Crusades began after Islam conquered most of Christianity

[♫anna♫]

Jun 17, 2016 19:10:01 GMT DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) said:

Lin - Those lookout towers in Italy are very real. Maratea is hidden in a valley behind the mountain to avoid Muslim slave raiders. That's very real too.

Don't you see that the Mediterranean Sea was a dangerous place when those Muslim slavers were raiding the seacoasts of Europe? It clearly had a huge impact and forced many defensive moves.

I think Dr Warner is quite credible.

Wikipedia confirms your suspicion DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) that Maratea was not visible from the sea to protect it from Saracen ( Muslim ) attackers. Sicily became a Muslim emirate in the 9th century.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratea

[Deleted]

Lets see now, there is so much here, Big Lin offered “ . . . . And now the pretence that 'Islam' invented slavery. . . . . Honestly, don't you guys ever READ any history? . . . . . . Slavery has been around for THOUSANDS of years before Islam and I don't think many US slaveowners were Muslim if it comes to that - or British ones in the West Indies. . . . . . So let's have some HONESTY rather than just bigoted and ignorant DISTORTION of the truth. . . . . “

Good point Big Lin, “ . . . let’s have some honesty rather than just bigoted and ignorant DISTORTION of the truth. . . . “ I might be wrong but no one here suggested that Islam invented slavery.

Slavery goes back beyond recorded history. Nearly all people have practiced it. Islam did (since the foray into Medina) use slavery. From that time of Medina it became a core value on how to act reflected in the perfect life of Muhammad and is still practiced today.

As to Bill Warner being wrong, a proven liar, as with many teachings there can be a differing of opinions. In your assertions that he is wrong (a liar) I must admit that I’m having a difficult time trying to understand what is wrong with the data of his presentation. Is all of it wrong? Or are only selected things wrong? If it is selected items which are those that are wrong. Or is it a single item that is wrong and if so which item.

If I have understood your comments correctly, you have differences with the time of the destruction (collapse?) of European culture. While he marks that time with the advent of Islam into Europe, you suggest that it was earlier and with the coming of the Germanic tribes into (and taking over) what was once the Roman empire and destroying it. In a different video he addresses this and suggest that while the Germanic took over, they didn’t really destroy the Roman empire. Rather, they settled into it picking up the customs and education of what had been there. That is, they became a form of a Roman. The empire remained but run by the Germanic peoples.

I suspect that you will not agree with this but such differences are not unusual in competing historic studies.

What would help is if you could point to which of the 528 battles initiated by Islam in Europe that did not occur. I believe that on his WEB site he has each one listed. I must also admit that before I knew of Bill Warner I had been collecting information and part of it was the battles that he mentioned. Mine are not quite as extensive as his, but they were gather from old (quite old) history books. My list seems to be quite similar to his. I can assure you that I am not lying about my list and I suspect that he is not lying about his list.

As with BushAdmirer, I find his work compelling as well as accurate.

[♫anna♫]

@menantol Big Lin no one here claims that Islam invented slavery. I think there is a big misunderstanding somewhere if any believes someone is suggesting this. Of course there was slavery documented in the Old Testament long before Islam existed. 4 of the 12 tribes of Israel were mothered by slaves since Jacob's wives Rachel and Leah were having trouble conceiving children.

What I wanted to explore was how Islam rose out of the desert and became such a tremendous world power conquering so many nations. This couldn't have been done by the Arabs alone. It's politically incorrect to admit this, but slavery can greatly increase the power of a totalitarian state.

Of course we can't document with precision if Dr. Warren's estimate of 270 million people dying under Islam during it's 1400 year existence. We can't verify if Lin's world population estimates are accurate either. I would refrain from calling anyone a liar on such "rough estimates". The video below can't be claimed to be hostile towards Islam, but it does raise questions.

[DAS (formerly BushAdmirer)]

Fascinating Video. Thanks for posting Anna.

Difficult to explain how Islam became the political force that it is in today's world. Of course, that's also true of all religions where separating fact from fiction is not always possible.

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2016 5:03:33 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

@menantol Big Lin no one here claims that Islam invented slavery. I think there is a big misunderstanding somewhere if any believes someone is suggesting this. Of course there was slavery documented in the Old Testament long before Islam existed. 4 of the 12 tribes of Israel were mothered by slaves since Jacob's wives Rachel and Leah were having trouble conceiving children.

What I wanted to explore was how Islam rose out of the desert and became such a tremendous world power conquering so many nations. This couldn't have been done by the Arabs alone. It's politically correct to admit this, but slavery can greatly increase the power of a totalitarian state.

Of course we can't document with precision if Dr. Warren's estimate that 270 million people died under Islam during it's 1400 year existence is somewhat accurate. We can't verify if Lin's world population estimates are accurate either. I would refrain from calling anyone a liar on such "rough estimates". The video below can't be claimed to be hostile towards Islam, but it does raise questions.

Anna this is an excellent video!

[Big Lin]

Jun 17, 2016 21:23:59 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

Jun 17, 2016 19:48:08 GMT Big Lin said:

By the way, the NEW monastery in Syria THREE YEARS after the Muslim conquest is very REAL; as is the NEW church built there FOUR years after the Muslim conquest and the NEW church built there a hundred years later.

Does Warner mention them?

No, of course not.

He's a PROVEN LIAR so why would he bother with FACTS that prove what he says is WRONG?

Big Lin do you have any links to the 'New monastery' and 'New church' built in Syria allegedly after the Muslim conquest?
I understand too that some Roma gypsies converted to Islam and in view of the tremdendous pressure + coercion to convert to Islam in Muslim controlled countries I'd like to get more information on this.

Anna, it is NOT 'allegedly;' it is FACTUALLY.

I will post some more information on them but Syria was conquered in 637 and the NEW monastery was founded in 640 and a NEW church in 641 (and another in 750).

I will dig out my source and post it for you.

It's always better to go on FACTS rather than on ill-informed prejudice.

[Big Lin]

Jun 18, 2016 15:27:25 GMT DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) said:

Fascinating Video. Thanks for posting Anna.

Difficult to explain how Islam became the political force that it is in today's world. Of course, that's also true of all religions where separating fact from fiction is not always possible.

And it's true of ideologies (such as Islamophobia) where separating fact from fiction is not always possible.

Warner is factually WRONG when he attributes the fall of 'classical civilization' to Islam. Not least because it happened two hundred years BEFORE Islam was even invented!

But of course he has his own agenda (and he's made a LOT of money out of pushing his hatred and lies) so he never lets TRUTH and FACTS get in the way of his prejudices.

I'm going to post some of what I've found about this con-artist and it's very revealing.

[Big Lin]

More on Dr Bill Warner:

To begin with, Warner is not his real name. His real name is William French.

He heads the for-profit Center for the Study of Political Islam in Nashville.

CREDENTIALS Former Tennessee State University physics professor; author of Sharia Law for Non-Muslims (2010; under the pen name Bill Warner).

SUMMARY French has no formal training or background in law, Islam or Shariah law — which in any case is not an established legal code, as the book title implies, but a fluid concept subject to a wide range of interpretations and applications. He garnered attention recently by leading the opposition to a proposed mosque in Murfreesboro, Tenn.

IN HIS OWN WORDS "The two driving forces of our civilization are the Golden Rule and critical thought. … There is no Golden Rule in Islam. ... There is not really even a Ten Commandments."
—Quoted in The [Blount County, Tenn.] Daily Times, March 4, 2011

(That comment alone demonstrates his total ignorance of Islam. There are actually FOUR commandments in Islam so yet again he shows himself up as either a complete fool or a deliberate liar).

"This offends Allah. You offend Allah."
— Quoted in The Tennesseean, Oct. 24, 2010, speaking to opponents of the Murfreesboro mosque while pointing to an American flag

(So French/Warner thinks that an American flag offends Allah? Really? He is so arrogant now he thinks he knows the mind of the Muslim God? Do me a favour, moron!)

Bill French, who runs the Center for the Study of Political Islam.

The benign title, however, obscures the fact that French is a former Tennessee State University physics professor with no actual credentials in the study of religions, political science or anything else remotely related to Islam. But like many others looking to profit off of their bigotry, his personal ignorance about the subject hasn't stopped him from writing a book about Islam--which he penned under the name "Bill Warner" and sells at speaking events.

The book, Sharia Law for Non-Muslims, is a screed full of racist distortions and half-truths about Islam that warns ominously:

When you study Islam in Europe today, you are seeing America in 20 years. Why? The actions by Muslims in Europe are based on sharia law, the same sharia law that is beginning to be implemented in America today.

-- Traffic cannot move in London streets as Muslims commandeer the streets to pray--a political result based on sharia law.

(As someone who LIVES in London I can testify to the fact that this is a downright LIE)

-- Entire areas of Europe are no-go zones for non-Muslims, this includes the police. These are Islamic enclaves where only Muslims live. The Muslim-only policy is based on sharia.

(Maybe he ought to try getting out more; he'd soon find out he was talking out of his backside! And as usual he makes the (mistake? Deliberate lie?) of presenting Sharia as if it was ONE system when in fact there are SEVEN main schools of Sharia, all with different usages and interpretations, and numerous sub-schools within each one. But of course lies get him support while truth wouldn't)

-- In England, an Anglican bishop calls for the rule of Islamic law for Muslims. The bishop is obeying sharia law.

(No he isn't; only a fool or liar would say he is.)

-- In the schools, only Islamic approved texts can be used. This is based on sharia law.

(A downright, factual LIE)

-- Christians may not speak to Muslims about Christianity, nor may they hand out literature. This is a political result based on sharia law enforced by British courts.

(Again, another factual LIE)

-- Rape by Muslims is so prevalent that Sweden has forbidden the police to collect any data in the investigation that would point to Islam. Rape is part of Islamic doctrine as applied to non-Muslim women.

(In the first place, rape is specifically CONDEMNED in the Quran (whether it's Muslim or non-Muslim women, so that is yet another LIE; secondly, Sweden has NOT forbidden the police to collect data about Muslim rapists. Yet another LIE).

-- In London, mass demonstrations by Muslims call for the end of British law and sharia law to rule all people. This political action is based on sharia.

(Mass demonstrations? That's a laugh! Maybe this clown should try actually visiting London or, better still, living there! More complete LIES)

-- In some English hospitals, during Ramadan fast (an Islamic religious event) non-Muslims cannot eat where a Muslim can see them. The submission of non-Muslims is based on sharia law.

(Yet another lie and yet another attempt to dishonestly present Sharia law as monolithic when it certainly is NOT)

Of course, each of these supposed facts is an unhinged lie. But taken together French/Warner's rhetoric is disturbingly reminiscent of that used by Ku Klux Klan or Nazi groups to demonize other races and religions.

In contrast to the bigoted descriptions of people like French/Warner, "sharia" is not a uniform concept--it varies based on the type of Islam practiced, as well as the country and culture in which it is practiced. As Akbar Muhammad, an associate professor of history and Africana studies at Binghamton University in New York, explained to NewsHour,

The word "sharia" is the term given to define the collectivity of laws that Muslims govern themselves by. And there is a presumption that these laws recognize all of the specific laws mentioned in the Koran and in the practice of the prophet, and do not conflict with that...

Islam is a very flexible system, and it has been very flexible for centuries. What I mean by that is that differences of opinion have been accepted within Islam and given legitimacy by some of the highest authorities in Islam. Thus in certain areas of the sharia, one country may differ from another country. One community may differ from another community, even in the same country...

Islamic law is not one thing. It's not monolithic, as American law is not monolithic, as Western law is not monolithic.

But French didn't let such facts get in the way during a speech to opponents of the proposed mosque in Murfreesboro, where he told an assembled crowd of 80 that sharia law is a threat to their way of life, including their American flags (which, he claimed "offend Allah").

------------------
Upon coming across this, I thought "hell, let's watch this!" Little did I know that I'd have steam coming out of my ears by the end of it (and who knew I'd be posting a review of this in /r/badhistory by the end of it!).
Either way, I'm going to break down, blow-by-blow, the rubbish that fills this talk. Warner isn't a historian, and I think he really should leave the history to the historians.
All direct or almost direct quotes are shown like this
[0:18]
Warner says that he likes reading big, thick, old books and writing modern, thin books that are easy to understand. Here, he's telling me this: "I claim to know a lot about x [in this case, Islam], but I don't read any modern scholarship on the subject--in fact, I read old [most likely Orientalist] books by dead European writers that are at least half a century out of date. I take this out of date, Orientalist worldview and 'translate' it into American English to tell my readers what they already know: Islam is evil."
There are plenty of modern, comprehensive, and accurate assessments of Islam, the Early Islamic Conquests, and the Abbasid Golden Age for people to read. Your works, from what I can tell from this lecture, are not one of these comprehensive and accurate works.
[4:00]
Here, Warner tells us that the Roman Empire didn't fall to the Germanic tribes during the 400s AD. Fair enough, only the Western Roman Empire fell that way. Technically, the Eastern Roman Empire fell to the Turks in 1453.
[4:20]
The Germanic peoples spoke Roman? What the hell? I don't even think the Romans spoke Roman.
[4:48]
THERE IS STILL A CLASSICAL EMPIRE!
He fanboys about the Byzantines for the rest of the lecture.
[5:34]
How could the Arabs do to the Byzantines in 25 years what the Persians could never do? [said with a slide showing a picture like this, minus the light orange]
Well, this really shows he has absolutely no knowledge of the Middle East during Late Antiquity. During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Persians made a push against the Byzantines and annexed Egypt, the Levant, and most of Anatolia, until the Persian general Shahin was standing on the shores of the Bosporus across from Constantinople. If he knew half a shit about the history of the Arab Conquests, he would have recognized how familiar this sounded to them (TL;DR: Both the Persians and Arabs were thwarted while besieging Constantinople, and Anatolia remained the Byzantine heartland until the Turks arrived).
Here's the Sassanid Persian Empire at it's greatest extent.
[5:50]
The Greeks and Persians had a history of fighting, true. But Philippi*? That's a battle in the Roman fucking Civil Wars, not the place where those brave 300 Spartans held out against the barbarous Persians. That's Thermopylae, Warner. Say it with me.
*It sounds like he says "Philipimi." I'm not aware of such a battle.
[6:07]
The Persians kept hammering on the Romans, and then the Byzantines.
This is pretty nitpicky, but SAME THING.
[6:11]
Now he's talking about the final Persian push against the Byzantines (discussed above, at timestamp 5:34), which he seems to have forgotten about earlier in the lecture.
[7:32]
...they [the caliphs] went out, whacking Christians!
Yup. That's all they did. Kill Christians. For fun, too. /s
[7:46]
[killing Christians and Persians] is the true nature of Islam.
Fuck this guy. Classic "Us vs. Them" mentality.
[7:55]
The Islamic Conquests created massive destruction.
Here, Warner fails to realize that the bureaucracies of the Persian and Roman Empires were left nearly untouched by the Muslim armies. Greek continued to be the language of government in Egypt, Syria, and the Levant for a generation following the conquests. Same goes for Persian in Persia. Christian government workers kept their jobs.
[8:27]
Christianity that we have today is a bloody stump of the original Christianity.
I am willing to bet $100,000 that Bill Warner is not an Eastern Orthodox or Nestorian Christian. So, if he is a Protestant or Catholic, this really has little effect on him and "his" Christianity.
[9:11] (OH SHIT /r/conspiracy)
This brutal assault is the key to why we fear Islam.
Wait a second, Warner. You said (timestamp 2:59, while showing a picture of the Muslim world) "you can ask intelligent people, and they will not be able to give you the answer to this question." [the question: how did the Muslim World become Muslim?]
So, you claim people don't understand the Early Islamic Conquests (which I agree with; it's not a bad thing, it's just neglected in the American public school system), but then say "The Early Islamic Conquests are the reason we fear Islam." What?
Also, brutal assault? Really? In the grand scheme of things, this is a mild conquest.
[9:25]
I'm not a historian, but I am a scientist.
I can tell you're not a historian.
[9:42]
Roman barbarians didn't cause the dark ages. First off, these barbarians were Germans. These are the same people who made Germany.
...
Roman barbarians
An oxymoron if I've ever heard one.
These are the same people who made Germany
1,500 years later. And no, they weren't the same people.
[10:06]
This really tells me he has no clue about the Early Islamic Conquests. He suggests there's a wealth of archaeological data showing the hundreds of battles fought during the conquests of the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates. It's well known that there is, in fact, a dearth of archaeological evidence for the conquests. Most evidence is written.
[12:47]
This is the punishment that's being handed out to Christians everywhere [during the Abbasid Golden Age].
Us vs. Them mentality. He's showing a sequence of battles, and somehow that's "punishment to Christians."
[13:59]
[Still showing the sequence of battles] And now they're getting slower, because Islam is getting weaker.
For anyone not interested and checking out this timestamp, he says this while his slideshow shows a sequence of hundreds of battles fought by "Islam." The map also shows the extend of Islam in green. This is extremely misinformed--he makes it seem as though Islam was a united political entity, which it was not following the Umayyad Caliphate.
Also, he refers to these battles as "fought by Islam." After all, if it's done by a Muslim, it's also done in the name of Islam. (/s) Again with the "us vs. them" mentality.
[14:28]
I say that what caused the collapse of classical civilization was not the invading German barbarian tribes. I say classical civilization was destroyed by Islam.
I was right, he does read old, out of date books. This idea that Islam caused Rome to fall is known as the Pirenne Thesis, explained in detail in the French historian Henri Pirenne's Mohammed and Charlemagne (1937). This thesis is discarded by most historians of Late Antiquity.
Warner just parrots old, out of date, Orientalist bullshit in his own bullshit books.
[15:20]
For about four minutes, Warner goes through each century that Islam has existed and lists the awful things done by Muslims. Not necessarily done in the name of Islam, but at least done by Muslims to non-Muslims (spoiler: it's all awful stuff). However, there's some bad history:
[15:54]
Warner tells the audience the story of Khalid ibn al-Walid, the famous Muslim general, when he raped the wife of a Persian commander. Fair enough.
However, Warner then says: "this is the nature of jihad."
No, it's not. He obviously has no idea of what jihad is. It's the Arabic word for struggle--a struggle in the name of Islam. Can it be a military struggle? Sure. Is it required to be a violent military struggle? Absolutely not.
[16:03]
Warner claims that a dhimmi is a "third class semi-slave," which is utter bullshit. The Christians and Jews' [in this case, of Jerusalem] lives changed very little--their taxes actually went down, even though they had to pay a special tax (the jizya), because Byzantine taxes were very high.
[24:00]
Muhammad attacked caravans, what was attacked in New York? World Trade Center.
MFW
[24:32]
The slide reads:
Economic Jihad
Islam preyed on Christian ships
I wonder if Warner can get it through his thick skull that even though a Muslim does it, it might not be jihad. He throws around the word jihad like it's nobody's business.
[24:54]
What happened to all the ruins in Rome? The people living there used them as quarries! The Colisseum remained simply because it was so big.
He said something somewhat correct! Usually, if something was converted into a church, it would be left totally alone.
What does it tell us when there are ruins still standing?
Okay, I'll bite. It means the Muslims weren't dicks to the ruins and stripped them of all their value? It means they had a little respect?
NOPE
The answer, according to Dr. Warner:
There were no people
[25:59]
The invading Arabs were not farmers, they were herdsmen.
This is true, but the Arabs basically gave up their old way of life following the conquests.
[29:15]
Warner claims that every battle fought between Christians and Muslims is jihad. Seriously, this guy is an idiot.
--------------

[Big Lin]

As you can see from this selection of howlers, French (alias Warner) is either a completely ignorant moron or else a deliberately dishonest LIAR.

[DAS (formerly BushAdmirer)]

Here's the problem Lin. You can put up all that detail in an effort to discredit Warner. But you can't escape the fact that he's on the right side of this issue, that Islam is a dirt bag religion (correction: political movement) and they're the bad guys. Warner is a hero and doing a great job of exposing Islam for what it is. He has the bad guys in razor sharp focus and he's performing a valuable public service.

Call that Islamophobia if you like, but those are the facts.

The only thing I find difficult to understand here is why you would come down on the wrong side of this issue and attempt to defend the indefensible.

[♫anna♫]

Jun 19, 2016 21:13:30 GMT Big Lin said:

Jun 18, 2016 15:27:25 GMT DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) said:

Fascinating Video. Thanks for posting Anna.

Difficult to explain how Islam became the political force that it is in today's world. Of course, that's also true of all religions where separating fact from fiction is not always possible.

And it's true of ideologies (such as Islamophobia) where separating fact from fiction is not always possible.

Warner is factually WRONG when he attributes the fall of 'classical civilization' to Islam. Not least because it happened two hundred years BEFORE Islam was even invented!

But of course he has his own agenda (and he's made a LOT of money out of pushing his hatred and lies) so he never lets TRUTH and FACTS get in the way of his prejudices.

I'm going to post some of what I've found about this con-artist and it's very revealing.

Big Lin I like many people am not accostumed to using the expression:
Classical civilisation

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Classical_civilisation&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop
At a glance it doesn't seem like
there was a world power that we could call "Classical civilisation" after the Islamic conquests. We may have problem with semantics too.

No one denies that the Roman empire was attacked by Goths and other European nationalities during it's downfall. Were the Romans fighting a 2 Front war?

The role of the Islamic empire appears to be greatly downplayed or ignored in Standard Western history.

[♫anna♫]

Jun 19, 2016 21:24:19 GMT Big Lin said:

More on Dr Bill Warner:

To begin with, Warner is not his real name. His real name is William French.

He heads the for-profit Center for the Study of Political Islam in Nashville.

CREDENTIALS Former Tennessee State University physics professor; author of Sharia Law for Non-Muslims (2010; under the pen name Bill Warner).

SUMMARY French has no formal training or background in law, Islam or Shariah law — which in any case is not an established legal code, as the book title implies, but a fluid concept subject to a wide range of interpretations and applications. He garnered attention recently by leading the opposition to a proposed mosque in Murfreesboro, Tenn.

IN HIS OWN WORDS "The two driving forces of our civilization are the Golden Rule and critical thought. … There is no Golden Rule in Islam. ... There is not really even a Ten Commandments."
—Quoted in The [Blount County, Tenn.] Daily Times, March 4, 2011

(That comment alone demonstrates his total ignorance of Islam. There are actually FOUR commandments in Islam so yet again he shows himself up as either a complete fool or a deliberate liar).

"This offends Allah. You offend Allah."
— Quoted in The Tennesseean, Oct. 24, 2010, speaking to opponents of the Murfreesboro mosque while pointing to an American flag

(So French/Warner thinks that an American flag offends Allah? Really? He is so arrogant now he thinks he knows the mind of the Muslim God? Do me a favour, moron!)

Bill French, who runs the Center for the Study of Political Islam.

The benign title, however, obscures the fact that French is a former Tennessee State University physics professor with no actual credentials in the study of religions, political science or anything else remotely related to Islam. But like many others looking to profit off of their bigotry, his personal ignorance about the subject hasn't stopped him from writing a book about Islam--which he penned under the name "Bill Warner" and sells at speaking events.

The book, Sharia Law for Non-Muslims, is a screed full of racist distortions and half-truths about Islam that warns ominously:

When you study Islam in Europe today, you are seeing America in 20 years. Why? The actions by Muslims in Europe are based on sharia law, the same sharia law that is beginning to be implemented in America today.

-- Traffic cannot move in London streets as Muslims commandeer the streets to pray--a political result based on sharia law.

(As someone who LIVES in London I can testify to the fact that this is a downright LIE)

-- Entire areas of Europe are no-go zones for non-Muslims, this includes the police. These are Islamic enclaves where only Muslims live. The Muslim-only policy is based on sharia.

(Maybe he ought to try getting out more; he'd soon find out he was talking out of his backside! And as usual he makes the (mistake? Deliberate lie?) of presenting Sharia as if it was ONE system when in fact there are SEVEN main schools of Sharia, all with different usages and interpretations, and numerous sub-schools within each one. But of course lies get him support while truth wouldn't)

-- In England, an Anglican bishop calls for the rule of Islamic law for Muslims. The bishop is obeying sharia law.

(No he isn't; only a fool or liar would say he is.)

-- In the schools, only Islamic approved texts can be used. This is based on sharia law.

(A downright, factual LIE)

-- Christians may not speak to Muslims about Christianity, nor may they hand out literature. This is a political result based on sharia law enforced by British courts.

(Again, another factual LIE)

-- Rape by Muslims is so prevalent that Sweden has forbidden the police to collect any data in the investigation that would point to Islam. Rape is part of Islamic doctrine as applied to non-Muslim women.

(In the first place, rape is specifically CONDEMNED in the Quran (whether it's Muslim or non-Muslim women, so that is yet another LIE; secondly, Sweden has NOT forbidden the police to collect data about Muslim rapists. Yet another LIE).

-- In London, mass demonstrations by Muslims call for the end of British law and sharia law to rule all people. This political action is based on sharia.

(Mass demonstrations? That's a laugh! Maybe this clown should try actually visiting London or, better still, living there! More complete LIES)

-- In some English hospitals, during Ramadan fast (an Islamic religious event) non-Muslims cannot eat where a Muslim can see them. The submission of non-Muslims is based on sharia law.

(Yet another lie and yet another attempt to dishonestly present Sharia law as monolithic when it certainly is NOT)

Of course, each of these supposed facts is an unhinged lie. But taken together French/Warner's rhetoric is disturbingly reminiscent of that used by Ku Klux Klan or Nazi groups to demonize other races and religions.

In contrast to the bigoted descriptions of people like French/Warner, "sharia" is not a uniform concept--it varies based on the type of Islam practiced, as well as the country and culture in which it is practiced. As Akbar Muhammad, an associate professor of history and Africana studies at Binghamton University in New York, explained to NewsHour,

The word "sharia" is the term given to define the collectivity of laws that Muslims govern themselves by. And there is a presumption that these laws recognize all of the specific laws mentioned in the Koran and in the practice of the prophet, and do not conflict with that...

Islam is a very flexible system, and it has been very flexible for centuries. What I mean by that is that differences of opinion have been accepted within Islam and given legitimacy by some of the highest authorities in Islam. Thus in certain areas of the sharia, one country may differ from another country. One community may differ from another community, even in the same country...

Islamic law is not one thing. It's not monolithic, as American law is not monolithic, as Western law is not monolithic.

But French didn't let such facts get in the way during a speech to opponents of the proposed mosque in Murfreesboro, where he told an assembled crowd of 80 that sharia law is a threat to their way of life, including their American flags (which, he claimed "offend Allah").

------------------
Upon coming across this, I thought "hell, let's watch this!" Little did I know that I'd have steam coming out of my ears by the end of it (and who knew I'd be posting a review of this in /r/badhistory by the end of it!).
Either way, I'm going to break down, blow-by-blow, the rubbish that fills this talk. Warner isn't a historian, and I think he really should leave the history to the historians.
All direct or almost direct quotes are shown like this
[0:18]
Warner says that he likes reading big, thick, old books and writing modern, thin books that are easy to understand. Here, he's telling me this: "I claim to know a lot about x [in this case, Islam], but I don't read any modern scholarship on the subject--in fact, I read old [most likely Orientalist] books by dead European writers that are at least half a century out of date. I take this out of date, Orientalist worldview and 'translate' it into American English to tell my readers what they already know: Islam is evil."
There are plenty of modern, comprehensive, and accurate assessments of Islam, the Early Islamic Conquests, and the Abbasid Golden Age for people to read. Your works, from what I can tell from this lecture, are not one of these comprehensive and accurate works.
[4:00]
Here, Warner tells us that the Roman Empire didn't fall to the Germanic tribes during the 400s AD. Fair enough, only the Western Roman Empire fell that way. Technically, the Eastern Roman Empire fell to the Turks in 1453.
[4:20]
The Germanic peoples spoke Roman? What the hell? I don't even think the Romans spoke Roman.
[4:48]
THERE IS STILL A CLASSICAL EMPIRE!
He fanboys about the Byzantines for the rest of the lecture.
[5:34]
How could the Arabs do to the Byzantines in 25 years what the Persians could never do? [said with a slide showing a picture like this, minus the light orange]
Well, this really shows he has absolutely no knowledge of the Middle East during Late Antiquity. During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Persians made a push against the Byzantines and annexed Egypt, the Levant, and most of Anatolia, until the Persian general Shahin was standing on the shores of the Bosporus across from Constantinople. If he knew half a shit about the history of the Arab Conquests, he would have recognized how familiar this sounded to them (TL;DR: Both the Persians and Arabs were thwarted while besieging Constantinople, and Anatolia remained the Byzantine heartland until the Turks arrived).
Here's the Sassanid Persian Empire at it's greatest extent.
[5:50]
The Greeks and Persians had a history of fighting, true. But Philippi*? That's a battle in the Roman fucking Civil Wars, not the place where those brave 300 Spartans held out against the barbarous Persians. That's Thermopylae, Warner. Say it with me.
*It sounds like he says "Philipimi." I'm not aware of such a battle.
[6:07]
The Persians kept hammering on the Romans, and then the Byzantines.
This is pretty nitpicky, but SAME THING.
[6:11]
Now he's talking about the final Persian push against the Byzantines (discussed above, at timestamp 5:34), which he seems to have forgotten about earlier in the lecture.
[7:32]
...they [the caliphs] went out, whacking Christians!
Yup. That's all they did. Kill Christians. For fun, too. /s
[7:46]
[killing Christians and Persians] is the true nature of Islam.
Fuck this guy. Classic "Us vs. Them" mentality.
[7:55]
The Islamic Conquests created massive destruction.
Here, Warner fails to realize that the bureaucracies of the Persian and Roman Empires were left nearly untouched by the Muslim armies. Greek continued to be the language of government in Egypt, Syria, and the Levant for a generation following the conquests. Same goes for Persian in Persia. Christian government workers kept their jobs.
[8:27]
Christianity that we have today is a bloody stump of the original Christianity.
I am willing to bet $100,000 that Bill Warner is not an Eastern Orthodox or Nestorian Christian. So, if he is a Protestant or Catholic, this really has little effect on him and "his" Christianity.
[9:11] (OH SHIT /r/conspiracy)
This brutal assault is the key to why we fear Islam.
Wait a second, Warner. You said (timestamp 2:59, while showing a picture of the Muslim world) "you can ask intelligent people, and they will not be able to give you the answer to this question." [the question: how did the Muslim World become Muslim?]
So, you claim people don't understand the Early Islamic Conquests (which I agree with; it's not a bad thing, it's just neglected in the American public school system), but then say "The Early Islamic Conquests are the reason we fear Islam." What?
Also, brutal assault? Really? In the grand scheme of things, this is a mild conquest.
[9:25]
I'm not a historian, but I am a scientist.
I can tell you're not a historian.
[9:42]
Roman barbarians didn't cause the dark ages. First off, these barbarians were Germans. These are the same people who made Germany.
...
Roman barbarians
An oxymoron if I've ever heard one.
These are the same people who made Germany
1,500 years later. And no, they weren't the same people.
[10:06]
This really tells me he has no clue about the Early Islamic Conquests. He suggests there's a wealth of archaeological data showing the hundreds of battles fought during the conquests of the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates. It's well known that there is, in fact, a dearth of archaeological evidence for the conquests. Most evidence is written.
[12:47]
This is the punishment that's being handed out to Christians everywhere [during the Abbasid Golden Age].
Us vs. Them mentality. He's showing a sequence of battles, and somehow that's "punishment to Christians."
[13:59]
[Still showing the sequence of battles] And now they're getting slower, because Islam is getting weaker.
For anyone not interested and checking out this timestamp, he says this while his slideshow shows a sequence of hundreds of battles fought by "Islam." The map also shows the extend of Islam in green. This is extremely misinformed--he makes it seem as though Islam was a united political entity, which it was not following the Umayyad Caliphate.
Also, he refers to these battles as "fought by Islam." After all, if it's done by a Muslim, it's also done in the name of Islam. (/s) Again with the "us vs. them" mentality.
[14:28]
I say that what caused the collapse of classical civilization was not the invading German barbarian tribes. I say classical civilization was destroyed by Islam.
I was right, he does read old, out of date books. This idea that Islam caused Rome to fall is known as the Pirenne Thesis, explained in detail in the French historian Henri Pirenne's Mohammed and Charlemagne (1937). This thesis is discarded by most historians of Late Antiquity.
Warner just parrots old, out of date, Orientalist bullshit in his own bullshit books.
[15:20]
For about four minutes, Warner goes through each century that Islam has existed and lists the awful things done by Muslims. Not necessarily done in the name of Islam, but at least done by Muslims to non-Muslims (spoiler: it's all awful stuff). However, there's some bad history:
[15:54]
Warner tells the audience the story of Khalid ibn al-Walid, the famous Muslim general, when he raped the wife of a Persian commander. Fair enough.
However, Warner then says: "this is the nature of jihad."
No, it's not. He obviously has no idea of what jihad is. It's the Arabic word for struggle--a struggle in the name of Islam. Can it be a military struggle? Sure. Is it required to be a violent military struggle? Absolutely not.
[16:03]
Warner claims that a dhimmi is a "third class semi-slave," which is utter bullshit. The Christians and Jews' [in this case, of Jerusalem] lives changed very little--their taxes actually went down, even though they had to pay a special tax (the jizya), because Byzantine taxes were very high.
[24:00]
Muhammad attacked caravans, what was attacked in New York? World Trade Center.
MFW
[24:32]
The slide reads:
Economic Jihad
Islam preyed on Christian ships
I wonder if Warner can get it through his thick skull that even though a Muslim does it, it might not be jihad. He throws around the word jihad like it's nobody's business.
[24:54]
What happened to all the ruins in Rome? The people living there used them as quarries! The Colisseum remained simply because it was so big.
He said something somewhat correct! Usually, if something was converted into a church, it would be left totally alone.
What does it tell us when there are ruins still standing?
Okay, I'll bite. It means the Muslims weren't dicks to the ruins and stripped them of all their value? It means they had a little respect?
NOPE
The answer, according to Dr. Warner:
There were no people
[25:59]
The invading Arabs were not farmers, they were herdsmen.
This is true, but the Arabs basically gave up their old way of life following the conquests.
[29:15]
Warner claims that every battle fought between Christians and Muslims is jihad. Seriously, this guy is an idiot.
--------------

Big Lin you forgot to post the link to the "Southern Poverty Law Center" where you got your quote.
www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2011/anti-muslim-inner-circle
This is an extreme leftist well funded organisation which specialises in smear campaigns.

The 2nd part of your quote is from the Socialist Worker's site here:
socialistworker.org/2010/11/15/islamophobia-inc

I can't locate the 3rd source of your quote, but those aren't your words Lin? With all that vulgar f_word gutter talk, which I highlighted in one example above.

[blc]

Jun 19, 2016 21:13:30 GMT Big Lin said:

Jun 18, 2016 15:27:25 GMT DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) said:

Fascinating Video. Thanks for posting Anna.

Difficult to explain how Islam became the political force that it is in today's world. Of course, that's also true of all religions where separating fact from fiction is not always possible.

And it's true of ideologies (such as Islamophobia) where separating fact from fiction is not always possible.

Warner is factually WRONG when he attributes the fall of 'classical civilization' to Islam. Not least because it happened two hundred years BEFORE Islam was even invented!

But of course he has his own agenda (and he's made a LOT of money out of pushing his hatred and lies) so he never lets TRUTH and FACTS get in the way of his prejudices.

I'm going to post some of what I've found about this con-artist and it's very revealing.

Warner is factually WRONG when he attributes the fall of 'classical civilization' to Islam. Not least because it happened two hundred years BEFORE Islam was even invented!

Not sure about anyone else, but I readily accept your description of Islam as being INVENTED. Can't be more of a fake religion than that.

DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) ♫anna♫ @menantol

[Big Lin]

I don't have much time or energy with all the worry about my husband.

Let's try and keep it short and simple.

1 Bill Warner is NOT his real name; his real name is Bill French. Why is he using a pseudonymn?

2 Mistake no 1 - attributing the fall of classical civilization (a dubious concept to begin with - it only really affected the people at the top of the Roman Empire and NOT the ordinary Joes and Josephines) is so unbelievably stupid that the only RATIONAL conclusion is one of the following - he is sloppy and doesn't bother to check his facts; he has taken incorrect information as gospel; or he is deliberately lying.

To put it in a nutshell, 'classical civilization' fell in the middle 5th century. Two hundred years BEFORE Islam. What French is saying is literally as foolish as blaming Atahualpa for the American War of Independence, Wallenstein for the Franco-Prussian War, John Adams for the New Deal.

And so on and so on.

This is SO crass a mistake it really does beggar belief.

3 Mistake no 2 - (if possible, even MORE crass than no 1!) - shock, horror! The Germans (and if it comes to that the Romans) did NOT speak 'Roman.' They spoke Germanic tongues just as the Romans spoke Latin.

This really is a howler on the level of making 2 + 2 = 5.

4 Mistake no 3 - he claims Islam has no equivalent of the Ten Commandments which again shows that he is either a lazy idiot who can't do the most BASIC research, a brainwashed zombie who believes lies others tell him or else he is deliberately LYING himself.

As I posted in my reply (parts of which I wrote myself and other parts of which I cut and pasted from three other sites) the man is so incapable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality that he has ZERO credibility.

5 Definite LIE no 1 - He claims that 'Traffic cannot move in London streets as Muslims commandeer the streets to pray--a political result based on sharia law.'

As I said in my earlier reply, as someone who LIVES in London this is a downright LIE.

6 Definite LIE no 2 - He claims that 'In the schools, only Islamic approved texts can be used. This is based on sharia law.

As I said in my earlier post, this is a downright LIE.

7 Definite LIE no 3 - He claims that 'Christians may not speak to Muslims about Christianity, nor may they hand out literature. This is a political result based on sharia law enforced by British courts.'

As I posted earlier, that is yet ANOTHER of French alias Warner's downright, factual LIES.

8 Definite LIES nos 4 and 5- He claims that 'Rape by Muslims is so prevalent that Sweden has forbidden the police to collect any data in the investigation that would point to Islam. Rape is part of Islamic doctrine as applied to non-Muslim women.'

As I pointed out in my earlier post, rape is specifically CONDEMNED in the Quran (whether it's Muslim or non-Muslim women, so that is yet another LIE; secondly, Sweden has NOT forbidden the police to collect data about Muslim rapists. Yet another LIE - two LIES in one paragraph!

9 Definite LIE no 6 - He claims In London, mass demonstrations by Muslims call for the end of British law and sharia law to rule all people. This political action is based on sharia.

As for his claim about 'mass demonstrations' that is yet ANOTHER of his downright LIES. Unlike this clown, I LIVE in London and he's talking complete and utter rubbish.

10 Definite lie no 7 - He claims that 'In some English hospitals, during Ramadan fast (an Islamic religious event) non-Muslims cannot eat where a Muslim can see them. The submission of non-Muslims is based on sharia law.'

This is, no surprise, yet ANOTHER of his blatant LIES.

Which he compounds by making an ignorant comment about sharia law which shows that he does not even know the most BASIC aspects of it. So yet again he is simply factually WRONG.

I could go on (and if necessary I will) but I think those ten points are enough in themselves to show that Bill French alias Bill Warner has ZERO credibility as any kind of 'expert' on Islam.

Frankly, this is a man who is supposed to be a physicist.

If he turned in a scientific paper as full of elementary howlers, mistakes and downright lies he wouldn't just find it was REJECTED by the scientific community; he would be LAUGHED at.

I don't know if there's a male equivalent of the phrase 'brainless bimbo' but if there IS then Bill French alias Bill Warner certainly IS that equivalent!

[Big Lin]

Jun 20, 2016 4:43:10 GMT blc said:

Jun 19, 2016 21:13:30 GMT Big Lin said:

And it's true of ideologies (such as Islamophobia) where separating fact from fiction is not always possible.

Warner is factually WRONG when he attributes the fall of 'classical civilization' to Islam. Not least because it happened two hundred years BEFORE Islam was even invented!

But of course he has his own agenda (and he's made a LOT of money out of pushing his hatred and lies) so he never lets TRUTH and FACTS get in the way of his prejudices.

I'm going to post some of what I've found about this con-artist and it's very revealing.

Warner is factually WRONG when he attributes the fall of 'classical civilization' to Islam. Not least because it happened two hundred years BEFORE Islam was even invented!

Not sure about anyone else, but I readily accept your description of Islam as being INVENTED. Can't be more of a fake religion than that.

DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) ♫anna♫ @menantol

Well, ALL religions are invented by human beings (mostly men).

But being an interpretation of the universe by fallible human beings is one thing; being a fake is another.

Scientology for example pretty clearly IS a fake religion; Islam, like the MAJORITY of religions, is NOT.

Now you don't have to believe or even respect other people's religious beliefs but there's a whole difference between calling an idea or belief system 'fake' and between disagreeing or dismissing it.

Bill French alias Bill Warner clearly IS a fake.

[Big Lin]

Anna, in the first place I apologise for the language in some of the bits I cut and pasted. I did try to edit out the vulgarity but obviously missed some.

What I posted was a mixture of the Southern Poverty Law Centre, the Socialist Workers Party and a reddit site.

Now I am anything BUT an admirer of the SWP and the SPLC also seems to me rather politically biased.

But when you're dealing with FACTS - with PROVABLE, CONFIRMABLE FACTS - then the source of those facts is irrelevant.

I'd no more reject a source just because it's from a site with political views I disagree with or despise if the source gave FACTS.

And all three of the sources gave FACTS to show that Bill French alias Bill Warner is factually WRONG - at times on a truly unbelievable level of stupidity.

I also interspersed some of my own comments in the articles I cut and pasted. (The bad language came from the reddit site).

But the essential point is, as I showed in my original post and the one I made subsequently, is that French alias Warner is simply factually WRONG and also tells a number of PROVABLE LIES.

So frankly HE is the 'source' with zero credibility rather than the leftist sites who critiqued his diatribe (on the whole quite reasonably to my surprise given the source).

So basically French alias Warner is a busted flush who makes schoolboy howlers and who also lies through his teeth.

PROVABLY, DEMONSTRABLY wrong and downright FALSE.

[Big Lin]

Jun 19, 2016 22:45:54 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

Jun 19, 2016 21:13:30 GMT Big Lin said:

And it's true of ideologies (such as Islamophobia) where separating fact from fiction is not always possible.

Warner is factually WRONG when he attributes the fall of 'classical civilization' to Islam. Not least because it happened two hundred years BEFORE Islam was even invented!

But of course he has his own agenda (and he's made a LOT of money out of pushing his hatred and lies) so he never lets TRUTH and FACTS get in the way of his prejudices.

I'm going to post some of what I've found about this con-artist and it's very revealing.

Big Lin I like many people am not accostumed to using the expression:
Classical civilisation

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Classical_civilisation&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop
At a glance it doesn't seem like
there was a world power that we could call "Classical civilisation" after the Islamic conquests. We may have problem with semantics too.

No one denies that the Roman empire was attacked by Goths and other European nationalities during it's downfall. Were the Romans fighting a 2 Front war?

The role of the Islamic empire appears to be greatly downplayed or ignored in Standard Western history.

The point is that there wasn't one BEFORE Islam either.

The Romans NEVER fought Islam any more than Cortez did.

Honestly, as someone who has a degree in history and an absolute passion for it I despair at the lack of knowledge of the reality of the past.

[♫anna♫]

Jun 20, 2016 22:52:17 GMT Big Lin said:

Jun 19, 2016 22:45:54 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

Big Lin I like many people am not accostumed to using the expression:
Classical civilisation

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Classical_civilisation&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop
At a glance it doesn't seem like
there was a world power that we could call "Classical civilisation" after the Islamic conquests. We may have problem with semantics too.

No one denies that the Roman empire was attacked by Goths and other European nationalities during it's downfall. Were the Romans fighting a 2 Front war?

The role of the Islamic empire appears to be greatly downplayed or ignored in Standard Western history.

The point is that there wasn't one BEFORE Islam either.

The Romans NEVER fought Islam any more than Cortez did.

Honestly, as someone who has a degree in history and an absolute passion for it I despair at the lack of knowledge of the reality of the past.

We apparently have a semantic problem with "classical civilisation". Whoever resisted the Muslim attack in Rome could be called "Romans" as Wikipedia does.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_raid_against_Rome
This all occurred in the so called "Dark Ages" which is a difficult period to study.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)
We do know that the Muslims occupied Sicily and Southern Europe kidnapping many Europeans, especially women into their empire. Wikipedia does not use the word "Italians" to describe the later history of the Roman empire which you suggest no longer existed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire QUOTE:
During the 6th century, Justinian briefly reconquered Northern Africa and Italy, but Roman possessions in the West were reduced to southern Italy and Sicily within a few years after Justinian's death.[26] In the east, partially resulting from the destructive Plague of Justinian, the Romans were threatened by the rise of Islam, whose followers rapidly conquered the territories of Syria, Armenia and Egypt during the Byzantine-Arab Wars, and soon presented a direct threat to Constantinople.[27][28] In the following century, the Arabs also captured southern Italy and Sicily.[29] Slavic populations were also able to penetrate deep into the Balkans.

The Roman (Byzantine) Empire c. 1263.
The Romans, however, managed to stop further Islamic expansion into their lands during the 8th century and, beginning in the 9th century, reclaimed parts of the conquered lands.[30] In 1000 AD, the Eastern Empire was at its height: Basileios II reconquered Bulgaria and Armenia, culture and trade flourished.[31] However, soon after the expansion was abruptly stopped in 1071 with their defeat in the Battle of Manzikert. The aftermath of this important battle sent the empire into a protracted period of decline. Two decades of internal strife and Turkic invasions ultimately paved the way for Emperor Alexius I Comnenus to send a call for help to the Western European kingdoms in 1095.[27] UNQUOTE

It's only sensible that Bill Warren like Salman Rushdie and these cartoonists that Muslims have been killing use pseudonyms. The fact that SPLC and other "pro political correctness hate groups" reveal his identify and enable potential Muslim assassins to track him down show that they are willing to be an accessory to murder for their political agenda.

Wikipedia also classifies the Byzantine emperors as "Roman emperors" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_emperors . Apparently they were viewed as the legimate continuation of the Roman empire.
I see no substance to SPLC's smear that Dr. Warren is trying to lie here.

[♫anna♫]

Jun 20, 2016 22:37:46 GMT Big Lin said:

As I pointed out in my earlier post, rape is specifically CONDEMNED in the Quran (whether it's Muslim or non-Muslim women, so that is yet another LIE; secondly, Sweden has NOT forbidden the police to collect data about Muslim rapists. Yet another LIE - two LIES in one paragraph!

I will only respond to this claim that the Quran forbids rape which is mistaken and refrain from using SPLC's tactic of calling every alleged mistake an intentional lie.
www.answeringmuslims.com/2014/02/does-islam-allow-muslims-to-rape-female.html QUOTE:
Does Islam Allow Muslims to Rape Female Captives and Slave Girls?
Critics of Islam and Sharia frequently claim that the Qur’an allows Muslim men to rape their female captives and slave girls (i.e. those "whom their right hands possess"). Westernized Muslims, however, are appalled at the thought of their religion allowing rape, so they insist that Islam prohibits this practice. Unfortunately, Islam isn't defined by Westernized Muslims; it's defined by Allah and Muhammad in the Qur'an and the Hadith. So instead of inventing a religion based on the feelings of Westernized Muslims and calling it "Islam," let's turn to the Qur'an and the Hadith to see what Allah and Muhammad have to say about this issue.

As Muhammad's armies raided town after town, they captured many women, who would often be sold or traded. Yet, since the Muslim men were a long way from their wives, they needed wisdom from Allah to guide them in their treatment of their female captives. Allah revealed:

Qur’an 23:1-6—The Believers must (eventually) win through—those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess—for (in their case) they are free from blame.

Qur’an 70:22-30—Not so those devoted to Prayer—those who remain steadfast to their prayer; and those in whose wealth is a recognized right for the (needy) who asks and him who is prevented (for some reason from asking); and those who hold to the truth of the Day Of Judgement; and those who fear the displeasure of their Lord—for their Lord’s displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquility—and those who guard their chastity, except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess—for (then) they are not to be blamed.

Notice that Allah commands Muslims to abstain from sex, except with their wives and with "those whom their right hands possess." Allah gave the same sexual rights to Muhammad:

Qur’an 33:50—O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war ...

The Muslim practice of having sex with captured women is reported often in the Hadith, where we learn that Muhammad's only objection to sex with captives was his condemnation of birth control.
Sahih Muslim 3371—We went out with Allah’s Messenger on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger, and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Sahih al-Bukhari 4138—We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the invasion of Bun Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus [same as "azl" above]. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said: "How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle who is present among us? We asked (him) about it and he said: "It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul till the Day of Resurrection is predestined to exist, it will exist."

Sahih Muslim 3384—Jabir bin Abdullah reported that a person asked Allah’s Apostle saying: I have a slave-girl and I practice azl with her, whereupon Allah’s Messenger said: This cannot prevent that which Allah has decreed. The person then came (after some time) and said: Messenger of Allah, the slave-girl about whom I talked to you has conceived, whereupon Allah’s Messenger said: I am the servant of Allah and His Messenger.

Clearly, Muslims were taking full advantage of Muhammad's teachings about female captives and slave girls. Nevertheless, Muslims eventually captured women along with their husbands, so they wondered if Allah would allow them to have sex with these married captives (since adultery is otherwise forbidden in Islam).

Allah gives his answer in the Qur'an:

Qur’an 4:24—Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess ...

Here's the historical background for this verse:

Sunan Abu Dawud 2150—The Apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.

Thus, the Qur’an allows men to have sex with their female captives and slave girls, and the Hadith provides numerous examples of how this was practiced. Yet we must follow this fact through to its logical conclusion. Muslims decided to have sex with their captives, whom they were later going to sell. Some of these captives were women whose husbands and families had been slaughtered by Muslims. Others had husbands who had been captured by Muslims. Would these women gladly consent to sexual intercourse with men who had killed their families or taken their families captive, and who were simply going to sell them into slavery when they arrived at the next town? Certainly not. But since the Qur’an and Muhammad authorized sex with these women (and said nothing about seeking their permission), we can only conclude that Muhammad allowed his followers to rape their captives.

[♫anna♫]

Jun 20, 2016 22:37:46 GMT Big Lin said:

I don't have much time or energy with all the worry about my husband.

Mike of course comes first and we all respect that. I responded to a few of your or SPLC's claims, but you should not be in any hurry to answer them. We all hope that Mike will be better soon.

[Big Lin]

Jun 21, 2016 7:58:04 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

Jun 20, 2016 22:52:17 GMT Big Lin said:

The point is that there wasn't one BEFORE Islam either.

The Romans NEVER fought Islam any more than Cortez did.

Honestly, as someone who has a degree in history and an absolute passion for it I despair at the lack of knowledge of the reality of the past.

We apparently have a semantic problem with "classical civilisation". Whoever resisted the Muslim attack in Rome could be called "Romans" as Wikipedia does.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_raid_against_Rome
This all occurred in the so called "Dark Ages" which is a difficult period to study.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)
We do know that the Muslims occupied Sicily and Southern Europe kidnapping many Europeans, especially women into their empire. Wikipedia does not use the word "Italians" to describe the later history of the Roman empire which you suggest no longer existed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire QUOTE:
During the 6th century, Justinian briefly reconquered Northern Africa and Italy, but Roman possessions in the West were reduced to southern Italy and Sicily within a few years after Justinian's death.[26] In the east, partially resulting from the destructive Plague of Justinian, the Romans were threatened by the rise of Islam, whose followers rapidly conquered the territories of Syria, Armenia and Egypt during the Byzantine-Arab Wars, and soon presented a direct threat to Constantinople.[27][28] In the following century, the Arabs also captured southern Italy and Sicily.[29] Slavic populations were also able to penetrate deep into the Balkans.

The Roman (Byzantine) Empire c. 1263.
The Romans, however, managed to stop further Islamic expansion into their lands during the 8th century and, beginning in the 9th century, reclaimed parts of the conquered lands.[30] In 1000 AD, the Eastern Empire was at its height: Basileios II reconquered Bulgaria and Armenia, culture and trade flourished.[31] However, soon after the expansion was abruptly stopped in 1071 with their defeat in the Battle of Manzikert. The aftermath of this important battle sent the empire into a protracted period of decline. Two decades of internal strife and Turkic invasions ultimately paved the way for Emperor Alexius I Comnenus to send a call for help to the Western European kingdoms in 1095.[27] UNQUOTE

It's only sensible that Bill Warren like Salman Rushdie and these cartoonists that Muslims have been killing use pseudonyms. The fact that SPLC and other "pro political correctness hate groups" reveal his identify and enable potential Muslim assassins to track him down show that they are willing to be an accessory to murder for their political agenda.

Wikipedia also classifies the Byzantine emperors as "Roman emperors" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_emperors . Apparently they were viewed as the legimate continuation of the Roman empire.
I see no substance to SPLC's smear that Dr. Warren is trying to lie here.

There's NO 'problem with semantics' - the problem lies with TRUTH.

I've shown that French has made NUMEROUS absolute SCHOOLBOY howlers plus a number of PROVABLE LIES.

He's obviously an ignorant moron but he's also a DELIBERATE LIAR too.

He has ZERO CREDIBILITY.

He's both a con artist and an idiot.

As for the Arab raid on Rome, 'classical civilization' had long since perished in the West.

So as usual the lying toerag is FACTUALLY WRONG.

[♫anna♫]

Jun 21, 2016 14:21:15 GMT Big Lin said:

Jun 21, 2016 7:58:04 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

We apparently have a semantic problem with "classical civilisation". Whoever resisted the Muslim attack in Rome could be called "Romans" as Wikipedia does.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_raid_against_Rome
This all occurred in the so called "Dark Ages" which is a difficult period to study.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)
We do know that the Muslims occupied Sicily and Southern Europe kidnapping many Europeans, especially women into their empire. Wikipedia does not use the word "Italians" to describe the later history of the Roman empire which you suggest no longer existed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire QUOTE:
During the 6th century, Justinian briefly reconquered Northern Africa and Italy, but Roman possessions in the West were reduced to southern Italy and Sicily within a few years after Justinian's death.[26] In the east, partially resulting from the destructive Plague of Justinian, the Romans were threatened by the rise of Islam, whose followers rapidly conquered the territories of Syria, Armenia and Egypt during the Byzantine-Arab Wars, and soon presented a direct threat to Constantinople.[27][28] In the following century, the Arabs also captured southern Italy and Sicily.[29] Slavic populations were also able to penetrate deep into the Balkans.

The Roman (Byzantine) Empire c. 1263.
The Romans, however, managed to stop further Islamic expansion into their lands during the 8th century and, beginning in the 9th century, reclaimed parts of the conquered lands.[30] In 1000 AD, the Eastern Empire was at its height: Basileios II reconquered Bulgaria and Armenia, culture and trade flourished.[31] However, soon after the expansion was abruptly stopped in 1071 with their defeat in the Battle of Manzikert. The aftermath of this important battle sent the empire into a protracted period of decline. Two decades of internal strife and Turkic invasions ultimately paved the way for Emperor Alexius I Comnenus to send a call for help to the Western European kingdoms in 1095.[27] UNQUOTE

It's only sensible that Bill Warren like Salman Rushdie and these cartoonists that Muslims have been killing use pseudonyms. The fact that SPLC and other "pro political correctness hate groups" reveal his identify and enable potential Muslim assassins to track him down show that they are willing to be an accessory to murder for their political agenda.

Wikipedia also classifies the Byzantine emperors as "Roman emperors" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_emperors . Apparently they were viewed as the legimate continuation of the Roman empire.
I see no substance to SPLC's smear that Dr. Warren is trying to lie here.

There's NO 'problem with semantics' - the problem lies with TRUTH.

I've shown that French has made NUMEROUS absolute SCHOOLBOY howlers plus a number of PROVABLE LIES.

He's obviously an ignorant moron but he's also a DELIBERATE LIAR too.

He has ZERO CREDIBILITY.

He's both a con artist and an idiot.

As for the Arab raid on Rome, 'classical civilization' had long since perished in the West.

So as usual the lying toerag is FACTUALLY WRONG.

Curious that the SPCL doesn't accuse Wikipedia of deliberately lying for referring to the later part of the Roman Empire as the Byzantine phase. The Byzantine empire is as I understand it is part of the "classical civilisation", but I'm not really that interested in semantics. I have never in my life accused someone of lying for understanding a word or a concept differently. Please Big Lin this rant about "classical civilisation" however people use this translated English expression comes straight from the hate mongering SPLC.

We have other authors who include the Byzantine empire as "classical civilisation" and ruling Rome. Whether the Byzantine is classical, medieval or something else appears to be a semantic debate.
www.sullivan-county.com/religion/holy_warriors.htm QUOTE:
Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization QUOTE:
Even Pirenne believed that Byzantium had somehow coped better with the Arabs than the West. In his time it was generally assumed that Classical Civilization survived in the East, and that the region was less "medievalised" than the West.

We are, or have been until recently, informed by historians that the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries in Byzantium were, in the words of Sidnay Painter, "three centuries of glory," and that during this time "The Byzantine Empire was the richest state in Europe, the strongest military power, and by far the most cultivated."(Sidney Painter, A History of the Middle Ages, 284-1500)

[Deleted]

The Southern Poverty Law Center started with the highest of ideals, over the years it has devolved in to a money making enterprise with its words highly suspect as to any validity. It has become what it initially worked against – a hate group. To use it as a source to make points in a dialog is an exercise in futility as its words mean nothing. Following are a couple of articles about it.

Christian groups are celebrating with the news that the Federal Bureau of Investigation appears to have scrubbed the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) from its hate crimes webpage, where the controversial group was listed as a resource and referred to as a partner in public outreach.

The entire article can be found at:
www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/03/26/fbi-dumps-southern-poverty-law-center/

How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance
Ah, tolerance. Who could be against something so virtuous? And who could object to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Montgomery, Alabama-based group that recently sent out this heartwarming yet mildly terrifying appeal to raise money for its "Teaching Tolerance" program, which prepares educational kits for schoolteachers? Cofounded in 1971 by civil rights lawyer cum direct-marketing millionaire Morris Dees, a leading critic of "hate groups" and a man so beatific that he was the subject of a made-for-TV movie, the SPLC spent much of its early years defending prisoners who faced the death penalty and suing to desegregate all-white institutions like Alabama's highway patrol. That was then.
Today, the SPLC spends most of its time--and money--on a relentless fund-raising campaign, peddling memberships in the church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing the collection plate. "He's the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the civil rights movement," renowned anti- death-penalty lawyer Millard Farmer says of Dees, his former associate, "though I don’t mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye." The Center earned $44 million last year alone--$27 million from fund-raising and $17 million from stocks and other investments--but spent only $13 million on civil rights program, making it one of the most profitable charities in the country.
The entire article can be found at:
www.americanpatrol.com/SPLC/ChurchofMorrisDees001100.html

[♫anna♫]

Excellent @menantol ! THE SPLC is truly a vicious hate group!

[Big Lin]

Why are right-wingers so wimpish and such haters of the truth?

Frankly, I've posted stuff on here from sites I TOTALLY find disgusting such as neo-Nazi ones IF they give FACTS.

Now to hell with the SPLC or any other source; I KNOW for a FACT that French alias Warner has made some absolutely SCHOOLBOY level howlers.

To say nothing of telling a LOT of downright, PROVABLE LIES.

If Warner had turned in a scientific paper as full of ELEMENTARY mistakes and so many downright LIES he would not just have had it rejected; he would have been LAUGHED OUT OF COURT.

Now let's concentrate on the FACTS.

French alias Warner has made so many statements that are FACTUALLY, PROVABLY WRONG that he has ZERO CREDIBILITY.

Why don't you right-wingers just ADMIT that he made - either through stupidity, ignorance or perhaps because he was foolish enough to believe OTHERS who ARE conscious LIARS - elementary errors of fact and numerous statements that are downright LIES?

French alias Warner is a complete fake with ZERO CREDIBILITY.

So just have the guts to ADMIT that he HAS made statements that are PROVABLY, DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.

Why are you right-wingers so wimpish about admitting it when you get it wrong?