she should have just moved to pakistan or maybe even saudi arabia if things like pork, alcohol, and short clothes drive her towards homicidal behavior.

if these type of people hate standard western lifestyles enough to kill, why even live in the west?

Thanks to the media for simplifying a woman's situation. Islam made me do it...yeah sure. There was obviously more than him forcing her to eat pork that she decided to slit his throat.

Her husband was abusive and abusers keep their victims cornered, cowed, and feeling helpless. If she wasn't a Muslim, the Media would have focused more on his promiscuous past, his drinking problems, that he was abusing her emotionally and forcing her to do things against her will. When under that kind of day-in-day-out siege, the victim doesn't see many options.

I'm not condoning her "solution" BTW, but I can totally understand that she might have thought that this is the only way out.

thats funny, its usually the other way around....

Quoted from radical nutcases:

"Muslims all over the world are working hard to achieve [the] goal of submission of the entire world to Islam....."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76017

Islam is a very dangerous ideology. If it limited itself merely to the 5 pillars of Islam, that's quite harmless. However, it aimed at taking over the world, dominating every aspect of life. That's a threat to human civilization. Islam had swept away the Persian civilization and the Byzantium civilization in the past, plagiarizing their inventions.

If Islam permeated our life, the Dark Age will begun.



Humanity is but one family.

Who are these clowns trying to fool?

I'm a Muslim and I don't even know of a single Muslim personally who's "working hard" to achieve this goal. Everyone is trying to survive and provide for their families.

I'm talking about practicing Muslims here BTW and not the "I drink on weekends with my buddies" kind of 'Muslims'.





Except the Muslims right?

I ain't fooling anyone if you know what i am talking about. I clearly wrote about radicals, not our daily mates who are hardly affected with unorthodox religious indoctrination.
Besides, i wrote as to reply to samnang's post; it might cause a misunderstanding but i wasn't giving my views on the topic itself.

^I meant the clowns who are associated with the article you posted.

Mr Pun187, the emblem you are using is an Aryan one. Are you an Iranian? Who virtually destroyed your grand Persian Empire?



Humanity is but one family.

"Aryan" emblem? Uhm, No sir, your knowledge in this field seems to be lacking. It actually says "Allah" and is the official Coat of arms of the Islamic Republic Of Iran.

Empires rise and fall, what does that have to do with this topic? Who destroyed the British Empire or the French Empire?

I'm not Iranian.

You didn't answer my question BTW. "Humanity is but one family" except Muslims, yeah?

Mr Pun, I am afraid the deficiency is in your knowledge. The emblem is clearly Aryan one, which was a part of ancient Persian symbol. The people of the Sikh religion use quite similar symbol too. Please, we don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that.

Yes, empires rise and fall, but if you really admire the Islamic Republic of Iran, you should at least learn about their history as well. Let me tell you, the Persian Empire was devastated by a ruthless force, destroying their entire civilization. This force wants to compel the entire world to submit to their way.

"Humanity is but one family", this phrase is very clear and undisputed. But, when a part of the family member possess an ideology that advocate the murder of another section of the family, that's an imperative issues to be dealt with.


Humanity is but one family.

Incorrect.

That symbol is not "Aryan", but "Allah" written in Arabic, severely "stretched out". Was the artist who created it possibly influenced by ancient Indo-Iranian symbolism? Possibly, but is unlikely that the Islamic Republic's founding leadership would have realized, understood or endorsed it with that knowledge. The connection has never been proven, enough though right-wing Sunni wahhabi takfiri types readily use your very same argument to attack not just the Iranian government, but Shiaism in general, as not being "Islamic" but something "Persian" in nature. It is ironic that you share their views in this regard.

Beyond that, I am not sure of the relevance to this thread's discussion?

she's a model feminist.

I think you should learn Arabic first or just to look how this transliteration translates.

First, there are no things like wahhabis, there are salafi ones. Al Wahab had nothing to do with all of this despite being a prominent and popular cleric.
Takfirists I would tell you, are just thou people who insists on acceptability of use of native language versions of Quran, or the best meaning to interpret it "takfir" is more "localised" than "translated". Most of Sunnites are Arab speaking/reading thus doesn't need any takfirs.
And the second, Shiasm generally hardly has anything to do with being Persians/Aryan/Sun worshipping either and the same are for many other thing this sect is associated, mainly it is just an archaic leftover from times of Mohammed and co.

Why didn't she just leave his @$$ if was that bad? I mean religion is something a person hold very dear to them, then when you find out that the person you are going to share your life with doesn't respect your religion why not just leave them? It's not like he all of the sudden started with force feeding her pork and poured alcohol down her throat. It must have started gradually. She had the time to just run away.

It's because she was motivated by a very dangerous ideology to do so. It's not her innate nature, but the brainwashing that she had been exposed into since the childhood period.




I accept the possibility that the emblem is a modification of pre-islamic Aryan symbol. Anyway, the Shias and Sunnis had been at logger head with each other since 1400 years ago. The Persian should throw the religion into the dustbin of history and revive their great Persian Empire, rather than being the slaves of Arabian hatred ideology. You have Rustam, Yazdagerd, Cyrus, Darius and even Queen emperor Atossa. Be proud of them, not some Arabian desert dweller that murdered your innocent ancestors in the name of religion.


Humanity is but one family.

Stop watching Fox News.

There are 1.6 Billion Muslims in the world, If what you said was really true they'd already have humped your behind, and the behind of your neighbour and and and...


Feel free to post that "pre-Islamic Aryan Symbol" here in this thread.


What makes you think that Iranians aren't proud of their pre-Islamic kings and mythological heroes?

The Persian empire would have fell even If Islam didn't exist, just like any other Empire in History. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

No, that's a 'khanda'......its different than the symbol on the Iranian flag.

Uh...Oh! It sounds like you are offended! Please don't go shoot up any U.S Army bases now!

Also, don't much give a damn for "translation". Arabic is an ugly language, spoken by people who want me dead. End of discussion!



Don't get me wrong, and I am not disagreeing with you. In fact, who knows what the creator of that image was REALLY thinking. After all, there is a lot of aspect of modern Persian/Iranian culture that is very "un-Islamic"...Just look at our New Years celebration, amongst other things. I just think the hardliner psycho Shias of 1979, as a whole, wanted to remove that aspect as much as possible. Not anymore so much, but certainly then.

The problem is, it is just never going to work. The culture and people are just to old and ancient.



Except, unlike the Greeks and Mongols, the Arabs brought Islam, which in many ways is a form of Arabism and Arab nationalism. In other words, they really believe that it is God's gift to be an Arab, and unlike Jews who keep to themselves, the Arabs through Islam believe that they can literally make the world "Arab". That is the damn problem...

Also Pun, what the hell is with putting that damn symbol as your avatar, if you are not "Iranian"? Are you a Shia that feels some kind of connection with the IRI government? I mean, it is a pretty politically charged thing to do. Just saying...



Different, yes, but with a defiant similarity, if truly unrelated.

I think, though, a symbol that unfortunately actually represents the current Iranian Government is the IRGC "Pasdaran" symbol, as they really the one's running the show now, and not the clerics.:



It is very similar to Hezbollah's symbol, since they are so closely related...



Lets face it, that who is running the show now.

The similiarity is incidental. The 'Khanda' actually gets its name from the double edged sword in the center which is referd to alone as a khanda. Its flanked by two kirpans (curved single edge swords) with a chakar in the center.

By the same token, I really don't see any similarity between the current Iranian flag symbol, and anything in Iranian history. Hence why the artist nay have "burrowed" from the Sikh symbol for whatever reason. No one is really sure.

For example:



They always liked cats a lot, for some reason...

Interestingly enough, the current khanda symbol didn't come into use until the 20's. The original khanda didn't have the chakar in the center and was essentially just three swords, close to the current Iranian Coat of Arms, which was created by Hamid Nadimi and approved by Khoemeini in 1980...

Interesting about the Khanda. I did not know that. It is also interesting that you knew about "Nadimi". I read about him years ago, and had long since forgotten.

You seem to know your stuff.

Still, in your opinion then, there is no direct connection between these two symbols, correct?

Yes, that is correct. They look similiar but there is no connection at all.

Gotcha.

Well, lets just hope it won't be the Iranian symbol for too much longer.

Just my 2 cents...

It's all on Wikipedia.


Maybe because you don't want to see any similarities?

"The shape of the emblem is chosen to resemble a tulip, for the memory of the people who died for Iran: it is an ancient belief in Iran, dating back to mythology, that if a young soldier dies patriotically a red tulip will grow on his grave. In recent years it has been considered the symbol of martyrdom."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Iran

Just it's funny looking Obamas and Co. trying to teach people religion, ethics and best kama sutra positions without being clerics or either having Phd. or two themselves, much like having Oprah Winfrey type people running the government, the same applies to people like u.

Slam dunk phase one begins

Hello Mr Pun, actually you should check all my posts in various thread to get a clear picture about the dangerous ideology you are clinging into. But, it's okay for me to repeat the truth that most of your kind tried hardly to bury in history.



Then start watching Al-Jazeera?



Because the technology is invented mostly by secular humanists, not of your own kind at least. Because as long as you stick to your own kind way of life, nothing good or beneficial that will be produced to contribute towards humanity. History testified that.



As long as they are sticking to that ideology, they can never be proud of Unbelievers achievement. Are you proud of your pagan ancestors? You know the answer. What mythological heroes? Do you mean they were never existed except in mythology? You already let the cat out of the bag my human friend. You are the product of your own Arabism way of life. You must cherish and respect your own kind.



What kind of logic is this? The downfall of Persian Empire was caused by your own kind who invaded and subjugated the peaceful nation. After your letter containing threat of submission was rejected, your own kind virtually devastated the Persian Empire and its glorious civilization to the ground. Of course, when god was on your side, everything was justified. Well done.


Humanity is but one family.

I could name other much more dangerous ideologies including communism, dactrinism, fascism which many foby guy are clinging into onto this forum in a well noticed way but nobody actually even pretend to say a word.

How about reading for a change?


Stop trying to divert the attention, just say that you can't post the symbol because there isn't any.


What mythological heroes? Funny how you bring up Rustam and then ask me this question. LOL Are you actually familiar with Iranian History at all or are you just typing stuff that you have heard?

And to answer your question, NO I'm not proud of my pagan ancestors or my Muslim ancestors. Why should I be proud of something that I have no control of? I'm only proud of things that I've achieved myself.


It's the logic a reasonable person would come up with.

Empires always rise and fall in equal turns. I thought every person with common sence would understand that.

Well, then it must be true, as Wikipedia is Allah's messenger and final prophet on Earth...




I could care less either way. There is no equivalent in Iranian/Persian art or history to back up your claim. It certainly does no reflect any Persian style I am aware of. Not to mention it us just plain ugly. In Persian, we actually refer to it as the "doodool", which has a very sarcastic meaning to us. This "tulip" nonsense sounds like typical IRI post-revolution propaganda garbage. The same people who wanted to get rid of Noruz, bulldoze the Persepolis, and rename the Persian Gulf the "Islamic Gulf". The same people who care more about Arab Palestinians than their own poor and persecuted...

I take the logo in your avatar as a personal insult affront, as you claim to not be Iranian. It is very insulting. I have to ask, do you have any concept of how ugly you come across as to an actual "one"?

Hey, try not to go shoot up any U.S Army bases after you enlist with them, Muslim boy!

No, that's google.



Then why make a fuss about it?


You refer it as Penis? Interesting.

Hmm and I was thinking that you don't even like that Logo. LOL

You seem to have some serious issues if you take this as an insult.


Thirteen people were killed and you are poking fun at it. Seems like you'd enjoy it more.

You said Wikipedia in your posting, Sparky...




Simple. It is called common sense.




Wow. You learned how to use "google" today!

Google Search "Doodool"

It is actually slang, and translated into "thing". Of course, that thing in passing refers to well...That thing on this IRI symbol you love so much. Unlike you humorless Islamic fanatics types, Persians got a pretty funny sense of humor.



You don't know the culture boy, but you run around with the ruling political elites symbolism of that very nation. Kind of like American kids back in the 60's who thought communism was cool, and ran around with the hammer and sickle logo. LOL



I consider cultural genocide a personal affront, yes.



Nope. Pretty damn upset by the whole bit, unlike you. I am sure you are feeling some serious joy inside. After all, he had the guts to do what you could only wish...

The things Tenji mentioned are all up Wikipedia. That's what I meant, If you don't get the sarcasm from my other post you might suffer from asperger's syndrome.


Yes, ofcourse it's called common sense when a person makes a fuss about something that he doesn't care about.



No, my all knowing dool tala told me.


Cry me a river.


And that's why you are making jokes about it, because you are upset.

I guess that's "common sense" for you.

From your own kind point of view which historically proven to be biased and one-sided when dealing with any issues related to believers and unbelievers? No thanks.




Did I? I even admit my mistake pointed by Mr Atari.




It's you who said that the personalities I mentioned were mythological. Perhaps, you should go and read the Persian history from unbiased sources, rather than rehashing your own prejudiced perspective.

I can understand about your indifference towards your pagan ancestors, but don't lie about your attitude towards Muslim ancestors. You are supposed to love and cherish them in every prayer. You forget?



You are evading to answer because you have none. It's true about the rise and downfall of every civilizations, no exception. But humanity determined the aggressors and the oppressed as recorded and documented in the history books. It's only your own kind that try to bury the facts and justify your acts of barbarity against other communities. Typical minded, Mr Pun.


Humanity is but one family.

Oh OK, so you rather watch Fox News than reading. Yeah, that's what I thought. LOL



If you make a mistake you apologize and say that you made a mistake. You don't try to divert attention from the topic, that's what a Jehovah's witness would do.


See? That's why you should read more instead of watching your favourite TV channel. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

You bring up Atossa, Cyrus, Darius, Yazdegerd and Rustam in your posts and claim that Iranian aren't proud of those pre-Islamic characters. Where I refuted your post and said that Iranians ARE proud of their Pre-Islamic KINGS and Mythological Heroes. (The people you mentioned were Kings/Queens and Mythological Heroes )

See you made a mistake again, feel free to run away from this like you did with the "Aryan Symbol" also.


Ooh, so I'm talking to Mr. Know It all who knows me better than myself.

I could care less about my ancestors, they are all a bunch of dead people that I don't know.


I gave you a clear answer, it's you who is having a hard time getting it.

I just love how this clown "Pun187" just keeps dodging the most basic question.

Slam dunk phase 2 begins



Hello Mr Pun, did I say I watch Fox News? You are good at assumption. Kudos to you.



Check my post, I admit my mistake to Mr Atari because he pointed out that the "Aryan Symbol" is a mixed of pre-Islamic emblem and post-islamic innovation. On the other hand, you keep insisting that it's purely Islamic one, which is far from truth.

Jehovah Witnesses? The Christian cultist? My human friend, you are making another wild assumption again. I am a Deist. Google that.



Iranians who cherish their Persian culture more than their Islamic heritage definitely proud of those warriors and kings. The Islamic Mulla in Iran are of course outside this circle. You see, you should educate yourself with Persian history. Rustam fought heroically with the Arabian Islamic invaders, so did Yazdegard. Have you read the letter of response by Yazdegard to Umar Al Khattab? My human friend, you know nothing about anything.



I don't know you but as a Muslim, you must abide by certain principles and do not violate those. To invoke prayer and blessing to human other than your own kind is clearly prohibited. Please do not pretend not to know all this my human friend. I know of your own kind, your mentality and your escapism too well.



You were not being clear. You failed to determine the aggressors and the oppressed because your religion dictated to you that any act of subjugation by your own kind was justified because the other party were Unbelievers. I am trying to penetrate into your mind and your answer definitely fit my expectation. You could not help it. I understand.


Humanity is but one family.

The Persian and Byzantine civilizations continued to exist long after the early Muslim conquests. What are you babbling on about?


Another Persian empire arose just a few centuries after the Muslim conquest. Again, what are you babbling on about? Do you even know anything about medieval Persian history?


Historians largely agree that the Golden Age of Persia began after the Muslim conquest. It was in the medieval Islamic period that most of the greatest Persian polymaths, scientists, philosophers, poets, artists and engineers flourished. Persian Muslims like Al-Khwarizmi, Ferdowsi, Avicenna, Al-Biruni, Al-Tusi, etc. have contributed a lot more to human civilization than any of the ancient Persian figures you've mentioned, with the obvious exceptions of Cyrus and Darius.


And where does the Islamic Golden Age fit into this false "History" of yours?


Again, just because one Persian empire fell, that doesn't mean Persia fell, nor does it mean no other Persian empire ever arose after that. Persian civilization and Persian empires continued to exist long after the Muslim conquest.


As long as they don't target civilians, I honestly don't care if Muslim boys go shooting up US Army bases.


And what might that be?


Maybe you should educate yourself about Persian history first before telling others to do so, my friend.


I suppose Muslims are all a monolithic bunch of people who all think alike and have no individuality, right?

Hello Mr Jagger, you will be slam dunked too. Just wait.



Educate yourself about the battles that took place between the Byzantium and the Muslim and between the Persian and the Muslims. Besides that, read about the war between Byzantium and Persia too. Determine who were the aggressors and who were the oppressed. Since you are lack of empathy, you cannot differentiate this subtle details or you like to justify cruelty and barbarism? Battle of Qadisiyya?




You mean the Safavids? And the clashed with the Ottoman. There goes your unity and salvation.




The so-called Golden Age of Islam was by far largely exaggerated. It's the rise of rationalist Mu'tazilite philosophy that was conducive to it. All those scientists you mentioned were labeled as heretic or apostate by later orthodox Islamic scholars because they disbelieve in certain Islamic doctrine. Avicenna was declared as apostate by Ibn Taymiyya and Al-Ghazali. Al-Tusi was branded as traitor because he conspired with Ibn Al-qami to let the Mongol enter ed Baghdad. You forgot to mention another scientist, Abu Bakar Muhammad Zakariya Ar-Razi, a staunch freethinkers and wrote many scientific treatises and literature. He also wrote books against the core doctrine of Islam. Please do not claim all these scholars as one of yours judging by their "Islamic" names. They were the worst Muslims, hence, they became the source of enlightenment. Your scholars were Ibn Taymiyya, Jalaluddin Sayuti ( believe in flat earth), Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi( believe in 6000 year old earth), etc.




There were none. The Islamic "Golden" Age was an exaggerated myth. Most of the scientists at that time were freethinkers, apostates and heretic Muslims. Check out Ibn Rawandi and Abu A'la Al-Ma'ari.



Are you blind or what? Islam has caused the backwardness of any country it infiltrated. The later arose of the Safavids was a response to the surrounding Sunni caliphates, the Persian needed their own identity, thus, they adopted another form of Islam, the Shiaism. Bear in mind that most Sunnis regarded them as infidel, vice versa. Your glorified Islamic history of internal feud and skirmishes between these two groups. Remember Battle of Jamal, Battle of Siffin, Battle of Nahrawan? How many casualties? What kind of salvation are you holding onto. With killing and blood?



Hatred is a uniting factor for Muslims. In the early history of Islam, it was the hatred against Unbelievers. No change until now. Let me tell you, USA may not be that innocent. You can hate them. However, you should also hate Saddam Hussein for murdering 500,000 Kurds, Pakistani for murdering 3 million Bangadeshi and raping 250,000 women, and many more unimaginable atrocities committed by your brother in Islam towards each other. Islam is so horror. Don't turn a blind eyes to this and concentrate on the Jews and Christians because your corrupted unholy book declared them to be enemies. Get it?




My human friend, you should learn the bitter truth about your despicable conquests towards neighboring nations. That's colonialism, the word that you abhorred the most and blame on the Western Imperialists. Ironically, your own kind indulged in colonialism as early as 7th century. Good.




Of course you have. But to cling to a 7th century violent book and emulating an unholy prophet who accumulated wives and 5% booty, you can turn into a monster. Be careful, Shariah-lover.



Humanity is but one family.

Hi, Mr. kenmirzzz. I see you've started resorting to personal attacks already? That's just pathetic. Not that I care though... Besides, what's a puny little slam dunk gonna do to me? My football volley kick would completely obliterate your slam dunk! Football can 'kick' basketball's arse any day.


What does any of this have to do with anything I just said? Nice try at diverting the question. Just admit it already that you were wrong in claiming that "Islam had swept away the Persian civilization and the Byzantium civilization in the past".

And please, spare me your moral nonsense. I only came here to correct your misunderstanding of history, not to engage in moral polemics. The only thing I said that might be considered moral (or rather, immoral) is that I don't care about military deaths, as long as civilians aren't killed in the process. In the case of the early Muslim conquests, the early Caliphs made it pretty clear that non-combatant civilians should not be harmed. How is that supposed to be "cruel and barbaric"? Besides, 'the oppressed' were not the Byzantine (Roman) or Sassanid (Persian) authorities, but it was the people living in the territories that they had fought over during the Roman-Persian Wars. In fact, one of the reasons the early Muslim conquests were so successful was because most of the people (especially Jews and Christians, many of whom were themselves Arabs) already living in those Byzantine and Sassanid territories supported and assisted the Muslims (who offered greater tolerance and lower taxes) in their conquests. But I think it's obvious that all you want to hear is that Muslims were 'aggressors', right? If that's the case, then so were the Byzantines and Sassanids who were fighting over control of the Near East for the decades preceding the Muslim conquests. It shouldn't be a great surprise that the people of the Near East ended up supporting the new Muslim underdogs instead.


Go look up the Buyids. You obviously have a lot to learn about Persian history, my aggressive friend.


I said "Golden Age of Persia", not "Golden Age of Islam". Nice try at twisting my words. The Golden Age of Persia does indeed coincide with the Golden Age of Islam though. Go read Richard N. Frye's Golden Age of Persia to find out more about the flourishing of Persian civilization in the centuries following the arrival of Islam. This can only mean the complete opposite to what you were claiming: Persian civilization did not end with the arrival of Islam, but flourished to much greater heights than ever before.

None of the Persian Muslim scholars I mentioned before belonged to the Mu'tazilite school. What are you babbling on about this time? As for your pointless polemic, it doesn't matter what you or others think about them. The fact of the matter is that all of the Persian Muslim scholars I mentioned considered themselves to be devout practicing Muslims. For example, Avicenna memorized the Quran at a young age (i.e. Muslims who memorize the Quran are usually considered pious Muslims), wrote many commentaries on it, and held the book in high esteem. It's completely irrelevant what others thought about them, but if that does matter to you so much, then all the Persian Muslim scholars I mentioned were revered by millions of Muslims throughout the Islamic world for centuries. One or two diverging opinions about them mean nothing, as those opinions were completely dwarfed by the vast majority of Muslims who revered and respected them. As for Al-Razi, the fact that he was even allowed to freely criticize Islam and not get punished or even sacked for it at all means that the Islamic world was not as intolerant as you are trying to make it seem. And it's funny how you mentioned Jalaluddin Sayuti, whose opinion about a flat Earth was completely rejected by the vast majority of Islamic scholars in his own time. Nice try at making him a 'representative' of Islam.


Just as I thought. You're so predictable, my friend. The only people who do agree with you about the Islamic Golden Age being a 'myth' are anti-Islamic authors and propoganda websites who hold no credentials at all as historians. The vast majority of real historians (both Western and Eastern) have already accepted the Islamic Golden Age as fact. The real fact of the matter is that most of the greatest scientists, philosophers, engineers, poets and artists in the Islamic world at this time were devout practising Muslims, not "apostates" or "heretic Muslims" like you claim.


Yet another personal attack. You really are getting desperate, aren't you? If Islam "caused the backwardness of any country it infiltrated" as you claim, then how do you explain the fact that nearly all the territories Islam infiltrated was far more advanced than their surrounding non-Islamic territories throughout the Middle Ages? History is testament to the fact that the Islamic world was one of the most advanced civilizations in the world at that time, alongside China and India. On the other hand, medieval Europe was one of the most backwards regions at that time (with the exceptions of Spain and Sicily which were ruled by Muslims).


Okay, what does any of this have to do with what I just said? I see you've resorted to your diversion tactics yet again.


Indeed. My nation did create the largest empire in history, after all. The Great Britannian Empire completely trumps all of your puny little empires!


Oh, so now I'm a Shariah-lover, am I? Maybe you should go look up "strawman argument" now.


You still haven't answered one most basic question asked by Pun earlier on: does that include Muslims?

Hah! You just made my argument for me! Why do you even bother living in the Western World, if you hate it so much?

Unbelievable hypocrisy...




Pun has a IRI logo in his avatar. He will not answer if he is Iranian or not. More importantly, he speaks no Persian. I simply am curious why he would use that symbol? If he is a Shia Muslim, I could very well at least understand. That would not be offensive. If he is doing it for others reasons, he might just want to say why.




I have a hunch I know a little more about Persian history, and the history of Central Asia in general, than you could ever hope. I would be happy to "school" you anytime, kid. Growing up having to learn 3,000 years of history is a serious pain in the rear. Just ask any of our Chinese friends here. They will understand...



They are an ideology, and not a "people" as you like to put it. Anyone can become Muslim today, and not be one tomorrow. A hollow shell, with no real grounding in culture, trying to pass itself off as something more than it is.

Since when did anti-American become the same thing as anti-Western? According to your logic, hundreds of millions of Europeans are "anti-Western", LOL!

I'm not surprised by your response though... that's the kind of unbelievable idiocy many Europeans (and other Westerners) have come to expect from a lot of Americans.


I see.


Just 3,000 years of history? Is that all you know? And yet you claim to know more than me about Persian and Central Asian history? Whatever, old man. You've still got thousands of years to go before you can catch up to me.


Have you ever heard of the word "sarcasm"?

Hello Mr Jagger, I am really sorry if you consider my statement: " You will be slam dunked" as a personal attack. What I mean is that I will slam dunk your argument. I apologize if you take that too personal. Forgive me.

Now, allow me to proceed with the phase 2 of slam dunking your ARGUMENT.





So, you can just sent threatening letter to other sovereign and compelled them to comply with your wish, if they rejected, a whole scale invasion is launched? I deliberately avoid quoting sources because I want to see how well you play the semantic apologetic game Mr Jagger. Here I present you with this hadith:

It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: “They are from them.” (Sahih Muslim 4322, see also Bukhari 52:256)

There goes your Islamic tolerance. But, you may choose not to believe in this hadith because you feel ashamed about it.

You know the source of honor-killing and all the innocents being murdered( either in war or raid) by your own kind is this:

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside. (Sahih Muslim 4457)

The early conqueror of your own kind was not as mercy as you want to imagine. Many were converted at the point of swords.

There were many battles between the Arab invaders and the Persian, I will list all of them:

1.The Battles of Namraq and Kasker (12 A.H. 634 C.E.)
2.Battle of the Bridge (Al Jisr) - 14 A.H. 636 C.E.
3.Battle of Ghadasia (15 A.H., 637 C.E.)
4.Battle of Nihavend (651)

These are how your own kind spread the religion. Please my human friend, don't close your eyes to this bare facts. In all these aggression, you yourself can determine the aggressor. Traitors and betrayer existed anywhere, just because a few people from enemy territories assisted the Arab invaders did not prove the legality of the course. If someone from your family conspire with your enemy to evict you out of your house, does that mean your enemy is right? In defending your faith, you even glorify the traitors. What is someone apostate from Islam? You brand them as traitor and deserve death, am I right? I know you cannot help it. Your mentality is programmed to hold to any straw man for justification.

Do you have any idea why a group of Zoroastrians fled Persia to India? When they refused to convert, they knew what their fate will be, which means die.



Go and tell that to your Sunni brothers and see how much they "love" the Buyids, Samanids, Saffarids and Ziyarids. Apart from accusing the Shias of incorporating Zoroastrianism into Islam, these so called Persian-Shias dynasty did not last long, not even comparable with the ancient Persian pre-Islamic dynasty. Your own kind terminated all these Persian Shia dynasty and erased them once and for all from history. Only The Safavids was strong enough to maintain its sovereignty in a considerable amount of time.



Rehashing this myth again? Avicenna in his book Al-Mu'ad An-Ni'am( page 80) denied the resurrection. He was heavily influenced by the Greek philosophers and believe in beginningless world.

Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr (rahimahullah) said about Ibn Seena,

“The shaafi’ee scholar, Ibn Abee Al-Hamoowee said: the Scholars have all agreed that Ibn Seena used to say that the universe has always been in existence, and that the bodies will not be raised physically on the day of judgment.

It also has been said that he used to say that Allaah does not have knowledge of the specifics (of everything that takes place); rather He is aware of what takes place in the general sense.

Thus, the scholars in his time and those after them, those scholars whose statements carry weight in matters of fiqh and usoolul-fiqh, have unequivocally declared him and al-Farabi to be kuffaar, because of their beliefs regarding these matters for they contradict the beliefs of the Muslims.

[Lisaanal-Meezaan, (2/293)]

There goes your "Islamic" scientists. Do not claim him as your own unless you believe as him. Tajuddin As-Subki declared that those who praise Avicenna become apostate. How Islamic are you Mr Jagger?

The "Golden" age of Islam or Persia( according to you) were triggered due to the fact that many of those scientists translated literature from Greeks, Hindus, Chinese and Persian into Arabic. This influence the renaissance of science in those time.

Here another quotation:

Ibn al-Quayyim (rahimahullah) said: “Ibn Seena, as he stated about himself, said that he and his father were from the esoteric Karaamitah sect who do not believe in the beginning of creation, the resurrection , the Creator, nor the Messengers.

Those zanaadiqah used to adopt Shee’aism and claim to be from the lineage of the Prophet’s family as a guise in order to hide their disbelief, whereas the Prophet’s family is not at all related to them with regards to lineage, their actions and their beliefs.

They used to kill the people of knowledge and the people of Eeman, and they would leave the people of shirk and kufr. They did not consider what is haraam to be haraam, nor what is halaal to be halaal.”

[Ighaathah Al-Lahfaan (2/266)]

Nice try Mr Jagger, all those scientists were freethinkers. No credit for your own kind.



Read these books:

1.The Sword of the Prophet: A Politically-Incorrect Guide to Islam
2.The Myth of the Golden Age of Tolerance in Medieval Muslim Spain
3. Freethinkers of Medieval Islam: Ibn al-Rawandi, Abu Bakr al-Razi and Their Impact on Islamic Thought
4.Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization (Felibri Publications).

It's up to you if you want to reject them. You have the right to do so. The early Arabs were anything but scientists.



I have already answered this question. As soon as orthodoxy gained foothold again, your backwardness started. Thus, the advancement was motivated by unislamic materials and literature that cultivated those "Islamic" scientists to pursue their field, though the voice of orthodox superseded them later. Why is that among all 56 Islamic countries, not one can challenge the West and Japan in science, technology and civilization? It's because those progressive voices of the past had been silenced. Don't you get it?



It's call empathy. You are lacking in it. Thus, you cannot see beyond your bird's eye viewpoint.



How loyal are you to the Empire of Brittania? As long as you are in the minority section of the society? So predictable.




Obviously you are. You are defending a dangerous ideology that you have no idea about it at all except some hearsay here and there.



Check my post. Already answered. As long as any human does not call for the domination and subjugation of other human. You and me are a family of humanity.




Humanity is but one family.

In that case, it's time for me to obliterate your slam dunk with my volley kick once again...


It's interesting how you ignored the narrations directly before the one you quoted...

Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4319:

"It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that a woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He disapproved of the killing of women and children."

Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4320:

"It is narrated by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children."

Nice try at only copying-and-pasting the bits that suit your agenda and ignoring everything else that comes before and after it. Not only is it dishonest, but it's also called the "fallacy of quoting out of context". Go look it up on Google.


Once again, you've ignored the narration that comes directly after the one you quoted...

Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4458:

"It has been narrated on the authority of Yazid b. Hurmuz who said: Najda b. 'Amir al-Haruri wrote to Ibn Abbas asking him about the slave and the woman as to whether they would get a share from the booty (it they participated in Jihad) ; about the killing of (enemy) children (in war) ; about the orphan as to when his orphanhood comes to an end; about kinsmen (of the Holy Prophet) as to who they are. He said to Yazid: Write to him. (If he were not likely to fall into folly, I would not have written to him.) Write: You have written asking about the woman and the slave whether they would get a share of the booty if they participated in Jihad. (You should know that) there is nothing of the sort for them except that they will be given a prize. And you have written asking me about the killing of the enemy children in war. (You should understand that) the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) did not kill them. And thou shouldst not kill them unless thou knew what the companion of Moses (i.e. Khadir) knew about the boy he had killed. And you have written asking me about the orphan as to when the period of his orphanhood comes to an end, so that the sobriquet of" orphan" is dropped from him. (In this regard, you should know that) the sobriquet" orphan" will not be dropped from him until he attains maturity of body and mind. And you have written asking me about the close relatives (of the Holy Prophet) as to who they are. We think that it is we, but our people have denied us this (position and its concomitant privileges)."

Note how this version of the narration specifically forbids the killing of "enemy children".

And I don't see where you are getting at by even posting these hadiths in the first place. They don't tell us anything about the conduct of warfare during the actual Muslim conquests outside of Arabia. Something more relevant would be what the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, declared at the beginning of the Muslim conquests:

"Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone." (Source: H. Yousuf Aboul-Enein & Sherifa Zuhur, Islamic Rulings on Warfare)

I guess that must make the Muslims "cruel and barbaric", right?


That's funny. A lot of Islamophobes (for lack of a better word) blame the mass conversions on "dhimmitude", and yet others like you claim they were forced to convert "at the point of swords"? So which one is it? Was it because of the jizya tax or was it because of "conversion by the sword"? Why can't you Islamophobes make up your minds already?

The first three of those battles were fought in Iraq, a region that had been bitterly fought over by the Roman Byzantines and Sassanid Persians just a few years before the Muslims arrived. The fact of the matter is that the Byzantines, Sassanids and Muslim Arabs were all foreign invaders to the region, not to mention the fact that Christian Arabs had already made up a significant portion of Iraq's population even before the Muslim ones arrived. It looks obvious to me that you are simply trying to pin all the blame on the Muslim Arabs while trying to portray the Byzantines and Persians as innocent victims, which couldn't be any farther from the truth. Well, at least it's nice to know you did what I said and looked up "strawman argument", although I doubt you've understood it much.


There were many Zoroastrians in the early Islamic Caliphate. They were known as "al-Majusi". Their eventual conversion to Islam took centuries, not immediately 'under the sword' like you are trying to make it seem.

Okay, so now you've turned pro-Shia and anti-Sunni all of a sudden? I thought your hatred was against Islam as a whole?


Wrong. Where Avicenna differed was that his philosophy supported spiritual resurrection rather than physical bodily resurrection. However, in his Book of Healing, Avicenna eventually accepted the doctrine of bodily resurrection on the basis of faith. As for his idea of an eternally-existing universe, it did not contradict his belief that God was the cause of the universe's existence. The first scholar to call Avicenna a "disbeliever" was Al-Ghazali, and yet he himself was declared a "disbeliever" in his own time. All these "disbeliever" accusations were, if anything, just petty name-calling. The fact of the matter is that both Avicenna and Al-Ghazali firmly considered themselves to be devout practising Muslims, so why should it even matter what others thought about them?

Where did you find that quote? I looked it up on Google and couldn't find anything on it besides a few random websites.


Osama bin Laden has been declared a "disbeliever" by hundreds of Islamic scholars, but I bet you must think of Osama as a fine example of a "true Muslim", right? I suppose a bad Muslim is a "true Muslim" and a good Muslim is a "disbeliever", right? You Islamophobes (again, for lack of a better word) are so predictable, not to mention extremely biased.

Again, where are you getting these "quotations" from? Are you getting them from random websites or actual published sources?

And for the record, you know nothing about my "own kind."


Oh really? Go look up Alhazen, Geber, Abulcasis, Arzachel, Avenzoar, Ibn al-Nafis, Taqi al-Din, etc. These Muslim Arabs were some of the earliest experimental scientists in history.

As for the books you've listed, three of them were written by authors (Robert Spencer, Norman Berdichevsky and John J. O'Neill) who have no qualifications at all in the area of history. The only one worth considering is Freethinkers of Medieval Islam, which is only specifically concerned with Al-Razi and Ibn al-Rawandi, not all Muslim scientists.

Here are a few books you can read about the 'Islamic Golden Age' and 'Golden Age of Persia' from real historians and reputable publishers:

-Peter Malcolm Holt, Ann K. S. Lambton, Bernard Lewis, The Cambridge history of Islam
-Richard Nelson Frye, The Golden Age of Persia
-Howard R. Turner, Science in medieval Islam: an illustrated introduction
-George Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science, Volume I


Islam doesn't have an orthodoxy, so who is this "orthodoxy" you are referring to?

As for your "empathy" nonsense, that's just yet another strawman argument. You know nothing about me, so I don't know why you even bother trying?


Wrong. I am loyal to nobody but myself and those who are close to me.

I get my knowledge about that "ideology" from reliable, published, academic sources. Where do you get your knowledge about that "ideology" from, besides random online propoganda websites? Pot calling the kettle black?

So does that family of humanity include Muslims? Yes or no?

Football is prohibited in Islam. Your volley kick may end up under the "Fatwa kick" on you. The horror will envelope you.

Check here:
1.http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/quran/2008/02/abdullah_alhasan_v_ziauddin_sa.html
2.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_U_zAKtemY


However, my slam dunk move will put the ideology to rest. Here it is. Phase 3 begins.



Assuming you believe and find no problem with the hadiths, it makes my job easier. Thanks for quoting other hadiths as well. You are committing Denying the correlative logical fallacy, my human friend. The fact was that women and children become the victim of the raids. There's no other alternative.

Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.� Muslim 19: 4292

Don't tell me the goody moral in the above raid when the villagers were attacked in sudden. So, no female and children murdered at such night raid? There's no need to warn them of the strike, just like marauding gang of mafia executed their wrath. That's not all.

Uqba bin Abu Mu’ayt pled for his life:
“When the apostle ordered him to be killed, Uqba said, “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?” [Muhammad’s reply] “Hell.” The man was put to death. (Ibn Ishaq 458)

What? "Prophet" of Mercy? Did he ever have love for the disbelievers children? A big no.

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:

I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. (Abu Dawood, 38:4390)

How old is the age to grow pubic hair? 11 or 12? On that day, 600-800 Bani Qurayza Jews were decapitated and thrown into the trench dug around Madina.

Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) offered the Fajr prayer when it was still dark, then he rode and said, 'Allah Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. When we approach near to a nation, the most unfortunate is the morning of those who have been warned." The people came out into the streets saying, "Muhammad and his army." Allah's Apostle vanquished them by force and their warriors were killed; the children and women were taken as captives. Safiya was taken by Dihya Al-Kalbi and later she belonged to Allah's Apostle go who married her and her Mahr was her manumission. Bukhari 2.14.068

Those who survived from the massacre were sold as slaves. What? Islam prohibits slavery? What a joke.

The Quranic verse (8:67): “It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land.” discourage the taking of prisoner of wars but to kill them per se.

One delirious woman was killed in cold blood: Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:

No woman of Banu Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed. (Abu Dawood 14: 2665)

Why killed her? Because she worth no penny to be sold in the slave market as she was insane. By the way, in Islam, having sexual intercourse with female captive of wars are legal and licensed by the Shariah. Refer to Siraa Ibn Ishak page 466 as well.
Your history was full of blood and murder. It's because of this:

I have been sent to kill humans till they admit; there is no God but Allah and admit I am his messenger (Hadith Al Bukhari 25).




Then what about this:

Quran(59:5)
Whether ye cut down (o ye Muslims!) the tender palm-trees, or ye left them standing on their roots, it was by leave of Allah, and in order that He might cover with shame the rebellious transgressors.

Are you implying Abu Bakr was more moral than the "Prophet"? Educate yourself about the circumstances behind revelation of this verse. When the Muslims attacked Bani Naadir, they cut down their trees and raid them like hungry wolves. Of course such acts are cruel and barbaric, judging by any standard.



Letter to Julanda brothers in Oman

"Peace be upon the one who follows the right path! I call you to Islam. Accept my call, and you shall be unharmed. I am God's Messenger to mankind, and the word shall be carried out upon the miscreants. If, therefore, you recognize Islam, I shall bestow power upon you. But if you refuse to accept Islam, your power shall vanish, my horses shall camp on the expanse of your territory and my prophecy shall prevail in your kingdom."

This letter can be found at the Sohar Port, Oman. It's displayed there to show the "greatness" of your own kind. Mercy?



Of course Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban are true Muslims because they want to implement the actual Islam. It's those moderate Muslims that are hypocritical and could not "accept" a spade a spade. Why the Taliban banned entertainment? It's because of this:

“And of mankind is he who purchases idle talks (i.e. music, singing) to mislead (men) from the path of Allah…”
[Luqmaan 31:6]

Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: this
means singing. Mujaahid (may Allah have mercy on him) said: this means playing the
drum (tabl). (Tafseer al-Tabari, 21/40).

Al-Hasan al-Basri (may Allah have mercy on him) said: This ayah was revealed
concerning singing and musical instruments. (Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 3/451).

Al-Sa’di (may Allah have mercy on him) said: this includes all manner of haraam
speech, all idle talk and falsehood, and all nonsense that encourages kufr and
disobedience; the words of those who say things to refute the truth and argue in support
of falsehood to defeat the truth; and backbiting, slander, lies, insults and curses; the
singing and musical instruments of the Shaytaan; and musical instruments which are of
no spiritual or worldly benefit. (Tafseer al-Sa’di, 6/150)

Even football can fall under this category. You want more fatwa?



I will continue my slam dunk later. Be patient my human friend.


Humanity is but one family.

Continuation of slam dunk phase 3



We have the living proof of those who escape Persia and fled India. What is your evidence that these “Al-Majusi” who remained behind were not compelled to submit to Islam? Don’t you know that being minority in an Islamic nation is a horrible life? Should I mention Pakistani Ahmadiyya, Hindus and Christians? Many more examples are out there if you are interested to open your eyes bigger. Even the Bahaai in Iran were heavily persecuted.
As for being anti or pro, you should resolve this issues among your own kind. Things such as what kind of Islam and Sharia to be applied, the Sunni/Salafi or Shia version of it? Is it the concept of unity an alien ideology among your own kind? I am presenting your Sunni-Shia dispute problem from ancient to recent, as both can be a threat to humanity, no exception.



Ibn Sina or Avicenna was not held in high regard by many Islamic scholars due to his contradicting personal doctrine. However, his supporters and opponents unanimously agreed that he was greatly influenced by the Greek philosophy. His genius has nothing to do with Islam as Galileo has nothing to do with Christianity. It's the spirit of freethinking that developed within these scientists to doubt and research. Thus, they succeeded in all the endeavor they ventured into. Why don't you attribute the scientists in Indian civilization to the Hinduism, scientists in Chinese civilization to Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism? Have you ever read their scriptures?

Mr Jagger, you can believe him to be a devout Muslim just like the Christian wants to believe Galileo to be a devout priest too. This does not change the fact that his doctrine clashed with the Orthodoxy of his time, the Sunnism of his time and branded as apostate.



You can bring hundreds of books and I can list hundreds of opposing views too. All those so called "Islamic" scientists that you mentioned were influenced by Greek philosophers. Yes, no one denied their contribution towards scientific field. However, this credit can never goes to Islam. Ironically, you didn't mention Al-Farabi who specialized in many area of science and arts too, including music. He had apostate label on his head. Your real and true scholar of Islam are these:
Abu Hanifah, Malik Bin Anas, Muhammad Bin Idris, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Ibnu Taymiyya, Al-Ghazali, Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahab, Abu Hassan Asyaari, Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi, etc. These were no scientists. In fact, the study of philosophy was prohibited by the followers of these scholars.



Let me assist you. Orthodoxy=Sunnism, Traditionalists. Have you forgotten the skirmishes between Mu'tazilite and Hanbali? Hanbali position represent Orthodoxy. Education and research are significant aspect to familiarize with Islam and its hundreds of sects. Ain't it?

Empathy is nonsense? What about at least displaying sign of sympathy? Another nonsense? What straw man? Just because you can never put yourself under the same shoes as those who are being oppressed, let say the victim of rape by Pakistani soldier against Bangladeshi, does not mean it's absurd. Where's your conscience, compassion and kindness?

Do you expect me to group you under the same family? Yes, a rebellious family indeed.



Nah! You should be loyal to that ideology too. Right? Should I educate you about social behavior of human in a society?



Stop reading apologetic literature that attempt to whitewashed the ideology, paint it as pure as possible. For a change, start to learn Quran, Hadiths, and Siraa. Then you should comprehend that sugarcoating was a good idea to sustain a lie.




Already answered, my human friend.



Humanity is but one family.

Yeah, posting the views of a few clerics belonging to the Salafi/Wahabi and Shia sects (both of which are not accepted by the "orthodox" Sunni majority) is supposed to mean something, right? There goes your "orthodoxy" out the window.

Now it's time for me to volley kick your argument out of the water for a third time...


Well, your assumption is wrong, therefore your job has just become a lot harder. And I wasn't quoting other hadiths, but giving the full context behind the hadiths that you quoted (i.e. the bits before and after it), therefore showing up the hypocrisy of your own argument and your fallacy of "quoting out of context".

Remember what I said before? I'm not here to engage in moral polemics with you. I was only here to correct your lack of knowledge about the history of Persia... although it seems you have diverted the topic to the history of Arabia and now once again diverted the topic to Islamic "morals". You sure love straw men, don't you?


Your first quote says nothing about killing women or children.

Your second quote is taken from the Sunan Abu Dawood, which contains many unreliable hadiths. You're better off just sticking to quoting from the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, which are usually considered reliable, although they also contain some unreliable hadiths.


Yet another straw man. I don't remember anyone here ever claiming that Islam forbids slavery. But now that you do mention it, the majority of Islamic scholars today agree that slavery goes against the principles of Islam. So what now? Are you now going to disagree with what the Islamic "orthodoxy" says? I suppose the "orthodoxy" only exists when it serves your agenda, but as soon as it goes against your agenda, you're going to claim they are wrong. You are just so predictable, my friend.

Again, using quotes from a less reliable hadith collection like the Abu Dawood isn't going to do you much good if you are trying to sound convincing.


I searched for your first quote on Google and all that came up is "Faith Freedom", a self-proclaimed anti-Islamic propaganda website... I suspected that's where you get your quotes from, but now it's pretty much been confirmed.

Again, why do you even bother trying to convince me with your nonsensical emotional and moral polemics? What are you hoping to achieve from it? It was Abu Bakr that initially began the Muslim conquests beyond Arabia, not the Prophet Muhammad, therefore Abu Bakr's summarized rules tells us far more about the conduct of warfare during the actual wars against the Byzantine and Persian empires. Besides, Abu Bakr was one of the Prophet Muhammad's closest companians, therefore Abu Bakr's interpretation of the meanings behind the Prophet Muhammad's words is far more reliable than your own personal biased interpretation.


And do you even know who wrote that letter?

The vast majority of Islamic scholars, i.e. the Islamic "orthodoxy", have declared Osama Bin Laden to be a "disbeliever". Aren't you the one that claimed that there is an Islamic "orthodoxy"? And yet you also claim Osama to be a "true Muslim", despite the fact that the Islamic "orthodoxy" have stated otherwise? Thanks for contradicting your own argument and showing up your own hypocrisy once again.

The quote you used from the Qur'an is wrong. Here is what what the verse Luqman 31:6 actually states:

"Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless Hadith, and thus divert others from the path of GOD without knowledge, and take it in vain. These have incurred a shameful retribution."

As for football, like I said above, the only "fatwa" you could find for it are from a few clerics belonging to the minority Salafi/Wahabi and Shia sects. I thought it was only the "orthodox" Sunni majority that count?


Where is your evidence that the al-Majusi who remained behind were compelled to submit to Islam? Since you're the one making the claim, the burden of proof is upon you, not me.

Your comparison with Galileo is nonsensical. Like I said, Islam never had an "orthodoxy" in the sense that Christianity did. The only thing that came close to an "orthodox" opinion was when that opinion was agreed upon by consensus by the majority of Islamic scholars. In Avicenna's case, he was one of the most revered figures among Islamic philosophers and theologians for at least several centuries. An Islamic scholar in the 12th century commented:

"People nowadays [believe] that truth is whatever [Ibn Sina] says, that it is inconceivable for him to err, and that whoever contradicts him in anything he says cannot be rational." (Source: Nahyan A. G. Fancy (2006), "Pulmonary Transit and Bodily Resurrection: The Interaction of Medicine, Philosophy and Religion in the Works of Ibn al-Nafīs (d. 1288)", pp. 80-81, Electronic Theses and Dissertations, University of Notre Dame)

And for your information, Hinduism is widely used in reference to the ancient Hindu/Indian philosophers, astronomers and mathematicians, as is Christianity/Christendom used in reference to medieval European/Christian philosophers, astronomers and mathematicians.


No you can't. The only "opposing views" you can find are unreliable sources from authors who are not even qualified in the subject of history. As for Al-Farabi, who accused him of "apostasy"? You mean Al-Ghazali, a scholar who was himself accused of "apostasy" in his own time? Like I said, these slanderous "apostasy" accusations mean nothing if the actual person himself doesn't declare himself to be an "apostate". The fact of the matter is that many of those Muslim scientists themselves (especially Alhazen, one of the earliest experimental scientists) credited Islam for their scientific methods and discoveries, as they saw the study of nature as a religious obligation and a way of bringing themselves closer to God. According to you though, Islam deserves no credit for the positive contributions of Muslim scientists but it does deserve credit for the violence of Muslim extremists, right? How predictable. And no, the study of philosophy was not prohibited, but was only criticized. Al-Ghazali himself was educated in philosophy and he was also responsible for incorporating logic into the Madrasah curriculum, which led to the Golden Age of Islamic philosophy up until the 14th century. Even after this, the study of Islamic philosophy continued well into the 17th century, peaking with Mulla Sadra's school of existentialism, over two centuries before the West founded its own school of existentialism.

Thanks for classifying the Sunni majority as the "Orthodoxy", since it's now become a lot easier for me to expose the hypocrisy behind your arguments.

I said "your empathy nonsense", not "empathy is nonsense". Learn to read properly. Although, I find it bloody hilarious how you make so many false assumptions about me when you know nothing about me or my background. If anything, I probably have far more empathy for those Bangladeshi victims than you ever will. Most normal people would be disgusted by the war crimes committed by those Pakistani soldiers at the time (and yes, that includes Muslims), but does that mean we should hate all Pakistanis for it? Of course not.


"social behavior of human in a society?" What are you babbling on about this time?

I read academic literature written by qualified professional historians, unlike yourself who reads propaganda written by authors with no qualifications at all in the subject of history. As for the "Quran, Hadiths, and Siraa", why don't we leave the religious and moral interpretation of those texts to the majority of Islamic scholars, i.e. your Islamic "orthodoxy"?

If humanity really is one family, then that family should unconditionally include all humans regardless of their ideologies, even the violent ones (or "true Muslims" as you like to call them). Otherwise, you're just contradicting yourself.

Hello my human friend, Mr Jagger. Slam dunk phase 4 commences.




You are neither fish nor fowl? Since you distinguished between Salafi/Wahhabi and pure Orthodox Sunni, I can get a picture of which sect you cling onto. You are someone who hold to the 4 school of thought brand of Islam, 4 mazhab, and accept Tasawwuf as part of Islam. Of course you must choose only one to practice. Ad Hominem aside, allow me to somersault your volley kick with style.

Afraid of receiving more fatwa? Your dark ideology have countless of inhumane fatwa(religious verdict) that put human in backwardness and moodiness. No music, no entertainment, no muti-culturalism, etc. Don't believe me? Furnish me with evidence of an ideal Islamic government. None.




You must either accept or not to accept the hadiths and siraa. There's no medial ground here. You quote the longer part of the hadiths and claim to adjust the context properly. What context? The fact was that female were killed during the raid or in Arabic, Ghazwa. Why were they accidentally killed? It's because it's not a man to man conflict where you face your enemy on battlefield. It's night raid, which was a common practice of your Arabic invaders in those days, sanctioned by your own "Prophet". The superficial prohibition meant nothing because the motive behind it lies in selling those female as slaves and enjoy them sexually. Deny this?

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist." [Sahih Bukhari. Book #59 Hadith #459]

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri said:
The Apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, send down the Qur'anic verse: "And all married womenare forbidden unto you save those whom your right hand possess."[Surah 4:24] [Sunan Abu Dawud, Book V, Chapter 711, Number 2150]

Of course the prohibition to murder those female disbelievers were not because your holy man was equipped with dignity and compassion. However, from the hadith I quoted in my posts, your holy man obviously favored those children and female to be taken care of by hell fire. Still want to stick mud to the sun of truth? I know very well that your own kind will start selling the cake of "quoting out of context" flavor to sugarcoat your bloody history which for the most part, never at peace.

"O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.” (Bukhari 34:432)

It's better not to do coitus interruptus but it's okay to do it and then sell those female slaves for a price. Ain't it? Was this constitute rape? Since you are lacking in empathy, you cannot purify your thought and think properly. Moreover, your own holy book make clear distinction between legal wives and "right hand possessed" in many places such as Suraa (33:50). These female captive of wars fall under the latter category. That's why, either you killed those female, which is cruelty, or humiliate them by having sex with them and sell to slavery. Your Arabic uncivilized thugs opted for the latter not because they possessed the spirit of mercy.

“…and then we attacked from all sides and reached their watering-place where a battle was fought. Some of the enemies were killed and some were taken prisoners. I saw a group of persons that consisted of women and children [escaping in the distance]. I was afraid lest they should reach the mountain before me, so I shot an arrow between them and the mountain. When they saw the arrow, they stopped. So I brought them, driving them along, I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize. So we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: “Give me that girl.” (Sahih Muslim 4345)

Your own holy man received this: He received one fifth of all the booty including captured women from the raids in which men were killed and robbed and women captured…
The History of Tabari, Vol. 8, p. 29-30:

I am giving plenty of proofs and sources here in which you can obtain a clear picture of who that "Prophet" was. Well, just dismiss all these solid as rocks evidence because you will never open your eyes.



The first quote disclosed what was in his heart at that time of murder. He didn't love the disbeliever children and consider them as foes to be fought. He even cursed them to hell fire. His subsequent actions of waging more than 75 wars( 2 only) and sudden raids( the rest) to attack his enemies revealed to us what kind of ruthless man he was. No wonder your caliphs emulated him in cruelty.

I thought that the most acceptable position of your Orthodox Sunni scholars are accepting the Kutub Sittah ( 6 canonical hadith books) as valid? But it's no surprise that you want to reject 4 of them. Why? Were those Siraa and hadiths too much on you? You are predictable, typical way of a submitter. Not the submitter follower of Rashad Khalifa, but submitter of corrupt ideology that will eventually corrupt your brain.



I deliberately mentioned slavery because there's always a link between female captive of wars and children with slavery, why were they spared and etc. The fact was as the event of Bani Qurayza substantiated, children who already grow pubic hair were beheaded, one female was murdered. Of course, there were other events in those 78 raids that have similar consequences. Moreover, history was written by the victor, expect bias and partiality in those version. Nevertheless, a sane mind will not get a bizarre image of it.



Why don't you address the problem with the information, you can always read the Arabic version of it. Why? Afraid to take up the challenge lest your faith will be shaken?

Feel empathy for Abu Bakr now, ain't it? Do a little bit more of reading and see the connection between Khalid Al-Walid, Umar Al-Khattab and Abu Bakr. Heard of the incident that befall Malik Bin Nuwayrah? Khalid murdered this man, charging him with apostasy. Then immediately took his wife as his own ( no need to wait for idda) on the same day. This enraged Umar and he complained to Abu Bakr. The latter expatiated Khalid from such evil conduct. There goes your Khulafa' Ar-Rashidin.

Ibn Abi Aun and others narrated that Khalid bin al-Walid claimed that Malik bin Nuwayrah had become Murtad according to the information that he (Khalid) had received. Malik denied this and said: 'I am a Muslim, I never changed.' Abu Qutada and Abdullah ibn Umar testified that (Malik is Muslim) but Khalid ordered Dharar bin Al-Auzwar to behead him (Malik). Then Khalid took his (Malik's) wife. (Umar) said to Abu Bakr: 'He (Khalid) has performed adultery, you have to stone him'. Abu Bakr said: 'I can't stone him; he interpreted hence made a mistake'. (Umar) said: 'Then dismiss him'. He (Abu Bakr) said: 'I cannot put the sword back in the sheath which Allah has pulled out on my opponents.'(Ibn Sa'ad). ( Kanzul Ummal, Vol.5, page.619, tradition 14091

Those Pakistani soldiers who raped 250,000 women believed that their despicable action were sanctioned by Islam.



That letter was a clear cut commandment of your unholy man, similar to those threatening letter he sent to other sovereigns in the surrounding territories. Why? Too hard to imbibe? It violated your own principle of peace?

Since when you have unity among Islamic scholars? One scholar says this, the other scholar says otherwise. One scholar said the hadith is sahih, the other disagreed. One scholar said Avicenna was apostate disbeliever, other scholar said he was a devout Muslim. Then the scholar who labeled him as apostate was branded as apostate by another scholar. And on and on. Please do not claim unity my human friend. When I said Orthodoxy, I mean the consensus of your scholars about prohibition of philosophy, about eternal damnation of disbelievers to hell fire, etc. However, there was also unanimity about the prohibition of music by your Orthodox scholars. The verse in Suraa Luqman was their proof. Dare to disagree with them? You are more superior than Imam Mujahid and Ibn Abbas? Don't play hide and seek with me my human friend.

You know very well that Islam has certain injunctions that violate your principles You love music, football, and chess right? Be prepared to be condemned to hell fire if you play them. It's not me saying this, your own "blessed" Islamic scholars. These are all satanic instruments to make you forget about god.




Since you obviously lack empathy except for Abu Bakr, you failed to comprehend that when a community has to flee a country then settled somewhere far from their own motherland, persecution definitely occurred. My burden of proof is them, the Al-Majusi in India. Your burden of proof is proving those who left behind were not forced to submit to Islam. Why? You cannot and try to turn the table against me? Logical fallacy again? You are engaging in Base Rate Fallacy and Base Assertion Fallacy. You thought that Islam is peace and automatically believe that those Al-Majusi embraced Islam on their own volition, disregarding the fact that many of them fled to India for survival. You are engaging in another fallacy called Naturalistic Fallacy.

In order to defend your faith and your own kind, you utilized many logical fallacies to advance your argument. These fallacies indeed cause islam to prevail for 1400 years.

Slam dunk phase 4 will continue later. Be patient my human friend.


Humanity is but one family.