sidi we wait for more beneficial posts ….especially your synopsis on wahhabis

sidi have a look at this: http://www.islamtoday.net/articles/show_articles_content.cfm?id=102&catid=105&artid=8699

(my arabic isn’t that great, can you kindly summarize that in english? lol) Barak Allahu feek.

As far as I know, the Sahaba never invaded Ethiopia. Do you have any information to substantiate your claim?

If you want to read about Muslims who did invade Ethiopia, then read about the Somali hero Imam Ahmad Gragn and how his invasion not only led to his own defeat and demise, but strengthened European support of the Ethiopians.

This led to the Portugese getting a significant upper hand over their rivals the Ottomans which in turn led to the Ottoman campaigns in Ethiopia which were a terrible burden upon them. This significantly deflected attention away from the Ottomans’ Eastern Frontier and this enabled the Shi`ite Safavids to spill out from the Caucasus and easily conquer Iran. Iran had been Sunni for nearly 1000 years before this. The Safavids through massacre and slaughter forcefully converted the population to become Shi`ites.

The Ottomans were overextended in their very noble assistance to fellow Muslim States against the Portugese in places such as India and Yemen, and, thus, were incapable of facing the Safavid threat. It was a terrible choice to make: Take attention away from the Portugese and allow them to rule the seas and the spice trade or take attention away from the Safavids and allow them to conquer Iran and, eventually, Iraq.

Your last question regarding Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism is not related to any entries in my blog though it may be in the future. Thank you.

Emphasis on the last bit, which you seem to ignore- the Ethiopians haven’t left Somalia alone, in fact, they invaded it. Actually, from my knowledge the sahaba didn’y ‘desist from Ethiopia’, except in the same way that they ‘desisted’ from India, that is, they ran against a wall of resistance, making further conquest useless. Also, you seem to imply that this act of self-defence on the part of Somalis will usher in the end of the world- please point me to a proof of this (the hadith doesn’t seem to mention it). Furthermore, my heliocentric brother you left me in the dark (or maybe you are travelling)- are you convinced by my reasoning on geocentricity?

1) “Have you read our Bible?”

Yes, I have read the Bible a weeee bit, and if you’d bother to read some of the other entries on my blog you’d be able to gather that. It seems this response of yours was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction.

2) “Because nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christians can speed the return of Yeshua HaMashiach (the Hebrew name for Jesus Christ) by starting wars.”

Nowhere in the New Testament does it say anything even remotely justifying of 90% of Right-Wing Neo-Con foreign policies, yet each and every single advocate of this party will use Christ as their justification on church podiums across this country. It is precisely for this reason that I am careful to not blame Christianity for their misgivings, but the perpetrators themselves who claim Christianity. Strangely, you say that a majority of Evangelicals do not support Bush’s current Crusader foreign policy of invading Iraq without premise, yet I ask you, dear sir: Who comprises the voting bloc that put Bush in power for two successive terms? Were they anyone other than the so-called “Red States” of the American Bible Belt?

2) “And speaking of the Crusades, the initial ones were defensive, against Moors and similar who very nearly conquered Europe.”

The Iberian and Pyrenees Crusades of Western Europe were hardly defensive at all. They were orchestrated by the Church following the Christianization of Northern and Eastern European peoples. These peoples were of warrior stock and the “turn the other cheek” Christian doctrine didn’t bode well in their culture. Instead they turned on each other and engulfed much of Europe into a period of mass murder and violence. Thus, the Church instituted the Pax Dei and Treuga Dei. In order to solidify this, they needed to give these bloodthirsty brigands a focus for their angst. What better target then the Muslims of Western Europe? When the Muslims entered Western Europe from the Straits of Gibraltar they were invited by the ancient Basque and other Iberian peoples who were suffering under the domination of the constantly warring Gothic powers. This set a momentum that was stopped only deep in the heart of Frankish Gaul (modern day France). So your assessment of the early “Crusades” against the Moors is a bit ill-informed.

3) “Even the offensive attacks by Christians were only attempts to recapture lands that Muslims themselves had taken by military force.”

When the Christians invaded the Middle East to “retake” Jerusalem there were a few problems with their justification:

- Jerusalem never belonged to the European kings for them to “retake” it. When the Muslims of the Arabian Peninsula conquered the Middle East they fought an army which consisted of Romans of very loose Christian, or even Roman, affiliation, Pagan Slaves and even some Turkic mercenaries from Eastern Europe and modern day Russia. This flotsam and jetsam were hardly something that needed to be restored compared to the social, religious, economic, and other forms of stability that the Muslims introduced to the lawless region. When the Muslim Caliph Omar visited Jerusalem, the Temple Mount was a dung hill. He fell to his knees and wept as he began lifting the dung with his bare hands.

- The Muslims had been ruling Jerusalem with Jews, Muslims and Christians living in peace for 400 years when the Catholic Church suddenly realized they needed to “retake” it. I’m not so sure the “bright enlightenment” of Europe in the Dark Ages was something that needed to be spread.

3) “As a matter of fact, even a great many of the current Muslim strongholds (Turkey, Egypt, Mecca, Medina) were majority Christian”

The decisive battle which won the Anatolian Peninsula (modern day Turkey) for the Muslims was the Battle of Manzikert which is recorded as one of the most decisive victories in the history of the world. At that battle, the Turkish leader Alp Arsalan was in Armenia and had a cavalry of only 15,000 to face the Byzantine force of approximately 50,000. During the battle the Turks preached to the Byzantine soldiers and invited them to Islam. Half the Byzantine army defected to the Muslim side and turned to attack the Byzantines. To make a long story short, the Byzantines were destroyed and their Emperor Romanus taken prisoner and brought before Alp Arsalan. Their dialog is one of the greatest entries in world history:

Alp Arslan: “What would you do if I were brought before you as a prisoner?”
Romanus: “Perhaps I’d kill you, or exhibit you in the streets of Constantinople.”
Alp Arslan: “My punishment is far heavier. I forgive you, and set you free.”

So, my friend, the Muslims didn’t come bullying into Europe with great numbers like the Haradrim against a few rag tag blonde Europeans like Peter Jackson made it look in the “Return of the King”. It was the opposite. The Muslims came in so easily because the ones they were fighting were tyrants who did not have the loyalty of the people and when any ruler does not have the loyalty of the people that nation becomes “easy pickins’” for an invading army. Look at Saddam’s Iraq.

4) “It appears that the current version of events being told in the mainstream media, academia, and a great many other places diverge from truth, and one must wonder why that is and whose agenda is being served by such.”

This is the oft-repeated wail and mantra of the Neo-Con Right that bemoans “They just aren’t telling the truth! They show Muslims on the news as human beings and refuse to show their horns, pointed tails or pitchforks. Damn those liars!”

Before they should bemoan the representation of history, they should study it themselves first.

Have you read our Bible? Because nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christians can speed the return of Yeshua HaMashiach (the Hebrew name for Jesus Christ) by starting wars. The only way given in our Bible for Christians to speed the return of Yeshua HaMashiach is with our evangelism. Even very theologically conservative evangelical Christians were divided on the Iraq War, and a great many right wingers who supported the war were not Christian at all, let alone evangelical Christians. And though I have not seen the latest polling data (and accurate polling data on evangelical Christians does not exist because the media does not WANT to accurately depict evangelical Christians because the media thoroughly detests us), I am certain that well over half of evangelical Christians want us out of Iraq, and I can assure you that such would not be the case if our Bible told us that starting wars like the one in Iraq would bring our Lord and Saviour back faster, or that it was in any way God’s plan. So, whatever the true motivation for Bush to invade Afghanistan and Iraq (and as is being strongly rumored, Iran) religion is almost certainly is not one of them.

And speaking of the Crusades, the initial ones were defensive, against Moors and similar who very nearly conquered Europe. Even the offensive attacks by Christians were only attempts to recapture lands that Muslims themselves had taken by military force. As a matter of fact, even a great many of the current Muslim strongholds (Turkey, Egypt, Mecca, Medina) were majority Christian during the time of Muhammed and shortly after, right up until the early Muslim conquests. It appears that the current version of events being told in the mainstream media, academia, and a great many other places diverge from truth, and one must wonder why that is and whose agenda is being served by such.