Our Dear Hassan and his poor Muslim education: the barbarians and the civilized

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Apr 22, 2007 at 08:27

It seems that our dear Hassan did learn in his glorious madrassa something about the Mongol invasion of the Middle East, and he is trying to tell us that he is a man of learning but it is just not working, so let us see he wrote

>"dhimmi no more" in his childish rethoric wants to show that Islamization in Arabia is the very cause of the Mongol conquest

Let us see where did I say that? Let me help you: I never said that, but again our dear Hassan is a poor reader. As a matter of fact if the Arabs did not invade the rich late antique Middle East and then establishing an Empire that was indeed very rich the Mongols would have had no reason to invade such empire after all who wants to invade "basket cases" like Pakiland where you live or Bagladesh or Burkina Fasso for this matter? The invader is looking for _looting_ nothing more and nothing less. Is this difficult to understand? And do you really know who is Adam Smith? More later

>and the european crusades

The crusaders would have told us that they invaded Palestine to kick the Muslims out of the their holy land and in this case if the Arabs did not invade Palestine in 633CE the crusaders would not have had a reason to invade Palestine. Why is this difficult to understand? But this is not true otherwise how do you explain their attacks on Constantinople and on Egypt which were no holy lands? The only answer here is it was all about looting and was not any different from the Arab crusades agaisnt the people of the Middle East in 633CE! And what is most amazing that no Muslim cared about the tragedy in Jerusalem in 1099CE because killing of innocent people was not an issue to Muslims after all they can all say that it is all about: al-qada' qa al-qadr (oh you do not know Arabic well you can ask your Mullah). And do you know why the Arabs and Muslims turned against the crusaders? It was the attacks by the crusaders agaisnt the caravan trade that led to their final expulsion from Palestine and it had nothing to do with the tragedy in Jerusalem.

See? It is all about looting

>where in fact there many conquest that had happened before and after Islam such as Alexander the Great, Xerez (sic) Spanish french and english conquests etc!!!!

Well it is all about looting and so was the Arab invasion of the Middle East. If you do not get this I will consider you to be beyond help. So are you beyond help?

>A bigot ignorant always argue childishly and in vain!!!

Good get it out of your system. Do you feel better now?

>In the first place Prophet Muhammad is like Moses and Josuha.

If so when why did you convert to islam (sic)? Why did you not convert to let us say Judaism? And how do you know that Moses or Joshua for this matter are really historical characters? Let me help you, there is no historical evidence that there was such a thing as the exodus and if we are to beleive Wellhausen the frist five books of the Bible were written over a very long period of time and no holy books drop from the sky not the Bible and for sure not the Qur'an but you are a typical Pakistani tablighee that have no clue about the cultures of the Middle East and is nothing but a wannabe Arab. Shame

>If God allowed Moses and Joshua to eradicate paganism in small canaan why not for Prophet Muhammad in the whole of Arabic

Ah, the pagansim thing again. So you tell us ya ayuha al-faylasoof al-kabeer what is the difference between praying to a god that you cannot see and to a statue of a deity? Let me help you: there is no difference except in the minds of your likes that have no clue about psycholinguistics. Shame on you for being that ignorant.

>If pagans and other empires have the right to conquer why not the prophets of God?

Well you make a good point here as your Allah and his rasul are to collect 1/5 of the loot from the infidels so do you think that this may be a good reason for looting what the infidels have. Oh I forgot: do you have your Allah's e-mail address because he has a lot of loot that he has to collect in the past 1400 years.

But wait: your Allah is omnipotent. Right? then he can change the hearts and minds of us infidels without all this blood shed and war someething that pagans cannot do. Right? But it seems that your Allah could not do that either and why is that? Unless he is not omnipotent or he wants to collect his 1/5 of the loot. So what do you think ya ayuha la-fahlawi al-kabeer?

---

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".