http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_M%C5%ABs%C4%81_al-Khw%C4%81rizm%C4%AB - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_M%C5%ABs%C4%81_al-Khw%C4%81rizm%C4%AB

 

Regarding al-Khwārizmī's religion, Toomer writes:

Another epithet given to him by al-Tabarī, "al-Majūsī," would seem to indicate that he was an adherent of the old Zoroastrian religion.

Regarding al-Khwārizmī's religion, Toomer writes:

Another epithet given to him by al-Tabarī, "al-Majūsī," would seem to indicate that he was an adherent of the old Zoroastrian religion.

LoL.  Nothing more  the this sentence.

İts more possible they  are tengriist 

The near destruction of the Aramaic and Berber languages through forces Arabization

The legal codifying of slavery as a right

The principal of Never Ending War (Jihad)

More bones and ashes than humanity should have been made to suffer

 

Yeah, that sounds like an impartial source.

 

For the benefits of Nazism, visit http://www.drittereich.de - www.drittereich.de ! 

Originally posted by Patryk The near destruction of the Aramaic and Berber languages through forces Arabization

Aramaic in particular would have been Arabized with or with out Islam.  Languages decline for a variety of  economic and social  reasons.   For example, did Buddhism lead to the Mandarization of the Manchu language, or are there other reasons for the decline?

 

Originally posted by Patryk The destruction of Buddhism is Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India.

Do you mean the modern destruction of Buddhist archaeological sites in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Or do you mean the historical conversion process?  I believe the historical conversion process was voluntary.  Even the destruction of Buddhist sites has not been systematic over the centuries.

Originally posted by Patryk More bones and ashes than humanity should have been made to suffer

In a historical context, the various forms of the Humanistic socio political ideaology known as "communism" has killed far more people, in a far shorter period of time than Islam has over centuries.   Then factor in the secular ideaology of Nazism.

 

 

I think you are correct.  religous systems, even when abused (Islamic fundamentalism, Inquisition) still operate by a rule book.  Secular tyrants have no rules, they themselves determine what is truth.  As Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot demosntrate, making up "truth" as you go along kills millions.

 

A properly maintained, recognized and valued Christian heritage will protect our society from the Islamic fundamentalists and will save our society from the far more deadly secular tyrants.

 

I don't see any reason why the Berber and Aramaic/Syriac should have declined.  Syriac had a rich literary tradition up until the Arab invasion.  To the contrary, the trend in languages BEFORE AD 1492 was for an increase in the number of languages.  Latin and Greek never displaced other European languanges in the middle ages, and Mandarin only began displacing local languages in China in the last couple centuries.  Islam's insistence on Arabic as a liturgical language and the Arabs' tribalism usually kept local Syriacs and Berbers out of the power structure.  Forced Arabization is also currently going on in the southern and Western Sudan.

 

 

Originally posted by Patryk The destruction of Buddhism is Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India.

Do you mean the modern destruction of Buddhist archaeological sites in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Or do you mean the historical conversion process?  I believe the historical conversion process was voluntary.  Even the destruction of Buddhist sites has not been systematic over the centuries.

[/QUOTE]

 

I mean the invasion of the Arabs in AD 642 and in particular the rule of Mahmud al-Ghazni which was exceeding blood-thirsty.  Islamic sources usually say the conversions were "voluntary" and even friendly however non-Islamic sources, like V.S. Naipaul and Ibn Warraq describe it in terms approaching genocide.  The Parsi community of modern India fled these massacres and has a collective memory of them.

 

Originally posted by Patryk More bones and ashes than humanity should have been made to suffer

In a historical context, the various forms of the Humanistic socio political ideaology known as "communism" has killed far more people, in a far shorter period of time than Islam has over centuries.   Then factor in the secular ideaology of Nazism.

[/quote]

 

I would say that that is a function of population densities.  Killing 20 million people in the 20th Century is a smaller portion of a humanity than killing 100,000 people in the early post-classical period.  Afghanistan may have had only half a million people people in AD 640.  The Islamic pattern (repeated with the Turks toward the Armenians recently) has been to put all males to the sword and take all women and girlds as cocubines.  This has the effect of near perfect ethnic cleansing within a generation or two.  This is also evidenced by Turkey's nearly totally exterminated Armenian population.    I will cannot condemn the NAZI or Serbian Nationalist when Arab and Turk did the same before them, indeed, may have served as a template.   

Originally posted by Patryk I would say that that is a function of population densities.  Killing 20 million people in the 20th Century is a smaller portion of a humanity than killing 100,000 people in the early post-classical period.  Afghanistan may have had only half a million people people in AD 640.  The Islamic pattern (repeated with the Turks toward the Armenians recently) has been to put all males to the sword and take all women and girlds as cocubines.  This has the effect of near perfect ethnic cleansing within a generation or two.  This is also evidenced by Turkey's nearly totally exterminated Armenian population.    I will cannot condemn the NAZI or Serbian Nationalist when Arab and Turk did the same before them, indeed, may have served as a template.

The armenian genocide was indeed mentioned by Hitler as an example of little international resistance against "ethnical cleansing". But why dont we just condemn them all?

 

I phrased that awkwardly.  My apologies My intention was to say that ALL need to be equally condemned but the wording was a little strange.  Milosevic's ethnic cleansing was just as vile as the Turkish and Arabic ethnic cleansing.  There is, however, a portion of the population in the West that likes to over-look Muslim crimes in hopes that their house will be bombed last.

 

For another time:  I believe there is a difference between Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing and it centers on the fate of women.  The Turks and Muslims tended toward ethnic cleansing since they usually forced women and young girls (of child bearing age) into cocubinage.  The NAZIs and to a lesser extent the Soviets, didn't care one iota about producing babies from a subject population. 

 

 

 

A classic case of taking quotes out of context. Here is the full quote:

 

           Another epithet given to him by al-Ṭabarī, "al-Majūsī," would seem to indicate that he was an adherent of the old Zoroastrian religion. This would still have been possible at that time for a man of Iranian origin, but the pious preface to al-Khwārizmī's Algebra shows that he was an orthodox Muslim, so al-Ṭabarī's epithet could mean no more than that his forebears, and perhaps he in his youth, had been Zoroastrians.

 

I was under the impression that actual "Faranji" have not lived in the Lavant since the Fall of Acre but that the term ever since then has referred to ANY Latin Christian from the West.  Perhaps a group member who uses Fushah a bit more than I do could enlighten us.

 

No it is not a "A classic case of taking quotes out of context"

 

The quote you have is a quote from someone who is quoting another person's POV and adding his own. The post from Cyrus is the orgional POV from Al-Tabari.

 

 

 

 

 

He was quoting Toomer, not Al-Tabari, and that is his full quote. Maybe he was trying to get Al-Tabari's POV but it wouldn't have hurt if he included the rest of Toomer's quote, since he is quoting from that person. You cannot fully understand what he was trying to say if you don't include the rest of the quote.