vedaxcool

The Church Doctrine of Perpetual Servitude :The Taxation Policy of Christian Europe towards Jews and other Religious Minorities Cont'd

The Question arises why did the early Christians persecute other religious minorities with such level of cruelty and wickedness? we need to remember that the early Christians were closer to Christianity than their modern contemporaries, in fact, they were more likely to implement true Christian teachings compared to their modern contemporaries who have thus far move father away from teaching of Christianity. Comparing the Taxation policy of the Christian West on religious minorities to the taxation policy Muslims ruler in the ME we come up with the following points:

All we ask for is evidence - please provide evidence Bros

1. The Muslim rulers was based on kindness and social - economic consideration.

Kindness - you don't say. Let us talk about the example of Fatima bint Rabi'a to see the kindness and social consideration you mentioned . Fatima bint Rabi'a was a woman who was used for an example because of her great honor and esteem. She refused to acknowledge Muhammed as a prophet. One time, she cursed him and Muhammed, the prophet of forgiveness, never forgot her. When Muhammed, the prophet invaded the tribe of Banu Fazara, he KILLED most of it's people but took Fatima bint Rabi'a, a captive with her daughter.

Let us see how KIND & MERCIFUL the prophet of Islam was. Muhammed ORDERED that Fatima be tortured, as Al-Athir recorded in his book (The Perfect in History by Al-Athir, Vol. II,p.142), [size=15pt]by commanding one of the deformed slaves to ra..p.e her daughter in front of her[/size].. After the slave finished his shameful act, Muhammad called upon Zayd bin Haritha and ordered him [/b]to kill Fatima, even though many people pleaded for clemency for her. [b]Al-Tabari recorded:

"Muhammad ordered Zayd bin Haritha to kill Fatima, who was known as Umm Qirfa. He killed her violently by tying each of her feet by two ropes that were tied on two camels. He forced the camels to gallop in opposite directions and she was split into two halves."

This was a lady in her 70's and she was split in two halves for merely cursing Muhammad. Did Allah inspire Muhammad to do this. It's inconceivable that there is a God who would order such terror. So much for your Islamic justice.

2. The Christian West policy was based on a deliberate attempt to punish people and make their life miserable.

Really - We are still waiting for examples of Jesus Christ killing anybody

Furthermore, unlike in the Christian West, Islamic law exempted women, children, and the infirm from the tax:

You don't say - tell that to your brothers Boko Haram when they slit innocent women and Children and school kids in the North.

Truly this early Christian who promulgated the law are quite heartless, it is funny no single condemnation for their action by their brethren in faith could they share the same heartlessness? Yet we ask isn't the doctrine of perpetual servitude amongst the greatest evil ever thought of by men?

Again, please show us in the 21st century were Christians are oppressing Jews - a couple of examples should be enough. You bark but have no teeth. You open your mouth but only stench comes out.

I keep asking you:

1. Is it Christians burning Coptic Churches in Egypt and killing Coptic Christians or is it Muslims?
2. Are Christians attacking and launching rockets into Israel or is it your brothers Hamas and their likes?
3. Are Christians responding for the killings that is going on in Syria where Shia/Alawites government & Sunnis Terrorists are killing themselves

vexdacool

Many Islamophobes desperately want to be engaged, because such engagement promises credibility. But before the debate begins, they dismiss the terms around which it might be structured. You cannot productively engage someone whose mind is already made up.

If you are open for a debate, I would gladly engage you. You are trying to score points here. I tried to show the persecution of Christians in the Islamic world. A situation that is present right here and right now. Instead of you discussing the details; you are here CONFIRMING[/b]the violence in Islam and justifying it by saying "[b]Well, Christians did it as well". The logic lacks common sense.

https://www.nairaland.com/1264396/8-telling-signs-suffer-islamophobia

Salman Rushdie's wrote the Satanic verses that exposed Islam's worship of several deities. Yet Muslims come here and tell you that Islam is the one and true Monotheistic religion - what rubbish. Salman has been called a bigot, an apostate and so many other degrading terms by Muslims yet he ushered in the scrutiny of Islam teaching in recent times. So, I wear the word Islamophobia with pride. By saying Muhammad was a thief, robber and murderer makes me an Islamophobist, I am proud to be called one. However, don't ever get it twisted, I will speak the truth whenever and wherever and will never be politically correct to appease terrorist and murderers.

I ask you again:

1. Is it Christians burning Coptic Churches in Egypt and killing Coptic Christians or is it Muslims?
2. Are Christians attacking and launching rockets into Israel or is it your brothers Hamas and their likes?
3. Are Christians responding for the killings that is going on in Syria where Shia/Alawites government & Sunnis Terrorists are killing themselves

alexis: Kindness - you don't say. Let us talk about the example of Fatima bint Rabi'a to see the kindness and social consideration you mentioned smiley. Fatima bint Rabi'a was a woman who was used for an example because of her great honor and esteem. She refused to acknowledge Muhammed as a prophet. One time, she cursed him and Muhammed, the prophet of forgiveness, never forgot her. When Muhammed, the prophet invaded the tribe of Banu Fazara, he KILLED most of it's people but took Fatima bint Rabi'a, a captive with her daughter.

Let us see how KIND & MERCIFUL the prophet of Islam was. Muhammed ORDERED that Fatima be tortured, as Al-Athir recorded in his book (The Perfect in History by Al-Athir, Vol. II,p.142), by commanding one of the deformed slaves to ra..p.e her daughter in front of her.. After the slave finished his shameful act, Muhammad called upon Zayd bin Haritha and ordered him [/b]to kill Fatima, even though many people pleaded for clemency for her. [b]Al-Tabari recorded:

"Muhammad ordered Zayd bin Haritha to kill Fatima, who was known as Umm Qirfa. He killed her violently by tying each of her feet by two ropes that were tied on two camels. He forced the camels to gallop in opposite directions and she was split into two halves."

This is awful. I have heard the story of how Umm Qirfa was killed with two camels but I had no idea Muhammed had also ordered that her daughter be rayped in front of her.
That paedophile basstard was truly a degenerate.

Alexis, i know already a lot of what you post but goodness me, i wish i could be this coherent and consistent. God bless you...Thankfully the truth will always stand.

This thread should not go away. The cruel prophet of islam decreed to his followers to persecute those who refuse to follow him. Today we see muslims killing non muslims for the simple reason that the victims are not muslims. In the North, syria, egypt, zanzibar, iran, iraq and so on . If the apologists of islam continue to claim that there are those who get these verses wrong then they should revise their quran and remove those verses that may be misinterpreted.

ISLAM'S WAR ON CHRISTIAN WORSHIP

Unlike attacks on Christians individuals, which may be motivated by a myriad of factors, the ongoing attacks on Christian worship in the Muslim world are indisputable evidence of the persecution of Christians under Islam. In church, Christians are simply being Christians -- peacefully congregating and worshiping their Lord. And yet modern-day Muslim governments try to prevent them from doing so, Muslim mobs attack them, nd Muslim jihadis massacre then.

This should be unsurprising. Sharia law is hostile to Christian worship. It puts draconian restrictions on every expression of it, from churches to crosses. In fact, Christian worship was the very first thing The Conditions of Omar addressed and suppressed. Conquered Christians had to agree:

Not to build a church in our city -- nor a monastery, convent, or monks' cell in the surrounding areas -- and not to repair those that fall in ruins or are in Muslim quarters;

Not to prevent Muslims from lodging in our churches, by day or night, and to keep their doors wide open for [Muslim] passersby and travelers;

Not to harbor in them [churches and monasteries] or our homes a spy, nor conceal any deceits from Muslims;

Not to display a cross on them [churches], nor raise our voices during prayer or readings in our churches anywhere near Muslims;

Not to produce a cross or [Christian] book in the markers of the Muslims;

Not to congregate in the open for Easter or Palm Sunday, nor lift our voices [in lamentation] for our dead nor show our firelights with them in the market places for the Muslims.

For a comprehensive understanding of Islam's hostility to Christian worship, we will first examine Islamic doctrines concerning Christian worship. Next we will consider how these teaching have manifested themselves in practice over the course of centuries. And finally, we will demonstrate the continuity of the Islamic assault on Christian worship by showing how modern-day attacks on churches and religious objects such as crosses mirror the attacks of history -- how the patterns of the persecution of Christians under Islam through the centuries are often identical to the patterns of persecution we see in Muslim countries today.

I really wish vedaxcool would come and defend his prophet's action of killing an old woman with two camels and asking that her daughter be rayped in front of her.
Abi has he run out of excuses?


Good thing this thread is in this section and not Islam for muslims because if it was there maclatunji would have hidden the entire thread by now to cover up the disgusting acts of their prophet.

Many Islamophobes desperately want to be engaged, because such engagement promises credibility. But before the debate begins, they dismiss the terms around which it might be structured. You cannot productively engage someone whose mind is already made up.

The Doctrine of Perpetual Servitude: The Taxation of Policy of the Christian Church against Jews and other Religious Minorities

---

The very principle of possessory rights…that were exercised by secular authorities over Jews with increasing vigor as the Middle Ages wore on included the right to tax Jews to the limit. Because of their vulnerability, Jews proved compliant prey for royal and baronial tax collectors. With variation from place to place, the tax obligations of Jews might include annual levies on households or communities, fees connected with loans, tolls, and most, most vexingly, periodic “unscheduled” arbitrary exactions or confiscations to meet various pressing financial needs of an overlord. Because they needed protection, Jews had no choice but to pay.

By the thirteenth century, Langmuir says, “as a result of the efforts of ecclesiastics, kings, and barons to exploit Jews, each for their own ends, Jews had been given a degraded legal status that set them apart from all others in European society and denied them even the protection usually accorded serfs…It can be said that Jews came to know what medieval people called “the yoke of servitude,” to experience loss of the “honour of liberty,” and to fear the “arbitrariness” of absolute dependence on the will of their overlords. The many arbitrary, burdensome tallages levied upon the Jews during the later Middle Ages, and, much more oppressive, their expulsion–from England in 1290; from France in 1306, 1322, and 1394; from Spain in 1492; and from dozens of German principalities and towns during the latter Middle Ages–constituted for the Jews a more severe outcome of “enserfment”…namely, their effective exclusion from lands where they had dwelt for centuries. [68]

To think Jesus was a Jew and the Christians worship Jewry as being God's "people" and yet at the same time punished them with such UN-imaginable cruelty!

The tallages not only impoverished the Jews in Europe, but forced them into debt:

A tallage was an arbitrary tax, by definition, which the Crown declared that it was going to levy, ordered officials to collect, and then simply took from its Jewish subjects and transferred to royal coffers…This particular tallage collection must have had great impact on Jewish wealth…[and] broke the financial backbone of the English Jewish community, and permanently reduced its financial value to the crown…In his study of the York Jewry, Professor Dobson observed: ‘The corrosive effects of excessive tallage on the one side and of increased anti-Jewish propaganda and blood-libel accusations on the other seemt o have made the mid-1250s a real watershed in the history of Anglo-Jewish relations.’ Certainly, the 1250s can be seen as a watershed not only for Gentile-Jewish relations but also for Jewish wealth. It is the 1250s which probably mark the start of a catastrophic decline in Jewish wealth…

The actual payments show that in 1272 there was considerable financial hardship amongst the Jewish community…[Another] tallage is aptly named ‘the Great Tallage’ not only because it…[seized] a third of all Jewish goods…That many Jews were imprisoned for failure to pay the tallage serve[s] as reminders of the pressure put upon the Jews to fill the royal coffers. [70]

And the book goes on to discuss how the Jews were eventually expelled anyways, due to their dwindling economic utility.

Similarly, Saracens (Muslims) paid extra tithes under Christian rule:

…The Pope…ordere[d] Saracens to pay tithes. [71]

It seems this sort of Christian only perfected the art of stealing from weaker members of the society!b Yet it did not stop there, the Christians invented their own version of Jim Crown laws name;

Jews were allowed to enter the Christian quarters only on business, never for leisure. Inside the Christian quarters, no more than two Jews were allowed to walk abreast, and for some reason they were not entitled to carry walking sticks. Nor could they use the sidewalk. At the cry “Jud, mach mores“–roughly, “Jew, pay your dues”–they would have to take off their hats, step aside, and bow. They were banned at all times from the vicinity of the cathedral and could enter the town hall only through a back entrance. Not all these restrictions were enforced and some were observed only sporadically. But until the French Revolution, [size=18pt]all public gardens were closed to Jews.[/size] [74]

Is it that they had an offensive odour or something? No, they were simply following chruch teachings that stripped the Jews of their humanity and other non - Christian minorities!

The Doctrine of Perpetual Servitude: The Taxation of Policy of the Christian Church against Jews and other Religious Minorities

---

Anti-Jewish laws [were] passed…designed to make them objects of scorn and derision, to deprive them of any symbol of dignity…First, he was given the yellow badge. Then he was isolated in the ghetto. He could not own land. He was forced to wear special clothing. He had to step aside when a Christian passed. He could not build synagogues. He could not strike friendships with Christians. He could engage only in a restricted number of professions and trades. [75]

And:

Jews had to step aside before Christians who ordered them to “Obey, Jew,” Jewish marriages were limited so that the Jewish population would not increase, Jews were barred from the law and public office, and Jewish passports were stamped with the word Jew. A public promenade was posted, “No Jews and no pigs,” and the Jews were confined to a ghetto. [76]

And:

Any street urchin could say to a passing Jew, “Jew, do your duty,” and the Jew then had to step aside and take off his hat. [77]

It is somewhat ironical that the same Christians whose faith requires them to believe in the death of Christ are the same people that prosecuted the descendants of those Jews for allegedly murdering the Jesus, who death they believe is the only way for their salvation! And this culminated in the desperate attempt to exterminate the whole of Jewry, by a body that has been fundamentally been trained to hate jews from the time of the father of the church till modern times

Lol @ vedaxcool liking his own post twice.

This is hilarious......

NL member: Lol @ vedaxcool liking his own post twice.

This is hilarious......

Lol. How do you know?

Reyginus: Lol. How do you know?

I have my ways....

NL member:

I have my ways....

Lol.

1. The Islamophobe likes to speak on behalf of Muslims, and appoints himself judge, jury, and even executioner.

https://www.nairaland.com/1264396/8-telling-signs-suffer-islamophobia

More exposition shortly

The Doctrine of Perpetual Servitude: Distinctive Clothing the church imposed on the Jews

---

The “yellow badge” has become infamous in history due to the Nazis. Anti-Islam ideologues such as Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller point out that it was the Muslims who first introduced the obligation to wear distinctive clothing (ghiyar), and that the Nazis took it from them. Even if this is true (which it is not), it is odd that they do not also mention the innovations of the Church which were adopted by Adolf Hitler:

Throughout the Middle Ages, the church issued official anti-Jewish decrees. Later, in the twentieth century, the Nazis would follow the example the church had set.

In the year 306, the church forbade Christians from eating with Jews. On December 30, 1939, Germany passed a law barring Jews from railroad dining cars.

[b]In the year 309, the church forbade marriage between Jews and Christians. On September 15, 1935, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor, forbidding Jews from marrying non-Jews.

In 681 the church publicly burned the Talmud and other Jewish books. The Nazis publicly burned Jewish books on May 10, 1933.

The church adopted an idea from the Muslim ruler Caliph Omar II (634-44). Omar ordered Christians to wear blue belts and Jews to wear yellow belts. In 1215, the church ordered Jews to wear special badges on their clothing. On September 1, 1941, Germany ordered that Jews wear yellow stars.

In 1267, the church decreed that Jews must live in special Jewish sections or ghettos (the word “ghetto” was first used in Venice, Italy, around 1516). On September 21, 1939, the Nazis ordered the building of ghettos to cage the Jews…

After Rome accepted Christianity as a national religion, anti-Jewish practices and beliefs slowly became official state policies. The Nazis later adopted many of their anti-Jewish laws from these state policies of the Middle Ages.

In fourteenth-century Germany, the state declared that the property of Jews slain in a Gemran city became public property. On July 1, 1943, the Reich Citizenship Law passed by the German government ordered that the property of a dead Jew became the property of the state.

In Nuremberg, in the fourteenth century, the state declared that if a Christian owed a debt to a Jew, the state could collect and keep it. The Reich Citizenship Law of 1943 declared the same thing.

In France in the eighteenth century and Germany in the nineteenth century, Jews were forced to carry special documents or passports marking them as Jews. On October 5, 1938, Germany passed a decree providing for special Jewish identification cards.

In Germany in the seventeenth century, the state declared that Jewish houses had to be marked, Jews could shop only during certain hours, and Jews could visit only certain places. On September 1, 1941, Germany declared certain places off-limits to Jews. On April 17, 1942, Germany declared that Jewish apartments had to be marked.[/b] [82]

Out of these laws, only one could have originated from the [apocryphal] Pact of Umar and the Muslims; the rest were from the Church. Surely then it is inappropriate to give too much credit to the Muslims for Adolf Hitler’s inspiration. Additionally, many of the discriminatory conditions found in the [apocryphal] Pact of Umar were derived from Christian laws that were in effect in the Eastern Roman Empire (see above). If the self-proclaimed defenders of the Judeo-Christian tradition blame the Muslims for introducing the concept of distinctive clothing to Christendom, then perhaps they ought to accept the blame for introducing the concept of branding the necks of infidels to the Muslims.

In any case, it is incorrect to say that the Nazis took the ghiyar from the Muslims; rather the inspiration for the Nazi yellow badge came from the Church. Normon Roth, professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Wisconsin, writes that there is no evidence to support the claim that the Church took the idea from the Muslims:

In the Muslim world some rulers imposed dress restrictions on Christians and Jews (see CLOTHING). There is, however, no evidence to support the claim made by some that these laws influenced the Church decision (1215) to require distinctive clothing to be worn by Jews, which was interpreted in most [European] countries as a requirement to wear a “badge” on the clothing. [83]

Professor Roth concludes that the inspiration for the Nazi’s yellow badge comes from the European, not Islamic, example:

Certainly the badge, the wearing of which continued in some [European] lands well beyond the medieval period, was the direct inspiration for the Nazi requirement of the yellow star, about which there can be no doubt as to humiliating and degrating intention. [84]

Furthermore, while this law of ghiyar (distinctive clothing) quickly fell into disuse in the Islamic world, it was applied widely throughout the Latin West for many centuries. Therefore, even if Muslims started it, the Christians perfected it.

Professor Mark R. Cohen mentions another salient point: the Muslim law requiring ghiyar was not promulgated in order to single out dhimmis to deride them. Rather, Islamic law instructed Muslims themselves to dress distinctively from others and forbade them from dressing in clothing which is distinctive of other religions. The Islamic law dictates that “Whoever imitates a people is one of them,” a saying which is applied to religious clothing. Based on this, a Muslim may not, for example, wear the Jewish skullcap or the Christian priest’s white collar tab. This law is actually considered Abrahamic in nature and derived from the Jewish law; Halacha similarly forbade Jews to dress like Gentiles

Yet the Islamophobes seem pleased by their anti-semite christian history! Anyway we come to a conclusion that living in under the apocryphal pact of Umar is trillions of times better than living in the doctrine of perpetual servitude!

vedaxcool: Many Islamophobes desperately want to be engaged, because such engagement promises credibility. But before the debate begins, they dismiss the terms around which it might be structured. You cannot productively engage someone whose mind is already made up.

That is why people have debates. They decide on a specific subject - such as the one above and stick to that subject alone and NOT RUN OFF IN ANOTHER DIRECTION.

I keep saying it but you haven't refuted one thing I have said.

vedaxcool

To think Jesus was a Jew and the Christians worship Jewry as being God's "people" and yet at the same time punished them with such UN-imaginable cruelty!

Where in the 21st century do you have Christians marginalizing Jews?

vedaxcool

The Islamophobe likes to speak on behalf of Muslims, and appoints himself judge, jury, and even executioner

Calling out murderers for what they are isn't true? Typical example, watch a Muslim hit a Jew in a hospital - later vexacool will come here and talk about Christians oppressing Jews


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWxZZsPdj2M

vedaxcool

Out of these laws, only one could have originated from the [apocryphal] Pact of Umar and the Muslims; the rest were from the Church. Surely then it is inappropriate to give too much credit to the Muslims for Adolf Hitler’s inspiration. Additionally, many of the discriminatory conditions found in the [apocryphal] Pact of Umar were derived from Christian laws that were in effect in the Eastern Roman Empire (see above). If the self-proclaimed defenders of the Judeo-Christian tradition blame the Muslims for introducing the concept of distinctive clothing to Christendom, then perhaps they ought to accept the blame for introducing the concept of branding the necks of infidels to the Muslims.

You should realize by now that this is not working and the only way you can gain attention is to engage in HONEST discussion. So now, you are blaming Christians for the Conditions of Omar, cha - some people no get shame oh. So, Christians branded the necks of infidels to Muslims as well? .

The good thing about these times are that people are seeing Islam for what it is - it is only in Western societies that we can discuss this subject and not have a fatwa put on our heads. Again, I WILL SPEAK THE TRUTH and no matter how you twist it around; Islam is what it is mate.

5. Many Islamophobes desperately want to be engaged, because such engagement promises credibility. But before the debate begins, they dismiss the terms around which it might be structured. You cannot productively engage someone whose mind is already made up.

https://www.nairaland.com/1264396/8-telling-signs-suffer-islamophobia

Christians doing what they know best, persecuting religious minority based on age long traditions of the church,


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlwc0mE0lCU

His crime, killing Jesus, yes a muslim man saved him from such humilation just as the times long past, muslims provided security for Jews fleeing Christian west;

Heroic Tale of Holocaust, With a Twist

---

PARIS — The stories of the Holocaust have been documented, distorted, clarified and filtered through memory. Yet new stories keep coming, occasionally altering the grand, incomplete mosaic of Holocaust history.

One of them, dramatized in a French film released here last week, focuses on an unlikely savior of Jews during the Nazi occupation of France: the rector of a Paris mosque.

Muslims, it seems, rescued Jews from the Nazis.

“Les Hommes Libres” (“Free Men”) is a tale of courage not found in French textbooks. According to the story, Si Kaddour Benghabrit, the founder and rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, provided refuge and certificates of Muslim identity to a small number of Jews to allow them to evade arrest and deportation.

It was simpler than it sounds. In the early 1940s France was home to a large population of North Africans, including thousands of Sephardic Jews. The Jews spoke Arabic and shared many of the same traditions and everyday habits as the Arabs. Neither Muslims nor Jews ate pork. Both Muslim and Jewish men were circumcised. Muslim and Jewish names were often similar.

The mosque, a tiled, walled fortress the size of a city block on the Left Bank, served as a place to pray, certainly, but also as an oasis of calm where visitors were fed and clothed and could bathe, and where they could talk freely and rest in the garden.

It was possible for a Jew to pass.

“This film is an event,” said Benjamin Stora, France’s pre-eminent historian on North Africa and a consultant on the film. “Much has been written about Muslim collaboration with the Nazis. But it has not been widely known that Muslims helped Jews. There are still stories to be told, to be written.”

The film, directed by Ismaël Ferroukhi, is described as fiction inspired by real events and built around the stories of two real-life figures (along with a made-up black marketeer). The veteran French actor Michael Lonsdale plays Benghabrit, an Algerian-born religious leader and a clever political maneuverer who gave tours of the mosque to German officers and their wives even as he apparently used it to help Jews.

Mahmoud Shalaby, a Palestinian actor living in Israel, plays Salim — originally Simon — Hilali, who was Paris’s most popular Arabic-language singer, a Jew who survived the Holocaust by posing as a Muslim. (To make the assumed identity credible, Benghabrit had the name of Hilali’s grandfather engraved on a tombstone in the Muslim cemetery in the Paris suburb of Bobigny, according to French obituaries about the singer. In one tense scene in the film a German soldier intent on proving that Hilali is a Jew, takes him to the cemetery to identify it.)

The historical record remains incomplete, because documentation is sketchy. Help was provided to Jews on an ad hoc basis and was not part of any organized movement by the mosque. The number of Jews who benefited is not known. The most graphic account, never corroborated, was given by Albert Assouline, a North African Jew who escaped from a German prison camp. He claimed that more than 1,700 resistance fighters — including Jews but also a lesser number of Muslims and Christians — found refuge in the mosque’s underground caverns, and that the rector provided many Jews with certificates of Muslim identity.

In his 2006 book, “Among the Righteous,” Robert Satloff, director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, uncovered stories of Arabs who saved Jews during the Holocaust, and included a chapter on the Grand Mosque. Dalil Boubakeur, the current rector, confirmed to him that some Jews — up to 100 perhaps — were given Muslim identity papers by the mosque, without specifying a number. Mr. Boubakeur said individual Muslims brought Jews they knew to the mosque for help, and the chief imam, not Benghabrit, was the man responsible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/movies/how-a-paris-mosque-sheltered-jews-in-the-holocaust.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Again muslims as we see saved the jews from christians we can describe as plainly evil!

Now vedax is taking us on a long useless journey about how the jews were treated by the atheist Hitler. Please click on the link below to see how Muhammad (pbuh) treated asma bint (daughter) Marwan. What a prophet of Allah! http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/En I have the link wrong but in you free time you can do a google search on how Asma Bint Marwan was killed. A google search for those muhammad planned to kill when he captured mecca whether they were hiding behind the curtains of Kaaba will also reveal how cruel the prophet of islam was.

vedaxcool

Many Islamophobes desperately want to be engaged, because such engagement promises credibility. But before the debate begins, they dismiss the terms around which it might be structured. You cannot productively engage someone whose mind is already made up.

[size=15pt]REDUNDANT[/size]

Lets keep commenting so that this thread does not die a natural one.

basilico: Now vedax is taking us on a long useless journey about how the jews were treated by the atheist Hitler. Please click on the link below to see how Muhammad (pbuh) treated asma bint (daughter) Marwan. What a prophet of Allah! http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/En I have the link wrong but in you free time you can do a google search on how Asma Bint Marwan was killed. A google search for those muhammad planned to kill when he captured mecca whether they were hiding behind the curtains of Kaaba will also reveal how cruel the prophet of islam was.

The link is broken. Please fix it, thanks.

Do it for me my connection is terrible. Search for Asma Bint Marwan and paste here. Whatever and whoever killed her is the devil incarnate for real. Please paste I am unable to now. Thanks.

NL member:

The link is broken. Please fix it, thanks.

vedaxcool

His crime, killing Jesus, yes a muslim man saved him from such humilation just as the times long past, muslims provided security for Jews fleeing Christian west;

I commend the Muslim for standing out, I think Muslims like yourself should emulate him yet you didn't open your mouth to condemn the Muslim assaulting the Jewish man. Let me bring it closer to home: Remember - Oluwatoyin Olusase, a Teacher, Killed by Muslim pupils in Gombe?. As usual you will ignore facts:

https://www.nairaland.com/46741/gombe-muslim-students-put-me/1

Her crime, she touched the Quran. It's the very same Quran I have in my house that I read, an innocent woman was killed for the same thing.

Here are your brothers "fellow muslims" killing children up north:

http://freethinker.co.uk/2013/07/07/islamists-latest-atrocity-in-nigeria-claims-over-40-young-lives-in-horrific-school-attack/

I have a future post that will detail the killings of Christians from the North all the way to Ibadan even before Boko Haram and it's affiliates came about.

ISLAMIC HOSTILITY FOR THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IS OBLIGATORY

According to mainstream Islamic law, all churches on lands that Muslims took by force were to be destroyed or converted to mosques. If Sharia law had been followed to the letter, this would have included every church from Spain in the west to India in the east, and from the Balkans in the north to the fringes of the Sahara desert in the south, as these were the demarcation lines of the Islamic conquests.Famous churches annexed by Islam include the Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom), Christiandom's grandest cathedral for nearly 1000 years until it was despoiled after the Ottoman jihadi conquest of Constantinopole in 1453 - it's crosses and icons destroyed and defaced, and the cathedral transformed into a mosques (I will provide references if requested).

Churches on lands that were surrendered to Islam without resistance, on the other hand, were permitted to continue to exist as churches, though their survival was subject to several stipulations, mostly stemming from The Conditions of Omar noted above. And even obedience to those stringent conditions did not always guarantee their survival, as later jurists decreed that even the churches of Christians who surrendered peacefully could be destroyed or transformed into mosques at the discretion of the local governor, especially if it was deemed to be in the interest of Muslims.

In short, as "houses of infidelity," where Christians were accused of engaging in idolatry ("worshipping" crucifixes, icons, and so forth) and polytheism (associating Jesus with God), that is, shirk -- one of the most reprehensible crimes in Islam -- churches in those lands conquered by Islam were either to be destroyed or transformed into mosques; those in territories peacefully annexed were left to crumble. Needless to say, the question of building new churches on Muslim lands - whether conquered by force or surrendered peacefully - was, and doctrinally speaking still is, out of the question. In practice, however, especially during the colonial era, churches were repaired and even built in the Islamic world.

The issue of churches in Islam has been important enough to warrant the publication of numerous fatwas, treatises, and even whole books on the topic. One of the most comprehensive modern treatises, nearly 60 page long, is entitled, in translation "The Ruling on Building Churches and Other Idolatrous Places of Worship in Muslim Lands", by Sheikh Ismail bn Muhammad al-Ansari (If references are needed please ask and I will provide them). Published around 1979, it was deemed authoritative enough to receive high praise from Saudi Arabia's former Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz and recognized as one of the 20th century's most authoritative Islamic scholars.

Whenever we try to exercise our right to free speech about any topic i.e. especially Islam, we are called Islamophobist

Priest Attacked With Acid in Zanzibar

But don't forget that the real problem is Islamophobia

Zanzibar, Tanzania (CNN) -- A priest was attacked with acid on the east African island of Zanzibar in the third such unprovoked assault in two months, and remained hospitalized Saturday, the cleric told CNN.

The Rev. Joseph Anselmo Mwagambwa said he was attacked Friday afternoon while coming out of an internet cafe in Mlandenge, a community in the city of Zanzibar.

He was being treated in a hospital in the Tanzanian mainland town of Dar es Salaam.

Police are still investigating, and no arrests have been made.

Last month, two British women, both 18, were walking unaccompanied on a street when acid was thrown on their faces, chests and hands by two men on a motorcycle in Zanzibar, officials said.

Katie Gee and Kirstie Trup were attacked in Stone Town, the island's historic center, and had been working as volunteer teachers on the island, according to the firm i-to-i Travel. Stone Town is a UNESCO World Heritage Site popular with tourists.

The attack against the two women came as Islamist extremism is rising in the area. The government said it would consider regulating the purchase of acid and other related products, and warned that such attacks could seriously damage the island's tourism industry.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/14/world/tanzania-priest-acid-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Story of Asma bint Marwa.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/asma.html



Bonus storyof how Muhammed wanted to divorce his wife because she had grown too old and unattractive for him.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/sauda.htm

While focusing on the persecution of Christians in the Islamic world and capturing past persecution of Christians, I will be providing accounts of events on Islam's prophet and leave the judgement to the reader to decide those events. I am doing this to provide context and history on Muhammad to know the prophet of Islam.

THE STORY OF ALI

Ali bin Abu Talib was Muhammad's cousin and one of the 10 companions who carried his message. Once he saved Muhammad's life by taking his place in bed (where he himself was almost killed) as Muhammad fled the town. Let me note here - A large percentage of Muslims, the Shi'ite Muslims, acknowledge that Ali was always qualified to be the prophet than Mohammad.

The following account reveals the spirit of discrimination that dominated Muhammad and his egotism, that is, what he desired for himself but did not wish for others to have.

The worst thing that Fatima, Muhammad's daughter, feared was that her husband, Ali, would marry other women while she was still alive. Ali, seeing that Muhammad and the other companions had many wives, wanted to follow in their path of marrying at least 4 wives, which was made legal by the Quran, Muhammad, "Gabriel" and Allah

Therefore, what is legal and legitimate applying to all women, should apply to the daughters of the prophet: that is, a man can remarry up to 4 wives. Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, had seen her father marry many women, as Aisha, Hafsa, Umm Salma and others. Muhammad remarried while his wives were still young and alive. This account tells us that what is applicable to all women was not applicable to Muhammad's daughters.

When Ali announced his engagement to the daughter of 'Amr bin Hisham', Fatima, his wife, Muhammad's daughter was furious; and she carried tantrum to her father. Ali's decision to remarry put Mohammad in a very disconcerting & embarrassing situation. Would Mohammad stand up and support Islamic teachings that promote having many wives, or succumb to the angry tantrum of his daughter? LET US SEE WHAT HE DID

Muhammad decision was to forget his god's teachings & the instructions of "Gabriel," and succumb to his daughter's wishes, prohibiting Ali from having wives beside Fatima. His fatherhood and compassion forced him to forbid Ali from adding wives and having a harem like Muhammad and the rest of his companions. Muhammad did not wish to place his most beloved daughter in a "shooting battle" with other wives. He considered having another wife in his daughter's husband's life as harsh experience that his daughter should not endure. He went to the mosque that week and from the pulpit, he shouted:

"I do not permit, I do not permit, I do not permit him to divorce my daughter, because my daughter is a part of me. What hurts her, hurts me"

(Variations on this last sentence are found in the Hadith of Sahih Bukhari Vol.5, Book 57, #61 & 111 and the Hadith of Sahih Muslim Book 31, #6000. The whole story is found in the Hadith of Sahih)

AMAZING! Why did Mohammad say that Fatima would not have what all the other women had, regardless of their consent - other competitors? Aisha Hafsa, Umm Salma, Maria, Zainab and others had to endure other wives in the life of their husband. Why should Famita be exempt?

Did his daughter have feelings that his own wives did not have? Why did he accept that the beloved Aisha and his other wives go through that harsh experience, but not his daughter? Where was the JUSTICE of the "Master of all Prophets?"

I bet that if Ali insisted on his stand to remarry, a verse from Allah would have descended the next day to prohibit Ali from marrying another wife. Don't forget that "Gabriel" was always standing by, and Mohammad's god Allah had the perfect verse for every occassion.

Muhammad argued: "Fatima is part of me, and what hurts her, hurts me." Amazing! Was not Aisha a part of Abu Bakr, Muhammad's companion and his first successor? Was not Hafsa the daughter of Umar a part of Umar, Muhammad's companion and 2nd successor? Muslims try to justify Muhammad's decision by saying:

"The fiance of Ali was a Muslim, but her father was a disbeliever. For this reason, he was not allowed to marry her"

Was not Umm Salma a Muslim when Muhammad married her, and her father a disbeliever? How about Maria the Egyptian? Why was it legitimate for these daughters to marry Muhammad, but not when his own daughter was involved? I will like vexacool to help us answer this question