Our dear Deb and more of the same and he really has nothing to say about the Gospel of Barnabas

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Feb 1, 2010 at 19:35

Our dear Deb who is not very focused and who needs to get a life

>As per as crusades are concerned , see there is no proof to suggest that Christians invaded the Muslims to push them back.

Says who?

>Remember the Christians almost destroyed the whole Jewish population in Jerusalem during the first crusade.

And they also killed many Christians so what is your point?

>Genocides against Jews during crusades was the norm at the time.

For sure and just like the Genocide that was inflicted on your Hindu ancetsors by the Muslim crusade in India right mr demagogue?

>Now my question to you is if the Christians were doing the Crusade to push back the Arabs from the Middle East then why they did butcher all those Jews ?

Oh mixing apples and oranges again and a muslim that cares about the Jews! Sobhanallah

Hello: they were anti-semites who wanted to get rid of the muslims that invaded the land of the Christ and in the process kill the Jews that killed him (or so they say)

>Another point regarding the crusades. During the first crusade the whole non-Christian population in Jerusalem (that included Jews,Muslims as well as Orthodox Christians) were slaughtered by the Crussaders.

They sure were so what is your point?

> Now compare the following :The so-called "civilized" western Christians slaughtered all those Jews and Orthodox Christians during the first crussade.

so? and your ancestors were also killed and brutalized by Islam and Muslims!

> Muslims led by Saladin during their liberation of Jerusalem some 80 years later the first crusade not only spared all the Christians in the city but they allowed all the Christian pilgrims to come to the city.

>What does this have to do with the fact that the crusades were about pushing Muslims back to al-Hijaz?

And you know what? Your Muslim brothers did not care about what happened to Muslims in Jerusalem and when the crusaders threatened trade routes in the Middle east this is when your masters the arabs took notice of the crusaders! I can see Adam Smith turning in his grave

>Now tell me who is more civilized ? The crusaders or Muslims ?

Neither is civlized or decent

>you are contradicting yourself on the point of why Mongols emraced Islam after they had conquered the Arabs .

Hello: They sure did. You are clueless are you? But again you follow in the path of your Hindu ancestors mr pundit right?

>"I'm going to help you here: historians tell us that if the barbarian invade the land of the civilized the barbarian will speak and adopt the language of the civilized and this is why the Mongols that stayed in the Middle East became Muslim and Arabs and those what moved back east took islam with them now do you get it?"

>See throughout our debate

What debate? you are and you must pardon me ignorant, not very focused and a demagogue do you get it?

>you are saying that Arabs and Muslims in general are barbaric creatures. But here you are admitting that they were civilized that is why the barbaric Mongols embraced their fatih. So it is clear you are having double standards.

Hello: you need to know what the terms "barbarian" and "civilized" mean in a historical context before you utter this nonsense and I'm not interested in a chit chat about it

>On the issue regarding Gospel of Barnabas , I would say that if you are not interested in discussing the French colonial rule's faliure to change the Muslims in al-Maghrib then I am also not interested in discussing with you anything regarding the Gospel of Barnabas.

Gobbeldygook

And I read this as you have no answers and your claims about injiil barnaba are all bogus right?

>As per as Islamic conquest of the much of the Middle East

It is called INVASION

during the midddle ages is concerned see Egypt was under brutal bygantine rule

ROTFL ...

Hello: Egypt was not under "the brutal rule of the Byzantine" Empire during the Middle Ages mr ignorant. It was in the late antique period

> and you must accept the religious persecution of the copts under the Byzantine rule was far far greater than they have endured under Muslim rule.

Bogus. Where is your evidence? Oh kutub al-tarikh al-islami? and let me help you: Hellenism was very different from Arabian imperialism and historians of late antique Egypt now tell us that Egyptians appreciated Hellenism and its benefits and they were left speaking their language (Egyptian) and following their unique brand of Christianity and if an Egyptian wanted to be hellenized then all he had to do was to move to the cities of the nomes et voila.

The Arabs? they were barbarians and all they wanted was to go to the front door of el-falaheen and grab their Jizya and kill and enslave. Very shameful

> And I must tell you the Muslims allowed the copts to practise their religion even throughout the Islamic rule of Egypt.

"Allowed"? It is their country . Shame on you

>You must also share with the readers that copts periodically revolted against the byznatine rule

When? Let me be blunt: you are making this up and now you either provide us with references or you stop.

>and everytime they were crushed by the byzantines with great cruelty.

Where is your evidence ?

>Regarding Jerusalem , I want to share with the readers here that the Jews were forbidden to live in Jerusalem by the Byzantine rulers.

So?

>The Jews were only allowed to return back to Jerusalem after Jerusalem was liberated by Caliph Omar. I hope this will enlighten you Mr DNM.

Oh Omar al-Faruq and his little trip that never took place to Jerusalem right? Your history is bogus

Your islamic historical sources are a joke

>As per as Islam in India is concerned I am not going to go into detail about the spread of Islamic faith in India since that will take a huge amount of time. Just want to tell you that before and after the Muslims many foreign invaders conquered in India and after that they vanished form the page of history. But Islam has maintained a dynamic role in the heart of the Indians. Had Islam only slaughtered the people like you mentioned in India it would long have been wiped out. Now tell me why a faith that according to you slaughtered millions in India then why it still survives ?

Could it be because there were too many Hindus to kill all of them? or could it be that it is better to ensalve them and rape them than to kill them? or could it be that as the wannabe historian Karen Armstrong tells us that your ancerstors were regarded later on as part of ahl al-kitab so the Muslim barbarians can collect al-jizya and give 1/5 of the loot to your Arabian Allah? so which one is it?

I urge you to abandon islam and be free again

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".