rSharia Law in Mali and the world; Emulations Atrocities via of Crimes against (all)

Note; I use Sharia law and rSharia somewhat interchangeably because the definition requires subjective judgment that I am not prepared to make. Radical Shari law as used in this thread means severe, even criminally severe punishments as judged by western law standards.

Note to mod or staff. This is a take off of the Mali incident which was posted by CNN near or within the 72 hour guideline. However move it if deemed more appro.


The incident in Mali where an entire population is being terrorized by rIslam and the prospect of punishments prescribed by Sharia law, is not an aberrant or isolated case. Not at all, it’s the normal MO for Shari law especially where the religion of Islam is a proxy government. When the government and its people becomes subservient** to the Islamic religion its leaders ie Mullas, clerics, and others are like wolves going for the kill, the kill being anyone that violates their idea of religious law. It gets worse. The Sharia wolf*** is not confined nor sated by murdering and torturing citizens of its own territory such as the Islamic nations or theocracies. No, it’s obvious by the issuance of death sentence fawadas and other punishments prescribed by Sharia law to citizens of non-Muslim Sovereign nations that racial Islam’s goal is far more ambitious. There is an obvious agenda to force Islam via Sharia law and the punishments of Sharia law on the population of the entire world.

The Christian crusades were originally implemented to throw off the shackles of Islamic occupation of the Christian holy cities and more than 1400 years of Islamic conquest and oppression. The Crusades (officially) have been put on hold or ended a little more or less than 800 years ago, but I wonder if it will take a new crusade to stop the satanic, and I use that term literally, imperialistic theocracies of radical Islam who are attempting to force Shari law on every nation on earth. Hopefully if nuCrusades emerge history will not bastardize a new Crusade against expansionist rSharia rIslam/Law/ as fully and undeservedly as it did the first Crusades.

God bless this forum and the world~


Reverend Anarchist

 

The so-called Christian crusaders also set out to convert by the sword, and expel both Muslims and Jews from ''the Holy lands.'' The Muslims from the Ottoman empire sent ships to rescue them in the midst of the Spanish Inquisition, offering them refuge in the middle east.

Why do you support anti-Islamic and anti-semitic crusaders?

Dusty

 

It is why no Religon should be imposing their beliefs into law and why the founders of this Nation set up the system they did here.

As for the Crusades, you might want ot do some more reading, the crusaders also attacked and killed Christians, does not sound like they were only out to fight Isalm.

 

Islam is an anti-social religion but please try to get your historical facts in order :

Southern crusades targeted the "old muslim" (pre-Mongol) dogma and didn't even respected eastern christians . Old muslim dogma did shown some respect and most of the people in ME converted on their own.
Christiandom didn't lifted a finger to stop muslim expansion thank lord Tervell for not all of you be muslims today
Northern crusades targeted Baltic pagans and ultimately Russian principalities which was christian, heck they didn't even respected papist Poland !
Also Muhammed wrote his book in 6th century , "1400 years of oppression " concept is kind of problematic.
The last crusade targeted Byzantium , not exactly a muslim state ....

In short the crusades were implemented so filthy western European bastards (and second kids) could get an easy grab of land and money , this saved Europe from LOT of infighting for succession and it is the exact same reason Vikings looted Europe.

 

There is quite a wide range of interpretation of Sharia law, although if I was a woman I wouldn't be in favor of even the mild versions. What RA doesn't mention is that the Islamo-facists are mostly outsiders terrorizing a mainly muslim local population. They've even desecrated historical Muslim tombs because they didn't fit their definition of proper.

So RA is quite right in saying that the Islamo-fascists are scum that need to be dealt with, but quite wrong in his wider interpretation of what the Mali situation means in a wider sense.

 

There would not have been a problem in Mali if it were not for the EU/HATO war crazies that destroyed Libya.

Now EU the geniuses at mayhem and slaughter want to invade Mali for democracy:
the EU,” the ministers are to tell Africa the bloc is ready to help Mali re-conquer its vast north from pro-Al Qaeda forces by assisting a West African military force and helping train and reorganize the country’s ragtag army.

“The situation in the Sahel is not looking good,” said a senior EU official close to the matter. “If we don’t take action it will only get worse.”

http://www.gulan-media.com/english/t_detail.php?section=1&id=2528

 

A small taste of the EU's love and respect for humanity:
Their actions in Libya alone have convicted them:


They did even worse to the bodies of people of all ages and sex.
The EU/HATO gang are hypocrits.
View attachment 15790 View attachment 15791

 

The reason I support (some of) the Crusaders especially the first crusade is that the Muslims were the first aggressors and oppressors and occupiers of our (Christian) holy cities. Yes, I agree that the Crusaders committed atrocities and have never denied that. However I am saying history of that event is a lie as being taught today either by omission or by outright fraudulent fabrications etc. We are taught that the Christian crusaders were the first aggressors when the truth is that the Islamic armies were reeking havoc raping pillaging and plundering for 1400 years before the Christians said enough is enough and the first crusade was ordered to win back the holy cities. The facts are in the thread. Thanks for your reply dusty. I hope to find time to answer all.

reva

 

Arabs were the first Christians........ Gentiles.

 

Your historical knowledge is really lacking .
I really don't want to make you feel bad so try to read some history there, islam expanded mostly peacefully and independently of the Khalifat , people were super pissed off with their religious and political leaders and converting into something new and powerful gave them a chance to better their lives .

 

Your historical knowledge is really lacking .
I really don't want to make you feel bad so try to read some history there, islam expanded mostly peacefully and independently of the Khalifat , people were super pissed off with their religious and political leaders and converting into something new and powerful gave them a chance to better their lives .

 

As mutmekep said above, the spread of Islam was mostly peaceful. The way of life the Muslims brought with them was an improvement on the way of life that existed in those Christian societies at that time. Cities don't belong to religions, they belong to the people who live there. If the population of any given city converts from Christianity to Islam, that city could then be described as having changed from a Christian city to a Muslim city. The fact that the majority of Christians and Jews in the middle east did convert to Islam from Christianity and Judaism respectively, is testament to their preferences at that time. Muslims didn't just appear out of nowhere, nor did all the Christians and Jews simply disappear.

While the crusades OTOH involved far more violence, not only against the armies of the Muslim nations, but the indigenous populations themselves. Many of the Muslims expelled during the Spanish inquisition, had ancestors had previously converted from Christianity to Islam, and were just as much a part of the indigenous population as the Christians were.

So supporting the crusades is supporting an outside aggressor, and going against the wishes of what the indigenous populations themselves have decided. As I respect the rights of people to self-determination, I question people who don't.

Dusty

 

Thats just absurd. The first act of the Khalifat upon Muhammads death was the wars of Apostasy. Waging war against the unbelievers who abandoned Islam when Muhammad died. Within 80 years of Muhammads death they were waging Jihad in Spain, to the west and Afghanistan in the east.

 

Nonsense

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

And most of the Arabian Penninsula was Idolaters. Not Jews and Christians. For them it was conversion or death.

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

 

And much of that came about thru previously existing trade relations and intermarriage... before Islam.

 

Oh bull.... The Christians of Najran were nearly wiped out by the Jewish King of Yemen.. That's why they came under the protection of the Ethiopian Christian king and later under the protection of Muhammed.

Jews and Christians believe in one God the creator. Don't be dense.

 

Quoting the Quran out of context does not dispute what I said.

In which case those individuals obviously chose Islam as their religion.

Quran 9:13 "What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers. "

Do you realise you are mistaking fighting in self-defence for fighting offensively?

Dusty

 

They had the dynamics on their side because it was a new religion promising a better life . Feudal Europe was hell for the non high born and islam had a very different approach , if you check the facts about the rise and the reign of the Ottoman empire you will see that people from very low social class had the chance to reach the highest ranks of the empire by just converting (plus muslims didn't paid taxes) . It was an opportunity too good to be missed and the only thing you had to dumb was the priesthood and their backward ways to become a member of a religion that studied the classics and advanced humanity in all levels.


edit: i can give you some very basic insight about India if you ask for it .

 

Muslims were aiming high in those days.

They brought improvements in access to clean water, city sanitation in general... street lanterns.. They brought an interest in translations from the Greek thinkers.. and an accumultion of information on medicine, engineering, mathmatics, navigation etc.

 

LOLOLOL!!!!! Yeah, the wars of apostasy were all about trade and intermarriage.

 

Was that supposed to have anything to do with the topic of discussion? Or just more fun facts to know and tell by Margot

 

Yeah, conversion was chosen instead of the option of death.

No, you are. I was referring to 9:5, not 9:13

 

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! Where do you get this silliness? Lets see ANY 7th century reference to muslims bringing clean water and street lanterns to the unbelievers. You just make this (*)(*)(*)(*) up as you go along.

 

Before incandescent lamps, candle lighting was employed in cities. The earliest lamps required that a lamplighter tour the town at dusk, lighting each of the lamps, but later designs employed ignition devices that would automatically strike the flame when the gas supply was activated. The earliest of such street lamps were built in the Arab Empire,[1] especially in Córdoba, Spain ( around 1000 AD ).

Irrigation was brought to Spain by the Arabs in the 8th Century and was developed over the following 750 or so years into the quite sophisticated systems that even today keep agriculture alive and well throughout the peninsula.

 

Youre several centuries late. And I dont see any indication of the lamps being brought to spain by the Muslims.