
the desperation with which the muslim-besieged Christian communities of the
holy land begged help from their European brethren before the coming of the
historical first crusades.
Sahih Muslim
Book 019, Number 4366:
It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger
of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and
Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.
Who among you can really believe that a pious person can trust that
what his "bible" says is true, and yet that he can somehow ignore the
command (above)... without doubting his faith and commitment?! It is
no coincidence that the terrorists involved in the September 11 massacre
are all reported by their family and neighbors as being exceptionally
pious and devoted believers, "quiet and honest" persons who spent their
days in meditation at the local mosques. It's such a universal picture
of them that the FBI could have predicted which muslims would turn the
deadliest terrorists just from seeing which of them proved the most pious
and quiet and devoted, honest and full of Islamic humility aand gentility.
Sahih Muslim
The Book of Faith (Kitab Al-Iman)
Book 001, Number 0033:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the
Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people
till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the
messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they
do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf
except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
The above verse from the Koran explicitly orders that muslims respect
the lives and properties ONLY of muslims (those who "testify," or "Allah's
Witnesses," so to speak). This implies one truly monstrous suggestion...
that the lives and properties of non-muslims are forfeit de facto. And
throughout history muslim conquerors and criminals have reaped untold
treasures from non-muslims, no less than millions and millions of innocent
lives whose sole "crime" was that they lived within reach of muslims and
owned properties worth stealing even at the cost of all their lives.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day,
nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor
follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book,
until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in
a state of subjection.
The Koran does not say, "Jews and Christians are your equal, so respect
and honor them as equal." Instead it explicitly says (above) that they (the
Jews and the Christians) are to be forced to acknowledge the superiority
of Islam and that they (Jews and Christians) are in a state of subjection.
Need anyone say anything more on why it is that the Saudis and others will
only permit near them non-muslims who are willing to give their lives to
save theirs? Need anyone explain why Israel will NEVER have borders which
are secured by international or local treaties?
[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near
to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with
those who guard (against evil).
It is a religious duty for all pious muslims to fight their non-muslim
neighbors. And it is only the secular Islamic tyrants who have suppressed
this religious duty, in Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, and the rest of them (all
the dear friends and allies of George Bush and company). But how long do
you imagine dictators of any sort last? Do you really believe that the
"aspirations" of native populations can be denied for ever? Well, that's
what the West has staked its future on!
[4.74] Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this
world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah,
then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty
reward.
What general would not wish to command men pious enough to believe what
their "bible" tells them (above)... that if they die in the battle (and
what muslim general fights a battle which isn't "in the way of Allah?!")
they shall be rewarded in the afterlife for their count of enemy corpses?!
From the Sunnah of the Prophet (the "other leg" of the Koran):
[9:5] But when the forbidden months are past, then fight
and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them,
beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem
Since time immemorial muslims have been urged by verses like the one
above into merciless acts of terror against non-muslims. And frankly
today's Islamic acts of terror pale in comparison with historical ones
in which literally MILLIONS of non-muslims were slaughtered wholesale
and their lands and properties looted as the reward for the murderers.
Even the bloody Twentieth Century began with the muslim genocide of
the Armenian christians at the hands of the muslim Turks.
Want to know more? SEE: http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/
I know there are those of you out there who will scoff, asserting that
nobody "here" takes the Bible seriously now. That's true. Nobody NOW, in
today's Western secular humanistic world takes the Bible seriously (outside
a few pathetic christian fundamentalists), but back in the European Dark
Ages... who did not take the Bible to be absolutely and literally the
sacred word and holy commands of God? Well, the point IS that the Islamic
world is NOT a secular humanistic one but one which is STILL as deeply mired
in its Dark Ages as the West was centuries ago during its own Dark Ages.
It was nothing back then for Europeans to burn innocent lonely old ladies
as witches, and it's nothing today for even the most "respectable" and
"decent and honest" and "most admired (by the West)" muslims to stone people
to death, to cut off the hands of bicycle thieves, and to carry out every
other sort of unimaginably unspeakable barbarities as the "brightest light
of Islamic civilization" muslims can cite. The fact that the Egyptian and
Turkish dictators do not do this is "proof" in the eyes of their more pious
native populations that they are corrupt puppets of the infidel West.
It is not some secular stubborn gang of diehards that simply refuse
to accept peace with Israel... it is the explicit demands written in
the Koran which demand the removal of non-muslims from the Hebrews's
promised land, as well as explicitly calling for terrorism against
non-muslims: THAT is never going to be "fixed" by ignoring that such
facts are real! These sacred demands are part of the muslim believers'
core of religious duty, and they shall remain there as they have
remained to this day. And what does it matter if a few opportunists
and criminals like the dictators who have seized power in so many
Islamic countries have the ability to keep their states from obeying
the dictums of the Koran? Eventually they will be overthrown by pious
muslims who, like Khomenei in Iran will immediately order their states
into massive religious wars... as they are explicitly commanded to do
in the Koran (which see) be they cold or hot wars. And the West is
being foolish to the core in arming the armies of these secular tyrants
(in the vain hope perhaps that they can prevent their own native Islamic
populations from establishing Islamic republics maybe), ultimately only
to see such Islamic republics use those very same West-supplied weapons
turned against them, or simply against innocent populations whose sole
"crime" is that they happen to be the muslims' closest neighbors.
That, the West's self-defeating attitude in dealing with muslim states
and muslim populations, no less than their chevalier attitude with regard
to its (the West's) dependence on Gulf petroleum... has mitigated the
muslim world's inability to compete in the modern world. For the muslim
world can never escape its Dark Ages on its own: Modernity is the direct
result of the free flow of information, and Islam depends for its survival
on maintaining muslim populations ignorant of just how bad they have it.
This absolute incompatibility between modernity and Islam will (the minute
the oil runs out) throw the Arabs back into the REAL dark ages again (it
shall be, for muslims, like waking from a glimpse of Paradise, and finding
themselves once again in Hell): And the only thing the West really has
anything to worry about is the possibility that nuclear technology has not
been sold to muslims with dark ages mentalities and frames of mind. Ooops,
too late: Pakistan, remember? And, perhaps Iran as well... who knows?
Ooops... we will, sooner or later, here or there.
> as if some book or words can pull
> triggers and get into those cycles of violence you seem to desire.
What actions started not as words and plans of action?!?!
> You say: "Evil has never gone away on its own. Unconfronted, Islam will
> continue to spew terrorism and genocide into a world unwilling and/or
> unable to face up to Islam's insidious and unrepentant evil"
> Face it-'confronting Islam' does not equal bringing those guilty of crimes
> to justice, but actually plays to the hand of crafty martyr-types.
> duh!
Dear duh, ignoring the truth, poo-pooing the facts, sticking our heads
in the sand in the hope that the whole world blows away... what has that
ever solved?!
That is the worst part of fads like political correctness: When we decline
to confront the things we really have no choice but to confront because
even merely talking about the subject might embarrass or insult someone.
Well, I tell you this about that: You either tell the cops there's a stranger
at your party with a gun in his pocket, or you trust he doesn't shoot your
guests and your family. And you are either one of those persons who would
rather die than embarrass anyone (whether at your party or elsewhere), or
you are dead, and, in the end, the real reason your whole family was murdered.
Good luck. And here's a little quote from somebody who knows a lot more than
you or I about Islamic history (the rest of the post is from Will Durant)...
VI THE MOSLEM CONQUEST
The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in
history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that
civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and
liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians
invading from without or multiplying within. The Hindus had allowed
their strength to be wasted in internal division and war; they had
adopted religions like Buddhism and Jainism, which unnerved them for the
tasks of life; they had failed to organize their forces for the
protection of their frontiers and their capitals, their wealth and their
freedom, from the hordes of Scythians, Huns, Afghans and Turks hovering
about India's boundaries and waiting for national weakness to let them
in. For four hundred years (6oo-1ooo A.D.) India invited conquest; and
at last it came. The first Moslem attack was a passing raid upon Multan,
in the western Punjab (664 A.D.) Similar raids occurred at the convenience
of the invaders during the next three centuries, with the result that the
Moslems established themselves in the Indus valley about the same time
that their Arab co-religionists in the West were fighting the battle of
Tours (732 A.D.) for the mastery of Europe. But the real Moslem conquest
of India did not come till the turn of the first millennium after Christ.
In the year 997 a Turkish chieftain by the name of Mahmud became sultan
of the little state of Ghazni, in eastern Afghanistan. Mahmud knew that
his throne was young and poor, and saw that India, across the border,
was old and rich; the conclusion was obvious. Pretending a holy zeal for
destroying Hindu idolatry, he swept across the frontier with a force
in-spired by a pious aspiration for booty. He met the unprepared Hindus
at Bhimnagar, slaughtered them, pillaged their cities, destroyed their
tem-ples, and carried away the accumulated treasures of centuries.
Returning to Ghazni he astonished the ambassadors of foreign powers by
displaying "jewels and unbored pearls and rubles shining like sparks, or
like wine congealed with ice, and emeralds like fresh sprigs of myrtle,
and diamonds in size and weight like pomegranates."" Each winter Mahmud
descended into India, filled his treasure chest with spoils, and amused
his men with full freedom to pillage and kill; each spring he returned
to his capital richer than before. At Mathura (on the Jumna) he took
from the temple its statues of gold encrusted with precious stones, and
emptied its coffers of a vast quantity of gold, silver and jewelry; he
expressed his admirationfor the architecture of the great shrine, judged
that its duplication would cost one hundred million dinars and the labor
of two hundred years, and then ordered it to be soaked with naphtha and
burnt to the ground." Six years later he sacked another opulent city of
northern India, Somnath, killed all its fifty thousand inhabitants, and
dragged its wealth to Ghazni. In the end he became, perhaps, the richest
king that history has ever known. Sometimes he spared the population of
the ravaged cities, and took them home to be sold as slaves; but so
great was the number of such captives that after some years no one could
be found to offer more than a few shillings for a slave. Before every
important engagement Mahmud knelt in prayer, and asked the blessing of
God upon his arms. He reigned for a third of a century; and when he died,
full of years and honors, Moslem historians ranked him as the greatest
monarch of his time, and one of the greatest sovereigns of any age."
Seeing the canonization that success had brought to this magnificent
thief, other Moslem rulers profited by his example, though none
succeeded in bettering his instruction. In 1186 the Ghuri, a Turkish
tribe of Afghanistan, invaded India, captured the city of Delhi,
destroyed its temples, confiscated its wealth, and settled down in its
palaces to establish the Sultanate of Delhi-an alien despotism fastened
upon northern India for three centuries, and checked only by
assassination and revolt. The first of these bloody sultans, Kutb-d Din
Aibak, was a normal specimen of his kind-fanatical, ferocious and
merciless. His gifts, as the Mohammedan historian tells us, "were
bestowed by hundreds of thousands, and his slaughters likewise were by
hundreds of thousands." In one victory of this warrior (who had been
purchased as a slave), "fifty thousand men came under the collar of
slavery, and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus."" Another
sultan, Balban,. punished rebels and brigands by casting them under the
feet of elephants, or removing their skins, stuffing these with straw,
and hanging them from the gates of Delhi. When some Mongol inhabitants
who had settled in Delhi, and had been converted to Islam, attempted a
rising, Sultan Alau-d-din (the conquerer of Chitor) had all the
males-from fifteen to thirty thousand of them-slaughtered in one day.
Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlak acquired the throne by murdering his father,
became a great scholar and an elegant writer, dabbled in mathematics,
physics and Greek philosophy, surpassed his predecessors in bloodshed
and brutality, fed the flesh of a rebel nephew to the rebel's wife and
children, ruined the country with reckless inflation, and laid it waste
with pillage and murder till the inhabitants fled to the jungle. He
killed so many Hindus that, in the words of a Moslem historian, "there
was constantly in front of his royal pavilion and his Civil Court a
mound of dead bodies and a heap of corpses, while the sweepers and
executioners were wearied out by their work of dragging" the victims
"and putting them to death in crowds."" In order to found a new capital
at Daulatabad he drove every inhabitant from Delhi and left it a desert;
and hearing that a blind man had stayed behind in Delhi, he ordered him
to be dragged from the old to the new capital, so that only a leg
remained of the wretch when his last journey was finished.' The Sultan
complained that the people did not love him, or recognize his
undeviating Justice. He ruled India for a quarter of a century, and
died in bed. His successor, Firoz Shah, invaded Bengal, offered a
reward for every Hindu head, paid for 180,000 of them, raided Hindu
villages for slaves, and died at the ripe age of eighty. Sultan Ahmad
Shah feasted for three days whenever the number of defenseless Hindus
slain in his territories in one day reached twenty thousand.
These rulers were often men of ability, and their followers were gifted
with fierce courage and industry; only so can we understand how they
could have maintained their rule among a hostile people so
overwhelmingly outnumbering them. All of them were armed with a religion
militaristic in operation, but far superior in its stoical monotheism to
any of the popular cults of India; they concealed its attractiveness by
making the public exercise of the Hindu religions illegal, and thereby
driving them more deeply into the Hindu soul. Some of these thirsty
despots had culture as well as ability; they patronized the arts, and
engaged artists and artisans-usually of Hindu origin-to build for them
magnificent mosques and tombs; some of them were scholars, and delighted
'in converse with historians, poets and scientists. One of the greatest
scholars of Asia, Alberuni, accompanied Mahmud of Ghazni to India, and
wrote a scientific survey of India comparable to Pliny's Natural History
and Humboldt's Cosmos. The Moslem historians were almost as numerous as
the generals, and yielded nothing to them in the enjoyment of bloodshed
and war. The Sultans drew from the people every rupee of tribute that
could be exacted by the ancient art of taxation, as well as by
straightforward robbery; but they stayed in India, spent their spoils in
India, and thereby turned them back into India's economic life.
Nevertheless, their terrorism and exploitation advanced that weakening
of Hindu physique and morale which had been begun by an exhausting
climate, an inadequate diet, political disunity, and pessimistic
religions. The usual policy of the Sultans was clearly sketched by
Alau-d-din, who required his advisers to draw up "rules and regulations
for grinding down the Hindus, and for depriving them of that wealth and
property which fosters disaffection and rebellion."' Half of the gross
produce of the soil was collected by the government; native rulers had
taken one sixth. "No Hindu," says a Moslem historian, "could hold up his
head, and in their houses no sign of gold or silver . . . or of any
superfluity was to be seen.... Blows, confinement in the stocks,
imprisonment and chains, were all employed to enforce payment." When
one of his own advisers protested against this policy, Alau-d-din
answered: "Oh, Doctor, thou art a learned man, but thou hast no
experience; I am an unlettered man, but I have a great deal. Be assured,
then, that the Hindus will never become submissive and obedient till
they are reduced to poverty. I have therefore given orders that just
sufficient shall be left to them from year to year of corn, milk and
curds, but that they shall not be allowed to accumulate hoards and
property."' This is the secret of the political history of modern India.
Weakened by division, it succumbed to invaders; impoverished by invaders,
it lost all power of resistance, and took refuge in supernatural
consolations; it argued that both mastery and slavery were superficial
delusions, and concluded that freedom of the body or the nation was
hardly worth defending in so brief a life. The bitter lesson that may
be drawn from this tragedy is that eternal vigilance is the price of
civilization. A nation must love peace, but keep its powder dry.
VII AKBAR THE GREAT It is in the nature of governments to degenerate;
for power, as Shelley said, poisons every hand that touches it.' The
excesses of the Delhi Sultans lost them the support not only of the
Hindu population, but of their Moslem followers. When fresh invasions
came from the north these Sultans were defeated with the same ease
with which they themselves had won India.
Their first conqueror was Tamerlane himself-more properly Timur-i- Turk
who had accepted Islam as an admirable weapon, and had given himself a
pedigree going back to Genghis Khan, in order to win the support of his
Mongol horde. Having attained the throne of Samarkand and feeling the
need of more gold, it dawned upon him that India was still full of
infidels. His generals, mindful of Moslem courage, demurred, pointing
out that the infidels who could be reached from Samarkand were already
under Mohammedan rule. Mullahs learned in the Koran decided the matter
by quoting an inspiring verse: "Oh Prophet, make war upon infidels and
unbelievers, and treat them with severity."' Thereupon Ti
moj
"Kord Burphardt" <kri...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:5785c0f4.01100...@posting.google.com...
> as...@microsith.com (sifu) wrote:
> > Is that why the Jews enoyed the hositality of the Islamic states in
> > Spain for 800 years and also in Jerusalem. You have quoted many ayats.
> > However YOU are NOT a scholar of Islam. You have not read the letter
> > signed by Hadrat Umar Ibn al Kathab, the second Caliph of Islam who,
> > based on the teachings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad sallah alaiwassalam,
> > let ALL people go about their faith and business as usual.
>
> Nor have I read Caliph el Loko's call for muslims to embrace love and
> compassion for all non-muslims. But I'm sure it exists--So what? In what
> way does it help the victim of a murder that the whole world love him but
> one?!?! It's futile for me to point out to you, sir, that it is not the
> Koran's calls for love and peace that have butchered nearly 60 million
> human beings in the course of the Islamic genocide against non-muslims
> (which is going on to this day, as there are tribes in Kashmere which are
> on the brink of extinction at the hands of the muslims)... it is the
> Koran's calls for terrorism and genocide that have moved the pious to
> those inhuman actions.
The Bible has been used equally by Christians to kill. I guess the lesson
we should take from this is not that a religion is evil, but the
over-zealous misreaders of religions which are the true problems.
> The Koran may be mere words, sir. But what cannot be AND OUGHT NEVER be
> ignored is the fact that no muslim will condemn even the most egregiously
> barbaric and savage portions of the Koran! (Some of which you can read
> for yourself at the end of this post.) Will you? No you will not. You
> will instead cite those utterly irrelevant calls for love and the
brotherhood
> of men which have never caused anybody any trouble in the whole sorry
> history of Islam's existence. The true terror of Islam is indeed in the
> terror of even the most decent-minded muslim to stand up for decency. That
> says all there is to say about the nature of Islam, sir. And no one need
be
> any sort of scholar to understand that gut-real truth.
And no Jew or Christian will condemn the Bible (or the Torah, in the case of
Jews). It is not the followers of a religion which should be put in a
position of condemning their beliefs. This is the very nature of
intolerance to suggest they should. As you said, a book is just a book, it
takes practicioners to misuse the word. And Islam is not alone in having
its holy words misused.
> > While Europe was living in the Dark Ages in mud
> > huts Cordoba, the Capital of Muslim Spain the citizens were living in
> > a city with street lighting, sewage systems, and warm water. The first
> > university in Europe was made by Muslims in Andalucia.
>
> No doubt, no doubt it must have been Paradise on earth... living under
> the muslims in Spain.
Compared to living under the Spaniards, it sure was.
>So all the more perplexing that the Spaniards
> themselves invested 500 brutal bloody years of revolution and war to rit
> themselves of their muslim benefactors, eh?!
All in the name of Christ and with the blessing of the Pope, who issued the
edict specifically allowing the Inquisition (which was used not only to
evict the Muslims in a most Christian act of charity, but also to murder
Jews, and later, Protestants). For a good reference, check
http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/64.htm.
>Me, I don't even put up an
> argument if my pizza is delivered cold and gummy.
You don't even ask for the $3 off if it is more than 30 minutes late?
> > People who
> > wanted to learn about science had to know Arabic because the Muslims
> > were the most highly educated. They made great advances in science, in
> > medicine, in astrology, physics, maths, recovered and translated the
> > knowledge of the Romans and Greeks which had been destroyed by the
> > Europeans.
>
> What a croc, sir! That is one of the most gigantic "big lies" of history:
> For your edification ALL that so-called "Islamic" science is Greek
science.
> The fall of the Roman Empire and the overrun of Europe by barbarians broke
> the thread of history there, and the muslims' only (real) contribution is
> that somehow they managed to avoid using what remained of ancient greek
> civilization as firewood. Check your history again and you will discover
> that there was no significant advance in science since the fall of the
Roman
> empire and the renaissance (even almost unto the rise of the British one
> and the subsequent beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, yesterday).
Wrong wrong wrong. Starting with the fact it was never called "Islamic"
science that I am aware of, but Arabic science, this whole part of your rant
is absolutely ignorant. First of all, most of the early Arabic science was
based on Hindu mathematics, not Greek. This is because the Qu'ran has very
specific mathematical requirements for handling estates, which was
cumbersome if not impossible using Greek and Roman math. If there had never
been Arabic math (the words "numeral" and "algebra" should give you an idea
how basic the contribution to modern math made by Arabs actually was), there
probably would be no Western science as we know it.
Here are some things the Greeks never had: the zero, algebra, non-euclidian
geometry, trigonometry, optics, the pendulum, the watch, and the mariners'
compass. Without these, cross-ocean navigation would not have been possible
except by accident, and the New World probably would have never been
settled. But perhaps you don't consider these significant.
> What muslim "scholars" added (mostly in practical medicine, because of
> their lack of scruples about cutting up people, living or dead) can be
> summed up in the same manner one sums up their great Islamic achievements
> in architecture: They copied, sir, they copied.
Actually, the Renaissance was mostly about copying, especially of
mathematics and art (from the Arabs and Greeks/Romans respectively).
>The Arab muslims were utterly
> illiterate barbarians just out of the desert, and their only original
> achievement is the camel.
Considering the chief art form of the Arabs was caligraphy, it seems a
purely racist comment you make above.
>Throughout the Islamic conquest, what the Islamic
> barbarians did not destroy (the same way they recently destroyed the great
> Buddahs in Afghanistan), they shamelessly converted into Islamic mosque
(like
> the Hagia Sophia Church in Constantinople, now a mosque) after which you
saw
> the sprouting of "similar" mosques elsewhere.
This is not something to be lauded. But, in general, new Mosques were built
so that they would be ritually clean. It is rare in most cultures to take a
building of worship from one religion and convert it. I won't deny that it
happened to the Hagia Sophia, but that was the exception, not the rule.
>Even the great Taj Mahal in India
> is really an ancient Hindu temple to Shiva which the muslims have
desecrated
> just as they desecrated every Christian Church they got hold of, and even
the
> holiest ground in the promised land, the Temple of The Lord at Jerusalem
> originally built by Solomon.
The Taj Mahal was never a Hindu temple. It was built by the Shah Jahan as a
memorial to his wife, Mumtaz Mahal. It was Muslim to begin with. As for
the Temple Mount, Islam reveres Solomon as much as Judaism does, but the
reason the mosque in Jerusalem is sited where it is is because they believe
the rock in that location is the foundation rock for the creation of the
World. In other words, they held the power, they viewd that spot as being a
holy place, they built a the Dome of the Rock. If Christians were the
rulers of Israel today, they would probably be building a Cathedral there.
And many Jews want to build the new Temple there. This will be a source of
contention no matter what is there.
>ALL the wealth muslims have ever owned they
> have stolen from the people who originated that wealth until the coming of
> petroleum. And ALL the splendor of Islamic "civilization" has been the
enjoyment
> by the muslims of all they managed to steal from their rightful owners.
I guess developing the Silk Road and other trading routes never created a
dime of wealth for them.
>They
> are, have always been, and ever will be ignorant and blind to true
civilization
> as long as they are under the unforgiving psychological enslavement of
Islam.
> Once the petroleum runs out, the Arabs will be swallowed up by their
brutal
> culture right back into the desert from which they came, for, until the
coming
> of petroleum there NEVER was a single moment in all of Islamic history
when > their "greatness" was not stolen from somebody else... no matter what
any
> Hollywood movie says. SEE:
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/tejo.html
You really are a bigot, aren't you? I suggest you use a source that doesn't
have as it's primary statement "Realization of the "Self" is possible only
when someone is free to think on his/her own and act accordingly. The most
heinous and barbaric crime in this world would be to stop an individual to
think freely. And when such a crime is legalised in the form of a religion,
one can easily imagine how disastrous it can be. Islam is such a religion.
Islam imposes a threat to the whole world which is far worse than
deforestation, nuclear destruction or AIDS. It is an insidious, devilish
disease creeping into the veins of the world. Every individual must realise
the destructive and evil nature of this religion, for it eats away at the
very foundation of humanity which is an individual's ability to think
individually and act accordingly. The following articles logically analyse
different aspects of this so called religion and bring forth the true nature
of Islam. " (from the main page of the above cited source). This is hardly
an unbiased source that one should use to prove points. Especially since I
can site contrary sources from Harvard and other professors that actually
have peer-reviewed credentials, instad of being a Vedic Astrologer. Funny
in all the affiliations listed on his website there is nothing which
mentions a single academic credential, nor does his page list a single valid
citation, which could prove his--and your--obviously bigoted point of view.
> > In Islam a person is only allowed to attack a soldier and not
> > civilians.
>
> Well, you should tell that to the massacred at the twin towers. You
> should tell that to the 300,000 Arminiam massacred. You should tell that
> to the countless millions and millions of Hindus and others massacred
> by the muslims. I'm sure it will make them rest better in their graves,
> all those women and children soldiers. http://www.cilicia.com/armo10.html
You don't blame the religion for the mistakes of the few believers who
misinterpret the writings and twist them to their own uses. If this were
the case, Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Christianity, and Islam would all be
equally invalid. In fact, at least one Indian source blames Christianity
and Islam equally for the deaths of Hindus:
http://www.hinduweb.org/home/general_sites/essays/hinduknife.html. The
facts on the Hindu Holocaust are probably exaggerated, if it happened at
all, as there are political considerations at play to over play any
historical wrongs, given the mutual hatred of India and Pakistan/Bangladesh.
I should point out that in checking about 30 sources on the net, only the
only you highlighted suggests the massacre yours suggests (but I suppose in
your mind they could all be lying, since they are all establishment
scholars), but I should point out that your site does claim hundreds of
millions of deaths. If this were actually the case, then there would be no
Indians left at all. But I guess you aren't one to let facts get in the way
of your ignorance.
> > Your knowledge of Islam is futile.
>
> My knowledge of Islam is enough. My knowledge of muslims and their crimes
> is already too much to bear. I wish the world had never heard of the
> bastards. And I am certain I am not the only one who wishes that. And I,
> for one, do not need to know the color of my murderer's underwear.
I wonder if your underwear is red, because you remind me of the ignorant
bigotry of the old cult of the red-pajama wearing Bagwah Shri Rajneesh.
> I do know this: if Islam is the ultimate major source of terrorism in
today's
> world, and it absolutely is (or just take the Islamic terrorists
themselves
> at their word when they all cite the Koran as their marching orders).
A less bigoted source would say that extreme Muslim fundamentalists are the
ultimate major source of terrorism in today's world, and an even more
objective source would say that extreme Muslim Fundamentalists are probably
the major source of international terrorism, along with the IRA and the ETA.
>then
> it's better that the whole world start looking into the reason why Islam
is
> the greatest source of evil in the world, instead of pretending its
festering
> open wound is a lovely blue pool from which "for some inexplicable reason"
> pus seems to be oozing from it on a regular basis: For centuries the world
> thought disease was caused by magic, and it was not until the world
finally
> confronted the real cause of disease that the world has finally begun to
> control pestilence.
I thought that the ultimate source of evil, based on your above description,
was Germany, but I guess I'm wrong. But, in all seriousness, religion in
general is probably a better target for your hatred, since Christianity is
probably guilty of as many, and probably more, deaths of non-believers than
Islam.
> > Leave it to the people who know what Islam is and what its fundamentals
are
> > rather than quoting without knowledge, background and understanding.
>
> Sorry: No! The struggle against evil belongs to us all, my dear sir.
> I tell you this: Not until Islamic "scholars" themselves begin to
> confront the evil of Islam will that evil begin to come under
> control.
Given that the Taliban stands alone against the world at the moment, I would
say that Islamic scholars aren't really happy with the evil, and all have
pledged support to the US. When Iran condemns at attack on the US, you know
that Islam is not supporting the work of bin Laden and his ilk.
>And it's for the benefit of muslims themselves that this
> ought to be done, for the Islamic world is STILL in the grips of a
> savage and brutal dark ages which far surpasses the European Dark
> Ages which the West put behind it CENTURIES AGO. The saving grace
> of the Christian world has, ever since the European Dark Ages, been
> that there are so many Christian sects (preventing any one of them
> from brainwashing Europeans with a lot of religious gibberish). And
> what the Islamic world is in dire need of is its own Martin Luthers
> to demand a frank and open discussion among muslims of those portions
> of the Koran which are self-evidently more Satanic than sacred:
There have been several "Martin Luther" types in the history of Islam.
Islam is not a monolithic religion like, say, the Catholic Church is.
Sunni, Shia, and Sufism are the three largest sects that I am aware of, and
they did not spring out of nowhere.
> [8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you,
> therefore make firm those who believe.
>
> I will cast terror into
> the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their
> heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
>
> Meaning, pure and simple, and without any apologies: Terrorize non-muslims
> to your heart's delight. Make it as gruesome as you care to make it. And
> throughout the history of the Islamic conquest... it has been
spectacularly
> gruesome, as uncounted millions of innocents have been butchered, not by
> a handful of renegade fundamentalists, but by the full power of the muslim
> states and potentates. And now you might be starting to get an inkling of
> the desperation with which the muslim-besieged Christian communities of
the
> holy land begged help from their European brethren before the coming of
the
> historical first crusades.
This is just silly. If I bothered, I could probably pull a Biblical
reference out of mid air and have it be equally evil, and then misconstrue
it to justify my murdering of a non-believer. Your use of Islam this way is
as misguided as fundamentalists using it to Justify the WTC, an action which
is almost universally condemned by Muslim leaders in the US and elsewhere.
> Sahih Muslim
> Book 019, Number 4366:
> It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger
> of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and
> Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.
Why not give the historical context of this comment? Could it be as they
were entering a final battle in the war to take Arabia, and were reporting a
fait accompli? Do you know?
> Who among you can really believe that a pious person can trust that
> what his "bible" says is true, and yet that he can somehow ignore the
> command (above)... without doubting his faith and commitment?! It is
> no coincidence that the terrorists involved in the September 11 massacre
> are all reported by their family and neighbors as being exceptionally
> pious and devoted believers, "quiet and honest" persons who spent their
> days in meditation at the local mosques. It's such a universal picture
> of them that the FBI could have predicted which muslims would turn the
> deadliest terrorists just from seeing which of them proved the most pious
> and quiet and devoted, honest and full of Islamic humility aand gentility.
As are Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, I suppose, who blamed the attack not
on the attackers, but on the secularization of the US. Once again, this is
just silly. David Koresh was described as equally honest and devoted until
he proclaimed himself the Messiah. The lunatic fringe should not be used to
justify your bigotry, just as a non-Christian shouldn't take the words of
hatred spoken by Robertson and Fallwell as representative of all Christian
thought and action, and Meir Kahane is not the be-all, end-all of Jewish
thought and action.
> Sahih Muslim
> The Book of Faith (Kitab Al-Iman)
> Book 001, Number 0033:
> It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the
> Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people
> till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the
> messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they
> do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf
> except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
>
> The above verse from the Koran explicitly orders that muslims respect
> the lives and properties ONLY of muslims (those who "testify," or "Allah's
> Witnesses," so to speak). This implies one truly monstrous suggestion...
> that the lives and properties of non-muslims are forfeit de facto. And
> throughout history muslim conquerors and criminals have reaped untold
> treasures from non-muslims, no less than millions and millions of innocent
> lives whose sole "crime" was that they lived within reach of muslims and
> owned properties worth stealing even at the cost of all their lives.
First of all, that isn't from the Qu'ran. Muslims would be quite offended
(not that you care) that you don't know that tradition states the Qu'ran is
the dictation from God through Gabriel to Muhammed, not the writing of
another person relating anything. Second, you neglect the context. Third,
what is described above is probably accurate, as it was practiced very well
by the Spanish Inquisition. In fact, Christians used very similar language
to justify slavery in the United States, and colonialism in Europe.
> [9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day,
> nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor
> follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book,
> until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in
> a state of subjection.
>
> The Koran does not say, "Jews and Christians are your equal, so respect
> and honor them as equal." Instead it explicitly says (above) that they
(the
> Jews and the Christians) are to be forced to acknowledge the superiority
> of Islam and that they (Jews and Christians) are in a state of subjection.
> Need anyone say anything more on why it is that the Saudis and others will
> only permit near them non-muslims who are willing to give their lives to
> save theirs? Need anyone explain why Israel will NEVER have borders which
> are secured by international or local treaties?
I am going to stop commenting on these. It is obvious that you are viewing
the world through your own biases, as you provide no context for these
quotes.
As I mentioned above, this is probably the single most biased source I have
ever seen in my life. It seems to me roughly as biased as Pravda was in the
old USSR.
> I know there are those of you out there who will scoff, asserting that
> nobody "here" takes the Bible seriously now. That's true. Nobody NOW, in
> today's Western secular humanistic world takes the Bible seriously
(outside
> a few pathetic christian fundamentalists), but back in the European Dark
> Ages... who did not take the Bible to be absolutely and literally the
> sacred word and holy commands of God? Well, the point IS that the Islamic
> world is NOT a secular humanistic one but one which is STILL as deeply
mired
> in its Dark Ages as the West was centuries ago during its own Dark Ages.
> It was nothing back then for Europeans to burn innocent lonely old ladies
> as witches, and it's nothing today for even the most "respectable" and
> "decent and honest" and "most admired (by the West)" muslims to stone
people
> to death, to cut off the hands of bicycle thieves, and to carry out every
> other sort of unimaginably unspeakable barbarities as the "brightest light
> of Islamic civilization" muslims can cite. The fact that the Egyptian and
> Turkish dictators do not do this is "proof" in the eyes of their more
pious
> native populations that they are corrupt puppets of the infidel West.
Draw a diagram of your logic, and see where it leads you.
Not only a bigot, but a xenophobic bigot. Do you have a persecution
complex, too? Or is it that in your bigotry you believe only Christians can
handle themselves.
> > as if some book or words can pull
> > triggers and get into those cycles of violence you seem to desire.
>
> What actions started not as words and plans of action?!?!
There have been a lot of ideas that caused action, true. However, there
have also been words that have prevented action, and words that have gone
nowhere. To paraphrase the NRA, words don't kill people--people kill
people. That is why we have the First Amendment in this country.
> > You say: "Evil has never gone away on its own. Unconfronted, Islam will
> > continue to spew terrorism and genocide into a world unwilling and/or
> > unable to face up to Islam's insidious and unrepentant evil"
> > Face it-'confronting Islam' does not equal bringing those guilty of
crimes
> > to justice, but actually plays to the hand of crafty martyr-types.
> > duh!
>
> Dear duh, ignoring the truth, poo-pooing the facts, sticking our heads
> in the sand in the hope that the whole world blows away... what has that
> ever solved?!
I can't believe I agree with you on something. Let's see how long it takes
for you to mess it up.
> That is the worst part of fads like political correctness: When we decline
> to confront the things we really have no choice but to confront because
> even merely talking about the subject might embarrass or insult someone.
>
> Well, I tell you this about that: You either tell the cops there's a
stranger
> at your party with a gun in his pocket, or you trust he doesn't shoot your
> guests and your family. And you are either one of those persons who would
> rather die than embarrass anyone (whether at your party or elsewhere), or
> you are dead, and, in the end, the real reason your whole family was
murdered.
Two paragraphs and you lost me entirely. There is a third possibility--that
the person carrying the gun actually only had a toy gun. And a fourth--that
the host never embarrasses anyone and doesn't get shot. And a fifth....
You get the idea.
> Good luck. And here's a little quote from somebody who knows a lot more
than
> you or I about Islamic history (the rest of the post is from Will
Durant)...
To claim that Will Durant is an ultimate authority is shaky at best. He
covered far too much history and too many countries to be a specialist in
any one of them. To quote one reviewer of Durant: "Will and Ariel Durant
tell a story -- one whopping big story, from the beginnings of civilization
up to the 19th century. This is not academic history, it is entertainment
and information for the millions."
http://www.samizdat.com/isyn/durant.html. You always learn more about
history by reading the reviewers of works of history than the histories
themselves. Historiography is the primary art of the historian these days
for that very reason. And he is not without bias. To quote from the above
on a Durant quote on Calvin: "... we shall always find it hard to love the
man who darkened the human soul with the most absurd and blasphemous
conception of God in all the long and honored history of nonsense." Not
exactly the person I would want to take as Gospel truth on Calvinism, among
other things.
Blatently biased historical account follows:
You will notice the key line in this tripe that wouldn't stand the test of
an undergraduate's thesis these days: "The excesses of the Delhi Sultans
lost them the support not only of the Hindu population, but of their Moslem
followers." Even if you want to take Durant as gospel (I wouldn't do that,
but you are free to take anything you want as gospel, I suppose), then by
your very gospel's truth it was rulers, not Islam, that was the culprit. I
think that proves the point of your bias most eloquently.
Q.E.D.
Ismael
> > No, sir: The Inquisition was only allowed to execute Christians.
> > That's what I love about christians, sir: Their respect for
> > other people's lives.
>
> And I suppose the Holocaust was only allowed to execute Aryans. Christians
> have shown arguably the least respect for people's lives of all the major
> religions. In the least Christians are the full equal to Islam in this
> regard. Your denial is quite amazing on this matter.
It is not "his" denial, actually, it is what any profesional historian
would say. For example, a Jewish one like Benzion Netanyahu (and,
perhaps the most important expert of the world in this issue) says:
"When Ferdinand the Catholic, a superb statesman, decides to create
the Holy Office, he makes it to appease the vindictive spirits of the
people, to channel and to limit the indiscriminate persecution against
the conversos, who were, we shouldn't forget it, Christians of second
or third generation. During years, the tradition has maintained that
the punished conversos were crypto-jews, who maintained their religion
in secret. Nothing more false. They were not martyrs of the Judaism,
neither Inquisition was not anything else that a monster, create to
eliminate New Christians, but real Christians. Conversos were hated
because they were foreigners, because they were related with monarchy,
because they collected taxes, had progressed, were becoming related
with the privileged class"
(any mistake here comes from my translation to English)
> I guess you will deny
> the millions of deaths caused by colonialism and forced conversions in other
> parts of the globe, too. But, since our specific topic is the Spanish
> Inquisition at the moment, here is a good link for you to let a little light
> into your black, misguided soul:
>
> http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/64.htm
>
> As you see, the Inquisition was only targeted at non-Christians
> (non-Catholics specifically),
Actually, what I see is, for example, "the Spanish Inquisition was
founded to purify the nation from heretics", and, to be heretic, you
must be Christian, first :-)
Ismael
Ismael
> > Is that why the Jews enoyed the hositality of the Islamic states in
> > Spain for 800 years
Jews were expelled from Muslim Spain (Almoravids) in 11th century.
Ismael
moj
the burning alive of Jews who were guilty of the heretical crime of not
renouncing their faith.
If you are a religious state, any competing ideology is heretical to the
state, if not the Church per se.
"Ismael" <is...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:731a660a.01100...@posting.google.com...
moj
expulsion by the Spanish in 1495, listing the victims numbers between
250,000 and 800,000. Because the Jews were already gone.
Besides, the Almoravids were invaders into Moorish Spain, having briefly
conquered all the penninsula from 1086-1147. Perhaps they did expell the
Jews, but it is certain the Jews returned to be expelled again in 1391, 1483
(in Castille), and 1495 by the Spanish.
"Ismael" <is...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:731a660a.01100...@posting.google.com...
Ismael
> That is a very generous reading of it, considering it goes on to talk
about
> the burning alive of Jews who were guilty of the heretical crime of not
> renouncing their faith.
Which was not the case, I guess. Before 1492, Jews could be, for example,
lynched by a mob (as you can read at the beginning of the text you mention),
but there were out of the jurisdiction of Inquisition, who, as the own text
says, was intended to prosecute heretics, and, then, had only jurisdiction
over Christians (the definition of heresy being, BTW, "denial of a revealed
truth by a baptized member of the Catholic Church"). After 1492, there were
no Jews (*), no more, because they have been expelled.
(*) Of course, during the first generation, there was still (many) people
converted by force, and later, prosecuted by Inquisition, since they were
already Christians, in theory. But this was the point I was defendign. "The
Inquisition was only allowed to execute Christians"
Ismael
Ismael
> I suppose this is why the Jewish history sourcebook lists documents of
> expulsion by the Spanish in 1495, listing the victims numbers between
> 250,000 and 800,000. Because the Jews were already gone.
Nope, because:
"the Almoravids were invaders into Moorish Spain, having briefly conquered
all the penninsula from 1086-1147. Perhaps they did expell the Jews, but it
is certain the Jews returned to be expelled again in 1391, 1483 (in
Castille), and 1495 by the Spanish"
You have answered your own question :-)
Ismael
moj
many as 800,000 of them were expelled.
You can keep insisting with faulty logic that the Inquisition was only
concerned with Catholics, but you would be absolutely wrong. I can call
myself a Zen Buddhist, and it doesn't make me one if I still celebrate
Passover and Yom Kippur. Your claim that there were no Jews because the
Mulsims had expelled them in the 11th Century is incorrect, as the following
quote shows:
"The Jewish people are often associated with wealth and with being a plague
to the society to which they belong. Fourteenth-century Spain was no
different. In the city of Seville, there was an archdeacon named Martinez
who continually tried to incite the people to purge themselves of the
"dirty" Jewish citizens. After several reproaches by the Spanish Cardinal
and the Pope, Martinez finally succeeded. On Ash Wednesday (March 15,1391),
Martinez incited his congregation to riot. The crowd moved enmasse towards
the Juderia (Jewish quarter). Some of the participants were captured by the
police and flogged or beaten, but that was not enough to stop the mob.
Although they did not succeed that day to destroy the Jews, the feelings
that Martinez had evoked lay simmering until June 6th when the mob sacked
the Juderia of Seville. It is believed that the victims numbered in the
hundreds, if not thousands (C. Roth, The Spanish Inquisition, 1964). After
that episode and a few sporadic others, the Jews thought themselves to be
free of those problems, but this was not to be the case."
Your contention that only Catholics were targeted by the Inquisition is
extremely misleading, as it was well known that the Jews were still Jews,
regardless of whether they professed Catholocism in order to escape
persecution. Just because someone plays a role in a play does not mean that
person has become that character, and the Spanish well knew this. That is
why anyone of Jewish lineage was especially targeted by the Inquisition.
"Ismael" <is...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9pfi0t$ia4bp$1...@ID-80357.news.dfncis.de...
moj
were Jews that could have been subject to the Spanish Inquisition, a fact
you initially denied.
"Ismael" <is...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9pfibf$i9qja$1...@ID-80357.news.dfncis.de...
OIsrael1948
This is true: I read once where a wife killed her husband by
dropping a very thick and heavy one on his head from a window.
> I guess the lesson
> we should take from this is not that a religion is evil, but the
> over-zealous misreaders of religions which are the true problems.
Well, one caveat: If the Jews were going about stoning people I would
condemn them as savage brutes. They are not. But you are: And so you
stand condemned as a savage brute until such time as you stop stoning
people to death... amongst other atrocities. I can wait.
> And no Jew or Christian will condemn the Bible (or the Torah, in the case of
> Jews).
Well, as a Catholic I thoroughly condemn the New Testament as a lot of
hogwash: Raising the dead, and turning water to wine...! Baloney, sir, crap,
merde, it's that icky gunk that flows out of--well, you get the idea.
(My friend Bennie the Jew is also willing to poo-poo the old testament,
and he swears to me he steals the free bibles from motel rooms to use for
toilet paper--and he's even offered to show you his black ass as proof.)
Now it is your turn, sir: You don't even have to condemn the whole Koran
just only those parts that advocate terrorism and genocide of non-muslims.
That shouldn't be too hard for any decent person. I'm not asking you to
use the Koran for toilet paper: You can continue passing on toilet paper.
> It is not the followers of a religion which should be put in a
> position of condemning their beliefs. This is the very nature of
> intolerance to suggest they should.
No, sir. I am not asking you to condemn your religion. I am asking you
to condemn terrorism and genocide even if advocated by the prophet
Mohammed maysatanbe fryinghiseggsnow. You are incapable of condemning
genocide, and that pretty much says it all, unfortunately.
> First of all, most of the early Arabic science was
> based on Hindu mathematics, not Greek.
Sir, it does not matter whom you stole it from: My point is that it
wasn't yours. Arabs have always been by culture thieves and cutthroats.
And since Islam is the production of Arab culture, it shouldn't come
as any surprise it's a religion that promotes and encourages cutting
throats and stealing.
> Here are some things the Greeks never had: the zero, algebra, non-euclidian
> geometry, trigonometry, optics, the pendulum, the watch, and the mariners'
> compass. Without these, cross-ocean navigation would not have been possible
> except by accident, and the New World probably would have never been
> settled. But perhaps you don't consider these significant.
The scientific developments are significant. And perhaps as significant
is your stupid claim that Arabs could have possibly had anything to do
with their invention!
http://www.hindubooks.org/sudheer_birodkar/india_contribution/maths.html
It is easy to put out lies for ignorant persons to swallow whole, but
the above are things the muslims never had until they stole them. Islam
is a culture of thieves, sir. It is as impossible for muslims to be honest
as it is for Jews to be dull, witless and stupid. The Greeks had computational
mechanisms and steam engines--It's pointless to try to explain to you that
ancient Greek civilization was picked up where it left off with the arrival
of the European renaissance and that people of 1800s England would have
felt right at home in ancient Greece. Except for the nudity, of course.
> Actually, the Renaissance was mostly about copying, especially of
> mathematics and art (from the Arabs and Greeks/Romans respectively).
Sir, the renaissance was about being inspired by Greek civilization into
re-starting you own continuation of it. Islam had many centuries to do the
same and wasted every minute of it. Were there marvy Arab mathematicians?
Of course there were. Were there any significant advancements (transformations)
of Islamic "civilization" because of them? None. Zero. The hindu zero, sir.
> >The Arab muslims were utterly
> > illiterate barbarians just out of the desert, and their only original
> > achievement is the camel.
> Considering the chief art form of the Arabs was caligraphy, it seems a
> purely racist comment you make above.
Call it what you like: All Islamic art was shamelessly stolen from India
and passed off as Islamic later on... at the cost of & on pain of death.
> >Throughout the Islamic conquest, what the Islamic
> > barbarians did not destroy (the same way they recently destroyed the great
> > Buddahs in Afghanistan), they shamelessly converted into Islamic mosques
> >(like
> > the Hagia Sophia Church in Constantinople, now a mosque) after which you
> > saw
> > the sprouting of "similar" mosques elsewhere.
>
> This is not something to be lauded.
Sir, there really is no need for hypocrisy: All Islamic historians
revel in thievery as one of the great achievements of Islam. It's
silly of you at this stage to pretend a great Islamic victory like the
desecration of the greatest church in christendom is "not something
to be lauded!"
> It is rare in most cultures to take a
> building of worship from one religion and convert it.
It is rare in most religions. It's the usual practice with Islam,
which has ZERO respect for any other religion. The only religion, other
than Islam, muslims respect is the religion of military strength.
> I won't deny that it
> happened to the Hagia Sophia, but that was the exception, not the rule.
Read on:
> > Even the great Taj Mahal in India
> > is really an ancient Hindu temple to Shiva
>
> The Taj Mahal was never a Hindu temple. It was built by the Shah Jahan as a
> memorial to his wife, Mumtaz Mahal.
It was taken over by your great Shah. All the desecration which turned it
into an Islamic grave are CLEARLY visible to this day! It was one of five
temples dedicated to Shiva: http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/tejo.html
> I guess developing the Silk Road and other trading routes never created a
> dime of wealth for them.
It certainly cost enough innocent peoples' their lives!
> http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/tejo.html
>
> You really are a bigot, aren't you?
Yes I am: I am bigoted against murderers, liars, thieves and other muslims.
> I suggest you use a source that doesn't
> have as it's primary statement "Realization of the "Self" is possible only
> when someone is free to think on his/her own and act accordingly.
Well, I'll take into consideration your proposed alternative: "Realization
of the Self is only possible in abject slavery." Sounds almost Islamic.
> And when such a crime is legalised in the form of a religion,
> one can easily imagine how disastrous it can be.
One needn't strain one's imagination. Just visit ANY Islamic country (and
visit the ones propped up by petroleum now AFTER the oil runs out).
> (from the main page of the above cited source). This is hardly
> an unbiased source that one should use to prove points.
And the police is also very biased against criminals, one hears criminals
complain about this all the time.
> > > In Islam a person is only allowed to attack a soldier and not
> > > civilians.
> >
> > Well, you should tell that to the massacred at the twin towers. You
> > should tell that to the 300,000 Armenian massacred. You should tell that
> > to the countless millions and millions of Hindus and others massacred
> > by the muslims. I'm sure it will make them rest better in their graves,
> > all those women and children soldiers. http://www.cilicia.com/armo10.html
>
> You don't blame the religion for the mistakes of the few believers who
> misinterpret the writings and twist them to their own uses.
No I don't. But even you must admit that the murder of 60 million human
beings must have taken more than a handful of murderers, no? It is the
Islamic historians themselves who have preserved the Koran's use as the direct
justification for the murder of so many millions and the descruction of
so many ancient civilizations... they actually thought it very excelent (just
as reporting Mohammed's maysatanbe fryinghiseggsnow sexual molestation of
a six-year-old little girl wasn't thought much of by the same chronicles
at the time). But it's how much they reveal to us now that truly matters.
> The
> facts on the Hindu Holocaust are probably exaggerated, if it happened at
> all,
No doubt. That's Turkey's line now as well. As well as the line of
everybody else who denies the Jewish Holocaust ever took place at all.
> ... but I should point out that your site does claim hundreds of
> millions of deaths. If this were actually the case, then there would be no
> Indians left at all.
That's a very good point: If the Jewish Holocaust had taken place there
wouldn't be any Jews left at all today, you say?
> > I do know this: if Islam is the ultimate major source of terrorism in
> today's
> > world, and it absolutely is (or just take the Islamic terrorists
> themselves
> > at their word when they all cite the Koran as their marching orders).
>
> A less bigoted source would say that extreme Muslim fundamentalists are the
> ultimate major source of terrorism in today's world, and an even more
> objective source would say that extreme Muslim Fundamentalists are probably
> the major source of international terrorism, along with the IRA and the ETA.
But you would never condemn terrorism and genocide when it is advocated and
called for by Mohammed maysatanbe fryinghiseggsnow in the Koran, of course.
Some people, innocents who are less familiar with the true sinister nature of
Islam, might find your unwillingness or inability to condemn terrorism and
genocide (under ANY circumstances) rather difficult to comprehend. But I know
why you cannot do it. I know why no pious, devoted, sincerely religious
muslim could condemn the terrorism and genocide advocated in the Koran by
Mohammed maysatanbe fryinghiseggsnow in the name of Allah. And it's ugly, baby.
It should forewarn every non-muslim in the world of the real dangers of Islam.
> Christianity is
> probably guilty of as many, and probably more, deaths of non-believers than
> Islam.
There is one vast difference you cannot bridge: Christianity advocates
compassion towards and forgiveness of all peoples whether Christians or not.
The Koran advocates terrorism and genocide against all non-muslims. So when
a Christian hurts anyone he is going against what his religion advocates,
but when muslims practice terrorism and genocide they are faithfully following
the commandments of Mohammed maysatanbe fryinghiseggsnow in the Koran:
> > > Leave it to the people who know what Islam is and what its fundamentals
> > > are rather than quoting without knowledge, background and understanding.
> >
> > Sorry: No! The struggle against evil belongs to us all, my dear sir.
> > I tell you this: Not until Islamic "scholars" themselves begin to
> > confront the evil of Islam will that evil begin to come under control.
>
> Given that the Taliban stands alone against the world at the moment, I would
> say that Islamic scholars aren't really happy with the evil, and all have
> pledged support to the US. When Iran condemns at attack on the US, you know
> that Islam is not supporting the work of bin Laden and his ilk.
The Saudis brought in thousands of Americans to kill Iraqis who were
threatening them. Now they refuse to allow American to come in to kill
the Americans' enemies. That says it all, sir. It's sheer hypocrisy.
The Americans are going to kill muslims which most muslim states would
have loved to have been able to kill themselves. And will the Americans
war against all terrorists? Apparently not. Even though Georgy Bush Junior
swore the US would declare war against states that protected terrorists
America will not attach the Islamic Jihad, Hamas, or any other of their
terrorist organizations that have murdered so many American sailors and
marines AND civilians over the years... because these particular terrorists
are under the protection of the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and other Arab states.
Go figure.
> > [8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you,
> > therefore make firm those who believe.
> >
> > I will cast terror into
> > the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their
> > heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
> >
> > Meaning, pure and simple, and without any apologies: Terrorize non-muslims
> > to your heart's delight. Make it as gruesome as you care to make it. And
> > throughout the history of the Islamic conquest... it has been spectacularly
> > gruesome, as uncounted millions of innocents have been butchered, not by
> > a handful of renegade fundamentalists, but by the full power of the muslim
> > states and potentates. And now you might be starting to get an inkling of
> > the desperation with which the muslim-besieged Christian communities of
> > the holy land begged help from their European brethren before the coming
> > of the historical first crusades.
>
> This is just silly. If I bothered, I could probably pull a Biblical
> reference out of mid air and have it be equally evil, and then misconstrue
> it to justify my murdering of a non-believer.
Please do! I beg you to do it. I need such a quote to throw it in the face
of my local priest, the arrogant bastard! [But keep it to the New Testament:
The Old Testament can be rather un-christian at times, and I have already
pointed out that NO JEWS to my knowledge practice the most barbaric dictums
of the Old Testament as you muslims practice the most barbaric dictums in
the Koran for which I damn you to Hell, sir. And if ever I hear of any Jews
stoning whores to death & such, I shall damn them to Hell without hesitation.]
> Your use of Islam this way is
> as misguided as fundamentalists using it to Justify the WTC, an action which
> is almost universally condemned by Muslim leaders in the US and elsewhere.
Well, after nearly 60 million innocent victims of Islamic terrorism and
genocide... I would tend to fear your practical practices slightly more
than my literary ones. There really is no reason for you to fear me, sir:
This, not Georgy Bush Junior's calls for people to know that Islam is a
religion of love, peace, and the brotherhood of men (tear in the eye, here)
... this is the real dialogue between muslims and christians, after all,
conducted openly and honestly (except, of course, that I wouldn't like to
give you my name because you might murder me).
> > Sahih Muslim
> > Book 019, Number 4366:
> > It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger
> > of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and
> > Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.
>
> Why not give the historical context of this comment? Could it be as they
> were entering a final battle in the war to take Arabia, and were reporting a
> fait accompli? Do you know?
I know this: There appear to be no historical statutes of limitation to
that particular commandment by Mohammed maysatanbe fryinghiseggsnow, since
by law non-muslims must have an expressed special dispensation (of the
fact that they are not muslims) before they can set foot in Saudi Arabia
(muslims need only the usual passports and visas, and "pilgrims" less so).
> As are Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, I suppose, who blamed the attack not
> on the attackers, but on the secularization of the US. Once again, this is
> just silly. David Koresh was described as equally honest and devoted until
> he proclaimed himself the Messiah. The lunatic fringe should not be used to
> justify your bigotry, just as a non-Christian shouldn't take the words of
> hatred spoken by Robertson and Fallwell as representative of all Christian
> thought and action, and Meir Kahane is not the be-all, end-all of Jewish
> thought and action.
Pat and Jerry are self-evident idiots. The difference stands: The American
government would NEVER show ANY support for nuts like Koresh, nor would the
Israeli government for Kahane. But every Arab and muslim state today has
supported and still supports any number of terrorist organizations with
American blood on their hands. The fact that George Bush Junior chooses to
ignore that is explanation enough of why he must be held in ridicule when
he stands up and testifies to the loving, caring nature of the "real" Islam.
> > Sahih Muslim
> > The Book of Faith (Kitab Al-Iman)
> > Book 001, Number 0033:
> > It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the
> > Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people
> > till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the
> > messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they
> > do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf
> > except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
>
> First of all, that isn't from the Qu'ran. Muslims would be quite offended
> (not that you care) that you don't know that tradition states the Qu'ran is
> the dictation from God through Gabriel to Muhammed, not the writing of
> another person relating anything. Second, you neglect the context.
It's there (just paste a quote into your search function):
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/001.smt.html
By the way, if it's not from the Koran: Here's your chance to condemn and
denounce it! Take the opportunity, my boy, take the opportunity!
> Third,
> what is described above is probably accurate, as it was practiced very well
> by the Spanish Inquisition.
Sir, the Spanish Inquisition was established AFTER the expulsion of the Jews
and muslims from Spain. Any "Jews and muslims" that came under its courts did
so because they had first converted to christianity. The inquisition was into
whether christians were faithful or not, and the only non-catholics that fell
under inquisition were protestant christians.
> In fact, Christians used very similar language
> to justify slavery in the United States, and colonialism in Europe.
Slavery in the US was justified by racial supremacy and economic need, but
I am not familiar with any christian-based justification of slavery (and
would find it oddly out of place in a country where everything has to have
a legal, not a religious basis: In the US there is an amazing wisdom called
the separation of state and church, where it is strictly forbidden for any
arm of government to so much as help or assist any religious institution).
> > [9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day,
> > nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor
> > follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book,
> > until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in
> > a state of subjection.
> >
> > The Koran does not say, "Jews and Christians are your equal, so respect
> > and honor them as equal." Instead it explicitly says (above) that they
> > (the
> > Jews and the Christians) are to be forced to acknowledge the superiority
> > of Islam and that they (Jews and Christians) are in a state of subjection.
> > Need anyone say anything more on why it is that the Saudis and others will
> > only permit near them non-muslims who are willing to give their lives to
> > save theirs? Need anyone explain why Israel will NEVER have borders which
> > are secured by international or local treaties?
>
> I am going to stop commenting on these. It is obvious that you are viewing
> the world through your own biases, as you provide no context for these
> quotes.
It does not surprise me you would quit, sir. It is no doubt painful for you
to try to block out the Sun with one hair. And, sir, the context is the Koran.
> > [9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near
> > to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with
> > those who guard (against evil).
> >
> > [4.74] Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this
> > world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah,
> > then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty
> > reward.
> > From the Sunnah of the Prophet (the "other leg" of the Koran):
> > [9:5] But when the forbidden months are past, then fight
> > and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them,
> > beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem
> >
> > Since time immemorial muslims have been urged by verses like the one
> > above into merciless acts of terror against non-muslims.
> > Want to know more? SEE: http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/
>
> As I mentioned above, this is probably the single most biased source I have
> ever seen in my life. It seems to me roughly as biased as Pravda was in the
> old USSR.
It is a Hindu comment on the crimes of Islam. I would be quite surprised
if you, as a muslim, would have found it to be absolutely just and truthful.
> > I know there are those of you out there who will scoff, asserting that
> > nobody "here" takes the Bible seriously now. That's true. Nobody NOW, in
> > today's Western secular humanistic world takes the Bible seriously
> (outside
> > a few pathetic christian fundamentalists), but back in the European Dark
> > Ages... who did not take the Bible to be absolutely and literally the
> > sacred word and holy commands of God? Well, the point IS that the Islamic
> > world is NOT a secular humanistic one but one which is STILL as deeply
> mired
> > in its Dark Ages as the West was centuries ago during its own Dark Ages.
> > It was nothing back then for Europeans to burn innocent lonely old ladies
> > as witches, and it's nothing today for even the most "respectable" and
> > "decent and honest" and "most admired (by the West)" muslims to stone
> people
> > to death, to cut off the hands of bicycle thieves, and to carry out every
> > other sort of unimaginably unspeakable barbarities as the "brightest light
> > of Islamic civilization" muslims can cite. The fact that the Egyptian and
> > Turkish dictators do not do this is "proof" in the eyes of their more
> pious
> > native populations that they are corrupt puppets of the infidel West.
>
> Draw a diagram of your logic, and see where it leads you.
It leads to greater tragedies for the West at the hands of muslims
than dreamt of heretofore, I'm sorry to say. And, I'm sorry tosay, it's
in no small part the consequence of Western leaders' utter ignorance.
> Not only a bigot, but a xenophobic bigot.
That'sa me, all right: I have a great fear of being murdered by murderers.
> Do you have a persecution
> complex, too?
Not yet. Do you know what I live? You do? Well, now I do.
> > > You say: "Evil has never gone away on its own. Unconfronted, Islam will
> > > continue to spew terrorism and genocide into a world unwilling and/or
> > > unable to face up to Islam's insidious and unrepentant evil"
> > > Face it-'confronting Islam' does not equal bringing those guilty of
> > > crimes
> > > to justice, but actually plays to the hand of crafty martyr-types.
> > > duh!
> >
> > Dear duh, ignoring the truth, poo-pooing the facts, sticking our heads
> > in the sand in the hope that the whole world blows away... what has that
> > ever solved?!
>
> I can't believe I agree with you on something. Let's see how long it takes
> for you to mess it up.
>
> > That is the worst part of fads like political correctness: When we decline
> > to confront the things we really have no choice but to confront because
> > even merely talking about the subject might embarrass or insult someone.
> >
> > Well, I tell you this about that: You either tell the cops there's a stranger
> > at your party with a gun in his pocket, or you trust he doesn't shoot your
> > guests and your family. And you are either one of those persons who would
> > rather die than embarrass anyone (whether at your party or elsewhere), or
> > you are dead, and, in the end, the real reason your whole family was
> > murdered.
>
> Two paragraphs and you lost me entirely. There is a third possibility--that
> the person carrying the gun actually only had a toy gun.
In that case the party host will feel embarrassed. And it's that possibility
against the possibility of everybody being murdered. I think it's stupid to fear
being embarrassed so much that you would risk death. But that's just me.
> And a fourth--that
> the host never embarrasses anyone and doesn't get shot. And a fifth....
> You get the idea.
Yes: You stopped at the fifth because, as a muslim, you couldn't handle
your liquor. I understand.
> > Good luck. And here's a little quote from somebody who knows a lot more
> > than you or I about Islamic history (the rest of the post is from Will
> Durant)...
>
> To claim that Will Durant is an ultimate authority is shaky at best.
I can't say he is the ultimate authority. I can only say that he is one
of the most universally respected historians on the Twentieth Century.
> He
> covered far too much history and too many countries to be a specialist in
> any one of them. To quote one reviewer of Durant: "Will and Ariel Durant
> tell a story -- one whopping big story, from the beginnings of civilization
> up to the 19th century. This is not academic history, it is entertainment
> and information for the millions."
I agree with that: Their books are thoroughly entertaining and not simply
a dusty formal enumeration of facts and dates. That is precisely why they
are as popular as they are.
> http://www.samizdat.com/isyn/durant.html. You always learn more about
> history by reading the reviewers of works of history than the histories
> themselves.
Then you are not so much interested in history, as in personalities and
celebrities. It is not surprising, sir. It is in your character to not be
able to think for yourself but rather to accept the argument from authority:
If your dentist is a great dentist, then he must also be a great historian
(or his opinion of which historian is the greatest is the best opinion).
> Historiography is the primary art of the historian these days
> for that very reason. And he is not without bias. To quote from the above
> on a Durant quote on Calvin: "... we shall always find it hard to love the
> man who darkened the human soul with the most absurd and blasphemous
> conception of God in all the long and honored history of nonsense."
Yep: Calvinism in a nutshell. Even Calvinists will tell you that! The
Calvinist God is pretty much Herbert Hoover, only without a Congress.
> Not
> exactly the person I would want to take as Gospel truth on Calvinism, among
> other things.
You need a lesson in humanity (and I would recommend Will Durant's greatest
book of all, "The Story of Philosophy." It may make a human being of you.
> Blatently biased historical account follows:
>
> > VI THE MOSLEM CONQUEST
> >
> > The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in
> > history. It is a discouraging tale,
Let's cut to the chase:
> You will notice the key line in this tripe that wouldn't stand the test of
> an undergraduate's thesis these days: "The excesses of the Delhi Sultans
> lost them the support not only of the Hindu population, but of their Moslem
> followers." Even if you want to take Durant as gospel (I wouldn't do that,
> but you are free to take anything you want as gospel, I suppose), then by
> your very gospel's truth it was rulers, not Islam, that was the culprit.
The key, which you missed, or chose to ignore, is that the Islamic ruler
requested a justification for his terrorism and genocide. And the Koran
readily provided it. Sir, read Will Durant's, "The Story of Philosophy."
Trust me: "It's the only book you need in this world." Mohammed maysatanbe
fryinghiseggsnow (and by the way, this is not an insult, it is only a kind
hope that the prophet maysatanbe fryinghiseggsnow may have Satan as his cook).
I think he'd like that.
> I
> think that proves the point of your bias most eloquently.
> Q.E.D.
I thank you for your appreciation of my eloquence. And good night.
LenLW
> a Jewish one like Benzion Netanyahu (and,perhaps the most important expert of
the world in this issue)
And for those who are interested, his book is available in English.
Len
LenLW
>That is a very generous reading of it, considering it goes on to talk about
the burning alive of Jews who were guilty of the heretical crime of not
renouncing their faith.
I assume that you are referring to B. Netanyahu's book, THE ORIGINS OF THE
INQUISITION.
If so, could you tell us on what page he talks about the burning of Jews during
the Inquisition. I can only find his reference to 5 Jews being killed by the
Inquistion in Sevilla - and that was quickly stopped.
Len
LenLW
>Which is why the it was reported that Jews were expelled in 1495. And as
>many as 800,000 of them were expelled.
Actually, the Edit of Expulsion was for issued in March 1492 to take effect by
August 1492.
At that time, most historians agree, there were probably fewer than 100,000
Jews who left Spain.
>Your claim that there were no Jews because the Mulsims had expelled them in
the 11th Century is incorrect,
I don't recall Ismael saying that, but I could have missed his message.
If so, he was obviously in error since Jews did quite well under the Muslins in
Spain until the period of the 'reconquistora' (pardon the spelling) which was
when the Catholics in Spain started to regain control of Spain.
Oh yes, there were Muslin who hated Jews - such as the Almohad and similar
'fundamentalist' groups, but they also hated the Muslims who did not join them.
>Your contention that only Catholics were targeted by the Inquisition is
extremely misleading, as it was well known that the Jews were still Jews,
regardless of whether they professed Catholocism in order to escape
persecution.
Your response to Ismael is a bit flawed. Those who converted, the Conversos,
were no longer Jews! Oh yes, there were come Crypto-Jews (underground) but
nobody knows how many. And, if they did not leave Spain, after a few
generations they were generally accepted as Christians.
>why anyone of Jewish lineage was especially targeted by the Inquisition.
The Inquisition started about 1482 and within a decade, all the Jews were out
of Spain. But, the Inquisition continued very actively until 1600. Who were
they after? Essentially, the emerging Protestant groups as well as Christians,
for political and economic purposes.
Len
LenLW
Interesting posting.
But, what has it do with the subject? Why not change the subject to something
else?
Len
LenLW
>The Bible has been used equally by Christians to kill. I guess the lesson
>we should take from this is not that a religion is evil, but the over-zealous
misreaders of religions which are the true problems.
Good posting, but bears no relation to the subject head. Why not change the
subject?
Len
LenLW
>Jews were expelled from Muslim Spain (Almoravids) in 11th century.
>
Wish you could say more about that, since the Almoravids also tried to expel
Christians and Muslims who did not agree with them.
And, why not change the subject heading to reflect what you are posting?
Len
LenLW
>I suppose this is why the Jewish history sourcebook lists documents of
expulsion by the Spanish in 1495, listing the victims numbers between 250,000
and 800,000.
Could you cite that Jewish history sourcebook? Every book I have lists the
expulsion as 1492, and the numbers at that time below 100,00.
And, could you change the subject head to reflect what you are posting?
Len
LenLW
>the Almoravids were invaders into Moorish Spain, having briefly conquered
>all the penninsula from 1086-1147.
Did they conquer the entire peninsular? Didn't Castile and Aragon continue to
exist?
(And, please change the subject heading).
(
Len
LenLW
>Then you prove my point that there were Jews around in 1492. And that there
were Jews that could have been subject to the Spanish Inquisition, a fact you
initially denied.
>
Not sure who you are replying to with this.
But, perhaps changing the subject heading would help.
Len
moj
"LenLW" <le...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011003165522...@mb-fl.aol.com...
> >From: "moj" malb...@earthlink.net
>
> >Which is why the it was reported that Jews were expelled in 1495. And as
> >many as 800,000 of them were expelled.
>
> Actually, the Edit of Expulsion was for issued in March 1492 to take
effect by
> August 1492.
> At that time, most historians agree, there were probably fewer than
100,000
> Jews who left Spain.
You are correct on that date. I was mistaken because the correspondence I
had read was dated later, but in re-reading it they were indeed expelled in
1492.
> >Your claim that there were no Jews because the Mulsims had expelled them
in
> the 11th Century is incorrect,
>
> I don't recall Ismael saying that, but I could have missed his message.
> If so, he was obviously in error since Jews did quite well under the
Muslins in
> Spain until the period of the 'reconquistora' (pardon the spelling) which
was
> when the Catholics in Spain started to regain control of Spain.
> Oh yes, there were Muslin who hated Jews - such as the Almohad and similar
> 'fundamentalist' groups, but they also hated the Muslims who did not join
them.
>
And certainly did not appreciate the Christians.
> >Your contention that only Catholics were targeted by the Inquisition is
> extremely misleading, as it was well known that the Jews were still Jews,
> regardless of whether they professed Catholocism in order to escape
> persecution.
>
> Your response to Ismael is a bit flawed. Those who converted, the
Conversos,
> were no longer Jews! Oh yes, there were come Crypto-Jews (underground)
but
> nobody knows how many.
The Conversos were still treated as Jews, however, and still considered
Jewish for all intents and purposes. After all, while the Papal Bull was a
religious document, it was up to the Secular King of Spain to implement, and
the Papal Bull was abused to persecute the Conversos. I still consider this
persecution of the Jews, not persecution of Christians, as it was extremely
likely that any Conversos were only paying lip service to their Catholic
overlords, and not ernest conversions. While going from Judaism to Islam
requires little new leaps of faith, going from either to Christianity
requires believing in the concepts of the Trinity, which are difficult to
swallow.
> And, if they did not leave Spain, after a few
> generations they were generally accepted as Christians.
All the evidence that I have seen said that it was far more common for
Conversos to be persecuted by the Inquisition than other Christian groups.
> >why anyone of Jewish lineage was especially targeted by the Inquisition.
>
> The Inquisition started about 1482 and within a decade, all the Jews were
out
> of Spain. But, the Inquisition continued very actively until 1600. Who
were
> they after? Essentially, the emerging Protestant groups as well as
Christians,
> for political and economic purposes.
>
Once again, this only considers that the Conversos were no longer Jewish. I
highly doubt that many of them had actually been anything but paying lip
service to Christianity. And, as many histories relate, the ones that were
sincere and voluntary often were the harshest persecutors of the other
Conversos. Finally, the Inquisition rapidly turned into a racial
persecution, where Conversos were not safe in the least. But you are
correct, the later Inquisition, after exhausting all the wealth of the
Conversos, did start paying attention to Protestants. But that was more
likely for religious and political reasons than economic ones.
A minor correction: Isabella established the Inquisition in 1478 in
Castille. I am not sure what your 1482 date is referring to. There was a
Sevilla Inquisition beginning in 1481, but I can't find a 1482. I believe
the Papal Bull didn't come until 1487, but I honestly can't remember on
that.
Interesting note I just discovered, though: the edict of expulsion was not
repealed until December of 1968. Amazing!
We can nitpick on these points, but it still doesn't change my initial
argument that Rodian is an ignorant bigot.
Cheers!
Marc
moj
interesting in its depth, but flawed. After all, he claims that the
Conversos were good Christians, and yet on p. 1085 writes that there were
religious considerations used by the Inquisition. This seems to undermine
his argument quite a bit, as his central thesis seems to be that racist and
economic considerations took the fore.
As far as your account of the number of deaths, it must be remembered, as
the Jesuits themselves pointed out, that once the Inquiry was done, the
Converso was handed over to a secular court for punishment. This is true of
torture and execution. As such, these do not show up on the records of the
Inquisition.
"LenLW" <le...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011003164719...@mb-fl.aol.com...
moj
Burphardt, I found it more convenient to respond to his heading.
Cheers!
Marc
"LenLW" <le...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011003170644...@mb-fl.aol.com...
moj
However, I should point out, just to prove your ignorance, that I am neither
Arab nor Muslim.
Your arguments are so full of holes, anyway, that I think everyone can
easily see how wrong you are.
"OIsrael1948" <nu...@dangerous-minds.com> wrote in message
news:d0197aa3.01100...@posting.google.com...
Michael Cree
> Other than these few words, I see no need to respond to your blatent racism.
[approx 700 lines of quoted material snipped.]
Come on guys. There is no need to quote 700 plus lines of someone elses
post and then add only 5 lines of original text to it. You could at least
have the decency to snip it down to size (leaving a few lines to set the
context). That is considered good netiquette.
Michael.
PS. I've also trimmed the group list since this doesn't seem relevant to
them all.
Ismael
> Which is why the it was reported that Jews were expelled in 1495. And as
> many as 800,000 of them were expelled.
1492. Anyway, I think you have not understood the point. One thing is that
there were prosecutions, expulsions .... in 15th century Spain, and a
different one that a certain tribunal (which didn't exist during most of the
century) was in charge of doing it. Jews were expelled in 1492 following an
order of the kings, not the Inquisition.
> You can keep insisting with faulty logic that the Inquisition was only
> concerned with Catholics, but you would be absolutely wrong. I can call
> myself a Zen Buddhist, and it doesn't make me one if I still celebrate
> Passover and Yom Kippur. Your claim that there were no Jews
A claim I haven't done.
> because the
> Mulsims had expelled them in the 11th Century is incorrect, as the
following
> quote shows:
> "The Jewish people are often associated with wealth and with being a
plague
> to the society to which they belong. Fourteenth-century Spain was no
> different. In the city of Seville, there was an archdeacon named Martinez
> who continually tried to incite the people to purge themselves of the
> "dirty" Jewish citizens. After several reproaches by the Spanish Cardinal
> and the Pope, Martinez finally succeeded. On Ash Wednesday (March
15,1391),
The own source you have already mentioned said: "In summary, the Inquisition
in Spain began in 1478 "
[...]
> Your contention that only Catholics were targeted by the Inquisition is
> extremely misleading, as it was well known that the Jews were still Jews,
> regardless of whether they professed Catholocism in order to escape
> persecution. Just because someone plays a role in a play does not mean
that
> person has become that character, and the Spanish well knew this.
Again, I'm going to repeat the sentence of Netanyahu:
"They were not martyrs of the Judaism, neither Inquisition was not anything
else that a monster, create to
eliminate New Christians, but real Christians"
> That is
> why anyone of Jewish lineage was especially targeted by the Inquisition.
BTW, did you know that the own king Ferdinand the Catholic had a Jewish
lineage (through his mother, Juana Enriquez)?
Ismael
Ismael
> Then you prove my point that there were Jews around in 1492.
I have never said the opposite.
> And that there
> were Jews that could have been subject to the Spanish Inquisition,
If they had previously being baptised, yes, there were. I had said it
before: "Of course, during the first generation, there was still (many)
people converted by force, and later, prosecuted by Inquisition".
Ismael
Ismael
> >From: is...@my-deja.com (Ismael)
>
> >Jews were expelled from Muslim Spain (Almoravids) in 11th century.
> >
>
> Wish you could say more about that, since the Almoravids also tried to
expel
> Christians and Muslims who did not agree with them.
Well, more than "tried to expel", they prosecuted everybody who did not
agree with them (Christians, Jews, or Muslims). In the case of the Jews,
Almoravids believed that they must accept Islam if 500 years after the death
of the Prophet Muhammad their Messiah had not come. A campaign to convert
the Sephardim by force was launched, then, in the areas they controlled, so
many prefered to escape, after failing to oppose them: for example, in
Zalaca (or Sagrajas) 1086, chronicles say 40,000 Jews fought in the
Christian army, against Almoravids, an were defeated (the number is probably
exagerated, of course). After, many of them escaped to Christian Spain
(where, BTW, they -mainly Karaite Jews- were forced by local -Orthodox- Jews
to settle only in border areas). Anyway, the conversion/expulsion was never
complet: it stopped when the Jews arranged to pay a ransom. Later, the
Almohad invasion was also followed by a prosecution of the Jews. Most of the
the Jewish communities of al-Andalus were destroyed (Lucena in 1148, Granada
in 1162 ...) and thousands of Jews escaped to the North of Spain, France, or
other Muslim countries (this is the case of Maimonides' family).
Anyway, the point was that, in opposition to the poster affirming "Jews
enjoyed the hospitality of the Islamic states in Spain for 800 years ", I
wanted to note that 800 years is enough time for many different things to
happen: hospitality & peaceful coexistence, but also murders & prosecutions.
Another quote of Netanyahu:
"it is necessary to finish with the myth of the pacific coexistence of the
three cultures. It was an existence, sometimes badly tolerated, with
numerous problems and many periods of lack of understanding "
BTW, an intersting book, available on-line is "Islamic and Christian Spain
in the Early Middle Ages "
(Thomas F. Glick, Princeton University Press, 1979)
(http://libro.uca.edu/ics/ics5.htm)
A small quote of the book, dealing with this issue:
"The involvement of Jews not only in money-lending but in a host of
middle-class commercial and industrial activities made this group
particularly susceptible to popular hostility in times of economic
recession, leading Antonio Ubieto to use incidences of anti-Jewish (or
anti-minority) legislation and policies as a rough indicator of periods of
economic decline. Thus Ubieto sees as symbolic of recession the persecution
of Mozarabs [Note: Christians living in Muslim Spain] during the reign of
'Abd al-Rahmân II; the persecutions of Christians and Jews in Córdoba
(1013), Zaragoza (1039), and Granada (1066); the expulsion of Mozarabs by
the Almoravids, concurrent with the currency devaluation of the 1120's; and
anti-Jewish outbreaks in Córdoba (1135) and Valencia (1144-1145)".
> And, why not change the subject heading to reflect what you are posting?
OK
Ismael
Ismael
> > Your response to Ismael is a bit flawed. Those who converted, the
> Conversos,
> > were no longer Jews! Oh yes, there were come Crypto-Jews (underground)
> but
> > nobody knows how many.
>
> The Conversos were still treated as Jews, however, and still considered
> Jewish for all intents and purposes.
They were not expelled :-)
[...]
> > And, if they did not leave Spain, after a few
> > generations they were generally accepted as Christians.
>
> All the evidence that I have seen said that it was far more common for
> Conversos to be persecuted by the Inquisition than other Christian groups.
Agreed with this point. Actually, the Inquisition was established to
investigate them, specifically.
Of course, it depends too on the wealth of the people: a nobleman could buy
a certificate of "blood cleanness" and be free, a poor man couldn't
(actually, there was a famous scandal at the end of 16th century, when a
book was published, showing how virtually all the high noble families of
Spain, including the royal one, had some Jewish ancestors)
> > >why anyone of Jewish lineage was especially targeted by the
Inquisition.
> >
> > The Inquisition started about 1482 and within a decade, all the Jews
were
> out
> > of Spain. But, the Inquisition continued very actively until 1600. Who
> were
> > they after? Essentially, the emerging Protestant groups as well as
> Christians,
> > for political and economic purposes.
> >
>
> Once again, this only considers that the Conversos were no longer Jewish.
I
> highly doubt that many of them had actually been anything but paying lip
> service to Christianity.
Well, many of them were people who didn't believe in anything, they simply
converted to obtain social promotions, marry with noblemen ... they made
some nice castles, like the ones shown in
http://www.castillayleon.com/castillos/med/iEscuval.html
> And, as many histories relate, the ones that were
> sincere and voluntary often were the harshest persecutors of the other
> Conversos.
Agreed, actually, there was a name, "malshines", to call the ones who acted
as spies among the Jewish communities.
[...]
> Interesting note I just discovered, though: the edict of expulsion was
not
> repealed until December of 1968. Amazing!
Not exactly, in 1968, the governement presented its apologies to the Jews
and invited them to come back to Spain, but they had been allowed to do it,
at least since December 20, 1924: the "Primo de Rivera law" allowed any
Sephardic Jew anywhere in the world to become a Spanish citizen, with the
same rights than any Spaniard. Anyway, not many (probably nobody) acepted
it, until WWII: then some diplomats, like Sanz Briz, for example, used it to
save several thousands of jews during WWII, giving them Spanish passports.
In any case, 40 years don't make a significant difference, in 4 centuries.
Ismael
Kord Burphardt
> Other than these few words, I see no need to respond to your blatent racism.
> However, I should point out, just to prove your ignorance, that I am neither
> Arab nor Muslim.
You fooled me completely, with your every post, and especially with your
abject self-abasement to The Prophet maysatanbe fryinghiseggsnow. Although,
if you have decided to abandon Islam and other crimes, I am happy for you.
> Your arguments are so full of holes, anyway, that I think everyone can
> easily see how wrong you are.
Yes. I suppect that very many people can... judge for themselves.
Don't let this eat you up too much, sir.
> > No I don't. But even you must admit that the murder of 60 million human
> > beings must have taken more than a handful of murderers, no? It is the
> > Islamic historians themselves who have preserved the Koran's use as the
> direct
> > justification for the murder of so many millions and the descruction of
> > so many ancient civilizations... they actually thought it very excelent
> (just
> > as reporting Mohammed's maysatanbe fryinghiseggsnow sexual molestation of
> > a six-year-old little girl wasn't thought much of by the same chronicles
> > at the time). But it's how much they reveal to us now that truly matters.
> >
> > > The
> > > facts on the Hindu Holocaust are probably exaggerated, if it happened at
> > > all,
> >
> > No doubt. That's Turkey's line now as well. As well as the line of
> > everybody else who denies the Jewish Holocaust ever took place at all.
> >
> > > ... but I should point out that your site does claim hundreds of
> > > millions of deaths. If this were actually the case, then there would be
> no
> > > Indians left at all.
> >
> > That's a very good point: If the Jewish Holocaust had taken place there
> > wouldn't be any Jews left at all today, you say?
> >
> >
moj
"Ismael" <is...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Agreed, actually, there was a name, "malshines", to call the ones who
acted
> as spies among the Jewish communities.
Not to mention the suspicion the Torquemada was Jewish as well.
Marc
LenLW
>The Conversos were still treated as Jews, however, and still considered Jewish
for all intents and purposes.
By whom? Certainly not by the Catholic Church who considered them as
Christians.
>I still consider this persecution of the Jews, not persecution of Christians,
as it was extremely likely that any Conversos were only paying lip service to
their Catholic
That is certainly your perogative, but the Conversos were no longer Jews!
As for their "only paying lip service" do you have any source for that?
>A minor correction: Isabella established the Inquisition in 1478 in Castille.
As for minor corrections, Netanyahu says that Ferdinand was the real architect
of the Inquisition (page 921).
> I believe the Papal Bull didn't come until 1487, but I honestly can't
remember on
>that.
We all have some lapses. The date the Papal Bull came to the attention of
Isabel was November 1478 when Castile was at war with Portugal.
Len
moj
>
> "moj" <malb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:VuIu7.1295$K6.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Which is why the it was reported that Jews were expelled in 1495. And
as
> > many as 800,000 of them were expelled.
>
> 1492. Anyway, I think you have not understood the point. One thing is that
> there were prosecutions, expulsions .... in 15th century Spain, and a
> different one that a certain tribunal (which didn't exist during most of
the
> century) was in charge of doing it. Jews were expelled in 1492 following
an
> order of the kings, not the Inquisition.
We've already covered that. I mentioned about five posts ago that I
misinterpreted a primary document's date.
> > You can keep insisting with faulty logic that the Inquisition was only
> > concerned with Catholics, but you would be absolutely wrong. I can call
> > myself a Zen Buddhist, and it doesn't make me one if I still celebrate
> > Passover and Yom Kippur. Your claim that there were no Jews
>
> A claim I haven't done.
Correct me if I am wrong, but if you claim they were all expelled, doesn't
that mean that there weren't Jews there? In the end, though, it doesn't
really matter. The Inquisition definitely did target people for all manner
of reasons, Jewish blood being a prime guiding factor. So whether you
consider the Conversos Jews (as I do, because the evidence to me suggests
that the majority of them still practiced Judaism, and only a small fraction
became "Malshines") or consider them as good practicing Catholics
(Netanyahu's conclusion, which I find he contradicts in his own text), the
fact remains that anyone who had Jewish blood was subject to the
Inquisition. Well, maybe not Ferdinand (if your claim is true, and I do not
doubt it) or Torquemada, but the average citizen with Jewish blood....
> > because the
> > Mulsims had expelled them in the 11th Century is incorrect, as the
> following
> > quote shows:
>
> > "The Jewish people are often associated with wealth and with being a
> plague
> > to the society to which they belong. Fourteenth-century Spain was no
> > different. In the city of Seville, there was an archdeacon named
Martinez
> > who continually tried to incite the people to purge themselves of the
> > "dirty" Jewish citizens. After several reproaches by the Spanish
Cardinal
> > and the Pope, Martinez finally succeeded. On Ash Wednesday (March
> 15,1391),
>
> The own source you have already mentioned said: "In summary, the
Inquisition
> in Spain began in 1478 "
You are mixing up postings that we have already discussed. My point on the
above quote was that the Jews were not expelled earlier. Not when the
Inquisition began.
> [...]
>
>
> > Your contention that only Catholics were targeted by the Inquisition is
> > extremely misleading, as it was well known that the Jews were still
Jews,
> > regardless of whether they professed Catholocism in order to escape
> > persecution. Just because someone plays a role in a play does not mean
> that
> > person has become that character, and the Spanish well knew this.
>
> Again, I'm going to repeat the sentence of Netanyahu:
>
> "They were not martyrs of the Judaism, neither Inquisition was not
anything
> else that a monster, create to
> eliminate New Christians, but real Christians"
And I have said, Netanyahu contradicts himself on page 1085. The quote is
listed on previous posts. Netanyahu has a political agenda in calling the
Conversos Christians as opposed to Jews. He calls them traitors to Judaism,
and believes they should have become martyrs rather than go underground, as
it were. He also directly compares the Inquisition to the Nazis. As one
reviewer points out, this is not dispassionate scholarship. It has been
suggested by more than one reviewer that the conclusions Netanyahu presents
are at least partially revisionist based on the Nazi experience this
century. And in order for him to make this claim, he has to make this a
racial, rather than a religious persecution. While there probably was some
racisim involved, this argument certainly gets weaker when you find that
crypto-Jews were considered to exist far past the initial stages of the
Inquisition, that families that relocated re-emerged as Jewish, and that, in
his own words, there were religious factors in targeting victims of the
Inquisition. I'm not saying it is a bad work of history, but to use it to
conclude that they were all good practicing Christians is to make a basic
error of historiography.
For one review, see http://ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n1p-2_Chalmers.html.
Cheers!
Marc
LenLW
>
>Actually, the Inquisition was established to investigate them, specifically
Are you sure of that? When Isabel and Ferdinand supported the Inquisition
wasn't it in order to get rid of those they considered their enemies - the Old
Christians, not the New Christians (conversos).
>a nobleman could buy a certificate of "blood cleanness"
Yes, the 'limpezza de sangre' was used by many different Christians to be sure
that they were considered 'pure'.
>Well, many of them were people who didn't believe in anything, they simply
>converted to obtain social promotions, marry with noblemen ... they made
>some nice castles,
Very true. As one historian said, "unthinking Jews made stupid Christians".
>Agreed, actually, there was a name, "malshines", to call the ones who acted
>as spies among the Jewish communitie
Never heard of that. Sure you aren't referring to MESHUMADIM?
>then some diplomats, like Sanz Briz, for example, used it to save several
thousands of jews during WWII, giving them Spanish passports.
Very true, and an incident that too few know about.
Len
Ismael
My "favorite" is Solomon Ha-Levi/Paul de Santa Maria:
"A very pious, very learned rabbi, he abjured at the age of forty, after the
massacres of 1391, and was baptized along with his brother and four of his
sons. He studied theology at Paris, was ordained priest, became bishop of
Cartagena and afterwards chancellor of Castile. [...] He is generally found
the instigator in all the persecutions which befell the Jews of his time,
and he hunted the synagogue with a ferocious hatred; and yet in his works he
confined himself to theological polemics." (B. Lazare. "Antisemitism. Its
history and causes").
Ismael
moj
"Kord Burphardt" <kri...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:5785c0f4.0110...@posting.google.com...
> "moj" <malb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<pANu7.226$2p1....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > Other than these few words, I see no need to respond to your blatent
racism.
> > However, I should point out, just to prove your ignorance, that I am
neither
> > Arab nor Muslim.
>
> You fooled me completely, with your every post, and especially with your
> abject self-abasement to The Prophet maysatanbe fryinghiseggsnow.
Although,
> if you have decided to abandon Islam and other crimes, I am happy for you.
>
> > Your arguments are so full of holes, anyway, that I think everyone can
> > easily see how wrong you are.
>
> Yes. I suppect that very many people can... judge for themselves.
> Don't let this eat you up too much, sir.
Yes, I suspect they will see your "generousity of spirit" very clearly in
this very post, even with the rest snipped. I am sure Jesus is very proud
to call you a follower.
moj
> "moj" <malb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:7FIu7.1319$K6.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Then you prove my point that there were Jews around in 1492.
>
> I have never said the opposite.
As I said, you are mixing up replies I made to other people with what I have
replied to you. But we can drop this. The dates are not terribly critical,
when most of our discussion is concerning events after 1500, anyway.
> > And that there
> > were Jews that could have been subject to the Spanish Inquisition,
>
> If they had previously being baptised, yes, there were. I had said it
> before: "Of course, during the first generation, there was still (many)
> people converted by force, and later, prosecuted by Inquisition".
This is where we disagree--on the statement that "during the first
generation...." My contention is that there were Jews much, much later than
that. When the Spanish briefly held Holland, many Conversos moved there.
When the Spanish lost power, these people reverted to Judaism. This was a
space of almost 100 years after the Inquisition began, and about 70 years
after the expulsion order. If Netanyahu is correct, then these people
converted to Judaism after having three-plus generations of "good
Christianity" in them. I don't find this to be a likely scenario.
LenLW
>As far as your account of the number of deaths, it must be remembered, as the
Jesuits themselves pointed out, that once the Inquiry was done, the Converso
was handed over to a secular court for punishment. This is true of torture and
execution. As such, these do not show up on the records of the Inquisition.
>
You are right, in part.
Actually, all those convicted by the Inquisition were turned over to the
secular courts.
Indeed, the secular courts (kingdom) used the Inquisition as a political tool.
Len
LenLW
>We've already covered that. I mentioned about five posts ago that I
misinterpreted a primary document's date.
You are right when you responded to somebody else on this. Let us hope this
discussion does not generate to the level where nobody has the courage, you
have shown, in admitting a mistake.
>Jewish blood being a prime guiding factor.
Careful - what is "Jewish blood"?
> Netanyahu has a political agenda in calling the Conversos Christians as
opposed to Jews.
What would that political agenda be?
>He calls them traitors to Judaism, and believes they should have become
martyrs rather than go underground, as it were.
As you have obviously read his book, where does he say that?
>you find that crypto-Jews were considered to exist far past the initial stages
of the Inquisition, that families that relocated re-emerged as Jewish
Were they crypto-Jews practicing in Spain? There is virtually not evidence of
that but, of course, that is due to "crypto" meaning secret.
The fact that some Conversos rejoined Judaism when they went to other countries
is known from many sources, but even that group was not goo large.
It is difficult for some Jews to accept that there are Jews who would
voluntarily convert to Christianity (or any other religion), but there are many
examples in history, no matter how uncomforable it may make one.
Len
LenLW
>My "favorite" is Solomon Ha-Levi/Paul de Santa Maria:
>
Glad you mentioned him. He was one of the most violent Jew haters of the
period.
The story is told that he had been the Chief Rabbi of Burgos when he
converted.
After his conversion, he expected that all his congregation would follow him,
and none did!
That is given as one explanation for his rabid Jew hating performance.
Len
LenLW
>My contention is that there were Jews much, much later than
>that. When the Spanish briefly held Holland, many Conversos moved there.
Acutally, the Jews came to Spain during the Spanish occupation of what became
The Netherlands. Many came as Jews, to escape from Spain since the Spanish
hold on that country was mainly among the Catholics in Utrecht, in the south.
For example, one group came in 1507 and the congregation was headed by Rabbi
Halevi (obviously, that name comes up at different times for different people).
One group had come from Emden, in Germany on the Dutch border. They settled on
Junkderstraat opposite the Montalban Tower. One one of our visits to The
Netherlands, my wife and I visited the site, which today is just small house
with no markings.
The people who came, at that time, were not Conversos but practicing Jews who
left Spain before 1492 and wandered through Europe, with some settling in The
Netherlands with no problems.
Len
Ismael
> > > Your claim that there were no Jews
> >
> > A claim I haven't done.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but if you claim they were all expelled, doesn't
> that mean that there weren't Jews there?
Well, first I should note that I said it in a different context, with a
different purpose. I have explained a bit more in other post, anyway, I
should add that I said they were expelled "from Muslim Spain (Almoravids) in
11th century": this does not include the Christian half of Spain, neither
the Muslim kingdom of Zaragoza, who was not conquered by Almoravids, if I
remember correctly. And, as you have already mentioned, between 11th century
and 1391 or 1492 there is much time for many to go back ... and, of course,
I didn't say "all" :-)
[...]
> In the end, though, it doesn't
> really matter. The Inquisition definitely did target people for all
manner
> of reasons, Jewish blood being a prime guiding factor. So whether you
> consider the Conversos Jews (as I do, because the evidence to me suggests
> that the majority of them still practiced Judaism, and only a small
fraction
> became "Malshines") or consider them as good practicing Catholics
> (Netanyahu's conclusion, which I find he contradicts in his own text), the
> fact remains that anyone who had Jewish blood was subject to the
> Inquisition.
If you add "anyone who had Jewish blood and had been previously baptised", I
can agree with you :-)
> Well, maybe not Ferdinand (if your claim is true, and I do not
> doubt it)
Well, to provide a bit more of information, king Alphonso XI of Castile has
a couple of bastard twins: Fadrique & Enrique (his mother was blamed of
being of Jewish origin, but it seems she was not). When Alphonso died, the
legitimate son (Peter I) murdered Fadrique and his mother (Fadrique's one,
of course). Enrique escaped, leaded a rebellion, and eventually killed Peter
and became king (Henry II), adopting the son of Fadrique as his own son. He
is Alfonso Enriquez (Enriquez=son of Enrique), the founder of the family of
the same name (one of the most important noble families of the country). The
mother of Alfonso was a converted Jew (most of the information about her,
even her name, was made dissapear by her descendants, for obvious reasons,
and this is almost the single thing we know about her). He married with
Juana de Mendoza "la ricahembra" (*) and had a son: Fadrique Enriquez,
admiral of Castile and count of Melgar. The daughter of this Fadrique, Juana
Enriquez de Mendoza, married the king of John I of Aragon and was the mother
of Ferdinand the Catholic.
(*) There is a familiar legend of the Mendozas, saying that when Juana was
told she had to marry with Alfonso Enriquez, she answered she won't marry
"the son of a marrana" (despective for converted Jew). Alfonso, who was
present, disguised as a page, felt offended and slapped her. When she knew
he was Alfonso, she accepted to marry, so "nobody could say Juana de Mendoza
had been slapped by anyone different than her husband". It is also said
another member of Mendoza family, was the one who published later, as a
revenge, the already mentioned book about the Jewish roots of noble families
"Martillo de la nobleza castellana".
[...]
> > The own source you have already mentioned said: "In summary, the
> Inquisition
> > in Spain began in 1478 "
>
> You are mixing up postings that we have already discussed. My point on
the
> above quote was that the Jews were not expelled earlier. Not when the
> Inquisition began.
Well, if this was your point, I agree with it. No problem, then.
[...]
Thanks for the reference on Netanyahu. Here in Spain, his books are almost
"gospell" on the issue.
Regards
Ismael
moj
will definitely look out for this character.
Please tell me he wasn't canonized.
Marc
"LenLW" <le...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011004125024...@mb-fy.aol.com...
Ismael
> >From: "Ismael" is...@my-deja.com
> >
>
> >Actually, the Inquisition was established to investigate them,
specifically
>
> Are you sure of that? When Isabel and Ferdinand supported the Inquisition
> wasn't it in order to get rid of those they considered their enemies - the
Old
> Christians, not the New Christians (conversos).
Well, perhapsdifferent people had different ideas: the Inquisition was first
adviced by Dominicans, and by some of the own conversos (Torquemadas,
Santamarías, Cartagenas ....): as people believed all the conversos were
Crypto-Jews, they wanted a tribunal who established who were, and who were
not. Perhaps the kings had a different idea? I haven't heard about it, in
any case, the first actions of the Inquisition (Seville, 1481) were clearly
directed against the conversos.
[...]
> >Agreed, actually, there was a name, "malshines", to call the ones who
acted
> >as spies among the Jewish communitie
>
> Never heard of that. Sure you aren't referring to MESHUMADIM?
Well, at least one seems to be a "hispanization" of the other.
> >then some diplomats, like Sanz Briz, for example, used it to save several
> thousands of jews during WWII, giving them Spanish passports.
>
> Very true, and an incident that too few know about.
Well, if someone want to know more, they can read, for example,
http://www.sefarad.org/publication/lm/017/salvo.html
Cheers.
Ismael
moj
> >
>
> >Actually, the Inquisition was established to investigate them,
specifically
>
> Are you sure of that? When Isabel and Ferdinand supported the Inquisition
> wasn't it in order to get rid of those they considered their enemies - the
Old
> Christians, not the New Christians (conversos).
>
I haven't seen evidence to this nature, but I am open to it if you have it.
But why, do you suppose, that the old Christians would be more likely than
new to be heretical? I suppose you can make the political argument, and I
might stand with you on that. But when I speak of the Inquisition, I refer
to the religious implications more than the political twistings of it.
>
> >a nobleman could buy a certificate of "blood cleanness"
>
> Yes, the 'limpezza de sangre' was used by many different Christians to be
sure
> that they were considered 'pure'.
And was, from what I have read, no guarantee against persecution.
> >Well, many of them were people who didn't believe in anything, they
simply
> >converted to obtain social promotions, marry with noblemen ... they made
> >some nice castles,
>
> Very true. As one historian said, "unthinking Jews made stupid
Christians".
Maybe they made Kord Burphardt, too? ;-)
> >Agreed, actually, there was a name, "malshines", to call the ones who
acted
> >as spies among the Jewish communitie
>
> Never heard of that. Sure you aren't referring to MESHUMADIM?
I only follow the concept, and took Ishmael at his word on the spelling. I
will allow you guys to argue that one out.
Marc
Ismael
> Great story! I have just started really getting into Iberian history, and
I
> will definitely look out for this character.
>
> Please tell me he wasn't canonized.
No, he was not, but his son built one of the nice castles I mentioned
(http://www.castillayleon.com/castillos/dibus/castillos/olmillo.jpg)
Ismael
moj
> [...]
>
> > In the end, though, it doesn't
> > really matter. The Inquisition definitely did target people for all
> manner
> > of reasons, Jewish blood being a prime guiding factor. So whether you
> > consider the Conversos Jews (as I do, because the evidence to me
suggests
> > that the majority of them still practiced Judaism, and only a small
> fraction
> > became "Malshines") or consider them as good practicing Catholics
> > (Netanyahu's conclusion, which I find he contradicts in his own text),
the
> > fact remains that anyone who had Jewish blood was subject to the
> > Inquisition.
>
> If you add "anyone who had Jewish blood and had been previously baptised",
I
> can agree with you :-)
Done! Although I am not nearly as convinced as you that Baptism really
meant all that much.
> [...]
>
> Thanks for the reference on Netanyahu. Here in Spain, his books are almost
> "gospell" on the issue.
No problem. As you can see by the review, Netanyahu suffers from a common
bias in Jewish history these days: the desire to color all past
persecutions in the shades of the Nazis. This is seen somehow as "added
fuel to the fire" in the desire to claim legitimacy of Israel as a haven for
Jews. I can understand this desire fully, but I feel that the past
persecutions are bad enough without making everything an issue of the
"Jewish race." Isn't it bad enough that Nazism happened once, for their to
be a claim of legitimacy for Israel?
> Regards
>
> Ismael
Cheers!
Marc
moj
> >From: "moj" malb...@earthlink.net
>
> >We've already covered that. I mentioned about five posts ago that I
> misinterpreted a primary document's date.
>
> You are right when you responded to somebody else on this. Let us hope
this
> discussion does not generate to the level where nobody has the courage,
you
> have shown, in admitting a mistake.
Yeah, I misread the account of 1495 for the expulsion of 1495. My mistake.
>
> >Jewish blood being a prime guiding factor.
>
> Careful - what is "Jewish blood"?
I don't think this is a difficult definition. Most non-Jews seem to feel
that Judaism is a race, not a religion. There seems to be evidence that I
have seen that this was the case in Spain as well (the Limpieza being a good
example, no?). Perhaps I am misreading the histories, but they seemed to
target the Conversos not because they were now heretical necessarily, but
because they came from Jews before.
> > Netanyahu has a political agenda in calling the Conversos Christians as
> opposed to Jews.
>
> What would that political agenda be?
I've described it elsewhere, but I will say it in brief again: Netanyahu
wishes to deny persecution on religious grounds because he wishes to make
the persecution of Conversos race-based. This allows him to draw parallels
between the Inquisition and the Nazis. This then allows the Inquisition to
be used the same way the Holocaust is to justify why the Jews need the state
of Israel. My contention is that this is unnecessary, that no historical
pattern of racial persecution of Jews is required to see the Holocaust as
the horror it was, and the Inquisition as the horror it was. Israel would,
in my mind, be justified on the basis of the former alone.
> >He calls them traitors to Judaism, and believes they should have become
> martyrs rather than go underground, as it were.
>
> As you have obviously read his book, where does he say that?
I don't own a copy of the book, so I can't cite you a page. I have already
cited a reviewer who makes this claim as well, though.
> >you find that crypto-Jews were considered to exist far past the initial
stages
> of the Inquisition, that families that relocated re-emerged as Jewish
>
> Were they crypto-Jews practicing in Spain? There is virtually not
evidence of
> that but, of course, that is due to "crypto" meaning secret.
> The fact that some Conversos rejoined Judaism when they went to other
countries
> is known from many sources, but even that group was not goo large.
I am sure that the less religious families probably abandonned Judaism after
a few generations. But that any of them "converted back" is testement that
crypto-Jews had to have existed in some significant number, especially
before the Inquisition turned its attention to the Protestants.
> It is difficult for some Jews to accept that there are Jews who would
> voluntarily convert to Christianity (or any other religion), but there are
many
> examples in history, no matter how uncomforable it may make one.
I don't have a problem with voluntary conditions. But please explain how
the Spanish experience was in any way voluntary? The way I read it is they
had a choice: convert, and maintain your wealth, status, and position (if
only temporarily, as it turned out for many); or, leave, not taking any of
your wealth, and suffer an uncertain future. This is a Faustian bargain at
best.
Marc
J.L.Nathans
"Ismael" <is...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> "moj" <malb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:7FIu7.1319$K6.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Then you prove my point that there were Jews around in 1492.
>
> I have never said the opposite.
>
> > And that there
> > were Jews that could have been subject to the Spanish Inquisition,
>
> If they had previously being baptised, yes, there were.
As a descendant of Spanish Jews it didn't matter if they were
baptisedor not - in fact a "New Christian" had it worse than the Jew who
had not converted. the purpose of the Inquisition in Spain was to
'eradicate' the Judaising of the Spanish Catholic church. The
ex-communicate "Catholic" Kings sought advice from two sources: Cardinal
de Menodza, my antecedant ("New Christian"), and Fray Torquemada (a 'New
Christian' himself)... you know the rest of the story.
> I had said it before: "Of course, during the first generation, there
> was still (many) people converted by force, and later, prosecuted by
> Inquisition".
It was held that the force conversion of Jews to Chrisitianity was not a
True conversion, and therefore they were "Jews", subject to the Mercy of
the Office of the Inquisiton. it was 1492 when the Jews were expelled
from Spain. The Inquisition in Spain officially ended in the 19th
century.
>
> Ismael
>
>
>
>
--
J. L. Nathans
Ismael
>
> "Ismael" <is...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:9ph6e6$i3i9l$1...@ID-80357.news.dfncis.de...
> > "moj" <malb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:7FIu7.1319$K6.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > Then you prove my point that there were Jews around in 1492.
> >
> > I have never said the opposite.
>
> As I said, you are mixing up replies I made to other people with what I
have
> replied to you.
Still, I have never said the opposite :-)
> > > And that there
> > > were Jews that could have been subject to the Spanish Inquisition,
> >
> > If they had previously being baptised, yes, there were. I had said it
> > before: "Of course, during the first generation, there was still (many)
> > people converted by force, and later, prosecuted by Inquisition".
>
> This is where we disagree--on the statement that "during the first
> generation...." My contention is that there were Jews much, much later
than
> that. When the Spanish briefly held Holland, many Conversos moved there.
> When the Spanish lost power, these people reverted to Judaism.
Well, it has been answered by other one.
BTW, for your information, in soc.history.medieval there is a discussion
about the presence of Crypto-Jew communities in New Mexico.
Ismael
Ismael
> > If you add "anyone who had Jewish blood and had been previously
baptised",
> I
> > can agree with you :-)
>
> Done! Although I am not nearly as convinced as you that Baptism really
> meant all that much.
Well, this is what the law said, and the Spaniards of the time were
hyperlegalist & bureaucratic.
Regards
Ismael
Ismael
news:9pjceq$j0lqo$1...@ID-61949.news.dfncis.de...
> As a descendant of Spanish Jews it didn't matter if they were
> baptisedor not -
but:
>in fact a "New Christian" had it worse than the Jew who
> had not converted.
Which is what I'm saying.
> the purpose of the Inquisition in Spain was to
> 'eradicate' the Judaising of the Spanish Catholic church. The
> ex-communicate "Catholic" Kings sought advice from two sources: Cardinal
> de Menodza, my antecedant ("New Christian"), and Fray Torquemada (a 'New
> Christian' himself)... you know the rest of the story.
>
> > I had said it before: "Of course, during the first generation, there
> > was still (many) people converted by force, and later, prosecuted by
> > Inquisition".
>
> It was held that the force conversion of Jews to Chrisitianity was not a
> True conversion, and therefore they were "Jews", subject to the Mercy of
> the Office of the Inquisiton.
Some of them: evidently, Mendoza & Torquemada were not :-)
Ismael
moj
"Ismael" <is...@my-deja.com> wrote
> BTW, for your information, in soc.history.medieval there is a discussion
> about the presence of Crypto-Jew communities in New Mexico.
I have seen a book on this subject, but haven't read it. So I guess the
topic has been around for a while.
Moj
LenLW
>Well, perhapsdifferent people had different ideas:
Very true. The first writing in any depth about the Inquisition appeared in
the 1500s, written essentially by Protestants - trying to make the Catholic
Church look as bad as possible.
>the Inquisition was first adviced by Dominicans, and by some of the own
conversos (Torquemadas,
The Torquemada was appointed in 1483, but essentially by the Pope, not by the
rulers of emerging Spain.
And, yes, there are some who way he came from a Converso family, but nobody has
ever presented any direct proof.
>people believed all the conversos were
>Crypto-Jews,
Only those people who might benefit by 'getting even' with their Converos
neighbors or business competitors.
>> Never heard of that. Sure you aren't referring to MESHUMADIM?
>
>Well, at least one seems to be a "hispanization" of the other.
Actually -
Meshumadim was the Hebrew word at the time for Jews who converted voluntarily.
Anusim was the Hebrew word for those who had converted against their will.
(Interesting discussion - hope we can keep it at this level. That's what this
newsgroup should be about. To be able to disagree without being disagreeable.)
Len
LenLW
>And was, from what I have read, no guarantee against persecution.
>
Since the 'limpezz de sangre' could be purchased, it was no guarantee of
anything.
But, at that time in Spain, guarantees only existed for the few minutes they
were given.
>I will allow you guys to argue that one out.
So far, the 'arguing' has been pleasant and helpful. Ismael seems to be able
to follow the dictum of disagreeing without being disagreeable.
Len
LenLW
That is very interesting, and something we might want to discuss, but not under
this subject heading.
>they seemed to target the Conversos not because they were now heretical
necessarily, but because they came from Jews before.
Do we really know that? The data on the Inquisition, as far as individuals, is
so sketchy that we may never find out.
I have heard there are records, but they have not been opened to the public.
>This allows him to draw parallels
>between the Inquisition and the Nazis.
Somehow, I didn't get that impression from his book, and other writings. Quite
the contrary. Do you have any specifics?
> I have already cited a reviewer who makes this claim as well, though.
Careful - the reviewer may have been more interested in making his/her own
point, rather than really reviewing what the author said. Not too unusual.
>But that any of them "converted back" is testement that crypto-Jews had to
have existed in some significant number
"Significant number". Hardly. The 'conversions back' were in such small
numbers that most congregations didn't even make note of it.
>the way I read it is they had a choice: convert, and maintain your wealth,
status, and position...
But, then how explain that hundreds of thousands did not convert?
It may be hard to accept that people who start out as Jews, do not stay with
the religion in a period of adversity.
Indeed, even without adversity we find Jews (even today) who no longer practice
anything resembling Judaism.
Len
LenLW
>Date: 10/5/01 3:49 AM Central
>about the presence of Crypto-Jew communities in New Mexico.
This is a complete contradition. If they were "Crypto-Jews" , they would have
had to have been practicing Judaism. There is no record of this!
Also, once they became part of the U.S., why did they have to be 'crypto'
(secret)? The U.S. has never had any laws against Jews.
Len
OIsrael1948
> > > However, I should point out, just to prove your ignorance,
> > > that I am neither Arab nor Muslim.
> >
> > You fooled me completely, with your every post, and especially with your
> > abject self-abasement to The Prophet maysatanbe fryinghiseggsnow.
> > Although,
> > if you have decided to abandon Islam and other crimes, I am happy for you.
> >
> > > Your arguments are so full of holes, anyway, that I think everyone can
> > > easily see how wrong you are.
> >
> > Yes. I suppect that very many people can... judge for themselves.
> > Don't let this eat you up too much, sir.
>
> Yes, I suspect they will see your "generousity of spirit" very clearly in
> this very post, even with the rest snipped. I am sure Jesus is very proud
> to call you a follower.
Ha! You domb ass: Jesus is DEAD. Man, like, he must've died
like... decades ago. That shows just how much you know.
RiverRatt
moj
> >Most non-Jews seem to feel that Judaism is a race, not a religion.
>
> That is very interesting, and something we might want to discuss, but not
under
> this subject heading.
Probably wouldn't be that interesting, actually. I'm not sure that it
wouldn't devolve quickly into "are not; are too" kind of things.
> >they seemed to target the Conversos not because they were now heretical
> necessarily, but because they came from Jews before.
>
> Do we really know that? The data on the Inquisition, as far as
individuals, is
> so sketchy that we may never find out.
> I have heard there are records, but they have not been opened to the
public.
>
Every history I have read on it seems to suggest that. I could be reading
it wrong, but my impression is, like Crest toothpaste, nine out of ten
historians agree.
> >This allows him to draw parallels
> >between the Inquisition and the Nazis.
>
> Somehow, I didn't get that impression from his book, and other writings.
Quite
> the contrary. Do you have any specifics?
What kind of evidence do you need? It is my assumption as to the reasons
why his (and a few other later historians) work seems to come to the
opposite conclusion from everything else that had been done on the subject
before about 1975. Of course, it is an opinion, but I have seen enough out
there to know that the Holocaust is the dominant theme in most of Judaica.
So I put two and two together on it. Do you have a better explanation on
why he would constantly propagate the notion that the persecution during the
Inquisition was racial? If so, I would be most interested in hearing it.
As you know, I'm not afraid to be shown wrong.
> > I have already cited a reviewer who makes this claim as well, though.
>
> Careful - the reviewer may have been more interested in making his/her own
> point, rather than really reviewing what the author said. Not too
unusual.
No, but just as unusual for an author to have significant bias in their
original work. Historiography teaches you to read all of it with a bit of a
jaded eye to any claims.
> >But that any of them "converted back" is testement that crypto-Jews had
to
> have existed in some significant number
>
> "Significant number". Hardly. The 'conversions back' were in such small
> numbers that most congregations didn't even make note of it.
The estimates of Conversos left in Spain after 1492 was somewhere around
50,000, IIRC. If this is the correct number, we would be looking at
percentages, not absolute number. And given the Conversos diaspora across
the empire, it wouldn't take many overall reconversions for the numbers to
be significant. On the other hand, if there weren't many overall
reconversions, why would it be noted in the histories at all? My guess is
that the percentages were significant, perhaps as high as the 5-10% range
(after 3-4 generations, this would be an amazing number, actually), but
since the absolute numbers were so low to begin with, the absolute number of
conversions was still fairly low. These numbers are off of memory, so if
you have better numbers, I will bow to them.
> >the way I read it is they had a choice: convert, and maintain your
wealth,
> status, and position...
>
> But, then how explain that hundreds of thousands did not convert?
> It may be hard to accept that people who start out as Jews, do not stay
with
> the religion in a period of adversity.
> Indeed, even without adversity we find Jews (even today) who no longer
practice
> anything resembling Judaism.
>
Figure 15% of the population became conversos and remained (assuming 50k
stayed, and 250k left, it works out well enough ;-), this would actually
seem about right to me. It is rare for anything above 15% of a given
population to have enough to lose where selling out their principles would
be worth it. To the rest, they probably weren't rich enough or powerful
enough to start with where moving would have been a hugely significant
cost. However, any religious tradition is a heavy burden to give up. There
would have to be a significant amount of power and/or wealth involved to
give up on tradition. The converse, just to make this thesis clear, is that
if you don't have a significant place in the heirarchy, then why give up the
principles en masse? This, of course, does not discount that there were
probably a small group that chose to convert on free will and meant it, but
those were probably people who felt sold out by the community somehow.
Marc (I hope I can disagree without being disagreeable, too) Alberts
moj
I haven't read the book, but I would guess that they were a crypto-Jewish
community while New Mexico was still part of Mexico. As southern New Mexico
wasn't incorporated into the rest until the 1853 Gadsden purchase, it is
possible that a community popped up since then and began documenting the
decands (centuries?) that they lived under Mexican rule as crypto-Jews.
So, at least it is possible. Without reading the books, I couldn't do any
more than just speculate on this.
Moj
Michael Perry
DECADES???He's been REALLY dead for "like... DECADES" ??????WOW, I originally thought it must have been MUCH longer than that but...I'll take your word for it, being that you know so much and dispense it so freely too.
Ha! You domb ass: Jesus is DEAD. Man, like, he must've died
like... decades ago. That shows just how much you know.
You missed his mispelling of the word "dumb".
--
Michael & Catherine Perry
Michael Perry
DECADES???He's been REALLY dead for "like... DECADES" ??????WOW, I originally thought it must have been MUCH longer than that but...I'll take your word for it, being that you know so much and dispense it so freely too.
Ha! You domb ass: Jesus is DEAD. Man, like, he must've died
like... decades ago. That shows just how much you know.
You missed his misspelling of the word "dumb".
LenLW
>nine out of ten historians agree.
Not sure what you are referring to. What to those historians (whoever they are)
seem to agree on?
> It is my assumption as to the reasons why his (and a few other later
historians) work seems to come to the opposite conclusion from everything else
that had been done on the subject before about 1975.
But, Ben Zion Yetenyahu has not written about the Holocaust or the Nazis. Do
you have him confused with his son, Bibi, who was the Prime Minister of Israel?
>Do you have a better explanation on why he would constantly propagate the
notion that the persecution during the Inquisition was racial?
You would have to show where he says that. From what I found, he says it was
political and economic.
>On the other hand, if there weren't many overall reconversions, why would it
be noted in the histories at all?
There were massive conversions from 1391 to 1487. I don't think anybody is
questioning that.
As for percentages, given the vagueness of any census data, it becomes all
guess work, and not very meaningful.
Len
LenLW
>I would guess that they were a crypto-Jewish community while New Mexico was
still part of Mexico.
That is possible, but even when it was part of Mexico, Jewish traders were
traversing the area. For example, what is now Nogales was formerly Isaacson,
after a Jewish trader who settled and organized the city (but later left and
the name changed.) If there were other Jews around the area, wouldn't they
have come forth?
Just a possibility.
>began documenting the decands (centuries?) that they lived under Mexican rule
as crypto-Jews.
But, the 'documentation' did not come until about two decades ago when Hordes
'discovered' them. They did not then, and generally do not now, consider
themselves crypto-Jews. They made no pretense at practicing any kind of
Judaism.
Appreciate your honesty in that you are only speculating.
Len
moj
> >malb...@earthlink.net
>
> >I would guess that they were a crypto-Jewish community while New Mexico
was
> still part of Mexico.
>
> That is possible, but even when it was part of Mexico, Jewish traders were
> traversing the area. For example, what is now Nogales was formerly
Isaacson,
> after a Jewish trader who settled and organized the city (but later left
and
> the name changed.) If there were other Jews around the area, wouldn't
they
> have come forth?
> Just a possibility.
>
Possibly, but possibly not. Probably depends on anti-Jewish activities in
the region. I know growing up Jewish that I didn't go out volunteering that
information very often. Some people just do not like Jews, for whatever
pathological reason.
>
> >began documenting the decands (centuries?) that they lived under Mexican
rule
> as crypto-Jews.
>
> But, the 'documentation' did not come until about two decades ago when
Hordes
> 'discovered' them. They did not then, and generally do not now, consider
> themselves crypto-Jews. They made no pretense at practicing any kind of
> Judaism.
Perhaps they were practicing Jewish rituals without knowing they were
Jewish, and the author put two and two together on it. After all, it is not
uncommon for rutuals to be passed down from father to son in close-knit
communities without any real knowledge of where they came from. If the
author went to this village, and saw a bunch of people saying they were
Catholic, but they were using phylacteries and saying a bastardized version
of the Vai'ahafta or the Schema (sorry for my transliteration), then it
would be easy to call them crypto-Jews. Of course, this does not mean that
they would fit the same definition that we were originally talking
about--just that their grandfathers' grandfathers did.
> Appreciate your honesty in that you are only speculating.
>
Speculation is often entertaining ;-)
> Len
>
LenLW
>Perhaps they were practicing Jewish rituals without knowing they were
>Jewish, and the author put two and two together on it. After all, it is not
>uncommon for rutuals to be passed down from father to son in close-knit
communities without any real knowledge of where they came from.
Very true, but if one practices a ritual without relating it to any knowledge
of a religion, does that make on a participant in that religion?
For example, does cleaning the house on Friday afternoon (preparation for
Shabbas?) make one a Jew?
>If the author went to this village, and saw a bunch of people saying they were
Catholic, but they were using phylacteries and saying a bastardized version of
the Vai'ahafta or the Schema (sorry for my transliteration), then it would be
easy to call them crypto-Jews.
Can't tell about that, because he did not report seeing that.
>Speculation is often entertaining ;-)
>
Definitely, if we don't let it go too far.
Len
moj
playing with ideas as to what would have caused an author to consider a
community as crypto-Jews when they didn't call themselves Jewish. I suppose
the only way we could settle it is to read the source, which I haven't done
and probably won't do any time soon.
"LenLW" <le...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011007100446...@mb-da.aol.com...
> >From: "moj" malb...@earthlink.net
>
> >Perhaps they were practicing Jewish rituals without knowing they were
> >Jewish, and the author put two and two together on it. After all, it is
not
> >uncommon for rutuals to be passed down from father to son in close-knit
> communities without any real knowledge of where they came from.
>
> Very true, but if one practices a ritual without relating it to any
knowledge
> of a religion, does that make on a participant in that religion?
> For example, does cleaning the house on Friday afternoon (preparation for
> Shabbas?) make one a Jew?
That really depends. In itself, no. However, if they had, as I mentioned,
all the other trappings of Judaism, from a sociological standpoint it could
be argued that they were indeed crypto-Jews. Have you read the book? Do
you know what led the author to the conclusion?
>
> >If the author went to this village, and saw a bunch of people saying they
were
> Catholic, but they were using phylacteries and saying a bastardized
version of
> the Vai'ahafta or the Schema (sorry for my transliteration), then it would
be
> easy to call them crypto-Jews.
>
> Can't tell about that, because he did not report seeing that.
>
>
> >Speculation is often entertaining ;-)
> >
>
> Definitely, if we don't let it go too far.
I don't think anyone at this point is making any claim of facts in this
discussion ;-)
Marc
Ismael
I don't know: the discussion dealed with almost the same topic than this
one, and someone mentioned this data. In any case, nobody has mentioned any
book.
and:
"LenLW" <le...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011005161918...@mb-cs.aol.com...
> >about the presence of Crypto-Jew communities in New Mexico.
>
> This is a complete contradition. If they were "Crypto-Jews" , they would
have
> had to have been practicing Judaism. There is no record of this!
>
> Also, once they became part of the U.S., why did they have to be 'crypto'
> (secret)? The U.S. has never had any laws against Jews.
Well, in theory, they are not, no more. New Mexico existed before being an
US state :-)
(Only repeating what is said in the other NG) there is supposed to be people
there who can trace their roots to Spanish Jews "even where their family
houses had been in Sepharad". Reading the discussion, more than Crypto-Jews,
their ancestors seemed to be "sincretistas" (translation?) i.e. people who
were Catholics, but practiced Jewish practices at home (even whitout knowing
they were Jewish).
Ismael
Ismael
> >> Never heard of that. Sure you aren't referring to MESHUMADIM?
> >
> >Well, at least one seems to be a "hispanization" of the other.
>
> Actually -
> Meshumadim was the Hebrew word at the time for Jews who converted
voluntarily.
> Anusim was the Hebrew word for those who had converted against their will.
Thanks. I think they are not, then, the same word. Actually, I have been,
after, looking for the word "malshin" (the "es" is the Spanish plural) in
the net, and it seems the word exists in Hebrew, with the meaning of
"informer". In
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1354ordinance-aragon-jews.html and
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1432synod-castile-jews.html , you can
see an abstract of some ordinances of the self-governing Spanish Jewish
communities. In both of them, the term malshin is mentioned. For example:
"If any Jew or Jewess is alleged to have caused the apprehension of another
or the seizure of his property by some Gentile man or woman, but the matter
is not substantiated by witnesses being merely supported by the weight of
circumstantial evidence, the judge shall have the duty with the counsel of
the Rabbi, to order the defamer apprehended and punished bodily in
accordance with what seems proper to the scholars so far as they may
(legally).
If the alleged defamation is confirmed by one witnesses as well as
incriminating circumstances, or if he confesses to it, there shall be
branded on his brow the word Malshin. "
In Spanish, there are different clasifications, for example, in
http://www.geocities.com/yargg/inquisicion.htm you may find:
"[Conversos] sinceros" (lit. sincere).
"Judaizantes": (lit. "Jewing", Crypto-Jews?).) the ones who still practized
the Judaism in secret.
"Sincretistas": The ones who mixtured Christianism & Judaism (usually
because of a defficient understanding of the Christian religion).
"Increyentes" ("unbelievers": people who converted to obtain social
promotions, enter the nobility ... one or other religion didn't matter for
them).
"Malshines" (I suppose it should be "malshins" in English, then)
Regards
Ismael
moj
Marc
"Ismael" <is...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9prqaa$k6bgl$1...@ID-80357.news.dfncis.de...