>Local police chief Nausher Ahmed described how an imam told a gathering at a village mosque that those who love the Prophet Mohammad always say their prayers, then asked who among the crowd had stopped praying.
>Mohammad Anwar, 15, raised his hand by mistake after apparently mishearing the question.
>The crowd swiftly accused him of blasphemy so he went to his house and cut off the hand he had raised, put it on a plate, and presented it to the cleric, the police chief said.
>Ahmed said that he has seen a video in which the boy is greeted by villagers in the street as his parents proclaim their pride.
My family are muslims (Im ateist). I think this shit is sick. And don't even personally know anyone that would do this. As even though I don't proclaim for everyone I'm not an atheist I haven't been seen praying for over a decade. But obviously there are sick people in this world. Like serial killers, pedophiles, rapists, etc
And the more backwards and chaotic the country is the more likely it harbours this kind of sick people. (Why bombing these countries backwards has resulted in more terrorists today than when threat against terror started).
Think like a dirty toilet has more bacteria than a clinically clean room. I don't even think it matters much what religion as they all are more or less children's tales. Don't forget the Middle Ages for Christianism etc.
Instead of pushing everyone who call themselves Muslim to the side of extremists by showing hatred and ignorance try showing hatred against the extremists themselves and there by gaining the support of people who actually can defeat them.
But lol what do I know
>Instead of pushing everyone who call themselves Muslim to the side of extremists by showing hatred and ignorance
This is what the extremists want and I'm afraid to say in a lot of places, it's working. Fortunately it doesn't seem to be working any where near as well as around the time of the Iraq invasion but certainly Daesh are really pushing people to hate all Muslims so that some are driven to react. I think part of the solution is to show more regular Muslims in the media showing how they feel. I was quite inspired when I listened to Maajid Nawaz.
That said, there are issues of Muslims in developed countries who wish to abide by their own laws and questionable customs which really isn't sustainable. Christianity had to adapt to the modern age and so will Islam, albeit in a much shorter period of time.
>Muslims spend 500 years raping, pillaging, and burning their way through Europe, slaughtering Christians all the way
>Christians spend 200 years fighting back
>Muslims spend more than 1000 years in a slave trade and continue to this day
>Christians spend a few hundred years in a slave trade and abolish it
>Muslims blow shit up, shoot shit up, stone people, throw countries into chaos, and just generally make the world a worse place
>A few Christians go nuts and shoot up some places
Yeah, Christians are the problem here.
Yeah I'm gonna need some credible citations to this faux history.
>Christians blow shit up, shoot shit up, and try to make laws to ruin people's lives, and just generally make the world a worse place.
Also I love the boogeyman of going nuts whereas religious extremists are practically crazy.
Just a few sources. You could find a lot more with the help of Google. Searching for "muslim crusades" is pretty broad though, so you might do better narrowing it down to the middle east, northern Africa, Spain, Italy, and France. You'll find plenty.
>The first of the Crusades began in 1095, when armies of Christians from Western Europe responded to Pope Urban II’s plea to go to war against Muslim forces in the Holy Land.
>Islamic Spain was a multi-cultural mix of the people of three great monotheistic religions: Muslims, Christians, and Jews.
Forgot the Arab slave trade.
I'll throw in the Barbary slave trade for good measure.
You asked for sources so I gave you sources. You're free to dig deeper into the matter if you want--you have an entire internet at your fingertips--or you can keep pissing about how it's faux history and everything else is fake.
>that time christians sailed to the new world and committed the largest genocide in the history of the world, exterminating millions of peaceful and defenceless people, instituting the most brutal system of slavery the world has ever seen across two continents, literally wiping entire cities from the face of the earth with no trace left, including tenochtitlan, a city five times the size of london and among the greatest and largest cities ever to exist, dismantling sacred temples that were comparable to the pyramids of europe stone by stone until there was nothing left of them but the foundations, burning every pagan book they could find until the native languages were effectively wiped out, and destroying any cultural artefact they could find, because they said baby jesus wanted them to
>peaceful and defenceless
Hell no. The natives were every bit as warlike as the Europeans (though many of their war customs differed significantly) and were quite capable of defending themselves against the invaders. The Europeans only stood a chance due to the intense infighting the natives were undergoing, with multiple powerful factions latching onto the newcomers as a political mechanism to attack the existing power structures.
Cortez never would have stood a chance if he didn't have literally tens of thousands of native warriors to join up with in a massive civil war. He was brutally cunning, which allowed him to manipulate his standing with the various factions and just happened to get lucky time and time again with random Spanish expeditions arriving in the new world, seeing his campaign, and reinforcing him and his allies. The fall of the aztec empire was very much caused by natives, the European arrival just sparked the civil wars that brought it down. The Conquistadors were just along for the ride.
You're right about everything else though, I just feel compelled to make use of my pointless history degrees whenever and wherever I can.
It was. Syphillis had ran it's course in Europe but when the Spaniards introduced it to the natives they were defenseless.
Reports of eyewitnesses from the time say from Infection to Death was 6 weeks.
You guys hate this kind of fanaticism, but I admire it. I see this, and I see a socially cohesive system that will survive a few generations and can potentially dominate the world. I see strength. I see the will necessary to avoid the nihilistic hedonism of the modern West. And if that has to come with any set of lies, religious or political, so be it. Their genes will survive because they are wrong, and the atheist West will go to their deaths, deaths that the irreligious truly believe to be the absolute end of themselves, even if they're right.
you've focused on the aztecs but what about hispaniola, cuba, florida, nicaragua, etc. etc.?
>The natives were every bit as warlike as the Europeans
the civilians sure weren't
>quite capable of defending themselves
we're literally talking stone age weapons vs. horses and renaissance levels of technology on the frontline backed by the supply of resources, equipment and manpower from one of the wealthiest nations on europe. sure maybe they could put up a defense and/or offer a resistance in some cases, but they were totally fucked either way in the long run.
>The Europeans only stood a chance due to the intense infighting the natives were undergoing
i don't know, maybe it's more complex for some places, like with the aztecs, but like you said the europeans were the 'spark' that started the warfare, meaning the spaniards either conquered and enslaved so many natives in their territory that the survivors were forced to war against their less powerful neighbours to survive, and/or the spaniards manipulated or forced peoples to fight their wars of conquest for them. i.e. the conquistadors put the ride in motion
>The Conquistadors were just along for the ride.
they certainly found it easier and different than they thought, but i doubt they ever really gave a fuck about the natives or really considered them subjects of spain. the clergy, sure, but conquistadors were soldiers. their profession was violence and they were there to do a job and make money.
>Their genes will survive because they are wrong
Unfortunately, if you're inbred in about 500 years it's not going to matter a bit at all.
He's a dumbass, if you marry your first cousin you're a dumbass, if you marry a nine year old you're a definite dumbass
It was, I was just trying to correct anon's assertion that the natives (at least the aztecs) were defenseless and never stood a chance. Their fall was inevitable in the long run, but it would have required a full-scale invasion from Europe.
I should have made my post clearer, I'm talking only about the Aztecs here since you mentioned Tenochtitlan. I've studied them the most, especially the fall of the empire, and while I'm familiar with Hispaniola and Cuba's stories I can't really speak to them.
>the civilians sure weren't
This depends. Many, indeed most civilians at this point in the Aztec empire doubled as warriors. There was still a significant portion of the population that was peaceful under normal circumstances, but in fact Cortez and his allies offered them many opportunities to surrender, right up until the bitter end. Especially the populace of Tenochtitlan, which fought street-by-street and building-by-building, even the unarmed, because they preferred to die in battle rather than to be conquered. Cortez and the Conquistadors never wanted to destroy the city, because they were incredibly impressed by it (there was nothing in Europe even close ot it) and they wished to control it for their own glory, hoping that they would even be granted lordship over the great city in the king's stead. Ultimately, they chose to destroy the city only when it proved impossible to get the citizens to surrender, and when they realized that other Aztec cities would never surrender without an incredible display of destruction.
This isn't really relevant to the OP but I'll try to respond to some of your other points in another post since this one is apparently too long.
>we're literally talking stone age weapons vs. horses and renaissance levels of technology on the frontline backed by the supply of resources
In the long run, the Europeans would likely have crushed the native empires. But keep in mind that Cortez and his allied Europeans numbered in the hundreds, while there were hundreds of thousands of natives he would have to fight through alone. The Aztecs had extremely primitive weaponry by comparison, but they also had highly sophisticated battle-tactics and strategy, so much so that Cortez was supremely impressed by them in his journals. The cities in the valley of Mexico alone were able to hold off the invading Spaniards and tens of thousands of their native allies for months utilizing their mastery of water. Constant canoe raids inflicted heavy casualties on the Spaniards as they marched around the great lakes and rivers, who were unable to fight back due to the inaccuracy and shorter range of their weaponry in comparison to the Aztec archers. As Spanish troops marched upon the cities, the Aztecs would flood the causeways killing most of the attackers. As the armies finally breached the disease-ridden streets of Tenochtitlan, the defenders flooded them and rained arrows from their pyramids. These same pyramids proved extremely resistant to cannon-fire. In European warfare, breaching the walls with cannons was the deciding moment of a siege, but here the invaders had to breach every single pyramid to overcome the defenders, and these pyramids were fortresses of their own.
The last two points can be more easily explained by a number of scholarly works, notably Inga Clendinnen's treatment of Cortez and the fall of the Aztec empire. Ultimately, the Aztecs would have fallen without the Europeans arriving at all. The massive rebellion that the Spaniards accidentally (but happily) set off was primed to happen anyway, and it looks like they would win without foreign aid at all.
Exodus 21-22 have quite a few passages describing how to manage the buying, selling, and release of slaves. Deuteronomy 15 instructs that male Hebrew slaves must be freed after six years; if they don't want to go, you can keep them as long as you lobotomize them first.
>>Muslims spend more than 1000 years in a slave trade and continue to this day
>>Christians spend a few hundred years in a slave trade and abolish it
These are both incorrect m8y. Slavery has existed globally since the dawn of time, the Mesopotamians did it, Romans did it, Egyptians did it etc etc etc. It was only in recent history thanks to the British that it ended.