₦airaland Forum

khattab02: Seems there is no moderator on this thread. Allowing post totally derogatory against Islam and nabi kareeem sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.

Go and report to your moderator in the Islam section. So, saying Mohammad prevented Ali from marrying another woman apart from his daughter Fatimah is derogatory? . Mohammad must be rolling in his grave.

This thread is to talk about the persecution of Christians under Islam and several accounts about Mohammad life. So, you better start getting used to it. The appropriate thing to do is debate and present facts - CRYING WOLF wouldn't help. Besides, this is a CHRISTIAN TOPIC. I am talking about the plight of Christians

khattab02: Subhanallah! Subhanallah!! Subhanallah!!! Auzubillahi min blasphemy ala Rasullullahi wa Islam. I seek refuge in Almighty God from blasphemy of the Noble prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and Islam. Bravooo Alexis, you and your crew are doin well. Now I see why they won't allow your post on the Islam section.

Are you done with your chanting? This is not the Islamic section and that is one of the reasons I didn't this thread there. In this day and age, if I can't speak freely without someone telling me what I should and shouldn't say because it will offend anyone; I care less. If anything I have said is untrue, you are free to counter it. Let common sense and intelligence reign

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

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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

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: 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.

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.

jworos: pls help,i'm new to programming and would really love to learn more about python,any video tutorials available

Have fun:

http://www.codecademy.com/learn

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

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

This is a public forum and vexacool is allowed to post whatever he wants. I created this thread here so the mods in the Islamic section wouldn't lock/hide or prevent us from posting what we want.

The persecution of Christians in the Islamic world is alarming. What is more alarming is that no one is doing anything about it. Christians fold their hands and are been slaughtered like chickens. God instructed us to be as harmless as doves but as wise as serpents. The main of this thread is to expose the Islamic persecution of Christians over 1400 centuries and even to now.

Our governments and so called Jeo/Christian Western nations turn their eyes the other way when Christians are been killed from Egypt to Indonesia, Iraq to Saudi Arabia and right in our own background in Nigeria. If we continue to remain passive as a religion, I am afraid the ramifications will be very dire.

God bless you all.

NL member: Alexis, vedaxcool only knows how to be a troll, he is not capable of making intellectual statements or even expressing himself in a coherent fashion so its better you don't expect too many intelligent comments from the guy if you don't want to end up being sorely disappointed.

From jump start, I knew he wanted to derail the thread. He started first by attacking my character then came up with Christianity being responsible for the Holocaust. He is now on the mission to show how it is Christians and not Muslims that HATE Jews

I don't take him serious but I will use this thread to speak the truth about the persecution that Christians face in the Islamic world today

vedaxcool

So far christians have been stunned by the teachings of church which can only be labelled evil and wicked, but the story goes on, so far we have been able to show compared to the apocryphal pact of umar, The Doctrine of perpetual servitude seems more like a demonic teaching that a religious injunction, compounding the problem, the doctrine of perpetual can thus be summerize as follow:
The Jews existed in a subjugated, second-class status as a defeated people…The perpetual servitude of the Jews reminded the world that the Jews are being punished for their rejection of Jesus. Therefore it was desirable that the Jew remain in Christian society. As long as Jews retained their second-class status, they would remind the world of their crime in rejecting Jesus and their validity of Jesus’s teachings…

I keep asking you simple questions, yet you go running in another direction and not answering:

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

As always, I wouldn't be surprised if you ignored these questions

ALLAH CAN'T MAKE UP HIS MIND - THE ISSUE OF ABROGATION

Another area are the statements in the Koran regarding "abrogation," which was developed early in Islamic jurisprudence to deal with the Koran's many contradictory statements. Muslims believe that what wherever verses contradict each other, the verse from later in Muhammed's career cancels out the verse from earlier.

Allah himself justifies abrogation in the Koran: Whenever we abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, we replace it by a better or similar one. Know you not that Allah has power over all things? - Surah 2:106; 16:101, 13:39, and 17:86. It amazes me that the Muslim God can't make up His mind and he has to cancel His revelations because He contradicts Himself.

A it happens, the few verses that speak tolerantly of Christians are from early in Muhammed's career, when he had no political power, whereas the hostile verses that name Christians "infidel" enemies occur towards the end, near the height of his career. Thus, the later hostile verses cancel out any tolerance for Christians expressed in the earlier verses.

The Quran's final word on the fate of Christians and Jews is found in Surah 9:29 = Fight those among the people of the Book who do not believe in Allah nor the last day, nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. In Islamic parlance, "People of the Book" is a reference to those pre-Islamic peoples who had their own scriptures - chief among them, Christians and Jews. THIS VERSE GIVES DIVINE SANCTION TO THE PERPETUAL SUBJUGATION OF CHRISTIANS UNDER ISLAM. Surah 9:29 and it's equally bellicose counterpart Surah 9:5, known as the "Sword Verses", appears as Mohammed's armies were preparing to invade the Christian territories of the Byzantine empire.

To this day, mainstream Islamic jurisprudence holds that the Sword Verses have "abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace"

Oga vexacool argument is that Christians are imagining these things, Christians are the oppressors and not the Muslims and we are twisting facts. He feels Islam is peaceful yet the life-style of his prophet and caliphs state otherwise

vedaxcool

It must have something to do with lying!

So you totally ignored the video above right

An honest muslim that speaks his mind - perhaps vexacool can learn a lesson or two


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64V09tTIjR4

vedaxcool

we have been able to establish that the op is hell bent on promoting lies that is why despite abundance evidence that[b] the so called pact of umar is false and even cited authorities Spencer, the hate merchant,[/b] used in popping up his case, we still see the op being an unwavering liar has simply resort to wilful ignorance

Now you are saying is false yet earlier you said it wasn't generally enforced

The covenant is not the work of ‘Umar.

No kidding, it was the apostles in the Bible that wrote it abi

Jews became the property of the Church and/or the state

No kidding - It was Christians that attacked Israel & the Jews in the 5 day Arab world abi? Or it's Christians that attack them from Southern Lebanon and from Gaza abi?

KORAN & CALIPH

So Muslims are turning back to Islam, and Christians are being persecuted. But is Islam itself to blame? What about ethnic, cultural, social, and economic considerations? Where is the proof that Islam and it's Sharia are intrinsically hostile to Christians? Below is a quick review of the most important Islamic sources that demonstrate why Christians are so vulnerable in the Islamic world.

THE KORAN

The Koran itself contains a number of anti-Christian verses. These include:

Koran 5:73 === Infidels are they who say Allah is one of three. This is a direct reference to the Christian Trinity

Koran 5:17 === Infidels are they who say Allah is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary (See also Koran 4:171). To be referred to as an infidel (that is, a "kafir" is to be categorized as an enemy of Islam, one who must be either eliminated or subjugated (Surah 9:5 and 9:29)

Islamic apologists like vexacool often cite other Koranic verses that ostensibly speak well of Christians, such as in his last post where he claimed the Conditions of Omar weren't strongly or generally enforced. We ask him - If they weren't strongly enforced, why can't Muslims in Egypt leave Copts to live in peace?

Another area are the statements in the Koran regarding "abrogation," which was developed early in Islamic jurisprudence to deal with the Koran's many contradictory statements. Muslims believe that what wherever verses contradict each other, the verse from later in Muhammed's career cancels out the verse from earlier.

vedaxcool

Now that the Pact of Umar has been properly contextualized

Contextualized, you don't say. Do you even know the contents of the Pact of Omar. Let me bring it home for you because your ignorance on your own history is laughable and very much entertaining:

There are different versions of the text of The Conditions/Pact of Omar, but they all have the same theme. The complete text of one of the most authoritative versions of the Conditions - the 1st one Ibn Qayyim reproduced in his book - follows below. As in most versions, the conquered Christians appear to be speaking:

"[b][size=15pt]When you came to our countries, we asked you for safety for ourselves and the people of our community upon which we imposed the following conditions on ourselves for you.

Not to build a church in our city - nor a monastery, convent, or monk's 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 out churches, by day or night, and to keep their doors wide open for [Muslims] passersby and travelers;

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

Not to clang our cymbals except lightly and from the inner-most recesses of our churches;

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 of [Christian] book in the markets 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 near the market places of the Muslims;

Not to bring near to them [Muslims] pigs or alcohol;

Not to display any signs of polytheism, nor make our religion appealing, nor call or proselytize anyone to it;

Not to prevent any of our relatives who wish to enter into Islam;

To distinguish ourselves wherever we are and not to resemble Muslims in dress - whether in headgear, turbans, sandals, hair-parting, or modes of transportation;

Not to speak like them [Muslims], nor adopt their surnames;

To clip our foreheads and not part our forelocks;

Not to possess or bear any arms whatsoever, nor grid ourselves with swords;

To honor the Muslims, show them the way, and rise up from our seats if they wish to sit down;

None of us shall do business with a Muslim unless the Muslim commands it;

To host every traveling Muslim for 3 days and feed him adequately;

We guarantee all this to you upon ourselves, our descendants, our spouses, and our neighbors, and if we change or contradict these conditions imposed upon ourselves in order to receive safety, we forfeit our dhimma [covenant], and we become liable to the same treatment you inflict upon the people who resist and cause sedition[/size][/b]"

Please do your homework and read before you come here and display your ignorance.

vedaxcool

Anyway we move on, the so called Umar pact was rarely applied;

Rarely applied? Are you kidding me - In the 1920s and 1930s, there were over 20% of Christian population in the Middle East, now it is less than 4%. Go figure

However, it must be said that these restrictive laws were not generally enforced

Go tell that to the Copts in Egypt - LIAR! Cha - see delusion. Taqiyya at it's highest order

Many of the restrictions stipulated by the Pact of Umar, the code of conduct imposed…[on the] Jews, were oftentimes ignored by the rulers.

No kidding, you were there abi or the slaughter of Copts by una Muslim brotherhood in Eqypt in now is not evidence enough abi? Later you will say it's Christians that caused the Holocaust or it was America that bombed the World Trade center

we have been able to show once, that a hate monger repeatedly quoted by a dishonest non-specialist always end up being a messy affair!

You haven't shown Jack - you just LIE with your mouth open

vedaxcool: As we see the dishonest non- specialist in the name of Aliarexist simply follows his heroes blindly not even making any use of his brain.

Lol, let us see how you will stick your neck on the line - Are you saying the Pact/Conditions of Omar is false?

vedaxcool

Since Aliarexist is going his normal rounds of ignorance and hate warmongering let's continue on the church perpetual servitude doctrine, which a well versed Jewish scholar has so far shown to be extremely poor in relation to religious freedom.

Grow up, name callings are for 4 year olds

So we can see an important distinction, where as Jews suffered much persecution in Christendom , they fared better under Muslim rule, Jews only began to enjoy their rights as Christianity faded away from the position of governance and was replaced by secular authority, in fact the Jews suffered one last blow from the Christendom, in the form of an attempt to annihilate the whole of jewery, THE HOLOCAUST, never has such an attempt been made in Muslim lands! Now compared the actions of Muslims, Islam offered a better deal to religious interrelations and as Muslims have always stated it is dishonest non-specialist like the op and his hate monger mentor, spencer who has been banned from a land dominated by Christians and even a church, that like Osama et al, enjoy promoting inter-religious wrangling rather than face their own failings! teh op, spencer and Osama have one thing in common, they are extremist who thrive on spreading hate and lies! Please stay tuned!

In your desperate attempt to derail this thread, you have displayed your ultimate ignorance - Christianity is responsible for the Holocaust . You are the same person that use your "advanced" logic and said Jesus is the most violate because when He returns in the future, the will judge the world and His judgement will be violent. As a result, Jesus is worse than Mohammed.

I keep asking you, can't you refute someone else statement? Can't Islam stand alone without Christianity?

We know you are desperate vexacool - you dey vex no be small

vedaxcool

Our problem in this thread is further compounded by the fact that its major proponent is simply a dishonest nonspecialist

I am, you don't say . So dishonest that you can't refute one point I have made. Are the killings of Copts and burning their churches in Egypt a fabrication?

Your response will tell us who is dishonest

A man that attacks the character in a public forum yet can't refute anything I have said. Robert Spencer is one of the best authority on Islam so much that non of your Scholars have accepted to debate him. If he was a hate monger and bigot as you claim, can't any of your muftis put him in his place? But you come here, as always - the defender of Islam and start doing your war dance

To create a case, you cherry picked Robert Spencer and tried label him a bigot and a hate monger. Compared to your brother Osama Bin Laden, does Robert come close? . You need to do more and more reading. Look up Mohammed Al Ghazoli, a former Islamic scholar and adviser to Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi, believed and taught Islam as the one true religion. An arab and a scholar of the highest caliber in Islam (in comparison, you don't even come close) has to say of his years of study on the Koran and Hadith. He read in the Quran that Allah misleads whoever he wants and he wondered why one of the names of Allah is the "Misleader". Now, this is not Robert Spencer, this is an Islamic Scholar. So, go do some reading, then come back here and use your common sense.

Omo, park - sit down, take a chill pill and follow the thread

vedaxcool

As we can see, Christianity by comparison did not offer an alternative then neither could it be looked upon as being a model to adopt by others even Spencer, Aliarexist hero, understands this fact, One of the chief reason Christianity got relegated in to the back ground is simply because it always ended up serving as a vehicle for oppression, either to the poor masses or to the non christians, it always ended up being used by the elite to perpetuate their wickedness on others!

And who did Christianity oppress?

These two sides (proponents of the interfaith utopia theory on the one hand and the Islamic persecution myth on the other hand) peddle their diametrically opposed paradigms, selectively quoting from various sources in order to “prove” their side. Of course, the truth lies in between this myth and counter-myth: dhimmis did not live under an idyllic interfaith utopia under Islamic rule–far from it: discrimination against nonbelievers was a prevalent phenomenon. Dhimmis were clearly treated as second-class citizens.

If you doubt it - prove it. Are Churches not bombed in Nigeria, are Christians not killed in their house of worship?

On the other hand, the counter-myth is equally dishonest and fails to contextualize the situation of dhimmis in the Islamic Orient with that of their counterparts in Christian Europe. We are always reminded by anti-Islam ideologues of the dhimmitude, a catch-all phrase which has caught on very well in recent times; the term is used as a stick to beat Muslims over the head with, as well as one to incite feelings of paranoia and xenophobia. This article will however recount what they–perhaps in their ignorance and zeal–have neglected to mention: there was in fact a direct corollary to the dhimmitude in the Christian West. It too has a catchy name: the Christian belief in the Perpetual Servitude of infidels, a concept which was in fact much more oppressive than the so-called dhimmitude.

Yarns - Sharia makes non-Muslims 2nd class citizen. Why would I need permission to build in a church in Saudi Arabia but they are free to put multi billion dollar churches in Europe and elsewhere?

Mark R. Cohen, a professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, is arguably considered to be the world’s leading scholar of Jews living in the Middle Ages under Islamic rule.[/b] He decided to write a book that contrasted the treatment of Jews living in the Islamic Orient with their counterparts in the Christian West. This book, Under Crescent and Cross, is the first of its kind, as it analytically compares the treatment of Jewish dhimmis (pejoratively called dhimmitude by ideologues) with that of the Perpetua Servitude (Perpetual Servitude) of Jewish infidels. Cohen’s magnum opus is remarkably balanced, neutral, and analytical: it rejects both myth and counter-myth, but concludes that while dhimmis were certainly not living under any sort of interfaith utopia, they did have better living conditions than nonbelievers in the Christian West. This article will use Professor Cohen’s book as a general template, but will cite other sources as well in order to cater to the online environment, taking into consideration the “internet chatter” and tailoring the arguments accordingly

Who is stopping you from sharing your views? I started a thread to share my view and you started with the attacks. You no see the war in Syria where Sunnis like yourself they kill and maim Shias and Christians but you come here to make noise

vedaxcool: Yes oohhh! Do you assume there is not slander against Islam that has not been refuted! You have seen nothing yet!

Then use your common sense and refute what I have said. I am not attacking Islam, I am documenting the persecution of Christians. I don't know why your blood dey HOT

vedaxcool: I wonder whether Muslims are behind the banning of Spencer, a hate merchant banned by both a govt of a country and a church, why? because he spew hate! Now it is this same man that is known for hate that Alexis takes as his hero and saviour!

When a bigot visit the website of a hate merchant, the bigot begins to spread hate even more! LiarExist need to de-hatify himself!

When people put Islam under the microscope, they are called Bigots . When we talk about the violence in Islam, we are told we don't understand Islam. For those who say Islam is peaceful, vexacool loves them.

If you use your brainm Robert wasn't ban from the Church, the Church receive threats from your Muslim brothers that they will use violence. To avoid problems, the event was called off. That the British government doesn't want to offend Islam is nothing new - that is why they have Sharia courts there

Has Robert Spencer killed anyone? Did he bomb any mosque or cut the hands and head of infidels? Your brothers in the north BK, their counter-parts in Syria that are forcing sharia down others throat. Your muslim Wahabis in Saudi Arabia and Yemen that are sleeping with 10 year old girls - you don't see all that, yet you see Robert Spencer speaking his mind -

vedaxcool

With all the tonque lashing, you are yet to tell refute what I have said. We all know you vexacool, always going around in circles and circles. If you are honest enough to address the points I have made, please do. If not - continue to display your ignorance as you have always done