France just hit again

[88m3]

didn't realize you were woke on this issue

Just a realist...

 

[plushcarpet]

Just a realist...

not enough of those around these days

i always get a good chuckle when people bring up the crusades

even IF, and that's a big IF (and also not true at all), Christians were 100% at fault and blah blah
we are talking about a time period where conquest was as normal as going to work in the morning is today
so the entire argument is just

 

[Scoop]

Your own link states it was nothing but the rise of a new empire taking out 2 faded empires and trying to establish its own authority in its region.
There is nothing literally and explicitly stated about it in an attempt to expand Islam.

Policy toward non-Muslims
Main article: Dhimmi
The Arab conquerors did not repeat the mistake made by the Byzantine and Sasanian empires, who had tried and failed to impose an official religion on subject populations, which had caused resentments that made the Muslim conquests more acceptable to them.[80] Instead, the rulers of the new empire generally respected the traditional middle-Eastern pattern of religious pluralism, which was not one of equality but rather of dominance by one group over the others.[80] After the end of military operations, which involved sacking of some monasteries and confiscation of Zoroastrian fire temples in Syria and Iraq, the early caliphate was characterized by religious tolerance and peoples of all ethnicities and religions blended in public life.[81] Before Muslims were ready to build mosques in Syria, they accepted Christian churches as holy places and shared them with local Christians.[62] In Iraq and Egypt, Muslim authorities cooperated with Christian religious leaders.[62] Numerous churches were repaired and new ones built during the Umayyad era.[82]

Keep reading:

...There is no evidence for public display of Islam by the state before the reign of Abd al-Malik (685–705), when Quranic verses and references to Muhammad suddenly became prominent on coins and official documents.[84] This change was motivated by a desire to unify the Muslim community after the second civil war and rally them against their chief common enemy, the Byzantine empire.[84]

A further change of policy occurred during the reign of Umar II (717–720).[85] The disastrous failure of the siege of Constantinople in 718 which was accompanied by massive Arab casualties led to a spike of popular animosity among Muslims toward Byzantium and Christians in general.[85] At the same time, many Arab soldiers left the army for civilian occupations and they wished to emphasize their high social status among the conquered peoples.[85] These events prompted introduction of restrictions on non-Muslims, which were modeled both on Byzantine curbs on Jews, such as prohibitions against building new synagogues and giving testimony against Christians, and on Sasanian regulations that prescribed distinctive attire for different social classes.[85]

In the following decades Islamic jurists elaborated a legal framework in which other religions would have a protected but subordinate status.[84] Islamic law followed the Byzantine precedent of classifying subjects of the state according to their religion, in contrast to the Sasanian model which put more weight on social than on religious distinctions.[85] In theory, like the Byzantine empire, the caliphate placed severe restrictions on paganism, but in practice most non-Abrahamic communities of the former Sasanian territories were classified as possessors of a scripture (ahl al-kitab) and granted protected (dhimmi) status.[85]

It's easy to be nice to other groups when you rule over them and there's no resistance and no internal strife but once the going got tough in expanding their borders it turned into a holy war and the true colors came out.

So lets change all currency to have Mohammed's face on it, lets grow animosity towards Christians after our own invasion of one of their major cities failed, lets give other religious groups subordinate status legally...but nah, nothing to do with religion.

I didn't see the West give Muslims subordinate status in Iraq or Afghanistan after the invasions, or put Jesus or the Star of David on their currency.

And listen, I'm not saying all Muslims are bad people, but you can't tell me Islam is in a good place right now and that it's all the West's fault and that Christianity is just as bad right now and that Islam doesn't have a history of expansion and violence that continues to this day.

We need to get out of the nations in the middle east, stop supporting dictators, stop funding extremists, take the bases out of the region, leave them alone and let them be sovereign and deal with their own issues.

I agree with this though too.

The problem is America and allies fight a political/economic war in the M.E. and the Muslims retaliate with a largely religious motivated war.

 

[David_TheMan]

Keep reading:

...There is no evidence for public display of Islam by the state before the reign of Abd al-Malik (685–705), when Quranic verses and references to Muhammad suddenly became prominent on coins and official documents.[84] This change was motivated by a desire to unify the Muslim community after the second civil war and rally them against their chief common enemy, the Byzantine empire.[84]

A further change of policy occurred during the reign of Umar II (717–720).[85] The disastrous failure of the siege of Constantinople in 718 which was accompanied by massive Arab casualties led to a spike of popular animosity among Muslims toward Byzantium and Christians in general.[85] At the same time, many Arab soldiers left the army for civilian occupations and they wished to emphasize their high social status among the conquered peoples.[85] These events prompted introduction of restrictions on non-Muslims, which were modeled both on Byzantine curbs on Jews, such as prohibitions against building new synagogues and giving testimony against Christians, and on Sasanian regulations that prescribed distinctive attire for different social classes.[85]

In the following decades Islamic jurists elaborated a legal framework in which other religions would have a protected but subordinate status.[84] Islamic law followed the Byzantine precedent of classifying subjects of the state according to their religion, in contrast to the Sasanian model which put more weight on social than on religious distinctions.[85] In theory, like the Byzantine empire, the caliphate placed severe restrictions on paganism, but in practice most non-Abrahamic communities of the former Sasanian territories were classified as possessors of a scripture (ahl al-kitab) and granted protected (dhimmi) status.[85]

So lets change all currency to have Mohammed's face on it, lets grow animosity towards Christians after our own invasion of one of their major cities failed, lets give other religious groups subordinate status legally...but nah, nothing to do with religion.

I didn't see the West give Muslims subordinate status in Iraq or Afghanistan after the invasions, or put Jesus or the Star of David on their currency.

And listen, I'm not saying all Muslims are bad people, but you can't tell me Islam is in a good place right now and that it's all the West's fault and that Christianity is just as bad right now.



I agree with this though too.

The problem is America and allies fight a political/economic war in the M.E. and the Muslims retaliate with a largely religious motivated war.

Keep reading, you mean skipping the next paragraph because it didn't fit your narrative?

The first Umayyad caliph Muawiyah sought to reassure the conquered peoples that he was not hostile to their religions and made an effort to enlist support from Christian Arab elites.[83] There is no evidence for public display of Islam by the state before the reign of Abd al-Malik (685–705), when Quranic verses and references to Muhammad suddenly became prominent on coins and official documents.[84] This change was motivated by a desire to unify the Muslim community after the second civil war and rally them against their chief common enemy, the Byzantine empire.[84]

A further change of policy occurred during the reign of Umar II (717–720).[85] The disastrous failure of the siege of Constantinople in 718 which was accompanied by massive Arab casualties led to a spike of popular animosity among Muslims toward Byzantium and Christians in general.[85] At the same time, many Arab soldiers left the army for civilian occupations and they wished to emphasize their high social status among the conquered peoples.[85] These events prompted introduction of restrictions on non-Muslims, which were modeled both on Byzantine curbs on Jews, such as prohibitions against building new synagogues and giving testimony against Christians, and on Sasanian regulations that prescribed distinctive attire for different social classes.[85]

In the following decades Islamic jurists elaborated a legal framework in which other religions would have a protected but subordinate status.[84] Islamic law followed the Byzantine precedent of classifying subjects of the state according to their religion, in contrast to the Sasanian model which put more weight on social than on religious distinctions.[85] In theory, like the Byzantine empire, the caliphate placed severe restrictions on paganism, but in practice most non-Abrahamic communities of the former Sasanian territories were classified as possessors of a scripture (ahl al-kitab) and granted protected (dhimmi) status.[85]

Mark R. Cohen writes that the jizya paid by Jews under Islamic rule provided a "surer guarantee of protection from non-Jewish hostility" than that possessed by Jews in the Latin West, where Jews "paid numerous and often unreasonably high and arbitrary taxes" in return for official protection, and where treatment of Jews was governed by charters which new rulers could alter at will upon accession or refuse to renew altogether.[86] The Pact of Umar, which stipulated that Muslims must "do battle to guard" the dhimmis and "put no burden on them greater than they can bear", was not always upheld, but it remained "a steadfast cornerstone of Islamic policy" into early modern times.[86]

Yeah the article literally doesn't say what you claimed and provides no support for it at all.
As a matter of fact the changes were political in nature and it even says that in what you quoted, they tried to assauge the public. The funny part is that even then what they eventually enacted was no different than the Byzantinian empire and it was better for jews than the other neighboring empire, which again kills your argument.

I can easily tell you Islam is in a good place because most muslims aren't violent, most muslims are the victims of these radical elements, most muslims don't even support the wahabbist sect. So why should islam and Muslims as a whole be vilified and not the people in the western socieities who provide support for governments that alloww and forment this shyt.

As for your last part, if america and the west is the initial cause and its political, its ridiculous to claim that the response for the radical wahabbist is not political in nature, but instead religious.

 

[Fenian]

The west caused a huge ongoing civil war between two sects of muslims?

and my suggestions is bombing them with pamphlets of christianity

They didn't cause it directly they did make things much worse however. No denying that.

 

[Fenian]

Are people trying to say sectarian violence is a Muslim issue? Because I know too well it's a huge issue in Christianity today. And it's mostly between different sects of Christianity.

 

[Scoop]

Here's a collage of some of the victims:

Bu bu but it's all CACS

Nice terrorist is NAMED as French-Tunisian Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel

 

[88m3]

Here's a collage of some of the victims:

Bu bu but it's all CACS

Nice terrorist is NAMED as French-Tunisian Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel

thanks for posting for some of these ignorant fukks

 

[Slim]

Edit: wrong thread

 

[Scoop]

I'm not going to pretend that I'm even remotely educated on matters involving Turkey, their PM, or government.

Can anyone tell me why this is happening or drop links that explain it? It's hard to sift through the noise as this is happening.

Wrong thread breh

 

[88m3]

I'm not going to pretend that I'm even remotely educated on matters involving Turkey, their PM, or government.

Can anyone tell me why this is happening or drop links that explain it? It's hard to sift through the noise as this is happening.

thread wrong breh

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

Here's a collage of some of the victims:

Bu bu but it's all CACS

Nice terrorist is NAMED as French-Tunisian Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel

This cant be right the coli militants said it was Cacs...they said IS promised on twitter they wont kill any nikkas

 

[Trip]

EXCLUSIVE: France 'Suppressed News of Gruesome Torture' at Bataclan Massacre

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

EXCLUSIVE: France 'Suppressed News of Gruesome Torture' at Bataclan Massacre

So they actually lied to protect Islam....WTF is wrong with the media these days...they parrot lies 24/7 about Iran, syria and russia but wont tell the truth on this

 

[Virtuous_Brotha]

Here's a collage of some of the victims:

Bu bu but it's all CACS

Nice terrorist is NAMED as French-Tunisian Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel

They conveniently skip over that there are almost always black victims, i even caught a neg in the tlr thread by one fuk boi militant for stating terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with race